By Paul Dibb

Prime Minister Albanese is attending the NATO Summit in Madrid on 28 June, along with the leaders of Japan and South Korea and representatives from Sweden and Finland. President Zelensky has also invited him to visit Ukraine after the NATO leader’s summit. There will clearly be expectations in both meetings of additional Australian support.

Australia should, of course, strongly support Ukraine diplomatically and promise to do more in terms of supplying appropriate military equipment. However, there are other limitations about what we can do in Ukraine and how we can respond to NATO expectations.

No doubt, there will be discussion at this NATO Summit whether Russia will extend its military aggression to include the targeting of the supply of military equipment by the U.S .and its allies to Ukraine through Poland.

There is the further complication of whether NATO will discuss its planning for military contingencies involving Russian military attacks on one or more of the Baltic countries, all three of which are vibrant democracies. A Russian attack would raise serious moral questions for us, including our vital interests in seeing a democratic Taiwan not being attacked by China. As Japan’s Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, has observed: there are clear implications for East Asia of the war that is now being waged in Europe.

There is the further question that has been raised by Ukraine’s Ambassador, Vasyl Myroshnychenko, who claims that “if the sovereignty of any Indo-Pacific country was violated, Australia would expect NATO and other allies to come and support it.”

Unfortunately, that is not what history teaches us in this part of the world. In the Second World War in the Pacific, once the Japanese had defeated Britain in Singapore, no other major European powers participated in the defeat of Japan.

And we all recall the way the UK dropped its strategic interests in our part of the world when in 1968 it announced the policy of withdrawing all its troops East of Suez.

In the Vietnam war the Europeans and the British were nowhere to be seen in this prolonged conflict with communist North Vietnam. While the UK was directly involved in the war against the communist insurgency in Malaya in the1950s, as well as against Indonesia’s Confrontasi in the 1960s, no European country chose to be involved. Most of Europe was not concerned that Indonesia had the world’s third-largest Communist Party and was being heavily armed with advanced Soviet military equipment. It was at this time that Australia purchased F-111 strike bombers and Oberon class submarines. We recognised that if push came to shove, we might have to manage Indonesia alone.

Accordingly, because of these developments and US expectations under the 1968 Nixon Doctrine, Australia for the first time started to focus on the defence of the Australian continent without reliance upon our US ally – short of nuclear war or an attack by a major power. During the 1970s and 1980s, Australia underwent a major revolution in its approach to defence planning, which gave priority to our own defence and the security of our own region of primary strategic concern rather than expeditionary forces at great distance overseas.

The idea of the defence of Australia encountered great resistance – especially from the Army. And Coalition governments from time to time continued to give preference to Australia being able to mount distant military operations alongside our U.S. ally. So, the 2016 Defence White Paper gave equal weight to the three strategic priorities of the defence of Australia, our region, and our broader global interests. That simply undermined any attempts to discipline the three single services to give priority to our own defence.

However, all this changed for the better when the Coalition’s 2020 Strategic Update announced a radically changed policy:

“The Government has decided that defence planning will focus on Australia’s immediate region: ranging from the north-eastern Indian Ocean, through maritime and mainland Southeast Asia to Papa New Guinea and the South West Pacific…..That immediate region is Australia’s area of most direct strategic interest.

The 2020 Update also stated there was a need to build a more potent, capable, and agile defence force, including acquiring capabilities that enable Australia to hold adversary forces and infrastructure at risk further from Australia. Accordingly, it said that our immediate region “will provide a tight focus for defence planning.” The Update concluded that consideration of making wider military contributions outside of our own region “should not be an equally-important determinant for force structure compared to ensuring we have credible capability to respond to any challenge in our immediate region.”

These key defence policy guidelines must be firmly etched into the decision-making of our Prime Minister and Defence Minister when it comes to responding to expectations from NATO. With China deliberately building up military pressure against us, now is not the time to ditch decades of hard-won work in Defence that has put in place the priority to be given to our own region of primary strategic concern and the defence of our homeland.

The Government’s commitment to having an independent review of the ADF’s force posture —including its basing in Australia and deployments overseas —should be guided by this fundamental defence planning principle.

Paul Dibb wrote the 1986 “Review of Australia’s Defence Capabilities” and was the primary author of the 1987 Defence White Paper “Defending Australia.”

An earlier version of this article was published in The Australian on June 27, 2022.

