Ben Morgan’s Pacific Update: Northern Australia’s militarisation

A simple explanation of this week’s military and political developments in the Pacific

15
436

Currently, a key feature of security discussions in the Pacific is the militarisation of Australia’s north.  Australian and the US investing in Australia’s capacity to support its allies in the region. An investment the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) recently reported in an article titled ‘Australia’s northern neighbours cautious over US military build-up in Northern Australia’ is concerning for some neighbouring countries.

US bases in Australia are getting bigger and more well-equipped. The ‘US Force Posture Initiative’ is an American plan to spend between $ 490 million and $ 970 million upgrading and expanding RAAF bases in Darwin and Katherine, including building barracks, command centres and hangars.  

The US is already annually rotating forces into Northern Australia including roughly 2,500 US Marines and B-52 bombers.  It is also noteworthy that Australia is hosting more, and bigger exercises, including Exercises Talisman Sabre, Pitch Black, Kakadu, and Predator’s Run.  For instance, the first Exercise Talisman Sabre in 2005 involved only Australia and the US, but the next one in 2025 will involve 19 nations.  This year’s Exercise Pitch Black provides another example of the increasing size and complexity of exercises in Northern Australia, involving thousands of personnel and 140 aircraft from 20 nations.  Dozens of aircraft flying from Europe to support the exercise.

Essentially, Australia’s north is experiencing an enormous build up of military infra-structure required to support not only Australian forces but also other allies and partners. Additionally, the capabilities to deploy and work together are regularly rehearsed.  Exercises allowing participating nations to practice inter-operability, testing the systems and communications needed to fight effectively together.  

This is an international trend, the US working to build alliances and partnerships with like-minded nations, including Australian. Recently, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) published its ‘Asia-Pacific Regional Security Assessment 2024’ highlighting the large number of international exercises the US has led in the Asia-Pacific region. The report records 1,113 US led international military exercises between 2003 and 2022.  It compares this figure with the 128 China conducted in the same period. IISS identifies Australia, Indonesia and India and the US’s most important exercise partners. 

- Sponsor Promotion -

In the Pacific region, Australia is developing as a key location for US led deterrence. The nation’s large land area provides ample room for facilities, infrastructure and exercises.  Further, the country has the civilian infra-structure to support large international deployments. Roads, hospitals and a defence industry are all important considerations for supporting force projection. Australia could provide either a launch pad for an intervention in the South West Pacific or second-line support for operations in places like Taiwan, Korea or the South China Sea.

US forces fighting in these places can be supported from the US mainland via Hawaii via bases in Micronesia, Japan and Philippines.  However, having a large and capable logistics hub in Australia provides a second option, spreading risk in an age of long-range missile and drone attacks. Further, between them Australia and Indonesia secure an alternative maritime supply route from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific via Melanesia, in case the Strait of Malacca or South China Sea is compromised.  

However, the ABC article notes concern about this policy in neighbouring countries, discussing Indonesian international relations analyst Dinna Prapto Raharja’s commentary that raises concerns about Australia’s emphasis on Sino-American competition.   She emphasises Indonesia’s policy of non-alignment and the nation’s focus on economic development rather than security. Indonesia’s focus is not containment of China, or competition but developing its economy and a competitive, security focussed strategy may not be supported. 

This juxtaposition between the US, Australia, and its neighbours is not new, and is a potential cause for concern because it could undermine collective security. If the US and Australia are perceived to be focussed only on Sino-American military competition, they risk losing the collective support of other Pacific nations. For instance, several members of the Pacific Islands Forum protested the AUKUS submarine deal, and the forum continues to reinforce that it is focussed on development rather than Sino-American competition. 

Strategically, balancing these perceptions against the need to deter aggression is a key issue for nations supporting the current ‘rules-based order.’  Currently, Chinese coast guard vessels are aggressively policing that nation’s unilateral claim to the South China Sea. Utilising physical force and the threat of violence to achieve a diplomatic objective. e key deterrent against these tactics being employed elsewhere in the region, or the situation escalating in military confrontation is credible military deterrence. But, to be successful deterrence requires a collective commitment. 

Australia and the US are investing in deterrence and it is important to remember that deterrence is not aggression.  Military infra-structure and training is required to provide a credible deterrent, but it can be perceived as threatening. Therefore, it is important that the US and Australia acknowledge the concerns of other nations, and work to address them before they become a ‘wedge’ between potential collective security partners. 

Japan considers regular rotations of soldiers and aircraft to Australia

An indication of how much the world has changed in the last century is a recent announcement that Japan is considering regular rotations of soldiers and aircraft to Australia.  In World War Two, Australia was nearly invaded by Japan, and Darwin, the city that will host Japanese forces was bombed by Japanese planes.  

The defence and foreign ministers of Japan and Australia, met in early September and discussed a range of security issues, committing to several actions designed to strengthen defence ties, and the regional economy. The commitments included deployment of Japanese liaison officers to Australia and arranging for more integrated training. 

Already, Japanese and Australian fighter aircraft are exercising regularly in each other’s countries and there are also reports that the two nations will work together to bring the Tomahawk cruise missile into service. Japan using Australian ranges to exercise Tomahawk cruise missiles and both countries working together to bring the weapon into service, integrating their processes, procedures and technology to fight together, on in military terms becoming ‘inter-operable.’ 

Since then, Australian Defence Minister, Richard Marles has discussed a plan for soldiers from the Japanese Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade to regularly participate in the US Marine Corps Programme of annual rotations to Northern Australia. Minister Marles stating “We have agreed to explore ways in which the Japanese Amphibious Rapid Deployment brigade can participate in the US Marine rotations, which occur in Darwin every year.” And Japan’s Foreign Minister, Kamikawa Yoko has also discussed the two countries plans to increase cooperation, citing the unpredictable strategic environment.

It is also reported that Japan and Australia are discussing the potential for similar rotations of fighter aircraft to Australia.  Although Japan’s Defence Minister, Kamikawa Yoko stressed that this idea is only being consulted on, at this stage.  

This is an interesting trilateral development, the US, Australia, and Japan working together to improve their inter-operability, and potentially force redundancy.  Currently, the US, Australia, and Japan are all deeply concerned about the situation in the South China Sea, supporting US ally Philippines.  Marine forces for littoral operations, long-range missiles and airpower are all key operational capabilities that would be required to fight a war in, or around the South China Sea. 

Any war requires logistics, and Japan relies on trade from the Indian Ocean.  If the South China Sea is closed, Australia provides a base for operations to secure alternative routes through Melanesia.  Additionally, Australia provides large areas for dispersed logistics hubs that provide redundancy for military supply lines into a conflict in the South China or East China Sea. Traditionally, the US would support forces in Asia via Hawaii, Micronesia, Philippines and Japan all of which are likely be targeted in a future ‘peer conflict.’ Australia’s distance and large size makes it harder to target facilities located there so it provides logistics redundancy. Further, Japanese fighters based in Australia are less likely to destroyed in pre-emptive strike.  

The discussion between Japan and Australia, is important and worth watching because it provides insight into just how concerned these nations are about Chinese activity, and about their plans to deter aggression. 

Australia practices re-arming US and Canadian ships 


Last week, in Darwin and Broome, the Australian navy practiced re-arming the missiles on US and Canadian warships. Re-arming a ship with expensive and dangerous missiles is a difficult operation.  An activity that needs to be rehearsed in peace-time if it is to be conducted during conflict and re-loading US Arleigh-Burke-class destroyer USS Dewey and Canadian Halifax-class frigate HMCS Vancouver provided an opportunity to test, and confirm the skill with foreign navies.

