By Isaac Zammit 

In the contemporary geopolitical landscape, the tendency towards militarisation has become a focal point for concern for all global peace advocates and policymakers alike. This trend, marked by escalating military expenditure and a predisposition towards armed conflict as a means to resolve international disputes, calls for a reassessment of our thinking on national defence. Australia, traditionally aligned with the United States in its military endeavours, finds itself at a critical juncture, necessitating a pivot from a posture of militarisation to one that promotes diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution. This imperative is not only underscored by the moral and ethical considerations inherent in Catholic teaching but also by the practical realities of contemporary international relations, such as the dispute over the South China Sea. 

The notion of a ‘just war” has undergone a significant evolution, particularly in light of Pope Francis’ unequivocal stance against war as a means to achieve peace. In his reflections, Pope Francis has highlighted the moral bankruptcy of war, emphasising the irreparable harm inflicted on innocent civilians and the broader societal consequences of military conflict. His assertion that “wars are always unjust” (Vatican News 2023) should be used as a moral compass in today’s world, strung with rising tensions and geopolitical conflict, encouraging alternate forms of conflict resolution. His critique of the justifications commonly used to rationalise military interventions -under the guise of defence, humanitarianism, or preventative action- calls into question the ethical underpinnings of contemporary warfare. The moral imperative for peace and the respect of human life necessitates a reevaluation of our national defence strategies, necessitating a shift towards diplomacy and negotiation as the primary forms of conflict resolution.

The trend towards militarisation is not confined to theoretical or ethical discussion but is rampant within the current state of the world’s foreign policy. The historical trajectory of American foreign policy, characterised by a shift from territorial conquests to regime change and nation-building missions, exemplifies a broader pattern of utilising military force as a primary instrument of diplomacy. This trend is still evident in the foreign policy practices of the US today. Since 2001, America’s rivals have sought to deescalate armed disputes, while the United States has found success in encouraging their escalation (Toft & Kushi 2023). Australia’s alignment with US military initiatives, particularly seen in the context of Scott Morrison fueling tensions within the South China Sea regarding Taiwan (Calderwood 2023), reflects a concerning adherence to these US diplomatic strategies founded and developed on threats, intimidation, and violence.

The South China Sea dispute serves as a poignant illustration associated with militarisation in international relations. The critique offered by Michael Walker (2023) highlights the tension between the rhetoric of a rules-based international order and the reality of militarised posturing within the region. Australia’s participation in US-led military manoeuvres, rather than championing diplomatic solutions, underscores a missed opportunity for peaceful conflict resolution. This scenario not only exacerbates regional tensions but also deviates from successful historical presidents for resolving territorial disputes through diplomacy and negotiation, such as the Antarctic Treaty model, which effectively managed sovereignty claims and fostered cooperation in a potentially contentious region, offering a blueprint for a diplomatic approach within the South China Sea and other international disputes. 

Michelle Fahy’s (2023) exposé on Australia’s defence expenditure lays bare a deep-seated issue of financial mismanagement and ethical lapses in the nation’s defence spending. The investigation uncovers a disconcerting pattern of budget overruns, conflicts of interest, and a lack of procedural integrity, which collectively paint a picture of a defence budget that is not only bloated but fundamentally flawed in its prioritisation and execution. The Hunter-class frigate program, with its ballooning costs exceeding the original $34 billion estimate by upwards of 35%, exemplifies this inefficiency, highlighting a systemic problem where enormous sums are allocated to defense contracts that ultimately fail to deliver proportional security benefits or value for the taxpayer’s dollar.

This revelation, along with the others, underscores the critical need for a comprehensive reassessment of Australia’s overall spending on defence and foreign affairs, advocating for a shift towards a leaner, more focused allocation of resources. A strong method of achieving that is by emphasizing diplomacy and international engagement over traditional military might (Villarreal & Haros-Pérez, 2023). That is not to say Australia should do something as radical as abolish its military; rather, the resources allocated to it should be intentional, monitored, and aim to push the sector only as far as it needs to. Such a strategic pivot would not only rectify many current inefficiencies and ethical concerns but also enhance Australia’s national security in a more sustainable, human-centric manner. The dividends of diplomacy mean that Australia doesn’t need to spend as much on unsustainable and underperforming defense projects. Rather, Australia can forge stronger international alliances, address global conflicts through peaceful means, and champion a model of security that prioritizes stability and cooperation over escalation and confrontation. This approach not only promises a more effective use of national resources but also repositions Australia as a pivotal player in advancing global peace and security.

To underscore the feasibility and effectiveness of this pivot, notable examples illustrate how diplomatic efforts can avert conflict and address complex international issues more effectively than military action. These include but are not limited to:

• The Cuban Missile Crisis – In 1962, a tense 13-day standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union over Soviet ballistic missiles in Cuba brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Diplomacy solved the crisis with both superpowers agreeing to remove missiles from Cuba and Turkey, averting a catastrophic conflict

• The Good Friday Agreement – In 1998, this agreement was passed to end decades of conflict in North Ireland known as ‘The Troubles”. The 40 year occupation cost Ireland upwards of £2.5 billion (£100-£380 Billion adjusted for inflation) and the lives of over 3000 civilians (McGee 2021). It covers complex negotiations between the British and Irish governments as well as North Irish political parties. It established a devolved government and laid the groundwork for peace and power-sharing in the region, putting an end to the many years of violence and instability in the region. 

• The Camp David Accords – In 1978, a deal between Egypt and Israel was made, marking a historic peace agreement after years of conflict. Egypt recognized Israel’s right to exist, while Israel agreed to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula, showcasing diplomacy’s power to achieve lasting peace between long standing adversaries and preventing any more loss of life than the 1000-3000 casualties throughout the conflict (Neff 1981). 

• The Comprehensive Peace Agreement – In 2005, to put an end to the Second Sudanese Civil War (One of the continent’s longest-running conflicts), a framework was established to allow for power sharing and autonomy within South Sudan. This led to the nation’s independence in 2011, showcasing the power of negotiation and diplomacy in resolving conflict while addressing the causes for the conflict. 

Even within Australia’s own history, such as its involvement in establishing the ASEAN Regional Forum or the Antarctic Treaty, there are strong examples highlighting the prolonged benefits of diplomatic dialogue and engagement. This approach has been shown time and time again to allow nations to address the root causes of tensions, preserve life, and present a more cost-effective alternative to the overfunded, under-monitored, ethically dubious military industrial complex.

In light of these considerations, the case for Australia to realign its defense strategy to focus more on diplomatic solutions becomes compelling. Such a shift would not only align with the Catholic teaching regarding the rejection of war but also contribute to a more stable economy and peaceful international order. Australia has the opportunity to champion a more peaceful, stable, and just world.