The Australian Republican doctrine is built upon, amongst others, principles of independence, autonomy and the belief that Australian solutions to Australian issues are superior. Australian foreign policy has been afflicted for a century by the "Great and Powerful Friends" doctrine. This foreign policy has been a constant failure, has weakened Australian military capability and is not compatible with Republican principles. Consequently the Australian military needs revision.

Australian Republican Doctrine

Australian Republican doctrine is founded on several basic principles that have wider application. These principles have been the basis for Australian Republican doctrine for the last two hundred years and serve as a powerful conduit for individual, cultural and political growth. They are;

• Independence
• Autonomy
• Inviolable Rights
• Equity under the Law
• Australian solutions to Australian issues are superior.
• Self-confidence on the global stage.

These have been achieved at the individual, social and cultural levels - it is only our government that lags behind us. The areas where the government is dragging the ball and chain of the 16th Century with them is in the areas of constutition, foreign policy and military policy. The latter two are entwined issues and need a good dose of Australian Republican doctrine to straighten them out.

Foreign Policy

Australian Governments have used the "Great and Powerful Friends" doctrine of foreign policy since Billy Hughes used Britain's influence at Versaille in an attempt to further Australian international interests. This foreign policy is a failure and has been for a century. As Gareth Evans said;

The ... underlying reality about Australian foreign policy in the contemporary era is that we have very little capacity to advance our interests, however defeined, by relying on our great and powerful friends. Those days are over. Our great and powerful friends have interests of their own.

Evans is incorrect, those days never even existed. One of the worst aspects of the foreign policy is how it defrays Australian military self-sufficiency. The most critical example of this was in 1942 when Australia found itself without a navy to challenge for blue water superiority. Australia also lacked an air-force that could defend Australia.

In 1942 the Royal Navy was tied up in Europe. The Australian Navy was an ad-hoc collection of cruisers that were not capable of command and control, they were themselves designed to slot into a larger British capital ship group. In terms of aerial projection, Australia was defending New Guinea with one fighter squadron. Australia was undefended by any Australian fighter aircraft - fortunately the US supplied a couple of their squadrons to defend Darwin until 1943.

Richard Williams had established an Australian aerospace industry which ultimately produced the CAC Boomerang "Panic Fighter" in late 1942. Without that foundation, the Boomerang would never have appeared. Williams had to fight with the Navy and Singapore for funding. In the 1930s, the Australian Government indulged in defence on the cheap, and what money it did allocate to the Australian military, it gave eighty percent of it to the Navy and Singapore. Both the Navy and Singapore were dismal flops in WWII because they were designed around our "Great and Powerful Friend".

Force Multipliers

Modern capability and projection is a networked affair of multiple inputs that sum to be greater than the parts. Until Australia invests fully in force multipliers it will be a second rate force unable to operate independently or sustainably. What is a force multiplier? From the Fundamentals of Australian Aerospace Power;

Force Multipliers provide external capabilities to increase the effectiveness of combat systems.

In an aerospace context, Air to Air Refueling (AAR) is an example of this. It allows an airborne combat system to increase its endurance, and consequently its capability. Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) is another example. Space based communications and surveillance systems another. These are areas that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is highly deficient.

Our tankers are converted 707 from the 1960s. We are only just getting AEW&Cs, and we have no space based capability. We are dependent upon the United States leasing us space capability when we need it. Both major factions - Liberal and Labor - place heavy weight in their political defence doctrine on the United States leasing us what we need when we want it. Even small and simple systems. This is not unlike the Australian Government in the 1930s expecting the Royal Navy to sail into the Pacific en-masse when needed.

Behind The Times

The lack of high-tech systems has been an ongoing issue for Australian combat systems. From "Highest Traditions", an example of an Australian Canberra bomber in Vietnam not having the latest technology putting the crew in peril;

[They] ... were flying ... close to the Loation border ... just as they turned left ofr the attack, the sky to their immediate 2 o'clock position lit up with angry fireballs of flak. .... A hurried call to their United States ground radar controller that they were taking heavy AAA solicited the query, "Roger Magpie, confirm that your ECM gear is on?". The navigator quickly countered: "What ECM? We're a bloody Canberra!"

ECM is electronic counter measures that jams the enemy systems that try to get a firing solution on the aircraft.

Weakened Australia

Another issue that is ongoing with Australian procurement of American weapon systems is that there are so many restrictions placed on it. Every US Senator puts their own little piece of legislation on export of military technology so that Australia is unable to procure complete systems.

The consolidation of the US Defence industry also means that Australia's bartering position against these giant American firms is weakened - to the point that Australia has trouble getting source code from firms like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics.

The large US Defence firms also reduce Australian engineers to integrators of American technology. Of all the defence projects mentioned in the 2003 Defence Budget, only one partnership - between Australia and the UK for a missile system - involved genuine technology sharing. The rest were integration projects.

A Military Doctrine

The "Great and Powerful friends" foreign policy doctrine is a meme that must die. It is the complete anti-thesis of Australian Republican doctrine. The "Great and Powerful friends" is dependent, subservient, weakening and a good example of the Australian political cringe. So that both major factions do not rely on this reflexive cringe any longer, it is important that the Australian military become a capable force based on independent strategic doctrine, autonomous capability and sustainable projection power.