This activity is another indication of the growing level of inter-operability between Australia and its allies and partners.  Recent conflict in the Red Sea, demonstrates how quickly air-defence missiles can be expended even in an asymmetric conflict, and vertical launch missiles need to be reloaded in port.  So, it is important that these skills are tested and rehearsed as close as possible to potential operational areas.  Australia’s strategic security focus on the north, means this capability is being developed in Broome and Darwin, both cities located to support operations in this area.

Melanesian update 

A regular update on the Pacific’s least reported trouble spot; Melanesia. 

Australia Refurbishes Cook Barracks in Vanuatu

Australia has just finished refurbishing and modernising Vanuatu’s Cook Barracks.  The project started in 2021 and includes a range of facilities like a medical centre that will contribute to civilian response to natural disasters. The project is a good example of Australia providing support to a neighbouring nation, and how it is using ‘soft power’ to build diplomatic influence in Melanesia.

Fiji releases foreign policy White Paper

This week Fiji released a White Paper discussing foreign policy.  The document reinforces Fiji’s commitment to maintaining a peaceful Pacific. Noteworthy is the Prime Ministers introduction that discusses a “long transition from the US-led liberal international order to a more multipolar world.” And, how this process leads to its replacement with “a complicated competition for primacy between the US and China, played out most sharply in our Indo-Pacific region.” An important indication of Fiji’s perspective on the evolution of global security issues. 

Later the document provides useful insight into Fijian perspectives of how to manage this ‘transition’ including highlighting the importance of the Pacific Islands Forum.  The paper stating that ‘’For Fiji the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) is the cornerstone regional institution. It symbolizes the unity and shared destiny of Pacific nations, centred around our one Ocean.” Important insight about how valuable the forum is to nations in the Pacific, an indication that successful engagement by the US and other powers seeking influence in the region needs to include this forum. 

Here is a link to the document –  

New Zealand soldiers exercise with Fijian army. Papua New Guinea soldiers exercise in Australia

A group of New Zealand soldiers completed an intensive heavy weapons exercise with their Fijian counterparts this week.  Meanwhile, in Townsville Papua New Guinea soldier were exercising with Australia’s 3rd Brigade. Two small but important examples of military ‘soft power,’ training and exercises being used to develop and strengthen international relationships.

 

Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer, a former Officer in NZDF and TDBs Military Blogger – his work is on substack

15 COMMENTS

  1. The usual recycled bollocks from USA. Australia is a burnt out sand pit apart from the coastal fringes where most of the population lives. So…this is just US Imperialism plonking more kill capacity in an offshore location. They have done this hundreds of times around the world–800 odd offshore bases and facilities, and through proxies, particularly Israel.

    Look up Guam, a very small US territory in the Pacific. It has 3! Army, Navy, Air, US bases and other facilities, and a 10 year missile launch programme is about to start there. A tiny population and the yanks are forcing locals off their land for military purposes.

    There is a global realignment taking place between “North & South” which is not strictly geographical. The yanks and their pals are going to be outnumbered finally. It is kind of appropriate I guess that Japan who they nuked in WWII are now included in the warmongering forums and some Western alliances.

  2. In Victorian times the Russians were coming, we built forts. They didn’t come, not because of the forts but because they never were. It was a beat up, pure jingoism. And now TDB to it’s shame wants us to think that the Chinese are coming.

    • But China’s already here. Almost everything’s made in China, and ridiculously China is now our most valuable trading partner and Chinese people were some of the first non-Maori humans to set foot on AO/NZ.
      I think the mythical logical-fallacy spectre of blood thirsty Chinese people is being used to create profits which is a marketing scam emanating from within the Israeli-U$A weapons industry propaganda machine.
      Look at the U$A for a moment to see them as a metaphor for the determination to remain steadfastly paranoid. Everyone in the U$A owns a gun or ten or at least knows someone who does and if they can’t find some real of imagined threat to gun down, they’ll gun each other down just to stay in practice.

  3. For decades the US has waged wars of aggression along China’s periphery, engaged in political interference to destabilize China’s partners as well as attempt to destabilize China itself, as well as pursued likewise long-running policies to undermine China’s economic growth and its trade with the rest of the world.

