{"id":37583,"date":"2018-02-27T11:17:13","date_gmt":"2018-02-27T00:17:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=37583"},"modified":"2018-02-27T11:17:13","modified_gmt":"2018-02-27T00:17:13","slug":"planning-industrial-sovereignty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/planning-industrial-sovereignty\/","title":{"rendered":"Planning for industrial sovereignty"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n

As we approach the second anniversary of the release of the government\u2019s 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement<\/a>, perhaps the document\u2019s single most important initiative has yet to emerge: a plan for sovereign industrial capabilities. Despite the plan\u2019s widely acknowledged importance from national security<\/a>, defence force development<\/a> and innovation<\/a> perspectives, we still have limited insight into its contents or the date of its long-promised release.<\/p>\n

As the wait continues, it\u2019s interesting to ponder some of the issues involved. The concept of sovereignty has proven to be slippery<\/a> and neither the policy statement nor its associated documentation<\/a> give much away. So, let\u2019s start with some basics.<\/p>\n

The policy statement reveals a shift in thinking about industrial capabilities held in\u2011country ostensibly for military-strategic reasons. The statement doesn\u2019t designate these capabilities as a priority for the defence of the nation. At least some priority capabilities might be desirable rather than essential to retain within Australian-based companies. And for these capabilities at least, a clear trade-off<\/a> exists between capability development and the opportunity costs involved. Instead, the statement \u2018ups the ante\u2019 by adopting the concept of industrial sovereignty.<\/p>\n

To some extent at least, a policy shift from industrial priority to industrial sovereignty represents a move from \u2018should have\u2019 to \u2018must have\u2019. It results in a considerably narrower definition than industrial self-reliance or self-sufficiency. All other factors being equal, the shift implies a decline in the proportion of defence industry deemed to be of the highest military-strategic value. However, it also points to a stronger obligation on the part of Defence to pay whatever price premiums are required to maintain the domestic industrial capabilities it needs, should the industry fall short of achieving international competitiveness.<\/p>\n

In essence, sovereign industry capabilities are those that help to build or sustain weapons and related defence materiel in Australia, and that satisfy three core criteria:<\/p>\n