Slash Australia's war spending!
The release of the federal government's public discussion paper (or "green paper"), "Defence Review 2000 — Our Future Defence Force", and the six-week public "consultation" that kicks off in mid-July, is being touted as "an unprecedented canvassing of public opinion ahead of the [federal government's] final defence strategy paper to be completed later this year" (June 27 Australian Financial Review editorial).
It is nothing of the sort.
The fix is in. The Australian government has already decided to massively boost military spending, both in absolute dollars and as a proportion of the budget. The purpose of the green paper and the bogus consultation period is, as the AFR's Geoffrey Barker admitted on June 27, to "at once create, shape and lead public support for increased defence spending".
Launching the "discussion" paper on June 27, PM John Howard did not even bother to pretend that a decision to increase war spending was dependent on the outcome of the consultations, which will be conducted by a team headed by former Coalition federal minister Andrew Peacock and former Labor senator Stephen Loosley.
"We have to spend more on defence ... It has to assume a larger place in our spending and national priorities", Howard stated. The increase in defence spending would be neither "nominal" nor "derisory", he vowed.
The discussion paper argues that defence spending must increase well above the present level of 1.9% of GDP (currently $11-13 billion per year). It subtly endorses the defence boffins' contention that a monstrous additional sum of $80-110 billion must be found before 2020 to replace or upgrade the Australian Defence Force's (ADF) jet fighters and long-range bombers, the naval fleet and the army's armoured vehicles and weapons systems.
The government, the ALP and all the editorial writers and columnists of Australia's major dailies agreed without hesitation.
The paper does not entertain any option that would reduce military spending or question the need for Australia to retain its offensive military capacity.: the only discussion the paper proposes to have is around how this mind-boggling amount of money should be spent. This reflects the debate taking place within the capitalist class over how best the ADF can serve Australia's interests as the South Pacific's major resident imperialist power, as well juggling its "duties" as one of the small band of imperialist powers that together dominate the Third World (the discussion paper proudly notes several times that Australia is the world's 13th largest economy).
Some of Australia's rulers advocate a restructuring of the ADF to better participate in US-led "high intensity" conflicts such as the 1991 war against Iraq. Others in the capitalist elite argue for more attention to be paid to maintaining "regional security", meaning that the ADF needs to have the capability to militarily intervene in "low intensity" conflicts in south-east Asia and the Pacific.
However, both sides agree that what is required is a military force that is technologically capable and resourced enough to be part of any war in the world to protect the interests of imperialism, as well as being able to put down insurgents, revolts, revolutions and independent governments that dare to challenge Australian imperialism's exploitation in its self-proclaimed "sphere of influence".
The interests of working people in Australia are not served by either side in this "debate". Australia's military budget should be slashed to the bone, not expanded. As the discussion paper concedes, Australia does not face a military threat: "We do not expect to be attacked by anyone and cannot readily foresee the circumstances under which an attack might occur or where it might come from."
The "security" of Australia's working people — in terms of lives saved and improved — would be far better served by ploughing the billions of dollars wasted on high-tech killing machines into hospitals, schools, child-care facilities and public housing, especially for Australia's indigenous people (according to the anti-militarist Blue Paper Project, just $20 million would fund 60 Aboriginal health centres; $170 million would fund 10 100-bed community hospitals; $350 million would pay for free medicine for all).
Similarly, "regional stability" for the poor peoples of the Asia-Pacific (as opposed to the area's corrupt, pro-Western capitalist elites) would be better achieved by using Australia's "defence" billions as no-strings-attached aid to help overcome decades of imperialist-imposed underdevelopment (the $1 billion spent on each of four new Collins-class submarines is more than twice the Solomon Islands' annual GDP).