Scenario 1 in Indo Pacific Futures 2051: The Triumph of Shared Strategic Might
Introducing the Scenarios
Denis Bright introduces three scenarios for the future of Australia’s international relations in 2051. It is the 150th Anniversary of Australian Federation but just another season in 60,000 plus years of Indigenous settlements.
Pre-historic indigenous migrations and exploration of our northern coastlines by Makassan, Indo-Malaya and Chinese navigators had also long predated such formal constitutional events in the long historical perspective of the Australian Republic.
The scenarios have the macro-political goals of fostering debate about future trends in international relations across a vast Indo-Pacific Hemisphere that extends from East Africa to the Pacific Coast of the US and Canada.
The three scenarios presented in these articles are far from cataclysmic. Other darker scenarios are possible.
The first two scenarios might indeed be very consoling to surviving federal LNP stalwarts from the Abbott-Turnbull Era.
In Scenario 1, Australia is a key player in the US Global Alliance Systems which has been re-branded as the New Coalition of the Willing (New Coalition).
Our localized responsibility is to monitor the sea lanes and strategic air routes between the Pacific and Indians Ocean which are adjacent to US Bases in Micronesia and Diego Garcia in the Mid-Indian Ocean.
This is a demanding responsibility for Australia. It comes with a heavy price tag. It is also compromises Australia’s sovereignty. For the centre-right government of the Australian Republic, the challenge is a true imperative.
Clinging onto the strategic might of the US remains the cornerstone of Australian foreign policy in 2051 in the re-branded New Coalition of the Willing.
Australia basks in its evolving role as a key regional player with Japan, Indonesia, a United Korea and India to consolidate key strategic and economic goals of most countries in the Indo-Pacific Hemisphere.
Progress in building the New Coalition had come through a series of clever incremental steps since those unstable days of the Abbott-Turnbull Era. Eyewitness news services barely noticed the extent of Australia’s firm integration with the New Coalition. Media coverage of open days on naval vessels and sweeping shots of US troops in transit through Darwin helped to answer any doubts about Australia’s sovereignty.
Step by step the momentum of the New Coalition became unstoppable. Looking through the news archives prior to 2051, today’s students are becoming concerned at the extent of commitment required to be on the verge of armed conflict year after year. The universal concern after archival sessions in foreign policy research is quite simply how did Australia get into such an international stew.
Let’s visit this hypothetical university class who is looking back through the digital archives on the events of 2017. What incremental pathways towards the New Coalition is the class identifying?
Vital Incremental Steps from 2017
Back in the last weekend of July 2017, Australia and Indonesia had just co-chaired a leaders’ forum at Manado in South Sulawesi Indonesia. Makassan navigators had visited Northern Australia from here at least three hundred years ago. Now our leaders arrived in Sulawesi on a strong tail wind of political enthusiasm from the mythical South Land.
Australia’s then Attorney-General Senator the Hon George Brandis QC had arrived with some high-profile information briefs. The official agenda was to encourage leaders from Malaysia, Brunei and New Zealand for joint action against Islamic terrorism in South East Asia (ABC News Online 29 July 2017: DFAT Media 29 July 2017).
A secondary but possibly more important longer-term agenda was to rescue the Philippines and Indonesia from any drift towards non-alignment in international relations.
Except for Australia, governments represented at Manado had supported the Draft Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at the UN Committee Meetings in New York during 2016-17 and supported the draft text for ratification on 7 July 2017.
Intensive lobbying by Australia and the US failed to stop Brunei and New Zealand from breaking ranks with their long-standing support for the Draft Treaty. This agenda had not been exhausted. A short-term set back was quite anticipated.
Ratification of this Draft Treaty would have closed the sea lanes and air routes in our near north to the movement of nuclear weapons between US bases in Micronesia to Diego Garcia and the Middle East.
Despite its long-standing commitment to non-alignment in Indonesia, Australia had worked behind the scenes with supportive sections of President Widodo’s administration which was still basking in the successes of a state visit to Australia in February 2017.
Indonesia’s Defence Minister Retired General Ryacudu was particularly receptive to a more militarized Indonesia. He proved his strategic credentials as Chief of Staff of the Indonesian Army (2002-05), Commander of Security Operations in Kostrad (2000-02) and long-standing but retrospective supporter of General Suharto’s coup d’état in 1965 when General Ryacudu was still at high school.
Despite the relative decline of the US in the global economy particularly after the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2007, right-wing governments from Israel to Saudi Arabia, India, Taiwan, United Korea all welcomed the assistance of Australia and Japan in maintaining US strategic influence across the Indo-Pacific Hemisphere.
In 2017, New Zealand was still a strategic challenge for the New Coalition. Since 1986, New Zealand had been off-limits to visits by nuclear powered ships carrying nuclear weapons.
Now in 2017 opportunities existed for changes in New Zealand’s strategic outlook after the election on 23 September 2017 if Prime Minister Bill English could be returned as a minority but potentially unstable government with the support of the NZ First Party of Winston Peters to survive the unexpectedly strong swing to the Labour/Green Alliance bloc.
