GUEST BLOG: Ben Morgan – Pacific Intelligence Update

Shangri La Dialogue – America versus China in the Indo Pacific  

This week’s Shangri La Dialogue dominates Pacific security news.  The Shangri La Dialogue is a discussion hosted annually in Singapore by the British ‘think tank’ the International Institute for Strategic Studies.  It is important because since it started in 2002, it has become a key forum for international discussion and includes representatives of many nations in Asia and the Indo-Pacific regions.

It is a meeting that hosts influential keynote speakers who provide important insights into security issues and started with an address by United States Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin. He laid out United States security concerns in the Indo-Pacific region and reinforced American commitment to developing a strong collective security framework of alliances and relationships in the region. 

Austin stated that war in the Pacific is neither imminent or inevitable, stressing the need for discussion and open channels of communication between the United States and China.  

However, for keen observers there are points to note.  First, Austin’s warning that the United States will support its allies to oppose Chinese bullying or coercion.  This is an important statement because in recent years China has imposed significant trade sanctions on several nations including South Korea and Taiwan; and physically bullied others.  

Chinese sanctions are a key issue because many are not transparent. Instead, being enacted by changing regulations or licencing regimes. For instance, after Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 visit to Taiwan, 2000 Taiwanese food products were suddenly found to breach regulations by China’s Customs Service and banned from Chinese markets. 

Some observers claim that sanctions are disguised as ‘public boycotts’ to suppress public debate about Chinese issues. For instance, in 2020 when H&M and other fashion brands expressed concerns about forced labour being used in Chinese cotton production. Large ‘public’ boycotts of these brands eventuated both in China and amongst overseas Chinese communities. Although denied by the Chinese government many observers believe these boycotts are an example of ‘soft power’ being used to suppress public criticism.

And; sometimes the Chinese government simply introduces trade tariffs like it did to Australian food imports in 2020, inflicting a $ 20 billion hit on Australia’s economy. In simple terms, China has demonstrated a willingness to use its economic power to punish trade partners for criticisms of its policies.  Unilateral sanctions are a problem because international stability is based on the application of a ‘rules-based order.’ A system mediated via the United Nations; that aims to protect the rights of smaller countries. So, when a country unilaterally uses its economic power to punish another country for criticising its policies; it is a dangerous step. A step towards a world in which ‘right’ is defined by ‘might.’ A regression that every small nation needs to oppose.

Further, China demonstrates willingness to physically intimidate other countries.  The recent large military exercises near Taiwan are a good example. However, every day in the South China Sea there are near misses and intimidation of Vietnamese, Philippines and Taiwanese ships and aircraft by Chinese planes and ships.  The construction of fortified military bases in the South China Sea is another example of physical intimidation; China ignoring other nation’s legal claims and simply taking possession of these islands.  

Austin’s statement ‘calls out’ this behaviour and makes it clear that the United States will support its allies to protect their rights under international law.  This is a transparent statement designed to deter China’s use of these tactics in the region.

The second point worth noting was Austin’s focus on the United States’s allies Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand.  A list that leaves out many nations in the Pacific; significantly New Zealand.  A former ally of the United States and increasingly left out of Australian and American defence planning.  New Zealand once played an important role as a bridge between these nations and the smaller nations of the Pacific. A role that is harder to play from ‘outside the tent.’

Chinese officials responded predictably, claiming that United States assertions were wrong. Specifically, regarding Taiwan an island that China sees as a wayward province to be returned to mainland control rather than an independent territory.  A position clearly stated by Lieutenant General Jing Jianfeng who told the South China Morning Post “First, there’s only one China in the world, and Taiwan is a sacred and inalienable part of Chinese territory.” Further, the Chinese delegates were quick to reinforce the message that Chinese defence policy was not an American concern.  Colonel Zhao Xiaozhuo telling reporters at the conference “What we do in the Chinese military is based on maintaining the core interests of China’s security, which is fundamental.”  

 We recommend that our readers keep watching the news from this important conference because these informal policy debates provide insights about future developments.  

Papua New Guinea – Australia defence agreement delayed

After last week’s historic defence agreement between Papua New Guinea and the United States, the expected next step was for Australia and Papua New Guinea to agree a similar defence agreement. However, Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister James Marape recently stated that the deal is progressing more slowly than expected. 

Prime Minister Marape’s statement discussed the need to check the agreement within Papua New Guinea’s statutory framework.  An interesting statement that may indicate that there is political nervousness about the proposed deal.  A situation to keep watching because it may highlight deeper political rifts between Papua New Guinea and Australia. A country that some Papua New Guinean’s feel has treated their nation poorly in the past. 

