Carlton, Australia: La Trobe University Press, 2019. 336 pp. US$34.99, paper. ISBN 9781706640996.
Professor Hugh White, emeritus professor of strategic studies at Australian National University, has produced a controversial and stimulating book concerning Australian foreign policy. His new work, How to Defend Australia, is his latest effort to influence policy makers in Canberra, and international relations scholars within the nation’s foreign policy establishment. Put simply, Professor White firmly believes that Australia’s institutional foreign policy needs a philosophical and strategic “top-to-bottom” overhaul. And, that this restructuring will also need to include re-prioritizing the future development and purpose of the Australian military. Why? Because White sees an America whose influence and presence in East Asia is in steady decline. If this decline continues, and America eventually withdraws from East Asia, like Great Britain did in the 1950s and 1960s, what will Australia do? How will it defend itself in this new China-dominated Asia?
Like a lawyer making a final and powerful argument at the end of a trial, White’s book is an in-your-face geopolitical and security statement that demands your undivided attention. Without question, many of his observations and prescriptions to fix and redesign Australian foreign policy and the nation’s military will infuriate and outrage many within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the nation’s military establishment.
White readily acknowledges and anticipates that there will be serious pushback directed at his new book. Nevertheless, he remains undaunted, and states in the book that he is more than ready to debate critics. White believes the critical challenges and questions concerning the future security of Australia are simply too important to be left to politicians or scholars. Therefore, he strongly supports a public discussion about the future direction of the nation for the rest of the twenty-first century.
Over the past decade, White has enthusiastically embraced the role of being the heretical voice within the Australian foreign-policy establishment. His two previous, and provocative, essays, Power Shift (2010) and Without America (2017), published by Quarterly Essay (a major Australian publication), have without question rattled more than a few intellectual and political cages.
In these writings, White has dared to say publicly what many policy makers and scholars have only been willing to discuss privately. Specifically, that Australia is moving irrevocably toward a definitive point in its brief history. White argues that Australians may have to face an uncomfortable truth in the very near future, given the potential that they may no longer have their traditional security umbrella provided to them by a major world power, such as Great Britain or the United States.
Unsurprisingly, no current or former political leader, or noted scholar, has had the courage to broach this extremely sensitive topic publicly in Australia. White is the exception.
White’s 336-page book grapples with many geopolitical and defense topics. But perhaps the three most controversial subjects he addresses are the following: first, the possibility of Australia developing its own nuclear weapons; second, the need for much larger defense expenditures; and third, the possible strategic implementation of the Russian continental plan against any future invader. These recommendations are certain to attract the ire of his critics.
Historically, Australia has always prided itself for being a nuclear-free country. Polls consistently show that most Australians do not support the development and possession of nuclear weapons; reversing its historical stand on this deeply volatile issue would represent a monumental shift in Australia’s domestic thinking. For now, I do not see this deeply ingrained position changing in the near future.
Also, since the nineteenth century, Australians have enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world. White’s proposal to increase defense spending from its current 2 percent (AUS$40 billion) of Australian GDP to potentially 4 percent (AUS$80 billion) will almost certainly trigger a “guns ‘n butter” debate throughout the country. White states unequivocally that the key to Australia’s future security is to dramatically build up its air force capabilities, and to increase the size of its fleet of attack submarines. Currently, Australia’s standard of living is the envy of the world. But, if America’s power continues to wane in Asia, a new debate will eventually surface: national security vs. quality of life.
Finally, White proposes that Australia should use its large landmass to better strategic use against a potential invader, like Russia did against Napoleon in the early nineteenth century, and later against Hitler in the mid-twentieth century. He believes that a foreign invader would have to use valuable resources to keep the Australian outback under control. I find this historical analogy simply wrongheaded. Australia is a lightly populated nation. The vast majority of its population lives in the southeastern portion of the country. Except for Darwin and Perth, there are no cities or urban areas of any size to deter a foreign invasion in the western and central regions of Australia. In my opinion, White’s historical analogy to Russia is a strategic non-starter, if not outright dangerous.
Nevertheless, White is correct in stating that geopolitical events are moving much too fast in East Asia for Australians to remain indifferent to the march of history. The sooner Australians embrace this strategic truth, the better prepared the nation will be for any potential flashpoint or “black swan” event occurring in the western Pacific or Indian Ocean that might threaten Australian security.
How to Defend Australia is simply the opening salvo in a much-needed national conversation about the country’s future in the region. Asia is evolving with an almost unstoppable alacrity, and White firmly believes that the actions taken, and the decisions made today by Australia’s government could have an irreversible effect upon the nation’s fortunes in the twenty-first century.
Randall Doyle
Mid-Michigan Community College, Mt. Pleasant, USA