The role of Japan’s Abe Government in maintaining the profile of the New Coalition was also invaluable to the New Coalition across the Indo-Pacific Region. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott had helped by claiming Japan as our best economic and strategic partner in Asia. Now our contacts in the New Coalition were swamping us with more and more strategic friends from Israel across to Canada.
Japan contributed $3.1 billion to assist in the redeployment of US Marines in Micronesia which still bristles with US bases in Guam, Marshall Islands and other locations (ABC News Online 27 April 2016):
While international attention is often captured by US military operations in the Middle East, for the past decade, Guam has quietly been the location of what the US assistant secretary for the navy, B.J. Penn, called “the largest project that the Department of Defence has ever attempted”.
About $US20 billion ($26 billion) is being spent on establishing a Marine base and upgrading existing bases including the Andersen Air Force Base and the naval base around Apra Harbour.
Guam also hosts an increasing number of B52 bombers and jet fighters, and its upgraded ports will soon be able to accommodate more submarines and destroyers.
The US regularly flies its B52s on training missions over the South China Sea, which is now the site of aggressive Chinese territorial expansion.
Always on Patrol
Keeping the sea lanes and air routes open for strategic aircraft between Micronesia, Diego Garcia and the Middle East to Australia’s North became a diplomatic imperative for other right-wing governments in Taiwan, India and Israel whose Red Sea Fleet operates in the Indian Ocean with operational undersea nuclear missiles (The National Interest Online 9 October 2014).
As the confidence of these loyal US Allies increases, Australia is becoming more daring in its local commitments to Pax Australiana with offers of military assistance to our neighbours in the Near North in PNG, Timor-Leste and Vanuatu who persist in retaining that foolish nostalgia for ASEAN values of keeping out of the global arms race.
Under Australia’s highly politicised presidency, Australia remains a bastion of the New Coalition.
This is a badge of honour which continues to frighten dissidents at home and abroad. After a century of evolution since the ANZUS Treaty of 1951, the New Coalition has become a locally focused article of faith in shared wider economic and political values. Singing that our land is girt by sea has become a real understatement in 2051 in the centenary year of the ANZUS Treaty under its mid-century New Coalition logo that is so eulogised by the mainstream pro-republican media networks.
Tomorrow … Scenario 2 in Indo Pacific Futures 2051: Living with Strong Steady States
Denis Bright (pictured) is a registered teacher and a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA). Denis has recent postgraduate qualifications in journalism, public policy and international relations. He is interested in promoting discussion to evaluate pragmatic public policies that are compatible with contemporary globalisation.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
19 comments
Login here Register here-
Mia -
Leila Smith -
Pat -
John -
brisbanej -
Patrick -
Malek -
Leah -
Tess -
win jeavons -
Pakrick -
Paul -
helvityni -
Tristan Ewins -
Archaic -
Phil Atkinson -
Denis Bright in Brisbane -
jimhaz -
Boris
Return to home pageNone of us can predict the future but hopefully Australia in the year 2051 would be a more independent and peace seeking country than this scenario depicts.
Most informative article Denis, showing Australia’s posistion in our own area of the world.
We certainly don’t want dire consequences for Australia in the year 2051
Look forward to the next few instalments,thanks Denis
Why does our mainstream talk up preparations for war? Where is our peace agenda? An extensive analysis.
If a more militarised, aligned Indonesia is the desired outcome, US policy is not helping it into the lap of the coalition.
“Indonesia says it will barter coffee, palm oil and other commodities for Russian fighter jets, calling US and European sanctions against Russia an opportunity to boost trade.”
https://www.rt.com/business/398874-tea-coffee-su-indonesia-russia/
Denis, thanks for another interesting article about Australia’s long term foreign policy and situation in the region. Hopefully, the Australian Government will make the right choices for our country and region. Looking forward to the coming chapters.
Indonesia spent 30 years as a friend of the US Alliance under General Suharto and has drifted towards a non-aligned status. The US wants Indonesia back in the fold as it is on the main transit routes between the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. All those deep sea trenches close to Indonesia are a strategic prize. Encouraging Indonesia to join naval patrols in the South China Sea is part of the transition that is now occurring in Indonesia.
Let’s look for peaceful solutions and making strong relationships with our close neighbours.
Nobody has any real idea of what the humanly created world situation is going to look like even in five years time – let alone is a few decades.
The trouble with this kind of scenario, and indeed all of the usual predictions re how the future may or may not be, is that they uniformly fail to take into account the big picture of the essentially psychotic state of the humanly created world in the 21st century.
This essay provides a sobering assessment of the situation.
Having Australia on constant alert at the service of the New Coalition would compromise our nation state status: Time for Australians to reject this new militarism
I want a BINDING plebiscite before any future war!
The best of the comments are from win jeavons. The LNP is so afraid to lead on marriage equality but the Prime MInister plus non-elected advisers from the Office of National Assessment decide which US war games to support and how much more uranium should go to India for enrichment. When will the electorate wake up that something is wrong with these inconsistencies?
Great article! Always could to think about the long term strategic direction of the country. I hope the politicians are doing the same!
I’m looking forward to the other scenarios!
win jeavons
August 9, 2017 at 8:44 am
I want a BINDING plebiscite before any future war!
