Gillard renews Australia's commitment to Afghanistan

Prime Minister Julia Gillard gave Australia’s annual justification (hansard transcript) for the Afghanistan war to parliament yesterday. Since last year's speech, 11 Australian soldiers have been killed bringing the 10 year death toll to 32. Almost 3,000 coalition troops have died in that time as well as countless thousand Afghans. Gillard admitted it was a long and difficult war that with Iraq has cost Australia $4 billion (it costs Americans that every two weeks). But she said it a “just cause” – with a time limit. By end 2014, international forces will hand over security to local forces when Gillard expects Australia’a aim for Afghanisation will be realised: “a functioning state able to assume responsibility for preventing the country from being a safe haven for terrorists.”

Australia’s mission was clear, the PM said. Protecting Afghans, training security forces and building the capacity of the Afghan Government. She said there was progress and the sight of “ramp ceremonies overseas and funerals at home” were only part of the story. Australia has 1,550 troops on the ground, two thirds in Oruzgan Province. Troops rotate every nine months with many on second and third deployments. Aussies patrol Oruzgan with US troops with contingents also from Slovakia and Singapore.

They are training the Afghan 4th Brigade to remove explosive devices and search for components. They maintain patrols up to 75km from Tarin Kowt and join operations in other provinces to cut out “rat runs” to Oruzgan. The Special Forces units target rebel leaders, bombmakers and the heroin trade. In the last year the Afghans have been taking the lead while Australians provide mentoring and support. Gillard said Australia was one of the top 10 aid bilateral donators to Afghanistan spending $125m in 2010-11. Programs include primary schooling, agricultural training, small business loans and mines removal. Australian Police are offering training too as are civilian administration. In Oruzgan they are setting up basic infrastructure in health, education and rural development.

Gillard said 2011 was a good year which brought the death of Osama but it also showed the complexity of the war. She said it has claimed 35,000 Pakistani lives, mostly civilians, but Pakistan needed to do more against extremists. After 10 years, the Taliban have not been defeated though the Afghan National Army is improving. She said Afghanistan’s wealth went backwards from 1960 to 2002 but is climbing again. Education is up from 1 million to 7 million students including access for 2.5m girls. Access to basic health reach has climbed from 10 percent to 85 percent of the population. The economy has grown 11 percent each year since 2002, she said (though that statistic is debatable.)

Gillard admitted the rogue army attacks on Australians (and others) had “grave significance”. She said they killed Afghans and Aussies alike and they are a small number in a force that was now 300,000. She said the attacks did not represent a pattern and the 4th brigade was on track to take the lead role in Oruzgan security in 2014, or possibly earlier. The US will reduce its number by a third to 68,000 in 2012 but the shape of the US commitment beyond 2014 was not known. The Afghan presidential election that year will also be a big test.

Gillard said the new Australian embassy in Kabul was a “bricks and mortar” symbol of investment in the region (though information on the embassy remains scanty). She said vigilance was still needed against al Qaeda and the groups it has inspired though she could not confirm if Australia would play a longer term counter-terrorism role. She did say a continued Special Forces presence beyond 2014 was “under consideration”.

Gillard thanked the ADF for the burden they had endured since 1999. As well as the dead, over 200 Australians have been wounded including 18 this year. She said the best tribute to those who died was to “live by their example”. Gillard said Australia would defend its national interests. “We will deny terrorism a safe haven in Afghanistan. We will stand by our ally, the United States. We will complete our mission of training and transition in Afghanistan,” she concluded.

Force 2030: Massive Australian military spending for the Asia Pacific century

The federal government released its long awaited twenty year defence plan yesterday which calls for a possible $100 billion in spending to boost the nation’s military capability. The government says the new long term strategic blueprint, called Force 2030, will give Australia the ability to meet its own defence requirements as well as meet a range of regional contingencies. The plan will be partially funded by reform within the department but will require additional budget funding. Treasurer Wayne Swan refused today to outline exactly how much funding that would be, with the federal budget just one week away.

