Australia plans big, strong army

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32879, 30 March 1972, Page 11

Australia plans big, strong army

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuier —Copyright? . CANBERRA, March 29.

Australia would maintain sufficient forces to enable future involvement if necessary in insurgent situations in South-East Asia, the Defence Minister (Mr David Fairbairn), said last night.

Mr Fairbairn was tabling a defence White Paper in the House of Representatives. He said that the National Service scheme—under which youths selected by ballot serve two years—-would have to be retained if the regular Army strength was to be maintained in the vicinity of 40,000 men. Mr Fairbairn told Parliament:

"This Government believes that it must retain military capabilities adequate in quantity as in quality. "The Army must maintain a capability to deploy and sustain in operations a task force of three infantry battalions and with adequate in-

dependent capability for combat and logistic support.” In his statement, Mr Fairbairn made the following points: “Very substantial sums” would have to be spent on modem weapon systems and capital installations and facilities during the mid and later 70s.

Great changes in Australia’s external environment meant a shift in priorities towards an increasing measure of self-reliance and the ability to act alone in certain situations. Greater self-reliance would contribute to the second Government policy objective of getting support from greater allies in emergencies going beyond Australia’s capabilities. Australia’s defence policy should not be based on a simple faith in the success of diplomatic efforts of mighty Powers or on the benign intentions of rivals for ideological supremacy among Communist Powers.

Mr Fairbairn said the worst way to protect Australia would be to saddle it with “doctrinaire isolationism” — withdrawing forces not for any good military reason, diplomatic reason, or economic reason—but to satisfy party ideologists.

Australia would continue to support the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty and did not believe in the destruction of the fivepower arrangements between Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia. Practical defence co-opera-tion with Indonesia also was being pursued and cultivated by both countries.

Mr Fairbairn said that one purpose of his statement was to make clear the Government’s policy of strengthening and withdrawing from its international defence associations.

A positive Australian policy founded on an adequate defence effort and on defence arangements or understandings with its neighbours might contribute to confidence and stability in the region.

’’What can be achieved by a

defence programme giving us the ability to project Australian armed strength beyond our continental shores is twofold,” Mr Fairbairn said. “It will give future governments options to have some influence on events in our strategic environment so that we may contribute to the greater security of all countries in that area,” the minister said.

“It will also give Australia the ability to deter direct interference with our insterests except at a certain cost.” None preferred

Mr Fairbairn said that the Australian Government would prefer that Australia not be involved in insurgent situations in South-east Asia at all.

“It is necessary however that, if the national interest in so doing is clearly identified, Australia should have the physical capacity to become involved if any emergency should arise, externally supported, and beyond the capacity of the threatened country to deal with unaided.” Mr Fairbairn said: “It is

necessary that Australia should have the practical opinion to provide — for the Armed Forces of its neighbours, where they are subjected to such threats enemating from beyond their border —the kind of support which will enable those local forces to acquit themselves most effectively against their adversaries." On the Soviet Union, Mr Fairbairn said that he did not regard the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean at present as a direct military threat to Australia. It was a “weapon in a Soviet diplomatic offencive in the littoral states, including those from which vital petroleum supplies are obtained.”

Noting that China was building a nuclear armoury, Mr Fairbairn said: “To help prevent a nuclear war is, we believe, consistent with our first and highest national interests, with our alliances—including our obligations under those alliances—and with our international obligations generally.” ,