Sinking feeling: is Australia's navy ready for a Pacific conflict?
Australia 's navy has long played a crucial role in the defence of the island continent, whose 34,000km (21,000-mile) coastline is surrounded by the vast Pacific, Southern and Indian oceans and separated from Asia by a narrow strip of water.
Advertisement
But as the threat of conflict in the Asia-Pacific grows, the navy is confronting a 10-year capability gap. With an ageing fleet and dwindling firepower, it has become the focus of an increasingly acrimonious debate about how urgently Australia must prepare for war.
'Australia has no ability to wage a protracted conflict against a powerful adversary,' military historian John Storey told a recent Institute of Public Affairs seminar. 'We cannot replace equipment losses, manufacture our own munitions, we have no capability to ramp up our defence forces in a crisis. And we have minimal capabilities to operate independently of a powerful ally.'
These concerns are amplified by a growing sense that time is running out.
Amid mounting unease over the war clouds gathering in its neighbourhood and growing doubts about America's commitment to even its staunchest allies, Australia – and its navy in particular – is grievously unprepared should predictions of regional conflict prove prescient.
Advertisement
While the navy's personnel are highly trained, its fleet consists of only 10 surface combatants: three relatively new Hobart-class air defence destroyers and seven ageing multirole Anzac-class frigates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
an hour ago
- South China Morning Post
Kenneth Rogoff and Yu Yongding on Trump, the dollar and the rise of the yuan
Welcome to Open Dialogue, a new series from the Post where we bring together leading voices to discuss the stories and subjects occupying international headlines. In this inaugural edition, we invited prominent economists from both sides of the Pacific to reflect on the recent turmoil in global trade, the diminishing role of the US dollar and whether China's yuan could – or should – take its place. Professor Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University has repeatedly warned the US dollar is approaching a crisis of legitimacy. Having written extensively on the global recession in the late 2000s, Rogoff has turned his focus to the US currency's now more unstable place at the top of the world's financial hierarchy. A former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund – and a chess grandmaster – he published Our Dollar, Your Problem in early May. Dr Yu Yongding has been outspoken in his advocacy of a free-floating yuan and broad fiscal stimulus in China. He has also recommended Beijing gradually reduce its holdings of US Treasuries to a level that minimises potential losses. Previously an adviser to China's central bank, he remains an influential voice in policy circles as a senior fellow of the Beijing-based governmental think tank, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. What do you think about the future of the US dollar? Will it remain the dominant global currency? Yu Yongding: It can be asserted that foreign investors' demand for US assets, particularly Treasury bonds, will gradually decline, making it increasingly difficult for the US to sustain its balance of payments and maintain a strong dollar. The US dollar is the world's most important reserve currency. Other countries around the world need to hold a certain amount of US dollars to pay for imports, service debts, intervene in foreign exchange markets and meet unexpected needs. The US dollar is primarily invested by its holders in highly liquid short-term US Treasury bonds. In essence, the dollar is essentially an 'IOU' issued by the US government, backed by its own credit.
Asia Times
3 days ago
- Asia Times
India-EU deal holds key to a new world trade era
The European Union and India have reached consensus on almost half of the topics to be covered by a trade deal they hope to seal this year, according to a report. The India-EU trade deal isn't just about tariffs or trade quotas—it's a cultural cage match between India's vibrant, improvisational spirit and Europe's love for order. And if resolved in a win-win deal, it could rewrite the rules of global trade. This trade pact is more than a deal on goods; it's a daring experiment in fusing two wildly different worldviews: India's adaptive, sometimes chaotic economic approach—rooted in jugaad , the art of making do with what's at hand—with Europe's rigid, regulation-heavy ethos. This tension isn't necessarily a flaw; it's the deal's potential secret sauce. By forcing both sides to confront their blind spots, this agreement could birth a new trade model that values flexibility over cookie-cutter uniformity, giving India a chance to tilt the global economic balance more toward the Global South. Trade deals sound like dusty policy papers, but they're the arteries of the global economy, pumping goods, ideas, and power across borders. With world trade fracturing under US tariff threats and China's constrictive supply chain grip, India and the EU are racing to secure their economic futures. India, with its 1.4 billion people and roaring growth, is no longer a bit player. The EU, a trade giant, needs new partners as old alliances wobble. Recent reports peg the deal's deadline for late 2025, but the real story is how this pact could redefine who sets the terms in a world where emerging powers are flexing their muscles. To understand why this deal matters, consider the broader picture. Global trade is no longer just about who makes the cheapest widgets. It's about who controls the flow of ideas, technology and resources. India's tech sector, for instance, is a