US Bombers to
Australia
By Binoy Kampmark
May 18, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" -
The language never reflects the actual conduct. Deploying weapons
to a region in greater numbers is not seen as provocative, even if
placing such items in a theatre of operations is bound to get
neighbours nervous. This is particularly the case about the US
“rebalance” in the Asia-Pacific. “The ongoing deliberations,” notes
John J. Hamre of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies,
“are shaped more by the legacy of the past (for example arguing
about where to relocate particular facilities) than by the security
imperatives of the next thirty years.”
In the background, China lurks as both threat and opportunity – as
long as the appropriate moves are made on its part to accommodate
the wishes of Washington and its allies. Grow and flourish, by all
means but do so within neatly demarcated parameters of power
interests. Enemies can be refashioned and rebranded overnight, even
if they do tend to hold the credit strings.
This is the backdrop of the remarks made last week
by David Shear, the US Defence Department’s Assistant Secretary for
Asian and Pacific Security Affairs. Before the US Senate Foreign
Relations Committee on Wednesday, Shear explained that Washington
would “be placing additional air force assets in Australia as well,
including B-1 bombers and surveillance aircraft.”[1] This was in
addition to the further deployment of military and marine units in
the Western Pacific. Were these the bugles of war sounding?
“We will have a very strong presence, very
strong continued posture throughout the region to back our
commitments to our allies, to protect and work with our partners
and to continue ensuring peace and stability in the region, as
well as back our diplomacy vis-à-vis China on the South China
Sea.”
A few trembles could be felt at this announcement
in Canberra, despite the continuing fantasy on the part of officials
down under that the US presence in the region somehow acts as one of
stability. “I see the greater presence of the US in our part of the
world as a force of stability,” insisted Prime Minister Tony
Abbott. “Australia’s alliance with the US is a force for
stability.” Naturally, the alliance wasn’t “aimed at anyone” in
particular.
This is a point reiterated by the policy wonks and
members of the Obama administration while insisting that US power is
fundamental. As Vice President Joe Biden observed in August 2011 to
members of the 3rd Marine Regiment at Marine Corps Base
Hawaii, “We are a resident Pacific power and we intend to stay that
way. We are not going away.”[2]
While the Abbott government, like other Australian
ones before it, happily endorse a form of bottom feeding lackey
status, the presence of strategic bombers may have been a step too
far, at least for now. The reality remains that any country silly
enough to host powerful, strategic powers is bound to be inviting
itself as a target, not of stability, but concerted instability.
The US-Australian defence agreement countenances
the presence of American troops to operate in the Northern Territory
on a rotational basis. This is a form of semantics in action – the
Australian defence minister, Kevin Andrews, refuses to accept that
the marines have bases in Australia. They are merely “based” for
six-month periods. A spokesman for the minister even went so far as
to claim that the agreement “does not allow US bases to be
established in Australia.” False autonomy and sovereignty is
thereby maintained.
As far as the bombers were concerned, the Prime
Minister made inquiries. “I’ve sought some information about the
testimony provided in Washington by an official. I understand that
the official misspoke and that the US does not have any plans to
base those aircraft in Australia.” A spokeswoman for the US embassy
in Canberra followed up by saying that there were “no plans to
rotate B-1 bombers or surveillance aircraft in Australia.”
This form of parrying and dismissal forms the
staple of diplomatic deception. It is very unlikely that Shear
misspoke at all, expressing, in a moment of utmost clarity, US
ambitions and goals in the Asia-Pacific area. After all, the
expansion of US interests was already being considered in July by
General Herbert Carlisle, chief of the US Airforce in the Pacific.
In time, the US would send “fighters, tankers, and at some point in
the future maybe bombers, on a rotational basis” to Australia.
What goes on in Washington tends to provide a
better barometric reading as to what happens in Canberra – notably
when it comes to the deployment of US marines and other military
assets. The Australian view on the subject is nigh irrelevant.
The only issue, then, is what consequences issue
forth from such statements and consequent actions. The 2012 CSIS
report on the subject of how the Pentagon’s posture in the
Asia-Pacific region should be directed found confusion and
discontinuity, a patchwork of inconsistencies. “DoD needs to
explain the purposes of force posture adjustments in the light of
the new security challenges in the Asia Pacific region.”[3]
There may be nothing so vile as a manufactured
consensus when it comes to policy, but the pundits and planners
continue to do so in those capitals worried about the shift of power
taking place in Asia. The latest, if seemingly inconsistent round
of promised military deployments are ominous, but those in Beijing
will have anticipated them. A response is bound to come in due
course.
Dr. Binoy
Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar
at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University,
Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
Notes:
