President Trump has not exactly been reassuring to traditional US allies and the Alliance system. It was a great source of concern for both General McMaster, his former national security adviser, and General Mattis, his former defense secretary.
They've gone, and I think one has to worry a little bit about how firm the resolve of the United States would be towards any of its allies in the face of a conflict, so when you put those two things together Australia can hardly be complacent about its security.
Look, let's just do some basic history here: history is mostly the history of empires; it's not actually the history of nation-states and it's mostly the history of conflict, not the history of peace. You get peaceful periods, no question; we've been in a relatively peaceful time since the end of the Cold War, but to assume that this will continue indefinitely would be to ignore the lessons of history.
Another obvious lesson of history which has been true throughout the centuries is that if you want peace prepare for war and vice versa. If you want war, act like it'll never come, allow your defense capability to atrophy.
For an enormous island that is thinly populated in relative terms compared with Asia and that has a vast store of natural resources, for such an island to be ill-defended seems like the most spectacular historical folly, in particular, when it is in relatively close proximity to a one-party state with obviously imperial ambitions.
It's quite a long way away from its principal ally. That China has imperial ambitions is obvious. The more Chinese leaders in their speeches say, 'Oh, China never does conquest', the more I like to say, 'Seriously? You are really going to make that argument?' I mean the Ching Empire was taking great chunks of Russia just over a century ago, so let's get real here. This is not a good situation.
It was okay during the Chimerica era when the Chinese were like, 'Okay, it's no problem. We'll just sell you stuff cheaply and underpay our workers and lend you money, it's cool. We'll buy Australian stuff, not a problem, at market price, how much do you want?'
That was all fine but anybody who thought that that was gonna last indefinitely was dreaming because the whole point of Chimerica was that it was a temporary illusory relationship and that at some point China wouldn't need it anymore, and the Chinese are kind of getting to the point where they don't need us anymore and the bets that we placed from the Clinton-era that they would liberalize or that the internet would somehow turn them into a democracy, all that's gone.
China's actually gone in the opposite direction. Politically, Xi Jinping has increased the central control of the party and is reimposing doctrinal orthodoxy. He's cutting out such free speech as had developed in China's public square. I mean, how many more flashing red lights do you need?
So I think this is kind of getting to the point of urgent and what I see in Australian politics is a debate that if it was going on in a regional council in Scotland would seem parochial. The parochialism is stunning.
True, a considerable efforts has been made by the intelligence and national security community in this country to awaken people to the potential threat Australia faces but is Australia in any way prepared from a naval point of view for Chinese acts of aggression? No way! So I think this is a moment of truth, actually.
I said yesterday that we were entering a new Cold War and we should stop pretending otherwise. And this cold war will be very different from the last cold war. It will be fought in different ways. It will be an arms race for everything from artificial intelligence to quantum computing more than for nuclear weapons or rockets to the moon, and the battlefields will be different. When you consider what China's Belt and Road initiative has become, it is nothing less than 'Welt policy, a global policy.
It's far extended beyond the original concept that was essentially a Central Asian Indian Ocean concept and has become global, and the search for commodities is not a trivial part of what is involved. Empires at some level are about acquiring commodities at below market prices. That's kind of what empires are or at least not trusting to the market to deliver you the commodities. So it's better to own the real estate, to own the mines, to control the supply chain, and not be at the mercy of the market or the mercy of a navy which China currently is, to the US Navy, so we need to clearly understand the historical logic of China's expansion.
To have security, China cannot be dependent on imported commodities and market prices. When you think about what that implies for Australia, it's really quite scary because Australia is a prize. Australia's a hugely attractive place from a Chinese vantage point and not just as a vacation destination or a place to study and learn English and I'm stunned by the lack of awareness of the strategic vulnerability of Australia when everything should be screaming to you - PREPARE!"
As Niall Ferguson puts it, "What I see in Australian politics is a debate that if it was going on in a regional council in Scotland would seem parochial. The parochialism is stunning." What he says is an uncomfortable truth, but I'd rather listen to him than to any of our self-serving politicians who are only in their jobs just long enough to claim their lifelong pensions - and then take up their cushy jobs in industry or in the diplomatic service.