I second that.
I’d be concerned that Indonesia hasn’t overcome the legacy of influence of the Suharto family yet ; And also there’s a chance the US may ‘swing Left’ after what we’ve seen with Bernie Sanders ; there’s also a chance it will swing right after Trump ; we just don’t know yet. But it’s good to consider various scenarios to be ready for whatever may come. In any case “a bigger Australia” may be able to provide for its own defence needs and not be so beholden as in the past. Though a purely defensive arrangement with the US could still make sense depending on developments.
I think that predicting the future of our region requires more consideration of the impact of climate change. We are already seeing some of our island neighbours experiencing a loss of territory, so many islands will probably become uninhabitable, leading to increasing numbers of “climate refugees”. Australia’s (incomprehensibly negligent) backwards steps on managing carbon emissions would undermine any attempt to disavow responsibility for assisting those refugees, but I would expect (on current trends) for governments to continue to do so.
I also do not think that Australian governments or companies can bully or exploit neighbouring countries, like East Timor or PNG, without there being future repercussions for diplomatic relationships.
In the media today (09 August) there are reports of US President Trump offering North Korea “fire and fury” if it keeps threatening the US or its interests. In a prompt response, several North Korean spokespeople replied that they were considering targeting Guam and would launch missiles on command from Kim Jong-un. This is an extremely serious development, as it leaves both sides with minimal wriggle-room. The media have only increased tension, as they eagerly report every new development in the crisis and postulate who will start the war anew, what the consequences will be and which countries will be affected and how. It’s reminiscent of the days before the 2003 Iraq War.
The North Korean situation alone makes any fortune telling, or even informed speculation, about Australia’s strategic position in 2051 nothing more than that – speculation. The way things are panning out, we may not even inhabit the planet in 30 days’ time, let alone in 30+ years. This sounds dire, but we’re dealing with Trump on the one hand and Kim Jong-un on the other, neither of whom are renowned for their mental stability (although Kim is the better bet). One only hopes that our Australian so-called government takes the North Korea situation most seriously and doesn’t just blindly follow the USA into a grim course of action.
Thanks Archaic. Good of you to use some of your lunch-break to make comments when you are always so busy!
I completely agree with your comments about the dangers of global warming, The macro-themes of all my articles are about sustainable development (which included embedded actions against global warming) and disarmament.
I was inspired to write these articles by a public lecture from Professor Ramesh Thakur of the Crawford School at ANU at Griffith University Southbank last month.(https://www.policyforum.net/asia-pacific-un-nuclear-weapon-prohibition-treaty/).
Many Australian relished in our assistance with about twenty atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s. The Australian Cabinet was not even informed by Lord Attlee’s British Labour Government on the earliest preparations for the nuclear tests in Australia.
Whilst billions in today’s purchasing power were available for nuclear tests, the British government had to economise on National Health Services.
Back in Government after the 1951 election with an initially narrow majority, Conservative Prime Minister Winston Churchill tproceeded with nuclear weapons testing both in Australia and the notorious Operation Grapple in Micronesia (1957-59) before Britain and the US commenced nuclear tests at the Nevada Test site (1962-91).
As primary school students in the 1950s, we were encouraged by the enormous energies released by nuclear weapons tests.
Our young teacher in Year 5 told us about the latest nuclear test in Australia. The drawing class was set to work trying out our creativity in simulating the colours of nuclear explosions with our crayons.
I was positively inspired by open days at the RAAF Base at Amberley. There were visits by USAF bombers to entertain the kiddies with ladders provided to permit the exploration of bomber bays and cockpits.
Soon Bill Hayden became member for Oxley on 9 December 1961. He would join the peace march from Ipswich to Brisbane. So politics can change very quickly and the local electorate embraced the change. Why not do the same in 2017, I ask?
At Bremer State High School in Year 10, one of my fellow students raised the problem of the health risks arising from atmospheric testing in a Physics class. It was innocent question when radiation processes were being explained. The questioner mentioned that there had been hydrogen tests by Britain and the US in Micronesia. So should the young generation be concerned for their health and welfare?
The middle-aged teacher Physics would almost certainly have been a Labor supporter. He replied that teachers are really not supposed to discuss such issues which were beyond the scope of the experimental scientific method.
LNP leaning teachers at the school had no such reservations with their personal comments but their impact was only temporary.I certainly learnt from Year 9-10 English and History classes to prepare a pro-LNP briefs for the first two scenarios on Australia’s international relations in 2051. The teachers were quite pleasant, helpful and even convincing at least in the short-term. I did not mind their influence as a helpful bonding exercise with the rising generation of teenagers in the 1960s.
[I want a BINDING plebiscite before any future war!
I second that]
But without the false information as per Iraq. Mind you I still would have supported a war against Hussein even now. Over the long term, as a person with no skin in the game, removing dictatorial types is my number priority regardless of the local cost. I see the Sunni-Shite issue as destiny that will only be resolved when they tire of killing over idealogy.
Militarism has dangerous consequences. Why should Australia need a nuclear weapons cover and blindness to the antics of countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel because they happen to be nations supporting President Trump.