This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
feet has flowed on.
There is a third effect that perhaps I should mention. The global strategic changes have not yet flowed into the Pacific region, although they seem certain to do so in some form or other. This has created considerable future uncertainty in the region. Uncertainty does not necessarily mean things are getting worse, but we believe strongly that a time of future uncertainty is really not the time to be reducing budgets further and disbanding our defense forces.
PROCEEDINGS: What are the priorities in your next defense budget? GRATION: We do have priorities. Incidentally, we don’t have a Navy, an Air Force, and an Army budget, except for current operating expenses. The capital investment is done centrally. When I use the term “capital investment,” I’m referring to investment in military equipment, ships, planes, aircraft, weapon systems, communication systems, and so on, plus investment in military infrastructure— bases, airfields, etc., as distinct from current operating expenditure on activities, personnel, consumption of ammunition, and so on. We have a strong commitment to a sustained capital investment program, and are in about year 5 of a 15-year program. We intend to keep about 30% of the total defense expenditures going into capital, compared with a low in the mid- 1970s of around 10%. It is essential that we sustain our capital investment if we are still to have a viable, modem, and professional defense force around the turn of the century, because our last surge of capital spending was about the time of the Vietnam War. Much of our current equipment is, if not worn out already, obsolete and getting very old.
Our first priority, then, is capital spending. Of course, when you put priority on capital spending, you have to make tradeoffs against current readiness, which means restraining operating costs and costs for personnel. I believe we’ve struck a balance that is about correct for our strategic situation, but we have had to hold very tight on operating costs and personnel numbers.
Within the capital spending, we are putting clear priority on maritime forces. By far the two largest current projects are the replacement of our submarine fleet and the construction of a new class of ANZAC frigates. We are also bringing into service the Seahawk helicopter, and this is a major program. So naval or maritime forces are getting the largest share of the capital vote.
PROCEEDINGS: Japan is considering acquisition of some ships that will be capable of going beyond 1,000 miles from the home islands. Obviously they’re looking to play a greater role in the Pacific. I know “concern” is a buzzword. Obviously this is something that the Aus-
Interview
Commodore D. J. Campbell,
Royal Australian Navy
During the same visit, Proceedings seized an opportunity to talk about the Naval Institute with long-time member Commodore Campbell, Australian Naval Attache.
PROCEEDINGS: We would like to ask you, as a member of the United States Naval Institute and a member of the Australian Naval Institute, a few questions about the two organizations. First, why did you join the United States Naval Institute?
CAMPBELL: This probably sounds precocious, but I think even when I was a youngster I realized how important, how fundamental, professional reading and writing were to professional training and education. It’s as simple as that.
1 first encountered the Proceedings when I was 15 in the Naval College. The only way to ensure that I had access to the current issue was to get my own copy. So I joined the Naval Institute. The Proceedings and Britain’s Naval Review are the premier professional military magazines in the world.
PROCEEDINGS: We’re impressed with your publication, as well. It’s been in existence 15 years?
CAMPBELL: Yes, 15 years, as opposed to the U.S. Naval Institute’s—what?— 117. The Australian Naval Institute was based unashamedly on the U.S. Naval Institute. By that I mean it was the model that we chose. The ideals and objectives are the same. The structure and the constitution are very much the same as the
U.S. Naval Institute’s.
Our missions are identical. You do more than we do, and that’s a function of scale and a measure of our limitation of resources. For example, we don’t have—■ although we aspire to—an oral history program and a book publishing program- On the other hand, we do publish a journal. We do a lot by the way of promoting debate on naval and maritime issues. We sponsor a series of distinguished speakers and memorial orations, and award silver medals for essay writers. We also run a Naval Seapower Symposium. I know all these are very familiar to you.
PROCEEDINGS: We were very honored to receive a letter soon after your Navy formed the Australian Naval Institute, asking our permission to copy the “Nobody asked me, but . . .” column in your Proceedings.
CAMPBELL: Yes, that’s right.
88
Proceedings / December 1990
tralians are very interested in. GRATION: There are two aspects of this. An incremental move wouldn’t cause much worry. Indeed, we welcome moves that we already know about, Where I think the Japanese are moving to a force of about 60 ships. We see that as a very useful contribution to the protection °f sea lines of communication. So, point pne is that we welcome what’s happening ln the Maritime Self-Defense Force.
But the second aspect is to understand that there is still a lot of sensitivity around our region, particularly in the ASEAN countries, with their memories of World War II, about a significant resurgence in Japanese military power, particularly the capacity for power projection. I know that the Japanese are aware of this and sensitive to it, and therefore are very careful, indeed, in the way they’re moving forth.
