The A**US Treaty

[Aussie Digger]

I would suggest that your knowledge in this area needs updating. In 1965, Sukarno specifically threatened to expand Konfrontasi from the confrontation of Malaysia and Singapore to include the possibility of attacks on both the Australian mainland and/or the territories of Papua and New Guinea. This threat was taken very seriously by our government and formed the major reason why conscription was introduced in 1965 (most make the mistake that the "threats and commitments" that Menzies was referring to when he announced the decision to reintroduce conscription were to South Vietnam).

As I have mentioned, both mainland Australia and its territories have been threatened, as have our forces, upon three occasions. You suggest I should take note of what the US has "provided" to us. Before I do so, might I ask one question? Since when has what the US has provided to us been worth the cost of one Australian life?


As others have pointed out, we were carged for our munitions in GW2. Rather in the same way we payed for our munitions in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Now, let me ask, as you've pointed out, our involvement in GW2 was greatly to the benefit of the US. Therefore, I must ask, did the US "contribute" these things to us for our benefit or did they do so for their benefit, AD?

Now who's guilty of spin? An empty threat by an (impotent, regionally speaking) man is now considered as a genuine threat to the Australian mainland?

Your linking Australian National Service, to this is also highly dubious. I suggest you research The Defence Act 1909, The Defence (Citizen Military Forces) Act 1943 or if you prefer a non war time act: the National Service Act 1951 of 1951 which introduced compulsory military training to Australia. Both of which were introduced by Robert Menzies and neither of which related directly to Sukarno.

The National Service Act 1964 was introduced by Robert Menzies and enacted on Novermber 24 of that year specifically as stated by Robert Menzies in Parliament due to, "aggressive Communism', developments in Asia such as 'recent Indonesian policies and actions' and a 'deterioration in our strategic position" not an empty threat by Sukarno in 1965, of which he was patently NOT capable of carrying out.

Anyhow, as I stated earlier, I'm well aware we paid for the munitions, airlift etc that Australia has obtained from the US and no I don't agree they are worth an Australian life.

Some things are though and Timor probably is at the head of that list. The rights and wrongs of the Australian involvement in GW1, GW2 and the WOT are neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned to this specific debate.

The Australian Governments of both political persuasions have decided that it is in Australia's national interest to deploy forces on operations to these theatres. That we have been able to do so is thanks largely to the USA providing the wherewithal and transport to do so. In an operational or tactical sense they are GREATLY to our benefit. Politcally they are probably to the USA's benefit, though I'm sure Howard in particular saw some benefit in participating in GW2 and the WoT, whatever that may be. Whether I see it (particularly GW2) is another question.

Personally, I'd have preferred Australia to concentrate it's effort on Afghanistan, since we HAVE been victims of terrorist acts in Bali and other parts of Indonesia (our Embassy for one thing) but personal preference hardly changes history does it?

 

[Sea Toby]

While I think Bush has mismanaged the occupation of Iraq. and capturing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, I haven't seen anyone else do any better. Maybe the next US president will.

As an American I dont see how Australian involement will help defend the United States much, America is quite capable of defending itself.

On the other hand I can't see Australia defending itself against a major threat whatsoever. Australia's only hope is that it is insignificant and out of the way for a major enemy to pursue. Frankly, with its mineral wealth, I wouldn't count on being ignored.

Whether Australia will be saved again by American forces is open to question in a world wide war. But if America wins a world wide war again with its allies, you will be freed one way or another.

Most Americans have no clue about an ANZUS Treaty. Our congress is well aware, but the typical American on the street don't. In fact, most Americans don't even know how America acquired American Samoa.

In a regional conflict America will support our Australian allies, as long as Australia is an ally. Token forces are always welcomed, and I thank any help Australians have provided. America can't and won't be the lone ranger when it comes to policing the world.

Unfortunately, most of the world has reduced its armed forces to the state of neglect, even the mighty British are no longer much of a force. If the free world won't stand together, its over.

As I see the world situation, the 19th century was European. the 20th century American, and the 21st century as Asian. Australia, North and South America have strong links with Europe, less so with Africa, and even less with Asia. I see a facist Islamic faction that has to be defeated to protect our freedoms. Until the unfacist Islamic faction defeats the facist Islamic faction, we will continue to be at the mercy of the facist faction.

 

[Tasman]

I don't want to be caught up in a debate between you and Rich, rickshaw but there are a few comments in your last post that I will comment on.

I would also question whether Communism directly threatened Australia during the Cold War or whether Terrorism does today.