By Kenneth Maxwell

On 14 June 2022, the UK remembered the 40 year anniversary of the Falklands War. Looking back provides insights as well with regard to the state of “global” Britain.

In the age of the Brexiters self-proclaimed “global Britain’ two very distinguished British historians, the late Michael Howard and Max Hastings, disagree about the relevance and the meaning of the British victory 40 years ago over Argentina in the Falklands War.

Sir Michael Howard (1922-2019) who served with distinction in the Italian campaign during the WW2 founded the war studies department at King’s College, London, and was one of the founders of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He was the Regis Professor of History at Oxford. He died in 2019 at the age of 97. He saw the Falklands War as perpetuating the “silly illusion about brave little Britain.

Sir Max Hastings, the distinguished military historian, who was the first journalist to enter Port Stanley after the British victory in the Falklands War, writing last week in The London Times said that it is “unlikely that a Latin American junta will again provide us with a pitch on which to achieve a cup-winning triumph against an adversary which was exactly the right size for Britain to defeat in 1982.”

Max Hastings is no friend of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson now seeking political salvation though his avid support for Ukraine in its war against the Russian invasion. Max Hastings believes that Britain needs a “future” not a return to “imperial weights and measures” which is among Johnson’s latest wish list.

Max Hastings called Johnson, who he had known since the 1980s when he was the editor of The Daily Telegraph and Johnson was his correspondent in Brussels, “a cavorting charlatan who will be an unfunny joke as PM.”

Mrs. Thatcher whatever else she may have been was certainly no charlatan. Nostalgia about the Falklands War is all right up to a point. No one would deny the heroism of the British armed forces involved in the Falklands campaign nor Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s determination to launch and sustain the military campaign over 8000 miles away from Britain in the far South Atlantic.

Some in the U.S. at the time believed that the British task force was doomed to failure. The circumstances at the time, however, were very special, both in the U.S. and in Europe. Britain obtained the support of the UN Security Council where only Panama supported Argentina. Both China and the Soviet Union abstained. Britain was also supported by French President Francois Mitterrand.

The quiet but essential support of Ronald Reagan to Margaret Thatcher was essential. Reagan had initially sought a compromise and sent Secretary of State Alexander Haigh on a South Atlantic shuttle. The U.K. was totally unprepared for the Argentinian invasion. John Nott, the UK Defense Secretary, did not even know where the Falklands were located.

The American Ambassador to the UN, the formidable Jeane Kirkpatrick, had argued that the U.S. needed to have strong relations with the Latin American military regimes. She was dining at the Argentinian embassy in Washington on the very evening that the Argentinian armed forces invaded the Falklands.

Kirkpatrick had evidently missed the not too subtle hints from the Argentinian ambassador at the UN who had ended each lunch with Kirkpatrick by standing and shouting loudly “Malvinas, Malvinas” which greatly puzzled the American Ambassador who did not seem to know what he was talking about. The Malvinas was what the Argentinians called the Falkland Islands.

But Admiral Sir Henry Conyers Leach, the First Sea Lord, who had been fighting John Notts plans to phase out the Navy’s “out of area” capacity, gate crashed the meeting Thatcher was holding on how to respond to the Argentinian invasion and persuaded the PM that a task force could be assembled within a week and could indeed retake the Falklands.

Mrs. Thatcher regarded the support of Ronald Reagan essential, The U.S. had airport facilities at the Wideawake airfield on the British overseas territory of the Ascension Island in the mid-Atlantic. The U.S. had used the base during the WW2 but abandoned it at the end of the war. In 1956 the Americans returned and the airfield was expanded in the 1960s and a joint U.K. government communications HQ and US National Security Agency was set up. Reagan found General Leopoldo Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator, drunk and intransigent.

In 1982 Ascension Island became the major staging area for the British Task Force and the airfield was a base for the British Vulcan Bombers and for a time because the busiest airfield in the world. The U.S. provided critical fuel to resupply the empty storage tanks there as well as provided the British with satellite intelligence. The British task force was composed of 127 ships, submarines, and requisitioned merchant ships, carrying troops, aircraft and equipment, including two aircraft carriers, HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible, and two nuclear powers submarines, HMS Conqueror and HMS Courageous, and four other submarines.