    More recently, the US has begun reorganizing its entire military for inevitable war with China. In addition to fighting Chinese forces in the Asia-Pacific region, the US also has long-running plans to cut off Chinese trade around the globe.

    In 2006, the US Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) published “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power Across the Asia Littoral,” identifying China’s essential “sea lines of communication” (SLOC) from the Middle East to the Strait of Malacca as particularly vulnerable and subject to US primacy over Asia.

    The paper argues that US primacy, and in particular, its military presence across the region, could be used as leverage for “drawing China into the community of nations as a responsible stakeholder,” a euphemism for subordinating China to US primacy. This, in turn, is in line with a wider global policy seeking to “deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.”

    Under a section titled, “Leveraging U.S. Military Power,” the paper argues for and expanded US military presence across the entire region, including along China’s SLOC, augmenting its existing presence in East Asia (South Korea and Japan), but also extending it to Southeast Asia and South Asia, recruiting nations like Indonesia and Bangladesh to bolster US military power over the region and thus over China.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/us-strategy-plan-calls-for-insuring-no-rivals-develop.html

    • Wait until the US ‘votes’ in Kamala, then you haven’t seen nothing yet. It’s telling that the old Neo-Cons (Eg that murderer Dick Chaney) are all endorsing Harris, I wonder why?

      The Democrats are the party of the War Mongers. While Trump’s team includes the likes of Gabbard and RFK Jr, who have openly criticized the US’s involvement in many of the wars it’s started in the past 30 years.

      And Trump is the scary option??? Give me a break!

      • Trump says one thing and does the other. He didn’t get out of Afghanistan and his scrapping of the Iran deal was about worst thing that could happen in the Middle East. If you think we are heading for world peace with Trump in office you are dreaming

  4. These bases are a direct threat to NZ. We need ballistic missiles based here- China being the obvious provider- to counteract them.

  5. ” In World War Two, Australia was nearly invaded by Japan” I think most historians would agree that Japan’s sole intention with regards to Australia, and for that matter New Zealand, was simply to isolate rather than invade. I mean Japan made some really stupid decisions in World War II, but invading Australia would have been a disaster.

    • Agree, the distances for logistical support alone are far too great. I read an article explaining why Japan didn’t deploy more of it’s fleet at Guadalcanal. It came down to insufficient bunker oil, the Japanese worked on limited supplies.

      • It was the Battle of the Coral Sea, that stop any further Japanese advance not Guadalcanal and the resulting Sea Battles. Which were a close run thing for Allies because the Japanese critical mass to press home & Exploit the advantage.

        The main reason for this? Was the Japanese Military Command especially the IJN was still full of old Battleship Men and not those younger Officers like Yamamoto who saw the Aircraft Carriers and the likes of the Combined Fleet.-

        The other reason was the IJN was so fixated on its Pre War Operations Plans, so they missed a number of opportunities to press home the advantage and smash the Allies.

        One such Pre War Plan after the fall of Singers & the Dutch East Indies, was the destruction of the so-called British Far East Fleet which was in name only and its ORBAT consisted a number of elderly short range R Class Battleships, 1 Armoured Aircraft Carrier, HMS Hermes which was just younger to the R Classes, no modern Cruisers and its Escorts Fleet was a Dogs Breakfast.

        Against the wish’s of Yamamoto who was the CinC of Japanese Operations in the SW Pacific, wanted the Combine Fleet for the SW Pacific which he saw correctly the Primary Centre of Gravity not the Pre War Battle Plan for the raid into the Indian Ocean chasing the Phantom Far East Fleet.

        Had the Combined Fleet and the Japanese Carriers had been at the Battle of Coral Sea? It’s very certain that the Japanese would’ve blasted the Allies out of the Water as the Allies only had 2 Carriers vs the 6 or 7 of the Combined Fleet (at the actual Battle of Coral Sea, the Japanese had one Fleet Carrier & one Light Carrier). Which would allowed the Japanese to not only invade PNG/ Port Moresby, but exploit their advantage into the Sth Pacific further isolating Australia and a possible NZ Invasion aka the Japanese Scare which accidentally forced my Grandfather of the Troop Ship bound for M.E up to Fortress Auckland to dig in on the Hibiscus Coast.

