Brian Toohey: Australia’s new leader to take a more nuanced approach to Japan’s security stance

Brian Toohey: Australia's new leader to take a more nuanced approach to Japan's security stance

Australia’s new prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, will continue to support moves by Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to reinterpret the nation’s pacifist constitution to allow the country to behave more like a “normal” nation in deploying military force. However, Turnbull is likely to take a more nuanced approach than his predecessor, Tony Abbott.

     Abbott lost a Liberal Party leadership ballot Sept. 14 as concerns grew about his divisive political style, which many members of parliament blamed for the declining popularity of the party’s governing coalition with the smaller National Party. The coalition is well behind the Labor Party opposition in opinion polls.

     Abbott wanted a more muscular Japanese military posture to counter growing Chinese power, although he avoided bluntly saying so — China is Australia’s biggest export market. Turnbull is more relaxed about the rise of China and not as wedded as was Abbott to a government plan to buy submarines from Japan.

China chill-out

Turnbull has given a more detailed critique than has any senior Australian politician of what he regards as alarmist fears about China. Although preferring a less assertive Chinese approach to disputes over offshore territorial claims, his basic theme is that China has no reason to deviate from its stated nonexpansionist policy. He says the country is entitled to improve the limited capability of its navy to protect its busy trade routes, particularly given that it imports 80% of its oil through choke points such as the Malacca Strait. 

     The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, accepts Japan’s constitutional reinterpretation, but said he would be “uncomfortable at any undertone” that it forms some sort of “containment strategy” against China.

     The Australian public seems to have taken little notice of the changes that may enable Japanese troops to fight overseas. Nor is the public currently worried about China. A recent national opinioni poll by the Lowy Institute, a leading independent think tank, found that 77% of Australians see China as “more of an economic partner to Australia” than a “military threat.” In the event of a military conflict between China and Japan, 84% said Australia should remain neutral.

     Turnbull and Shorten reflect a now influential strand of Australian strategic thinking that sees a further buildup of military forces around China as increasing the risk that an accidental clash offshore could escalate into a major war. In contrast, Abbott’s approach reflected concerns that the growth in China’s military spending could allow it to dominate the region. The counter view among Australia security analysts is that there will be little change in the overall strategic balance — countries such as India, South Korea, Vietnam, Japan and Australia are also modernizing their military forces, while the U.S. is shifting more of its assets to the Asia Pacific.

     The wording of Japan’s original pacifist constitution can look rather quaint to Australians, whose troops are often deployed far from home. However, parts of the wording are remarkably similar to sections of core documents meant to constrain Australian military deployments.

Words, deeds

Article 1 of the Anzus treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. obliges the parties “to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means and to refrain . . . from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” Before the reinterpretation, Article 9 of the Japanese constitution required the country to renounce the “threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.” However, the Anzus treaty’s unambiguous wording did not stop the U.S. and Australia (and the U.K.) from invading Iraq in 2003 without the U.N. Security Council’s approval, as international law also required.

     On the face of it, Abe’s security bills do not support the notion that “normal” behavior could involve invading a country that posed no threat to Japan. At this stage, there are no indications that Abe believes that being a “normal” nation means, for example, that Japan must behave as aggressively as Australia did in participating in the Vietnam War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

     Perhaps examples like these help to explain why Abe is having trouble convincing the Japanese public that the legislation puts significant constraints on what the Japan Self-Defense Forces can do. But Abe, or his successors, could find that hawkish future governments in the U.S. and Australia exert intense pressure on a “normalized ” Japan to join them in a future combat role in the Middle East.

     An article in the latest issue of Washington Quarterly strongly supports what it calls Abe’s “evolutionary” changes, but warns, “Washington must recognize that significant constraints on JSDF operations persist. Failure to appreciate the limitations risks an expectations gap that could undermine recent progress, or in a crisis even the [U.S.-Japan] alliance itself.”

     On broader security issues, it would not be surprising if Turnbull responds to budgetary pressures by slowing the rate of increase in Australia’s defense spending. Abbott increased defense spending by 6% in real terms in 2015-16. This compares to overall growth in government spending of only 0.9%, while outlays on education and scientific research is projected to fall in later years.

     Given the costs and risks of a continued military buildup in the region, Turnbull might also be attracted to suggestions that he should revisit a 1990 proposal made by Gareth Evans, then Australia’s foreign minister, for an Asian security and cooperation agreement based on the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which reduced tensions between the Soviet bloc and the West. But the U.S. opposed the idea in 1990 and change now would require a concerted diplomatic effort.

     In this regard, it is important to realize that the Liberal Party deputy leader Julie Bishop played a key role in helping Turnbull replace Abbott. Although Turnbull has well developed views on many international issues, including China’s rise, Bishop remains Australia’s foreign minister. Turnbull will not lightly overrule what she wants to do.

Brian Toohey, a Sydney-based commentator on defense, economic and political issues, was editor of the former National Times. He is co-author of “Oyster: The Story of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service.” 

Brian Toohey: Australia's new leader to take a more nuanced approach to Japan's security stance