Australia seen as key in oceanic struggle

Press, 12 April 1988, Page 30

Australia seen as key in oceanic struggle

By

JOHN TOWNSLEY

NZPA-AAP Melbourne ■ I. ■ r ' ■ ■Hh j . Australia has emerged as a key player in the oceanic struggle between the super-Powers. ! [• [- Whoever controls i Australia could ultimately dominate; not only the Pacific but the rest of the world’s great oceans and vital shipping , routes, strategists told an international [defence seminar hosted by the Instituted of Public Affairs.

The gathering to discuss Soviet qmbitions [in the ... Pacific attracted some of the mos| powerful strategic thinkers to visit Australia. | [ I [ A former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski, spelled [out [the Kremlin vision and the American response. [ [ He said Australia was the oceanic | geo-strategic control ' centre of) (the Great Ocean and whoever was dominant in Australia could j radiate j power through the Pacific, the Atlantic and the' Indian oceans.| [ '!, ■ The Great Ocean is a strategib concept, with Australia at its centre and the continents of Asia, Africa, | North and South ,America arrayed along its [periphery. [ ■ [I l| •

I Dr Brzezinski said that 'in 'the Stalinist !era an article appeared in the |Polish monthly magazine, “Problemy,”} in which the [author divided the globe [into one major landmass' and one major sea, which he called I the ' Great Ocean. | The author wrote:. “On the shores of the Great Ocean in the next centuries will be played out[ the fate of humanity, and to ignore that [in geographic solutions; j or to

give it a false interpretation, is an error not to- be forgiven. '“The weight of international issues will shift increasingly in the direction of trie Great Ocean.’’ [Dr Brzezinski told the seminar, packed with [ some of Australia’s leading strategic thinkers, that he believed the article contained an element [of truth. He warned strategists; to think of the possibility [of a; Moscow-Sydney axis.} [ “There is often a tendency to think of the great expanses of the worlld’s oceans as geostrategicailly irrelevant or as simply a formidable impediment to trie projection of power.

I “That is not at all the case. Oceans are not [an obstacle to but a medium for the projection ! of power. "Australia, and the region of the Pacific i in which Australia .is situated, represent the key to effective domination i of that medium (ocean). ' "This is why the Soviets, now with their recently acquired bluewater fleet, have begun to take so active an interest in establishing footholds in the area and in neutralising the States of [the region in the wider EastWest conflict?' he said. Dr Brzezinski said 'the key geopolitical reality for Australians was not a security brought about! by oceanic insularity. I ' “Instead, it is that Australia derives its profound geostrategic importance from its capability to [affect the attempts of [regional intruders to gain access or dominate vital transoceanic passages.} i “Morever, that importance is growing today. Control over the Great Ocean is increasingly critical because of the grbw-

ing , importance jof the Pacific Basin.” ; 7 j It [is estimated [ that by the mid-1990s trie combined GNPs of the Pacific Basin ; countries will exceed that of! Western Europe." | [ [' Dr Brzezinski! said by the [year 2010, a, mere 22 years from now,' -it was likely J the Pacific Basin would) have the three largest national economies in the .wbrld — the [United States) Japan anti: China — while the Soviet Union would have dropped to fifth place behind; western Europe. ' I■ | “Th'us in the; closing years of this century and in the next, the Pacific Basin [clearly will become ever more important economically and in turn politically and geographically?’ .11 'I ' i The Kremlin’s Pacific Fleet [was the largest of its four [fleets, with! [B4O warships;! 85 } Backfire bombers and nearly 2500 combat aircraft.;) j Dr Brzezinski said that

on any given day about 25 ' Sovie| ships.) were stationed in Cam Ranh Bay; in Vietnam'. This bay was a : Soviet prize , from the Vietnam War, [whose eventual outcome; was not calculated by ; many of America’s leading strategists, according to former United States Naval Secretary, James Webb. He resigned late last month because he disagreed with budgetcutting by the United States! Defence Secretary, Frank Carlucci? I Mr Webb told the conference the Soviets had dramatically increased their ' presence in the Pacific since the fall of

Vietnam, not to protect

their economic interests but; to intimidate other countries and challenge their association with the

■ ■:•!'! H . United'States.; i 1 ; In 'response to) [ the American allegations, the Soviets provided! ii a “U.S.S.R. Ministry qf Defence ! backgrounder’! [to the seminar analysing the Soviet I and United States naval activities in the Pacific. The paper said: ‘‘The chief aim of the [Soviet Pacific Fleet lis to protect th,e Soviet Far East from aggression : from [ the sea. i ■'"ln line with this concept, [the structure and composition of the Soviet Pacific Fleet [are geared to the implementation of various military | tasks, both tactical and strategic, whose only aim is to ensure the defence of the U.S.S.R.” [ ; I The paper (said the fleet had “relatively small amphibious and iparine forces necessary for the defence ofl the [ Soviet coastline.” [ I It said Cam Ranh Bay was a temporary logistic supply station used by Soviet [ ships ' under an agreement with Vietnam. Meanwhile, ; the) first deputy chief! of 7 Soviet naval operations,, ViceAdmiral Dmitry Komarov, told a New Zealand newspaper on the I day [of the seminar that there were no Soviet warships] in[ the South Pacific arid ' no plans to dp manoeuvres there. [ : He said [ the Navy’s main mission was to defend the U.S.S;R. from the sea . and j uphold ! the nation’s interest in [ the world’s oceans. [ ! Vice-Admiral Komarov also denied any suggestion that Soviet [ trawlers collected intelligence fori the U.S.S.R., 'in spite of United States assertions to } the contrary. ! I