PROCEEDINGS: Another aspect of that
is that the Soviets have placed forces and capability into Vietnam bases. While the Soviet Union is drawing down its forces generally, and there’s been a lot of discussion about reduction of forces, have you actually seen any evidence of that? GRATION: Let’s just say I have seen evidence of a drawdown in the Soviet forces at Cam Ranh Bay, which is what you’re talking about. They’re still there, but there has certainly been a drawdown.
PROCEEDINGS: Has their level of activity in visiting the island countries of the Pacific diminished?
GRATION: It was never high, but it’s even less high than it was two or three years ago. Three years ago, the Soviets were negotiating fishing agreements with some of the smaller island countries. They’re not doing that anymore. Their presence is quite low.
PROCEEDINGS: Is there anything that you expected us to ask that we didn’t, or that you would like to elaborate upon? Feel free to address any issue or concern that we did not touch upon.
GRATION: I think you covered all the issues I expected. The final word I would like to tell you is that although there are great differences in scale between the United States and our own forces, presently we’re being driven to review the way ahead by the same sort of factors. I’m talking about the changes in the strategic situation and the resultant budgetary pressures, where there is that question of the peace dividend and an expectation in some quarters that governments will spend less on defense. Finally, there is the question of the national expectation of what Australia and the Australian people expect in their defense force. This is all driving us to do some fundamental rethinking about the structure of the forces and the policies that we should be following through the 1990s.
If you don't cure that censorship difficulty, I'm telling you, you are going to kill the Naval Institute.
PROCEEDINGS: The editor of the magazine, Clay Barrow, sent back 15 other titles he thought might work instead of ‘Nobody asked me, but . . .” He also offered the option of “Nobody asked me, but . .
CAMPBELL: We took that one. It was such a good model, why change a good thing?
PROCEEDINGS: What suggestions do you have for the United States Naval Institute in order that it might improve its service to its members?
CAMPBELL: If I knew the answer, I Would be rich and famous wouldn’t I? Every publisher would come to my door. I think you’ve got to get the naval professionals signed up when they’re young. I think that’s very important. Get them as s°on as they join the Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, or even beforehand if you can. In more practical terms, it Would be very useful to find a device to have them automatically renew their uiemberships. Most of us are fundamentally lazy, no matter how many reminders you give us.
PROCEEDINGS: Are active-duty pro- tYocecdings / December 1990
fessionals encouraged to write for publication in your Proceedings? CAMPBELL: Yes. In fact, they are the chief sources of manuscripts.
PROCEEDINGS: By encouraged, I mean does the senior leadership in your Navy view positively the critical discussion of issues important to your Navy? CAMPBELL: Yes. No question about that. 1 wish I could only lead by example. When I was younger, I used to write regularly and frequently for our journal. But the older and wiser I get, the more I realize how little I know. There’s some funny psychological trick in all this. It makes me reluctant to write. But I forget that the young officers would probably wish me to, because they don’t see my limitations as I do. I think that’s something that bedevils all senior officers. My excuse is that I write all day, every day, and I just couldn’t stand to sit at night and write an essay for the Institute.
PROCEEDINGS: Are any restrictions placed on what an author can discuss on the pages of your magazine? CAMPBELL: The short answer is no. Obviously, it’s got to be relevant to the sea services. It’s got to be with good
manners, i.e., not disparaging. Security would be the third consideration. But that looks after itself; we trust our officers. People obviously bear security in mind when they write. As a backup, normal editorial process will take care of any questionable security issues. We do not have, I’m very glad to say, anything like your current censorship problem. It is shocking that there are those who would attempt to censor your military professionals.
If you don’t cure that censorship difficulty, I’m telling you, you are going to kill the Naval Institute. You will kill its spontaneity; you will kill any sort of debate; you will kill any initiative. It’s the damndest thing I’ve ever heard of. You’ve got to get rid of it.
PROCEEDINGS: Your reaction was worth the trip to Washington. You cut to the heart of the issue. The fascinating thing about it is that as the Soviets open up, the U.S. Department of Defense considers closing down on what its military professionals can say.
CAMPBELL: Quite right. It’s absolutely amazing.
PROCEEDINGS: We are working the issue and hoping that common sense will prevail before any formal changes in the way we do business occur. At this point, the censorship issue remains unresolved. CAMPBELL: It’s such an un-American thing to do in this day and age. As a professional observer of the U.S. scene, it is an extraordinary turn of events.