In relation to Communism we will never know. But most people living in Australia during the period from the start of the Korean War up until the early stages of the Vietnam War certainly did think it was a threat and the 'Domino Theory' (if one country falls the others will follow) was widely believed. I was one of them! Political Parties who took a strong stance against the spread of Communism received much stronger support than their opponents and universal National Service (3 months full time followed by 3 years in the reserve) was introduced in 1951 with very little opposition. The National Service sceme was scaled back and eventually abandoned towards the end of the decade largely as a cost saving measure as the government began to move away from a large citizen force to a policy of funding small regular forces expected to work well away from Australia alongside 'powerful friends'. Military spending began to be cut back from as early as 1954 and Australia entered a period of economic prosperity that kept the same political party in power for over 20 years. There is no doubt that the Vietnam War changed public opinion and people began to question and challenge the 'Domino Theory'.

In relation to terrorism, what has happened in Indonesia (Bali and the the embassy) together with threats issued against Australia by terrorist groups and arrests made in Australia of suspected terrorists, are sufficient for me to believe that a significant threat exists.

Was it? Yet we have three, perhaps four episodes where this Alliance demonstrably failed to serve our perceived security interests, during that 60 years. Two of which led to our decision to become involved in a war many kilometres from our shores and in which we lost many casualties. Surely even you would ask questions if that was the case?

When you talk about conflicts where Australia took a lot of casualties are you referring to Korea and Vietnam? Neither of these conflicts involved the ANZUS treaty. In Korea Australia was involved as part of a UN force (probably one of the few times the UN has acted decisively IMO) and in Vietnam recently released cabinet documents suggest Australia initiated its involvement and actually asked the US to 'request' Australian participation.

The following advice given to the Australian government by its Ambassador to Washington is interesting:

'Our objective should be ... to achieve such an habitual closeness of relations with the United States and sense of mutual alliance that in our time and need, after we have shown all reasonable restraint and good sense, the United States would have little option but to respond as we would want.'
'The problem of Vietnam is one, it seems, where we could ... pick up a lot of credit with the United States, for this problem is one to which the United States is deeply committed and in which it genuinely feels it is carrying too much of the load, not so much the physical load the bulk of which the United States is prepared to bear, as the moral load.'

http://www.anzacday.org.au/education/activities/vietnam/answer1.html

Mmmm, debatable. There isn't much evidence to suggest that the fUSSR would have attacked Western Europe.

There is also, IMHO, little evidence to suggest that they would not. There is little evidence to suggest that my house is about to burn down but I make certain I have insurance. NATO was the insurance for Western Europe.

It is very easy with the advantage of hindsight to say that things would or wouldn't have happened. In this case, even with hindsight, I think there was a real chance that the Soviets may have invaded Western Europe if it had not had the NATO shield.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

Debatable, considering the number of non-democratic regimes the US has shored up and funded in this region over the last sixty years. I would also question whether Communism directly threatened Australia during the Cold War or whether Terrorism does today.

The question is how would not shoring up some of these regimes have helped our security? How would walking around with a Halo on our head, full of righteousness, kept communism out of South America, or Africa, of for that matter, S/E Asia? Sometimes there is no right or wrong ,simply the "smart" thing to do.

An example would be post WW-ll Japan and Douglas MacArthur. He kept the Japanese royal family safe from war prosecutions even tho they were guilty as hell. And he did it in order to ensure a smooth transition and Japanese acceptance of the new constitution,and instead only prosecuted token Japanese commanders. He protected the royal family from the shame of a trial because he knew to the Japanese it would have been like prosecuting Jesus Christ and would have caused untold problems.

The Brits screamed bloody murder, the Aussies screamed bloody murder, as did the Koreans and Chinese. But MacArthur knew a stable democratic Japan was a linchpin to the future security of Asia and the containment of communism. Sometimes there is no right or wrong tho it sometimes seems only Americas decisions are looked under a microscope.

Yes, its slipping in many cases and being surpassed. Your point is?

Surpassed by who? And you know what my point was.

Was it? Yet we have three, perhaps four episodes where this Alliance demonstrably failed to serve our perceived security interests, during that 60 years. Two of which led to our decision to become involved in a war many kilometres from our shores and in which we lost many casualties. Surely even you would ask questions if that was the case?

Now what war are you talking about?

The threat of triggering ANZUS deters any attacker because the threat of engaging the USN gives them zero chance of winning. Let alone Australia's 1st rate naval and air forces. But with USN involvement its zero!

Mmmm, debatable. There isn't much evidence to suggest that the fUSSR would have attacked Western Europe.

You must be kidding??http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/news/pressreleases/pressrelease000523.htm

And many of the inhabitants I'm sure wondered the same thing about your presence there.