The French provided training to British Harrier pilots to counter the Argentinian French supplied Super Etendard jets carrying Exocet missiles. Four were used to great effect by the Argentinians in attacks on the HMS Sheffield and the SS Atlantic Conveyor and severely damaging both ships which eventually sank. A technical support team from Dassault, however, had remained in Argentina throughout the conflict. At least seven Royal Navy ships were damaged by Argentina’s Exocet and bomb attacks.

The British nuclear powered submarine HMS Conqueror sank the Argentinian cruiser the ARA General Belgrano with the loss of over 300 crew. Four Royal Navy ships sank. On HMS Sheffield 20 were killed and 24 injured. And two Royal Navy Fleet auxiliary ships also sank after Argentina attacks. The British landed 4000 troops and after intense fighting over 11,000 Argentinian troops surrendered and were repatriated. In the end 907 lives were lost, 649 Argentinians, 255 British, and 3 Falkland islanders.

Mrs. Thatcher told Ronald Reagan in 1982 that “If you allow dictators to march in to take over, no small country is going to be secure.” The Falkland campaign proved to be Thatcher’s finest hour.  It is doubtful, however, that Britain could today launch a similar task force and successfully repel another attack on the Falklands by Argentina.

Nor does it have a Ronald Reagan in the White House. Nor is Boris Johnson in 10 Downing Street a Mrs. Thatcher.  And in the Ukraine, Vladimir Putin, evidently did not hear the Thatcherite admonition about dictators invading neighboring countries.

Featured Photo: Avro Vulcan Bomber on display at the National Museum of Flight Scotland at East Fortune Airfield. XM 597, was involved in the Falklands war and attacked Port Stanley Airport in the famous Black Buck Raids.

China has focused under the regime of President Xi on building out its global informal empire.

By trade and investment, China has become a key player in Africa and Latin America. Its practices in doing so have a number of questionable dimensions, but instead of highlighting the reality of Chinese informal empire practices, Western states have largely ignored the opportunity to do so. They have focused on issues like Taiwan and the South China Sea, both very important but not part of the informal empire geopolitical strategy.

But the reality is that China poses a global threat to the Western order underwritten by its economic, cultural, and third world narrative efforts along with an expanding fleet of both military and commercial shipping and ports as well.

The concept of informal empire was developed by John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson in a 1953 article published in The Economic History Review, as Kenneth Maxwell has underscored in his discussions about Latin America and China. Ronald Robinson was Maxwell’s tutor at Saint John’s College at Cambridge University.

China’s Belt and Road initiative and its engagement in both Africa and Latin America follow the model of shaping a global informal empire. The narrative that accompanies this was most recently seen in President Xi’s presentation to Vladimir Putin’s Economic Forum inaugurated earlier this week.

This is how the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs summarized President Xi’s presentation:

On the evening of June 17, President Xi Jinping attended and addressed the plenary session of the 25th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in virtual format upon invitation.

Xi Jinping pointed out that the world is faced with major changes and a pandemic both unseen in a century, economic globalization is facing headwinds, and there are unprecedented challenges to the implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. At a time when the international community is so keen about achieving more equitable, sustainable and secure development, we should seize opportunities, meet challenges head-on, and work on the implementation of the Global Development Initiative to build a shared future of peace and prosperity.

First, we need to foster an enabling environment for development. It is important that we follow true multilateralism, respect and support all countries’ pursuit of development paths suited to their national conditions, build an open world economy, and increase the representation and voice of emerging markets and developing countries in global economic governance, with a view to making global development more balanced, coordinated and inclusive.

Second, we need to strengthen development partnerships. It is important that we enhance North-South and South-South cooperation, pool cooperation resources, platforms and networks of development partnerships, and scale up development assistance, in order to forge greater synergy for development and close the development gap.

Third, we need to advance economic globalization. It is important that we strengthen “soft connectivity” of development policies and international rules and standards, reject attempts at decoupling, supply disruption, unilateral sanctions and maximum pressure, remove trade barriers, keep global industrial and supply chains stable, tackle the worsening food and energy crises, and revive the world economy.

Fourth, we need to pursue innovation-driven development. It is important that we unlock the potential of innovation-driven growth, improve the rules and institutional environment for innovation, break down barriers to the flow of innovation factors, deepen exchanges and cooperation on innovation, facilitate deeper integration of science and technology into the economy, and make sure the fruits of innovation are shared by all.

Xi Jinping pointed out that the fundamentals of the Chinese economy—its strong resilience, enormous potential and long-term sustainability—remain unchanged. We have full confidence in China’s economic development. China will continue to promote high-quality development, expand high-standard opening-up with firm resolve, and pursue high-quality Belt and Road cooperation. China stands ready to work with Russia and all other countries to explore development prospects, share growth opportunities, and make new contributions to deepening global development cooperation and building a community with a shared future for mankind.

This pitch and the economic, cultural and political engagement of China in Latin America is growing, robust and in direct conflict with the U.S. engagement in the region.

And the recent Summit of the Americas hosted by President Biden did not overtly discuss China, nor how to deal with its challenges in the region to Western interests.

In a recent column by The Times diplomatic commentator, Roger Boyes argued that “Joe Biden is in danger of losing Latin America to China.” He noted that there are two reasons why this is occurring. First is a growing distrust globally of American leadership. “Biden’s muddled exit from Afghanistan demonstrated to the global south that Washington wasn’t ready to fight for any cause.”

And second, there is a “pink tide” underway in Latin America. With the election of left-wing governments in Latin America and the willingness of China to work with anyone willing to support its economic and political interests, China is seeing an upsurge in their influence in the region.

“It is increasingly China rather than Washington that offers patch-up solutions for Latin American governments in distress. China’s Covid diplomacy generated 300 million vaccines for Latin America. Some countries were offered help with local production.”

Boyes concluded his article with this general stark warning: “For them (the pink tide countries)  the U.S. does not present a persuasive enough model of the future. It remains a largely incurious neighbour. China, despite all of its human rights abuses, its repression and bossiness, can at least claim to have found a formula for escaping poverty.

“That is the true danger of the leftward shift in Latin America and other parts of the global south: a sense among emerging young leaders that the flawed Chinese model offers a plausible idea of progress; that the North American gringo has become irrelevant.”

Kenneth Maxwell, the noted historian and former Program Director of the Tinker Foundation, Inc., underscored the importance of Boyes assessment.

Roger Boyes in his comments on Biden and Latin America, China, and the “Pink Tide” in the region is certainty right about the frailties of Biden’s Latin American policy and the “big flop” of his “Summit of the Americas” in Los Angeles, and the opportunity for China that this presents. Or rather it exposes the powerful position within Latin America that China already occupies. 

 Ironically the upcoming Brazilian presidential election will be a key battleground. Lula it is true, as Boyes points out, is an old trade Union leftist. But Lula was never a Marxist, and he had in his early years of trade union militancy in São Paulo a lot of support from the America’s once powerful (and anti-communist) United Auto Workers Union. But on foreign policy he is surrounded by a group of advisers led by his former foreign and defense minister, Celso Amorim, who are fundamentally distrustful of the US. And under a new Lula administration Brazil would certainly seek a closer and better relationship with China. 

 Jair Messias Bolsonaro the current Brazilian right-wing president who is after all known as the “tropical Trump” and enjoys the fervent support of Brazilian evangelicals which have strong connections to U.S. evangelicals, who are strong supporters Trump.  And Bolsonaro was very close to president Trump, and his sons are close to Trump’s former adviser, Steve Bannon.

Bolsonaro, a former army captain, is also close to the Brazilian military and to the shadowy politically connected “militias” which dominate large areas of Brazil major cities. He is the most pro-American candidate which is not good for Biden, and he is already setting the stage to deny the result of the election Trump style if he is defeated, which seems most likely according to the latest Brazilian public opinion polls. 

 China cares little about the particular domestic politics of Latin America. It can and will work with whoever is in power. And it cares even less about the environment, the Amazon rain forest, or the human rights of the indigenous population. China cares much more about trade, Brazilian cattle and pigs, Brazilian soya, and Brazilian petroleum, and therefore in infrastructure and ports facilities, access to minerals, and investment in electricity networks and telecommunications.

And it has in Latin America no history of the multiple imperialist interventions and support for right wing military regimes in Latin America which is a heavy burden the U.S. cannot escape.

Roger Boyes is quite right:  Biden’s U.S. is on the back foot in Latin America and China already quietly holds many of the cards. 

The featured photo: People taking pictures in front of mark of the Second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation BRF in commercial street of Beijing, China. The Belt and Road Initiative is a major push by China`s President Xi Jinping to expand foreign trade and raise China`s international status. The summit is held April 25-27, 2019.

 For Ken Maxwell’s own assessment of the recent Summit of the Americas, see the following:

The Summit of the Americas 2022: An Assessment