The 137 page defence white paper is available in pdf format here. In his introduction to the document, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says defence is the greatest responsibility for a national government and this is the first white paper to address strategic outlook in the last ten years. So it attempts to address threats posed by events such as 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the terrorist bombings in London, Madrid, Bali and elsewhere, the possibility of cyber-attacks, a nuclear North Korea, and above all, the rise of China and the emergence of India as geo-political players. Fitzgibbon acknowledged the document was coming out in the middle of a global recession but said the timing showed “the premium it puts on our national security by not allowing the financial impact…affect its commitment to our Defence needs.”

The paper outlined the sliding scale of importance of four Australian defence objectives over the next two decades. Firstly and most importantly, is the defence of the nation against attacks both by states and by non-state actors such as terrorism groups. Secondly, there is the security of the air and sea approaches in the “immediate neighbourhood” which the paper defined as Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, New Zealand and the South Pacific island states. Thirdly, there are the challenges of the Asia-Pacific region and the maintenance of a regional security environment to resolve internal issues and manage the rise of emerging players. Finally there is the worldwide strategic interest in “preserving an international order” to restrain aggression and manage risks and threats.

Key to the policy is the principle of self-reliance allied to the ability to do more to support strategic interests if required. This means having the capacity to act independently, lead military coalitions, and making what it called “tailored contributions” to wider interests. Consistent with the four-scale objectives, the paper defined the tasks for the ADF as in order of importance as deterring and defeating attacks on Australia, contributing to stability and security in the South Pacific (including humanitarian and disaster relief operations), contribute to military contingencies in Asia-Pacific, and finally contributing to military contingencies in the rest of the world.

It then goes on to chart the rise of China, a point studiously ignored by Chinese news agency Xinhua’s report on the white paper. Australia still expects the US to remain the pre-eminent world power in 2030 though China will be the strongest Asian power by a considerable margin. Therefore the US and China form the “crucial relationship in the region”. The paper identifies Taiwan as a potential flashpoint while it re-affirms Australia’s “one China” policy. China will also exert economic and soft power in South East Asia which is relatively peaceful apart from the “serious challenge” of Burma. The report is also positive about Indonesia which has “managed a successful transition to multiparty democracy, embarked on the long journey of economic reform, and proven to be a strong partner in the fight against terrorism.”

Looking further afield, the paper anticipates no real progress in the Middle East with Iran’s nuclear ambitions further complicating matters. Pakistan is called “a pivotally important state” with its nuclear weapons, terrorist networks, and links to Afghanistan all presenting a risk of a “radical Islamic capture of the state”. Afghanistan itself will continue to need support for “the next decade or more” and will require sustained Australian engagement for as long as it takes. Iraq, meanwhile, is not seriously addressed (mentioned just six times in the document compared to Afghanistan’s 44) and it can be assumed will take an increasingly less important focus for Australia in the coming decades.

The navy will be the clear winners from the overall strategy. The plan calls for the replacement of the troubled fleet of six Collins-class submarines with 12 “Future Submarines”, acquiring three destroyers, replacing the Anzac class frigates, as well as enhancing “offshore maritime warfare, border protection and mine countermeasures.” The army will also benefit from 46 MRH-90 helicopters to be shared as a pooled fleet with the Navy while the Air Force will be expanded to a fleet of 100 combat aircraft.

But given that report itself acknowledges there is no major military threat to Australia at the moment, the news cycle questions are predominately about how exactly the government will fund the package. Today, Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull was quick today to criticise the paper for not giving enough funding detail. The report calls for 3 percent growth in the budget to 2018, and 2.2 percent beyond that date. There will also be a 2.5 per cent fixed indexation for the entire period. However that will not be sufficient to pay for the expensive measures in the program, so the government is also proposing what it calls a “Strategic Reform Program” to overhaul the department to save $20 billion in the areas of accountability, planning, and productivity.

Speaking on Insiders this morning, defence analyst Hugh White called the department “wasteful” and said there was probably $20 billion to be saved, but added “it's going to be really hard and the choices that have to be made to save that money will not be politically easy.” White says that means changing the way defence does fundamental aspects of its business. “That's a challenge for ministers, for politicians, for the Cabinet as to whether they're prepared to take quite hard and often quite unpopular choices,” he said.

Elsewhere. Lowy Institute’s The Interpreter suggests Japan and Korea will be happy with the plan to counter China’s power; Trevor Cook is deeply unimpressed with what he calls an unaffordable, electorally cynical, stupid strategy; and Andrew Elder skewers Greg Sheridan’s incoherent addition to the debate in The Australian.

Fitzgibbon gives go-ahead to start building secret US air base in WA

Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced yesterday that work would begin in the next month on a new US spy base in Western Australia. The satellite ground station will be sited in the existing signal intelligence facility near Geraldton 400km north of Perth. Unlike the existing operation, the new facility will be under US control and will provide satellite communications support for US Navy operations in Iraq and the Gulf. The US Navy had contracted Boeing Australia to provide construction services and when operational in 2011 will comprise of three buildings housing sophisticated electronic infrastructure, three 18m satellite dishes and two smaller antennas.

The deal was originally signed by the Howard Government in February last year after three years of secret negotiation with Washington. At the time, the Sydney Morning Herald revealed the facility would provide “a crucial link” for a network of military satellites to assist US's theatre of operations in the Middle East and Asia. They quoted Philip Dorling, a visiting fellow at the Australian Defence Force Academy who said that the base would make it “almost impossible for Australia to be fully neutral or stand back from any war in which the US was involved”.

Yet today’s confirmation announcement under a Labor Government went almost unnoticed. Tim Dunlop was one of the few to make comment today. Dunlop believes the story shows how defence has dropped off the political radar. He said “I can remember when this story would’ve got a lot more attention than it has” and reckons that in the past it would have generated more complaint from the left. “It’s almost like the alliance hasn’t collapsed since the change of government,” he concluded, presumably sarcastically.

Certainly other US spy bases are a target for left-wing protest, most notably Pine Gap near Alice Springs. This satellite tracking base employs nearly 1,000 American service personnel, mainly from the CIA and the National Reconnaissance Office. It remains an extremely sensitive military resource and the US has never fully revealed to Australia its reasons for establishing the base. In the absence of hard information, wild theories have emerged about what is happening at the Gap. One involves the existence of a bore hole 6,000 metres beneath the facility containing an ultra low frequency antenna which is “used for secret experiments supposedly related to Nikola Tesla's resonance theories as well as low frequency communications throughout the world.”

What is true is that Geraldton facility is the first major US defence base to be established in Australia since Pine Gap was build in the 1960s. The new facility is called a Mobile Users Objective System (MUOS). In simple terms, MUOS is a satellite based mobile phone system. More technically it is a collection of high-tech satellites and associated ground facilities providing narrowband communication services for mobile and fixed site terminal users worldwide. It will provide global connectivity for voice, video and data for the US military. That’s as much as can be revealed about the Geraldton operation. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Australian Defence Department and the US Navy is classified. Once again, Australians do not get to find out what others are doing on their soil.

why are we in Afghanistan.

On the eve of the Labor’s first budget, Professor Hugh White, the head of the Strategic and Defence Studies at the Australian National University (ANU), has called on Labor to review its commitment to Afghanistan. White said today the Rudd government has adopted the policies of the Howard government without examining what it is doing there and what the most cost-effective way of achieving it is. In an era of a so-called “open ended” commitment, White’s question is a valid one. The Afghanistan engagement is costing the Australian taxpayer almost half a billion dollars a year.

With Wayne Swan about to bring down the budget on Tuesday week, the government are not giving away how much Defence will be impacted by the activities of the almost mythical “razor gang”. Defence policy did not get much of a look-in during the election campaign but Kevin Rudd has made two commitments he must look after during his first term in office that will blow out defence spending.

The first of these directly affects the budget: During the high-stakes poker of the election campaign, Rudd matched Howard’s promises of at least three per cent increases in defence spending annually until 2016. With both sides keen to convince us we live in dangerous times, that means putting more than one billion dollars extra each year into Defence coffers.

The second commitment involves troop deployment. Rudd will withdraw some troops from Iraq, but with increase numbers in Afghanistan. The government has said it will withdraw troops from Timor Leste but with Jose Ramos-Horta’s attempted killers still on the loose, the situation could quickly worsen without Australian support. Labor has also committed to continued to support in RAMSI.

