Recently I have referred to the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison government emasculating the public service as a source of both expertise and information. Instead, it has increasingly been favouring the private sector, to both 'do stuff' (e.g. providing RATs) and to provide advice.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
One such body has recently attracted my attention, in large part, because it provides advice and information to Minister for Defence Peter Dutton's increasingly hysterical war-mongering as he ramps up fear of a forthcoming war with China. I'm referring to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
ASPI was established by John Howard's government in 2001 to provide "policy relevant research and analysis to better inform government decisions and public understanding of strategic and defence issues".
ASPI has the status of a 'quango': the government appoints its director, which, with its unusual funding arrangements, makes it anything but an independent "think tank".
It receives funding from the Australian and US governments, as well as from private sector sources such as the major players in the US armaments business - what is known as the 'military-industrial complex'.
As a source of advice, it has the government's ear. It has direct and privileged access. As Bruce Haigh, a former diplomat, wrote in Pearls and Irritations, "On strategic policy formation it has supplanted the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT) and Defence".
My point here is that it is, therefore, part of the government's strategy of building up the role of privately funded consultants as it diminishes the role of the public service.
Not surprisingly then it advocates greatly increased defence spending.
For the past five years, it has been dissembling over China's intentions in the region, and it is a conduit for hardline US policy towards China. ASPI has been strident, some might say irrational and unbalanced, in its criticism of China over Taiwan and its alleged treatment of the Uyghurs. It has appeared as if it is trying to outdo its benefactor, the US, in seeking to impress.
ASPI is an important player in helping to prepare Australia for war with China.
Quoted by Alan Macleod in MintPress, John Pilger said: "ASPI has played a leading role, some would say the leading role, in driving Australia's mendacious and self-destructive and often absurd China-bashing campaign. The current Coalition government, perhaps the most right-wing and incompetent in Australia's recent history, has relied upon ASPI to disseminate Washington's desperate strategic policies."
It has also pushed the conspiracy theory that the Chinese government was responsible for the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, and the subsequent cover-up.
ASPI has given enthusiastic support to AUKUS, conveying the impression it was in at the inception of the idea. AUKUS is probably the most ill-advised arrangement that Australia is seeking to get involved in since allowing the United States to establish Pine Gap. It has been said that it is more likely a smokescreen for setting up Australia as a forward US military base for confrontation with China. There is discussion on basing a variety of US combat aircraft in the Northern Territory.
Recently, Australia purchased the M1A2, a heavy tank unsuited for operations in this region. It is said the purchase is designed to allow the training of Australian crews for deployment with the US in the Middle East and Europe. Australia has scrapped its still operational fleet of helicopters and will replace them with new US choppers. All at great expense, of course. AUKUS will give the US unprecedented control over our defence forces (the ADF). It will run all operations directed against China. The possibility of miscalculation leading to war is high. Australia could find itself at war without parliament giving permission, given that we go to war without parliamentary approval. This, of course, is a situation in need of change.
Haigh recently commented in an interview with NetPress that: "ASPI has supplanted the Department of Foreign Affairs in advice to the government. It is feeding straight into the Prime Minister's office on matters of foreign policy, particularly as it relates to China. This is part of the militarisation of Australia and the Australian public service."
In short, ASPI is an important player in helping to prepare Australia for war with China. Would DFAT and defence public servants have given the government different advice? Unfortunately, as both have been gutted of their expertise we'll never know.