The only way this can be achieved is if Australia creates a technologically perfect force that matches our regional needs. We are not alone in this need. Many of our Asian neighbours are also disenfranchised from American foreign policy and the US Defence industries. Japan recently changed a law that prohibited their defence industry from exporting military technology. This was so they could join in projects that required technology sharing. The oppurtunities are there for Australia to partner in new technology sharing defence projects to fill our capability and projection gaps.

Australian military spending on defence needs to increase by forty percent. This will add approximately six billion to the defence budget. This is an affordable increase that must - and I repeat - must go to research and development. Not toward procurement of American weapon systems. Australia must develop its own technologies or partner with like-minded countries in genuine technology sharing projects with this money. It is not for useless big ticket items that the Navy and Army lust after.

The six billion is a subsidy to applied science and engineering which is essential in any high-tech economy. This coupled with business managers that can turn an R&D dollar into a product/service dollar it makes for a powerful economy. Capitalism is geared toward technology, and it rewards innovative business models that leverage technology. The dot-com boom of the 1990s was on the back of the internet. A classic disruptive technology. The internet came from US Military engineering investment in DARPA and European applied science investment in CERN.

Conclusion

The sustained funding of military technology and military research and development will give the Australian Defence Force the systems it requires to become an independent, autonomous and sustainable force. It will remove the anti-Republican "Great and Powerful Friends" doctrine from Australian foreign policy. Finally it will advance Australia away from a commodity-based "hole in the ground" economy toward a high-tech economy that has an increased possibility of supplying the world with the next disruptive technology.

cam

South Sea Republic is the leading google search for Republican Doctrine . The second entry on that search links to the online opinion forum from an article on the same subject. The American Republican Party has one of the world's biggest, wealthiest and efficient party political war machines, and some upstart Australian website is gazumping them with respect to republican doctrine on teh internets .

I stated a while ago that ;

I would argue that the decentralised data networks will flatten the present system of status entirely, making us all equal, and wiser for it.

It certainly flattened traction between South Sea Republic and the American Republican Party when searching on "republican doctrine" in this instance. That is a good thing though, the American Republic Party are not very Republican, in fact, like most political parties, they are more authoritarian than anything else. The ghost of James Madison is desperately needed to haunt that party.

From Multitude;

The idea of Republican virtue has from its beginning been aimed against the notion that the ruler, or indeed anyone, stands above the law. Such exception is the basis for tyranny and makes impossible the realisation of freedom, equality and democracy.

I would add prosperity to this list too.

The rule of law is a constant theme on South Sea Republic. For this reason an Australian Republican, as should any Republican, rejects that a state of exception exists when a nation is at peace, at war, or under external pressure of any kind. The rule of law is more precious than the ability of a government to act outside of the law.

The best example of not giving into despotic passions is James Madison in the war of 1812. Despite great pressured to do so, he would not relent his principles or the nations Republican virtue. He was firmly of the belief that doing so would make America and its people weaker. It was only through the embrace of Republican virtue that the American people were stronger than the invading British. History proved him correct.

Western governments faced with the problem of terrorism have quickly cast aside their virtue and plunged headlong into a permanent state of exception. As Giorgio Agamben argues, it has become a governing paradigm, rather than a temporary anomaly as the story of Cincinnatus tells us.

Gary Sauer-Thompson calls this method of governing the national security state as this embrace of security which can jump outside the rule of law allows for externally and internally focused exceptions of law. Government exceptionalism becomes all pervading. Agamben writes;

... the state of exception is not defined as a fullness of powers as pleromatic state of law, as in the dictatorial model, but as a kenomatic state, an emptiness and standstill of the law.

James Madison was able to reject this vice when he was President of the United States and facing war against the biggest super-power of the time. He was true to his Republican principles. The fall into governing in a state of exception as has happened in Australia and other Western democracies is a perversion.

It is anti-republican and anti-democratic.

One of the problems with the Dutton/Horne style of republicanism which has dominated politics since the 1950s is that it develops no doctrine. It says little more than remove the Queen to make Australia complete. On South Sea Republic we have been developing a republican doctrine, that has wider political application beyond removing the the monarchy from our system of government. One that can inform policy in areas such as foreign, economic, defence, constitutional, federalism etc etc.

The original left were the French Republicans who happened to sit on the left side of the Assembly. There was a time, many centuries ago, when republicanism was radical, but only because it replaced monarchy and aristocracy. Looking on the principles of Australian Republican doctrine that have been written about here over the last couple of years, just how radical are they? Are they conservative? Do they defy ideological closeting? Or is Australian Republicanism just catch-up with past global lessons in social and political organisation?

So what are some of the principles in an Australian Republican doctrine?

