FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Michael Hillard’s WA AGM Keynote
DR PAUL READ
Under this apposite yet provocative title, defence and economics analyst Michael Hilliard got straight to the point when delivering his keynote at the WA branch AGM on 25 May, 2023. There was no mincing of words as he described a global system in exponential crisis.
Before embarking on this cheery topic, Michael warned us he’d be offering up fancy graphics and depressing stats. He didn’t disappoint. Launching directly into the evidence supporting his provocative title, “If we asked the general public where the wars are at present?” he asked.
“Few know.”
Michael then outlined the true (and growing) global state of conflict, both within and across borders and pointed out that none of them are driven by the ubiquitous insanities of conspiracy theorists but rather follow a number of geopolitical principles that can be modelled and logically predicted. One such principle is the idea of a geopolitical pendulum in which destabilisation in one area quickly leads to destabilisation in bordering areas, leading to exponential escalation of conflict.
He said the model was relatively stable before 2001, after which the geopolitical pendulum began to swing. Before describing the current state of play, one such early example he gave was the rise of al-Shabaab during the 2006–2009 Somalia War. Allied to al-Qaeda, it has waged war within Somailia and against occupying Ethiopia. Michael said peacekeepers of Ethiopia and Rwanda were subsequently displaced by the civil war in the south of Somalia, leaving a vacuum ripe for take-over. As the peacekeepers decamped, the civil war simultaneously incited flight of civilians into surrounding areas such as Kenya, broke the local infrastructure, which then bred its own rebellion movement in Kenya. This was fed into al-Shabaab’s goal of establishing Islamic power uniting ethnic Somali populations of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti. And thus, multiple coups and rebellions ensue.
Michael noted that similar processes incited Islamist insurgencies rippling across the Sahel region of West Africa since the 2011 Arab Spring, affecting Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso. He said that when war breaks out it breeds conflict in surrounding states, especially when complicated by refugee movements and shifting power dynamics leaving vacuums in their wake. He said the Sahel belt showed exactly this kind of domino effect, further inciting flashpoints over new and old border disputes.
You can view the presentation by Michael Hilliard below.
With this model in mind, Michael demonstrated the top five drivers of war in the current and near future geopolitical climate, and how the standard modelling might play out under different scenarios based on defence intelligence. He listed these top five scenarios as follows:
1. Russia wins the Ukraine
2. China seizes Taiwan
3. Gaza escalates
4. Foreign investment shifts
5. Trump
The combined effect could be conflagration at a rapid pace. The first, he warns, is that Putin takes Ukraine without consequences. After 80 years more or less of stable rules-based order where borders have been stable and respected, if Russia redraws those borders using aggression, it encourages other states like Armenia and Kyrgyzstan to re-open old wounds and assert territorialities. Moreover, it sends a clear signal to China over Taiwan, which, if acted upon, forces states to cut Chinese trade, with global economic implications that put further pressure on a strained geopolitical system. Gaza, meanwhile, has the potential to escalate over trade routes and economic pressures further encourage foreign direct investment to seek safer states across the board. The trend among richer countries to withdraw investment then destabilises other regions. For example, if Chevron withdraws on projects in Equatorial Guinea, 80% of its economy would be decimated. The ripple effects of war and economic destabilisation reinforce one another. Finally, the ADF modelling in all such cases is relatively known under certain contingencies but the final wild card in the whole deck this coming November will be Donald Trump. Defence and security intelligence have said that if Trump wins the election all bets are off. Michael said that under Biden you can even work with China to divert nuclear war. But under Trump? Nobody knows.
After an enlightening and sobering set of reflections on the current state of play, head of the WA Fabians branch Phil O’Donohue opened the floor to questions. He asked what is the difference between the Ukraine war and other times when the rules-based international order has been violated, or at least flouted, by the USA, for example in the invasion of Iraq. The difference, said Michael, is that the Ukraine, in this case, will cease to exist. Iraq, whilst decimated, retained sovereignty.
Maintaining deterrence, says Michael, is a giant message to one man. “Prior to 2022, we saw the buildup on the Russian border but didn’t expect it would be used. It was unthinkable, madness. But three advisers gave Putin the wrong information and the unthinkable transpired.”
To the question of whether Australia should take the gloves off when it comes to the Ukraine, Michael urged some caution. He said if Putin were overthrown, we would be confronted with his more hawkish replacement, Sergey Naryshkin, former Kremlin Chief of Staff and presently head of the Foreign Intelligence Service. What’s more the likely targets in the Ukraine would be oil refineries and this would raise oil prices, which in turn empower right-wing governments in Europe. “So give Putin more leeway,” says Michael. “If NATO does anything at all it must be unilateral with no excuse for countries like Hungary to pull the pin.”
A careful balancing act, it might be seen that the ‘rules-based international order’ is code for US-friendly, but the key difference is whether a nation’s sovereignty is at stake. So too, in the case of China and Taiwan, deterrence is also key. Michael says the modelling suggests that, should Taiwan be attacked, the US and its allies would have only seven days to respond, a window within which there is 90% chance of US victory, notwithstanding an economic bloodbath.
“All of this is a signal to Xi — don’t be as dumb as Putin,” said Michael. “Which brings us to why Trump becomes a destabilising influence. “Australia must support the signal that Taiwan is off-limits. We want cooperation with China and we have signed onto the One China policy but we still deal with Taiwan and we’ve found that China won’t kick up a fuss unless the dialogue shifts into social media.” He concluded that war would flip our status from One China to Taiwan and a pragmatic approach is needed on all sides.
Finally, in responding to the question of whether Australia should invest in nuclear deterrents, Michael delivered an emphatic ‘no’. The cost is vast, and it would add little to the arsenal already paid for by the US, amounting to $1.5 trillion. “There’s simply no need for Australia to add to what already exists at such a prohibitive cost,” said Michael. It would also compromise Australia’s ability to support non-proliferation whilst continuing to support the USA. China itself has 50 long-range nuclear missiles but there are targets more worthy than Australia to waste them on, said Michael.
“As to AUKUS,” says Michael, “it’s a complex agreement and cannot easily allow for public transparency ad democratic input. That’s why defence policy is rarely opened up to referendum, quite apart from the possibility of foreign interference (and here I’m thinking China) if it were.”
Indeed. When it comes to national security it seems that multiple factors play into a long game that requires careful balance. But beyond this the message from Michael is that the geopolitical pendulum, having swung right after decades of comparative calm, is on the move. If it crashes through five main impacts, the ripples will be felt for decades. Australia must set a balanced and careful course.
Host of The Red Line Podcast (a global stream across 150 countries) analyst and journalist Michael Hilliard is a prominent expert in the defence policy of Russia, Europe, and the former Soviet republics. Michael brings more than a decade of on-the-ground experience as both an analyst and journalist, having reported from some of the world’s most tumultuous warzones. In his consulting role, Michael also advises on strategic policy for the UK, US, and Australian governments.
Showing 1 thought
Sign in with
FacebookTwitter