Defence chiefs spurned by US on China risk

[darrels joy]

THE CIA and Pentagon rejected the hawkish arguments made by Australia's Defence chiefs about the military threat posed by China during a visit to Washington.

The rebuff robbed the chiefs of the ammunition they wanted to pressure Australia's intelligence agencies to reconsider their dove-like assessment of China and buttress their case for a substantial build-up of the Australian navy.

The Weekend Australian revealed on Saturday that a deep rift emerged last year between Australia's spy agencies and senior defence officials over the threat posed by China.

As part of the preparation of the new defence white paper, the Defence Intelligence Organisation and the Office of National Assessments gave classified assessments on China, arguing that Beijing's military build-up was defensive in nature and unlikely to pose a long-term threat to Australia's security.

This opinion was sharply at odds with the views of senior Defence Department officials, led by white paper author Mike Pezzullo and backed by Defence Department secretary Nick Warner and Defence chief Angus Houston, who saw the rise of China as ominous and argued that this issue should shape the future structure of the defence force.

The Rudd Government yesterday appointed Allan Gyngell, a former diplomat and adviser to former prime minister Paul Keating, as the new head of the ONA.

Mr Gyngell replaces current director-general Peter Varghese, who has taken a more benign view of China's military threat than his opposite numbers in Defence.

Mr Gyngell, who takes up the post on July 13, is currently head of the Lowy Institute.

Mr Varghese, a Howard government appointee, is stepping down at the end of his term and is a frontrunner to become Australia's next high commissioner to India.

Another former ONA chief, Geoff Miller, has publicly backed Mr Varghese's stance in a letter to The Australian published today.

Mr Miller said viewing China as a strategic threat was at odds with Australia's existing policy towards China, which is a major trading partner.

"It is surely the height of hubris to suppose that if China decided, against all expectations, to threaten us militarily, we could deter it or defend against it by our own efforts," Mr Miller writes.

A senior Australian delegation, including Air Chief Marshal Houston and Mr Warner, visited Washington in May to gauge US strategic opinion on issues relevant to the new defence white paper due out at the end of the month.

US sources say the delegation was surprised to learn Washington saw China as less of a potential threat than they did. Instead, they discovered that the CIA and other US agencies, including the Defence Intelligence Agency, agreed broadly with the opinions of Australia's DIO and ONA on China.

Defence officials saw the trip to Washington as an opportunity to recruit US support for their view on China. They expected the US to back their view that China was the new "cold war" and that Australia should be planning force structures around the possibility of a future war with China.

The view of US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the US intelligence agencies was that although China's military build-up needed to be carefully monitored, it should not drive the future structure of defence forces.

"They didn't get any answers from Washington that would support China as the main emerging threat or the need to shape the (defence) force for war against China," one government source observed.

Despite this, Mr Pezzullo and his team have drafted a white paper that is based around the central proposition that China could pose a significant long-term threat to Australia's security.

The white paper calls for a powerful boost in naval and air force capability, including the $100billion-plus acquisition of 12 new-generation submarines, 100 joint strike fighters and new frigates and destroyers.

This focus on conventional forces is in sharp contrast to the changing direction of US strategy, which is now emphasising unconventional conflicts, such as in Afghanistan, rather than traditional wars between nations.

Additional reporting: Mark Dodd
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-31477,00.html