East Timor and the Defence Budget Issue

Relations between India and Pakistan are tense, as usual, but conflict in Kashmir is hardly likely to threaten Australian territory.

Furthermore, the Australian Defence Department's figures for regional defence expenditure trends do not support the argument that Australian defence expenditure is at dangerously low levels. According to the Defence Intelligence Organisation's authoritative publication Defence Economic Trends in the Asia-Pacific Region 1999, Australia's per capita defence expenditure is higher than that for Canada, South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. As a percentage of government spending, Australia spends more on defence than Canada, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

Moreover, according to DIO, in terms of GDP, Australia spent more on defence in 1998 than many countries that are closer to the vague defined threat from the north than we are. Australian defence expenditure of 1.9 % of GDP compares favourably with that for Malaysia 1.6%, Thailand 1.6%, the Philippines 1.5%, China 1.1%, Canada 1.1 %, Japan 1% and Indonesia 1%. It is less than the 3.1 % spent by Britain but it is more than that for Germany (1.2%) and the Netherlands (1.8%) and is not far behind Sweden (2.1%) and France (2.3%).

It is not as high as that of the US or Singapore or Taiwan or South Korea. But the US is a rich superpower that likes the biggest and best of everything. Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea are confronted by unique geopolitical circumstances that require them to spend more than the average. Australia, however, is in one of the safest locations on the perimeter of the region.

According to DIO, in constant 1995 US$ terms, Australia spent $7.0 billion last year compared to $5.0 billion for Singapore, $2.0 billion for Indonesia, $1.6 billion for Malaysia, $1.3 billion for the Philippines, and $2.6 billion for Thailand. By way of further comparison, China spent $9.7 billion, Sweden $5.0 billion and the UK $33.2 bill.

If the problem is a shortage of troops to deal with peacekeeping in East Timor, Australia should consider rotations comprised of volunteers from other regional countries and in any case, stop taking the lead in challenging Indonesian face.

We should think carefully before we throw money at the Defence Department in a fear-driven, knee-jerk reaction to East Timor. What we should spend more on is competent intelligence collection and analysis. We need a dedicated long term, independent strategic assessments capability that takes account not just of the order of battle of countries like Indonesia or China - the tanks, planes and ships - but also the cultural, historical, geographic, political, economic and other non-military factors that are shaping the strategic outlook for our region.

As an interim solution to our problems with East Timor and Indonesia, we could open northern Australia to all those East Timorese who would like to be free of Indonesian rule. This would plug Australia's northern emptiness, as the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley advocates, and by letting Indonesia re-take East Timor, we would rebuild our relationship with Jakarta and avoid the prospect of a festering guerrilla war.