Table Of Content

Australia(cid:213)s National Security A Defence Update 2003 report.p65 1 21/2/03, 8:53 Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2003 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2003 to 00-00-2003 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Australia’s National Security: A Defence Update 2003 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Australian Government,Department of Defence,Australia, REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 28 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 ' Commonwealth of Australia 2003 ISBN 0 642 295794 report.p65 2 21/2/03, 8:53 Contents Foreword 5 Introduction 7 A Changed Strategic Environment 8 Global Terrorism 11 The Threat 11 Terrorism in Southeast Asia 12 Australia(cid:213)s Response 13 The Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction 15 A Layered Response 16 A Troubled Region 18 Southeast Asia 18 The South Pacific 20 Papua New Guinea 20 Other Pacific Island Countries 21 Implications for Defence 23 ADF Operations 2002-03 26 report.p65 3 21/2/03, 8:53 4 DEFENCE UPDATE 2003 report.p65 4 21/2/03, 8:53 Australia(cid:213)s National Security: A Defence Update Foreword This statement follows from the Government(cid:213)s consideration of Australia(cid:213)s strategic interests two years after the release of the Government(cid:213)s Defence White Paper, Defence 2000: Our Future Defence Force. It recognises and sets out our responses to the salient features in our changing security environment: the emergence of new and more immediate threats from terrorism and increased concerns about the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This statement also addresses our continuing concerns about developments in our immediate region which have consequences for Australia(cid:213)s interests. Since the horrific attacks of September 2001 and October 2002, the Government has taken steps to improve security, both domestically and internationally. Senator the Hon Robert Hill These actions, which include Minister for Defence increased funding to intelligence agencies, improved immigration controls, new Defence capabilities to combat terrorism and improvements in airline security, have quickly and effectively responded to some of the major threats which have emerged. This statement reviews the implications for Australia(cid:213)s defence posture. It concludes that while the principles set out in the Defence White Paper remain sound, some rebalancing of capability and expenditure will be DEFENCE UPDATE 2003 5 report.p65 5 21/2/03, 8:53 necessary to take account of changes in readiness and mobility, on Australia(cid:213)s strategic environment. This interoperability, on the development and rebalancing will not fundamentally enhancement of important new alter the size, structure and roles of the capabilities and, where sensible and Defence Force, but it will inevitably prudent, a reduced emphasis on result in increased emphasis on capabilities of less importance. Senator the Hon Robert Hill Minister for Defence 6 DEFENCE UPDATE 2003 report.p65 6 21/2/03, 8:53 Introduction On releasing the 2000 Defence White What is already clear is that while the Paper, the Government undertook to Defence White Paper focused on the review our defence posture periodically development of capabilities for the to ensure Australia continues to have Defence of Australia and its National the appropriate mix of concepts, Interests, two matters - terrorism and the capabilities and forces to meet new spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, challenges as they arise. including to terrorists - have emerged to new prominence and create renewed In just over two years since the Defence strategic uncertainty. In addition, some White Paper was released, we are in no adverse trends in our immediate doubt that the strategic landscape has neighbourhood have continued. changed. The question for Defence is whether the strategic tasks which have The changed strategic and security underpinned Defence planning and environment requires responses from a capability development - the defence of number of government agencies. This Australia, operations in the immediate update considers mainly the challenges neighbourhood, coalition operations posed by these changes in our strategic further afield and peacetime national environment and the implications for tasks - still provide a sufficiently firm the Australian Defence Force (ADF). but flexible foundation for planning and capability development, particularly when addressing today(cid:213)s threats. Tactical Assault Group DEFENCE UPDATE 2003 7 report.p65 7 21/2/03, 8:53 A Changed Strategic Environment While strategic competition between notably Japan, the consequences for nations has not gone away, major power regional stability could be greater if relations have generally become more growth stalled or there was social stable. The combination of US military breakdown within China. and economic might and converging The potential for conventional military national priorities in eliminating conflict remains in North Asia. terrorism have increased the focus of the Notwithstanding progress towards major powers on cooperating to advance improved relations between North and shared interests. Russia and the United South Korea over recent years, the States have put their Cold War Korean peninsula remains a potential confrontation fully behind them with a flashpoint. Warning time of a conflict new framework for cooperation, based might be short, especially if North on shared security interests and Korea(cid:213)s nuclear ambitions and reductions in their strategic nuclear brinkmanship keep tensions high. capabilities. Russia(cid:213)s acceptance of For the time being it seems likely that NATO enlargement, and its improved the issue will be managed through relationships with the EU and other peaceful means. Western treaty organisations, bode well for continued stability across much of Washington(cid:213)s strong international the European continent. posture since September 2001 is evoking Despite tensions early in 2001, US-China popular anti-Americanism, and not just relations have stabilised. But strategic in Muslim countries. So far, hostility is competition between the US and China more a complication in US management will continue over the of international next decade, and the relations than a major possibility of limitation on US miscalculation over primacy. Even if Taiwan persists. broad international While China(cid:213)s support for the US economic rise will declines, this will not pose challenges for prevent Washington some countries over pursuing a purposeful the next decade, Operation Slipper — on patrol in Afghanistan agenda against 8 DEFENCE UPDATE 2003 report.p65 8 21/2/03, 8:53 serious terrorist, US strategic WMD or other dominance, the threats. threat of direct military attack on Australia and the Australia is less US continue to than it was in 2000. share many values Paradoxically, and interests, and however, in some we jointly benefit other important from, and Operation Slipper deployment in the Gulf ways, certainty and contribute towards, predictability have global stability and prosperity. decreased because the strategic Australia(cid:213)s defence capability is advantage offered by our geography enhanced through access to US does not protect Australia against rogue information and technology. Our states armed with WMD and long-range relationship with the United States ballistic missiles. Nor does it protect remains a national asset. The United Australia from the scourge of terrorism. States(cid:213) current political, economic, and In some regions of high strategic military dominance adds further weight significance to Australia, notably North to the alliance relationship. The alliance Asia and the Middle East, it is still increases Australia(cid:213)s ability to conceivable that conflict could occur, contribute effectively to coalition directly affecting Australia(cid:213)s interests. operations. Less strategic certainty means that our As a result of a combination of factors emphasis must be on having the including greater stability in major flexibility and adaptability to answer power relations and increased the unexpected as much as the expected. DEFENCE UPDATE 2003 9 report.p65 9 21/2/03, 8:53