United States and Australian preparations for possible future conflict 

Last December, at the Australia – United States ministerial consultation (AUSMIN) conference between Australia and the United States, the American Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin and Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles discussed the two nations increasingly close defence relationship. Since, then conclusion of America’s Papua New Guinea defence agreement and completion of the Australian Defence Strategic Review, it is worth having a closer look at this evolving relationship.

Australia is a vital partner for America in any war with China. It provides a large logistics capability close to the potential conflict area.  Operationally, Japan in the north and Australia in the south provide keystones for isolating China. Both countries are proven allies; and their technological sophistication means that their militaries can operate in an integrated manner with high-tech American weapons systems. In the simplest terms, inter-operability means that Japan and Australia have the digital tech and ‘know how’ to securely transfer information with American forces.  Intelligence, battle plans or target information can be transferred easily and quickly between these militaries so they can operate together seamlessly. Further, both contribute large, well-trained defence forces to any alliance and allow pre-positioning of American personnel, ships, aircraft and equipment in locations that can help block China’s access to the world’s oceans.

Australian mineral wealth is also an important consideration in American strategic thinking.  Australia has enormous mineral deposits and is a world leader in mining. It is particularly good at efficiently extracting the heavy metals needed for modern tech like batteries and semi-conductors.  Currently, China dominates production of these products, a situation the United States is aware of and is addressing by working to bring manufacturing of these components back to America; or its allies. Australia’s mineral wealth contributes to this plan providing an alternative source of raw materials. 

Therefore, Australian security is very important for the United States and in this column, we have discussed how long-range missiles are changing the way wars are fought and how this trend changes security considerations. In the Australian context this means any enemy force needs to be kept far to the north away from the mainland.  Essentially, defending Australia means preventing an enemy from acquiring bases for missiles in the island chains to Australia’s north. 

Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands are the current focus of activity but along Australia’s ‘top end’ an arc of islands extends from the Indonesian Archipelago east to New Caledonia and Fiji.  Occupation of any of the islands in this arc places precision-guided missiles in range of Australian waters or territory; and provides bases for enemy ships, submarines and aircraft.  

Current Australian policy is about mitigating that risk and it starts with the AUKUS nuclear powered submarines. The new submarines can work together with British, American and probably French nuclear submarines; are invisible, do not need to refuel and can ‘slip under’ the weapon exclusion zone China intends to build with its long-range precision-guided missiles. The submarines provide a naval strike and blockade capability that can reach far to the north.  

Next, Australia’s defence review is focussed on projecting power north; or ensuring that China is not able to establish large base areas within range of its mainland.  Hence, the switch of investment towards precision-guided missiles, aircraft and ships.   

However, hidden away in strategic reviews, press statements and AUSMIN statements we can see how America and Australia are planning to fight a war in this area.  In December, Austin and Marles issued a joint statement about the allies working more closely together, specifically discussing increasing the tempo for rotating American forces through Australia.  This statement is part of a wider process of preparation and planning that includes redevelopment of large training areas near Darwin (Mt Bundy, Kangaroo Flats and Bradshaw Field Training Area) ready for use in large exercises. And; of nearby Robertson Barracks to provide facilities for large troop deployments from America to Australia.

This infra-structure development supports regular rotations of large numbers of United States Marine and Army service personnel to the north of Australia for training exercises that increase soldier’s familiarity with the area and with their Australian allies. Better infra-structure also allows for pre-positioning of weapons and equipment. Essentially, the north of Australia near Darwin is developing as a launch pad for United States land forces into the south-west Pacific.  It is likely that if tension continues to increase rotations may become long-term deployments, American troops based in Australia ready to deploy. 

In previous articles we have discussed General Miley’s recent report to Congress about the United States rapid build up of forces in Europe during the Ukraine War.  Unlike Australia, Europe has an existing NATO network of support infra-structure and pre-positioned equipment. United States and Australian planning is focussed on developing similar capacity in Australia. In March, a team of defence experts assembled by the Sydney Morning Herald estimated that the planning figure is probably being able to rapidly deploy about 200,000 United States troops to Australia; a figure consistent with the deployment of forces to Europe to reinforce NATO during the Ukraine War reported to Congress by Miley.

Key observations are that Australia and the United States are planning in an integrated and deliberate way to deter Chinese aggression. That both nations are spending large amounts to develop bases in Australia to facilitate a rapid build-up of American forces ready to deploy north into places like Papua New Guinea or Solomon Islands. Australia could also provide a staging point supporting United States forces in Taiwan.  Although, a rapid build-up of American force is a deterrent to aggression, it also means that the security situation in the South West Pacific may change very rapidly putting other Pacific nations under considerable pressure to respond quickly.  A difficult situation for Pacific nations trying to stay out of Sino-American competition.    

 

Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer and TDBs military blogger