Sydney Morning Herald December 6, 2003
High-cost Plan Short On Details Of Threats
By Marian Wilkinson
The question over joining the US missile defence system is who does the system protect Australia from?
The Pentagon has welcomed Australia's decision to join the missile defence system, but US critics questioned whether the financial and political cost has been fully spelt out to the Australian public.
"We are pleased with the announcement and we look forward to continuing our work with our allies in Australia", said a Pentagon spokesman.
But Thursday's announcement by the Defence Minister, Robert Hill, and the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, was short on specifics, including whose missiles the system would shoot down. Senator Hill said the investment was needed because "Australia might one day be threatened by long-range missiles".
Mr Downer said the system would deter "rogue states". US defence officials have cited North Korea or unspecified terrorists acquiring nuclear or chemical missiles as the justification for the hugely expensive system.
But US critics say these rogue states should be defined if taxpayers are going to fund the system. John Pike, of the Global Security Network [GlobalSecurity.org], said: "We are not going to be fighting generic 'rogue states', we are going to be fighting specific countries, and for specific political objectives. "
"Unless you can say who you are going to be fighting, you don't know whether the weapon you bought is going to be useful." North Korea's missiles cannot reach Australia but they could reach Japan, for example.
"Just what are Australia's commitments to defend Japan against North Korea? Or what are Australia's intentions regarding the protection of Taiwan against China?" Mr Pike said.
Defence analyst Theresa Hitchens, from the Centre for Defence Information, echoed his remarks: "You can't do a cost benefit ratio if you don't know who your enemy is."
Ms Hitchens said the chances of a terrorist obtaining a long-range missile and successfully aiming it at Australia or another nation was low.
Both analysts saw the Howard Government's decision as, in part, politically motivated.
The Government's decision is controversial because nations such as China believe it could in the future allow the US to launch a pre-emptive strike. China may rapidly expand its offensive missiles to counter any US-led system.
More problematic is whether the technology for the system will work and its enormous cost.
Bigger costs would follow Australia buying into the "sea based" missile defence system, allowing its destroyers to work with the US to defend against missiles from North Korea, Iran or Syria.
Senator Hill confirmed that Australia would be buying an air warfare destroyer, but no decision on its upgrade has to be made for several years.
© Copyright 2003, John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd
