The Defence Strategic Review released this week is a sobering read. You are left to conclude that the risks of another World War are the highest they have been since the end of the last one.
As the authors of the review state, “China’s military build-up is now the largest and most ambitious of any country since the end of the Second World War.”
Yet, something does not add up. The decisions that the government is (or is not) taking do not match the threat of world war.
If the risk of war is so great, why are we doing so little to strengthen our industrial economy?
Nothing displays this strategic dichotomy greater than Australia exporting coal to China again while simultaneously shutting down our own coal fired power stations without adequate replacement.
China builds two coal-fired power stations every week.
Its manufacturers have some of the world’s cheapest power prices. Australian coal is helping to power China’s military build-up that so concerns our defence officials. Meanwhile, despite being blessed with some of the world’s best energy reserves, Australia shut down another coal-fired power station this week at Liddell in NSW.
Australia now has some of the highest power prices in the world.
And, according to our energy regulators we are facing a power gap equivalent to five Liddell coal-fired power stations over the next decade.
We sell China our coal so that they can make the weapons that threaten us and at the same time ban the use of coal here so we cannot defend ourselves.
And our nonsensical energy policies impact our friends too.
Since World War II, Australia has been a reliable supplier to Japan and helped that country rebuild in a peaceful way.
During the last sitting of parliament, the head of Japan’s largest gas company, Inpex, accused the government of threatening world peace through its “quiet-quitting” of the gas business.
As Mr Ueda said, “Alarmingly, the inconvenient truth is most likely that Russia, China and Iran fill the void (left by Australia) … this outcome would represent a direct threat to the rules-based international order essential to the peace, stability and prosperity of the region, if not the world.”
The Defence Strategic Review makes just one “bullet point” reference to Australia’s dire electricity market, and then only in passing by mentioning “energy security” as an element of resilience.
When normally inscrutable Japanese businessmen are being more frank than Australian defence officials, something is very wrong.
Yet the review devotes a whole chapter to climate change.
Indeed, the review treats the risk of climate change on an equal footing to the breakout of war in our region. On what planet other than Venus woulda few hot days be more of a national security risk than thermonuclear war? Our defence officials are not living in the real world.
Despite its “nothing to see here” approach to energy, the government does deserve credit for the acquisition of nuclear submarines. We will become just the seventh nation in the world with a nuclear powered submarine fleet.
But even here we pull our punches. We will be the only one of those seven nations without a domestic nuclear power industry.
How will we attract young people to a career in nuclear if all they have for a career path is six boats?
The Labor Party’s stubbornness on nuclear energy either means the threats of war are not real, or that they are putting their political interests above those of the nation.
Energy policy is so crucial to war that it played a key role in encouraging Putin to invade.
Just like we are doing, Europe had shut down its reliable energy sources(because of climate change) and had become dependent on Russia.
Putin clearly calculated that Europe’s vulnerable state on energy gave him the opportunity to invade.
When President Zelensky wanted Australia to help he asked us to send coal. He did not ask for solar panels.
If we are serious about defending Australia against the threat of war it is time to get serious about developing reliable energy sources.
Our current policy of trying to fight a two-front war against climate and against the threat of China will only mean we lose both.
