Time for Australia to manage peace, not war

The possibility of a miscalculation in a confrontation between India and Pakistan represented the biggest danger of the world slipping into a nuclear war, one of Australia's leading defence experts believes.

Emeritus Professor Paul Dibb was answering questions from a packed audience after his address at the Australian National University on the risks of a war between the United States and China – a scenario which he maintained was highly unlikely.

But India and Pakistan presented a different set of circumstances.

"During the Cold War there were a set of rules which were understood by both the US and the Soviet Union," Professor Dibb said. "There was a significant warning time of a nuclear attack during which it could be aborted.

"Between India and Pakistan these rules do not exist and the warning time is perhaps three or four minutes."

On the main topic he structured his address around four 'no's and two 'yes's.

No, there will not be a major war between the US and China

No, the US is not in inevitable decline, nor is China's continuing rise inevitable.

No, the US will not willingly concede its presence and influence in South East Asia

No, Australia does not need to arm itself for a possible confrontation with China

And

Yes, Australia needs to focus more on managing the peace in the region

Yes, there is a need for Australia to spend more than its paltry 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence, but only when an improving economy allows and not as much as the four per cent that some analysts suggest

The traditional Asian flashpoint, an invasion by China of Taiwan to reclaim its 'renegade province', was gradually fading with the growing economic interdependence of the island and the mainland. A crisis provoked by a belligerent North Korea was of more concern, but it was certainly in China's interest to do everything it could to curb its turbulent ally.

"Beijing's aggressive actions over claims on islands in the South China Sea and the East China Sea have alienated it from many Asian nations, but if an incident did escalate you would expect it could be contained," he said.

Professor Dibb said that while China's economy was currently growing at a fast rate, it would be ultimately restrained by an ageing workforce and a lack of innovation resulting from its "restrictive" education system.

"The One Child Policy means it is heading for workforce shortages and there is nothing it can do about that," he said.

"With 400 million people over the age of 60 by 2040 and no social security system, China is going to have to spend a great deal in this area to prevent social disruption and that will affect the defence budget."

In addition, China had no experience of modern warfare. The human waves of troops used in the Korean War would be of no value against modern weapons while the 1979 'Teach Vietnam a Lesson' invasion, ultimately claimed as a victory, was in reality a tactical disaster.

It was buying noisy submarines from Russia which would be easily detected by American and Japanese technology and its military research and development was not at all comparable to that of the US.

Turning to the US, Professor Dibb agreed its economy was in trouble. "However, I have great confidence in the dynamic inventiveness of the American people. Everything from the iPhone to Facebook and Twitter were invented there and it is constantly turning out the most advanced military equipment in the world.

"Also, and thanks in part to Hispanic migration, it does not face the ageing population problems that China has."

The US had alliances and friendships with most of the countries of East and South East Asia. "What does China have? The lunatic nation of North Korea, and Pakistan, which is close to a failed state. Even Burma has abandoned it."

Contrary to the belief in some quarters, Australia did not have to choose between the US and China. "In terms of practical policy it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time."

"But after 11 years in Afghanistan, we need to concentrate on our own region – managing peace rather than war with confidence-building and regional diplomacy. Countries like Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu are in need of our attention and assistance. And we need to focus much more on South East Asia.

"We should re-tool our relationship with countries like Indonesia and recognise that South East Asia is the lynchpin of the vast Indo-Pacific region.

"We do not need to spend three to four per cent of GDP on defence, but we do need to increase it eventually to about two per cent to make sure we have a measure of technological advantage.

"Our area of primary military operational interest is the eastern Indian Ocean, South East Asia and the South Pacific down to Antarctica – that's 10 per cent of the world's surface and plenty enough for us."

In answer to my question about whether situations like the current incursion by Chinese troops into Indian territory in Jammu Kashmir could escalate into a larger conflict, he said that while India was a long way behind China, it had significant military potential which it would continue to develop.

"I don't think the current disagreements over borders will amount to a great deal," he said.

Professor Dibb is Emeritus Professor of strategic studies and Chairman of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at The Australian National University. He was head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre from 1991 to 2003.

His previous positions include: Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defence, Director of the Defence Intelligence Organisation, and Head of the National Assessments Staff (National Intelligence Committee).

His address was presented jointly by the Australian Institute of International Affairs and the ANU Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.