Australia will keep some troops in Iraq. The US has pressurised Australia to keep some symbolic presence in the multi-national command centres in Baghdad and Basra. Australia will also keep up naval and air deployments in the Gulf. Those that will be leaving are a thousand combat troops from the Overwatch Battle Group in Dhi Qar to be withdrawn and re-deployed to Afghanistan.

They will be joining an increasingly sticky situation. After an initial dream run of lack of casualties for several years, the Australian death count has been slowly rising in the last 12 months. Last week, Lance Corporal Jason Marks was the fifth Australian to die, killed by gunfire during a shootout with Taliban forces in Uruzgan.

The political commitment for Afghanistan appears to be there for the long haul. Since the election victory, Kevin Rudd has successfully kept up the unchallenged fiction of his “Iraq war bad, Afghanistan war good” argument. Given the sorry state of both countries in the wake of their invasions by the US this century, there seems little a western military force can do except exacerbate hatreds and delay the inevitable political transitions to hardline Islamist states. There is a consensus that without political dialogue only a long, hard war lies ahead. Yet as a puzzled Andrew Bartlett remarked earlier this year, there is very little public debate about it.

The war in Afghanistan is now almost seven years old. When asked why Australia is still there, Rudd responds in terms of the vague need to contain “threats of terrorism”. This argument fails to understand that the genie is well and truly out of that bottle. The London bombers were home-grown and more likely to have visited a Bora Bora disco in Ibiza than a Tora Bora cave in Nangarhar. Terrorism can no more be contained within Afghanistan’s borders than its copious opium crop.

The war itself has largely escaped without scrutiny in the Australian media as has the fact that President Hamid Karzai is these days little more than the mayor of Kabul. Reliant on the dubious support of various warlords, Karzai is also a marked man and cannot even trust the support of his own police and armed forces as last week’s assassination attempt revealed.

Tom Hyland in the Sunday Age has been one of the few Australian journalists on the ground to try and tell a more complete story. Yesterday, he wrote how prisoners captured by Australian and Dutch troops were tortured after they were handed over to Afghanistan. Australia has no facilities to hold prisoners and the Dutch camp is limited so they handed them over to the National Directorate of Security (NDS). The world knows about the problem because a Dutch journalist obtained documents under FOI that had testimony of prisoner ill-treatment at the hands of the NDS.

Such considered verdicts of what is occurring on the ground in Afghanistan are rare. For most it merely expedient to demonise the “Taliban” as an enemy that must be defeated. The fact that the “Taliban” no longer exists as one single, integrated body is not considered. The John Howard argument (inherited fully by Rudd) was that our troops were helping to save democracy, prevent the setting up of a narco-state and stop terrorism. It has failed on all three objectives.

The Afghan government and their laws are no better than the enemy they fight. Kabul residents are already seeing gradual returns to the Islamic law that they endured in the 1990s. The war, meanwhile has increased Afghanistan’s prominence as a drug exporter. And as for sponsoring terrorism, Afghanistan plays second fiddle to neighbour and supposed-ally Pakistan.

The total casualty figure for the war in Afghanistan is not known but likely to be in the hundreds of thousands. The central objective of Operating Enduring Freedom has not been met. Osama Bin Laden was never located. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has been involved from the outset with bi-partisan support from the main political parties. With a nod and a wink to cricket analogies, the Australian mission is known as “Operation Slipper”.

As of April this year, the ADF has 1,025 personnel in Afghanistan’s slips cordon. Those forces included a national command centre in Kabul, a liaison group at International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters, two task forces in Uruzgan, RAAF surveillance at Kandahar airport and a helicopter group also in Kandahar. There is a small artillery contingent embedded with the British in Helmand. Australia also has federal police and a Secret Intelligence Service station on the ground.

But that is not enough for some politicians. According to then defence minister Brendan Nelson, the 2007 budget handed down an additional $1.3 billion over five years to support the ADF. That massive amount did not include Afghanistan for which another hefty $703 million was found over four years.

Unsurprisingly the Liberals are saying Nelson's replacement Joel Fitzgibbon must protect their defence patch from this year’s cuts. For now Swan has refused to rule out the multi-billion dollar defence budget from being quarantined from the spending reductions. But Rudd's election promise means the Afghan war will be spared the razor.