        At one Stage the Yanks only had 4 Fleet Carriers in the entire Pacific AO and after Battle of the Coral Sea, 3 Fleet Carriers and had to call on the Brits to see if they could lend one? Which did happen with the deployment of HMS Victorious and rename USS Robin, which acted primarily as a Fighter Carrier due to its superior Radar Fit and Action Control Centre which included the Fighter Intercept Controllers which came in handy at the Battle of Sant Cruz or the 3rd Battle of the Solomon Sea.

        FYI both Coral and the Solomon Seas is what we call vital ground ie it must be held at costs as it controls the vital Sea Lanes into the Sth Pacific and the Sea Lanes Of Communications of NZ, Oz to the US & Panama Canal.

        As you can see the Battle of the Coral Sea and the various Sea Battles around the Solly’s was a very close run thing for the Allies. if the INJ had been able to achieve critical Mass at those Decisive points? It’s likely the Pacific War would extend into at least 1947-1950 at a minimum.

        Plus there is also the 2nd & 3rd Wave Attacks at Pearl Harbor which were never launched because the Commander of the Japanese Carrier Strike Force was an old Battleship Man. But that’s another story to tell later.

    • That’s always been the case for the RNZN as the Navy is looking to move it Naval Operations out of Auckland to Northland (Marsden Point) for the last couple of decades now, but the various NZG’s & Treasury are shitting their pants at the cost. RNZN Training Depot along with the various Post Graduate Facilities are very likely to stay at Devonport.

      Currently the Fleet Support Ship, the Landing Support Ship & possibly the Dive Support Ship can’t fit into the existing dry dock at Devonport and have to go overseas for Refits like RAN’s Fleet Base East Sydney or Singers.

      With the planned New Fleet that the Navy wants ie 4 Frigates, 2 Landing Platform Docks, Southern Ocean Patrol Vessels & OPV’s? The Navy does need a new Operations Base & Southern Naval Base.

      During WW2 the Marlborough Sounds ie Queen Charlotte Sound was earmark to be massive Naval Base had the Japanese been successful in winning at the Battle of Coral Sea & the 3 Sea Battles in & around the Solly’s. This also resulted the various Airfields around Blenheim being upgraded to handle increase Air movements from the US Carriers likely to use the Naval Base.

      The Queen Charlotte Sound Naval Base still gets mentioned from time to time, but it will never happen unless a major conflict in the Asia Pacific breaks out again.

    • That’s always been the case for the RNZN as the Navy is looking to move it Naval Operations out of Auckland to Northland (Marsden Point) for the last couple of decades now, but the various NZG’s & Treasury are shitting their pants at the cost. RNZN Training Depot along with the various Post Graduate Facilities are very likely to stay at Devonport.

      Currently the Fleet Support Ship, the Landing Support Ship & possibly the Dive Support Ship can’t fit into the existing dry dock at Devonport and have to go overseas for Refits like RAN’s Fleet Base East Sydney or Singers.

      With the planned New Fleet that the Navy wants ie 4 Frigates, 2 Landing Platform Docks, Southern Ocean Patrol Vessels & OPV’s? The Navy does need a new Operations Base & Southern Naval Base.

      During WW2 the Marlborough Sounds ie Queen Charlotte Sound was earmark to be massive Naval Base had the Japanese been successful in winning at the Battle of Coral Sea & the 3 Sea Battles in & around the Solly’s. This also resulted the various Airfields around Blenheim being upgraded to handle increase Air movements from the US Carriers likely to use the Naval Base.

      The Queen Charlotte Sound Naval Base still gets mentioned from time to time, but it will never happen unless a major conflict in the Asia Pacific breaks out again.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here