• Rule of law This is hardly radical, it is the basis of liberal democracy. One of the problems is that modern political system has been using the state of exception and arbitrary government to get around this principle . A republican system would close these holes or flaws in the political system at the constitutional level.
• Autonomy This is the basis for strong federalism as political organisation, as opposed to confederacy or unitary government (ie one national government and no states). This means that governments have to be entirely autonomous, basically, they cannot tax for other governments. Currently our federal government taxes for the states and then hands it back as GST and Commonwealth Grants to the point that 50% of NSW's budget comes from the federal government. This is an impediment to governments acting independently and innovating in policy. Money always comes with strings attached.
  At the moment, federalism remains the best form of nation-state political organisation, until that changes, republicanism is equated with pure federalism. So is it radical? No. Federal systems have existed for many centuries? Is it conservative? In Australia maybe, but only so much as it means enforcing the political system as it was intended to be in 1901.
  Where else does autonomy apply? The individual. It is the belief that the individual knows what is best for themselves. This is a natural extension of liberty and liberalism. if the government is interfering in an individuals life and liberty it better have a bloody good reason for it, an even then, that reason in 99.9% of cases is not good enough. The onus is on government, not the individual, to explain why it this infringement is necessary.
• Inviolable Rights Australia is one of the few nation-states that has fought off a bill of rights. Rights are exemptions from legislative tyranny and executive oppression. The are an area of executive and legislative action that cannot, under any circumstance, be infringed upon. Simple things such as freedom of association; habeous corpus; discrimination on the basis of colour, religion or sexuality; peaceful protest; etc etc. Is this radical? No. Is this conservative? No. Not in the Australian political tradition anyway. America has had a bill of rights for several centuries now.

• Equity Under The Law A simple principle where all are equal under the eyes of the law. Predominantly applied to common law. This is where republicanism and nationalism depart ways. Australian Republicanism is universal in its approach to rights and citizenship, making no distinction between any individual under the jurisdiction of a government. Nationalism, in contrast, makes the citizen privileged, able to vote, and participate in the polis under the presumption of assimilation. Under republicanism, if you are of the age of majority, and under the jurisdiction of the government then you are a citizen of the polis and entitled to vote and run for public office.
  Is this conservative? No. Is it radical? Only as much as Immanuel Kant mentioned this several centuries ago.

• Decentralisation This ties up partly with autonomy and provincialism, as power, especially political power, has a natural entropy to the centre, or highest political form of government, whether executive or national. Political systems naturally try to centralise. This increases instability and vulnerability of the political system. The Australian experience in on-going collapse of power to the federal government is a result of a poorly written constitution, federal hostility to the states, and political state complicity in avoiding hard political decisions. The first and second components are holes that can be closed constitutionally by an improved constitution over our current 'horse and buggy' constitution.
  Is decentralisation radical? No. It is conservative? Only so much as we have a federalist system now that has largely broken its bounds.
• Australian solutions to Australian issues are superior This is provincialism, or in other words, local politics works. Provincialism is different to nationalism as it doesn't require assimilation; or shared language or culture. When there is genuine shared interests there is positive network effects that go beyond social cohesion or unitary ethnicity. The individual by having a shared interest, is not nurtured by the current system, but instead, manages to participate and have effects beyond what an individual would be expected to otherwise.
  Is this radical? Maybe, it is holistic in its approach as opposed to conservatism which would require the system itself nurturing the individual by giving them a history and a heritage. Is it conservative? Probably, other than federal politics, people act in this manner anyway. It is mainly in the area of foreign and defence policy that Australia falls down in this.
• Self-confidence on the global stage The cringe must go. We had the cultural cringe in the past, and now we have the political cringe. This is over-represented by the great and powerful friends doctrine , as well as the anglo-sphere boosters. Australians have out-innovated others in so many areas that we need to view Australia on as a global innovator.
  Australia is both an immigrant and diasporan nation. Our diasporans march across the globe in a humble self-confidence, achieving no matter where they go. They are an integrated part of globalisation but do not lose their connection home. Our politicians need to find this same courage in foreign policy.
  Is this radical? No, not really. Is this conservative? No, not really.
• Efficient Social Organization This is a Harpurian principle. Charles Harpur believed that everyone was republican, and capable of being fully moral and ethical, except that the form of government can ensure that its own negative passions are reflected in the behaviour of its people. A good recent example of this is when I as in a business meeting and when an issue was raised that needed to be taken to a customer, with possibly adverse effects, the question was asked, "How can we spin this?"
  Charles Harpur sought the maximum and most efficient form of social organisation that was possible in order for people to find the the faith that is in them . He argues that the form of government can be as oppressive, and behaviourally iinhibiting, as its actions. From this stems the principle that maximum liberty is a necessary pre-cursor to prosperity.
  Is this radical? No, Harpur wrote these things in the mid 1800s. Is it conservative? Not really, liberty is a universal value after all.

There are many more, but that covers the main ones. Is Australian Republicanism radical, conservative, or neither? Most of the principles have been put into practice by other nation-states many centuries before, so they are nothing new. If anything they are playing catch-up, which is what the Australian political system needs to do anyway, we missed too many of the innovations of the enlightenment when federalised in 1901.

Republicanism still has a stigma for radicalism in Australia, that belies, and buries, its pragmatic nature. Really though, it is just common-sense.

cam