powerhouse, with companies like Infosys and TCS already competing globally. The EU wants a slice of that expertise, especially as it pushes for digital transformation. But India's negotiators are savvy—they know their tech and pharmaceutical industries are bargaining chips. By leveraging these strengths, India could secure better terms for its smaller industries, like textiles, which employ millions but struggle against global competition. India's negotiators are playing a bold hand, and it's not just about lowering tariffs on cars or whisky, though those matter (Europe wants India's 100% duties on autos slashed; India wants access for its textiles and pharmaceuticals). The heart of the deal lies in cultural friction. India's refusal to open its dairy and small-farm sectors—vital to millions of livelihoods—challenges the EU's free-market ideals. Indian farmers, often working tiny plots, aren't just economic units; they're the backbone of a rural culture that resists the EU's vision of efficient, large-scale agriculture. This isn't just about milk or mangoes; it's about whether global trade can respect local realities. In India, trade isn't just numbers—it's lives. The dairy sector alone supports over 80 million farmers, many of whom rely on small-scale operations. Opening it up to European competition could devastate rural communities. India's negotiators know this, which is why they're digging in their heels. For the EU, this feels like protectionism, but for India, it's about survival. This push-and-pull isn't just a hurdle; it's a chance to redefine what fairness in trade looks like. Can a deal respect both India's small farmers and Europe's efficient markets? That's the question both sides are wrestling with. Europe, meanwhile, is grappling with its own dogma. Its obsession with predictability—think carbon taxes and strict labor standards—clashes with India's improvisational resilience. Indian businesses, accustomed to navigating red tape and power cuts, see the EU's rules like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (set to hit Indian steel and cement exports in 2026) as a fancy tax on their hustle. Yet, this friction is productive. India's pushback forces the EU to rethink its one-size-fits-all approach, while Europe's insistence on transparency nudges India toward clearer rules. Moreover, the deal could shift power toward the Global South. India, projected to be the world's third-largest economy by 2030, isn't just negotiating for itself. It's setting a precedent. If India can protect its farmers while securing market access for its tech and textiles, other developing nations—say, Brazil or South Africa—might demand similar treatment at the negotiating table. The EU-India trade corridor, already worth 184 billion euros in 2023, could become a blueprint for deals that balance growth with cultural identity. Unlike the UK-India deal, which focuses heavily on whisky and cars, this pact dives deeper, tackling investment protection and geographical indications. The stakes go beyond economics. This deal is a test of whether two vastly different systems can find common ground. For India, it's a chance to prove it can negotiate as an equal, not a junior partner. For the EU, it's about staying relevant in a world where Asia's giants are rising and the US is withdrawing behind protectionist walls. Success here could inspire other trade blocs to rethink their approaches, prioritizing nuance over rigid templates. Failure, though, risks entrenching old power dynamics, where the Global North sets the rules and the Global South scrambles to comply. The India-EU trade deal is a high-stakes drama where two worlds collide—one thriving on chaos, the other craving order. As they hammer out the final chapters, they're not just trading goods; they're trading ideas about how the new world order should work. If they pull it off, the pact could inspire a new kind of global trade—one where the Global South doesn't just follow rules but helps write them. Brabim Karki is an author and businessman and the owner of Mero Tribune media. Follow him on X at @brabim7
RTHK
31-05-2025
- RTHK
Hegseth sparks potshots with Lee-Trump comparison
Hegseth sparks potshots with Lee-Trump comparison Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in the midst of making his speech outlining US strategy in the region at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. Photo: Reuters US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth rankled Singaporeans on Saturday by likening President Donald Trump to the city-state's late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. In a major speech outlining US strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, Hegseth referred to both leaders as "historic men". "Like the late prime minister, President Trump's approach is grounded in common sense and national interests," he said at the Shangri-La Dialogue which gathers key defence leaders from around the world. Lee, a British-trained lawyer, served as Singapore's prime minister for three decades. Hegseth praised his "sage leadership and strategic vision". "That's what common sense policies can achieve, and that's precisely what President Trump's vision is all about." Lee, who turned Singapore into a high-tech industrial and financial centre, remains highly revered in Singapore more than a decade after his death. Social media erupted with loud and acerbic criticism of Hegseth's comparison. "One is historic, the other is hysteric," said one commenter. Another said: "Trump compared to Lee Kuan Yew? That's like saying instant noodles are the same as fine dining." "I felt a tremor just now. Must be LKY rolling hard in his grave," said someone else on social media, using Lee's initials. (AFP)