I dont think any of them did. But maybe the Cold WAr was before your time. And since your position is weak its give an excuse for your implied insult.

Out of a matter of interest, does American military law allow Torture and Abuse of prisoners? Does US civil law allow the creation creation of Star Chambers in which to try them?

Nope, and last time I checked the ones who did it are in jail. I guess in the future you'll mention the hundreds of nations who torture with Government consent as a regular occurrence. And if you call keeping someone awake or dousing them with water "torture" then you have lived a very sheltered life. "BTW have you ever condemned China"? http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/chn-summary-eng Or is business to good?

How is pointing out that America has failed to live up to our expectations, "anti-Yank bashing"? Are you suggesting that our expectations are unrealistic? If so, then I'd agree with you. I'm a little bit confused though, your ire appears to have been raised by my pointing out that I believe Australia should be more self-reliant and less reliant upon the US for its security needs. Isn't this essentially what your nation desires?

You just strike me as a guy who would see the negative concerning America no matter what. Even worse, your whining. And your comments have gone far past any objective analysis of a perceived failure on our part. Even worse, you are re-writing history in an attempt to trivialize what is, in effect, one of the greatest alliances in recent times. Thats their goal you know. Its why they have directed so many resources to threatening England. If the enemy can destroy these alliances of free nations then we will all be more vulnerable. The Soviets spent considerable resources trying to weaken NATO in the same way, and, with some success.

Then surely you would prefer us to become more self-reliant?

Sounds like good advice for anyone. But we dont vote in Australia. For the record I believe the only "peace dividend" any of us will see is when we are buried. There is no free lunch for freedom.

wasn't aware that China had 1,000 missiles to point.

So you don't think that other nations should be allowed to exercise their sovereignty over their own ports, I take it?

Actually the figure is closer to 800 to 900. And yes, they have over 1,000 missiles. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/theater.htm

And sure they do. Just like we have the right to suspend our obligations under ANZUS with New Zealand. Or did they think we would still come to their defense even tho our ships couldn't port there? I remember that David Lange guy and his sniveling over how Ronald Reagan was confronting the Soviet Union. And it was precisely Reagan's policies and Yank commitment that led to the Soviet Unions collapse.

Appears I have touched a raw nerve.

Nope! But you "have a lot of nerve". So your close.

 

[rickshaw]

Now who's guilty of spin? An empty threat by an (impotent, regionally speaking) man is now considered as a genuine threat to the Australian mainland?

The Australian Government considered it a genuine threat. Sufficiently enough for it to form the basis of much of its defence thinking throughout the 1960s.

Your linking Australian National Service, to this is also highly dubious. I suggest you research The Defence Act 1909, The Defence (Citizen Military Forces) Act 1943 or if you prefer a non war time act: the National Service Act 1951 of 1951 which introduced compulsory military training to Australia. Both of which were introduced by Robert Menzies and neither of which related directly to Sukarno.

Publicly they weren't. However, privately the concerns of the government were sufficient that it decided it must close make large equipment purchases (F-111, DDGs) and even become involved in a war, in order to counter what it perceived as a potential threat.

The National Service Act 1964 was introduced by Robert Menzies and enacted on Novermber 24 of that year specifically as stated by Robert Menzies in Parliament due to, "aggressive Communism', developments in Asia such as 'recent Indonesian policies and actions' and a 'deterioration in our strategic position" not an empty threat by Sukarno in 1965, of which he was patently NOT capable of carrying out.

All I can point to is the history of the period which shows that while Australia claimed it was alarmed at developments further to the north, in reality it was the aggressive policies of Sukarno which influenced its thinking.

Anyhow, as I stated earlier, I'm well aware we paid for the munitions, airlift etc that Australia has obtained from the US and no I don't agree they are worth an Australian life.

Therefore, if they are not worth an Australian life, then why promote them as being of such importance as to determine why we remain engaged in an alliance which is perhaps to our detriment and has clearly cost Australian lives?

 

[rickshaw]

I don't want to be caught up in a debate between you and Rich, rickshaw but there are a few comments in your last post that I will comment on.

Feel free to. Your comments are always welcome Tasman.

In relation to Communism we will never know. But most people living in Australia during the period from the start of the Korean War up until the early stages of the Vietnam War certainly did think it was a threat and the 'Domino Theory' (if one country falls the others will follow) was widely believed.

Without a doubt. Foreign Policy is not necessarily about reality. Rather it is about perceptions. One only has to remember those startling DLP political advertisements during the 1960s showing large red arrows descending on Australia to understand that. Perceptions though, can be faulty and they can change, sometimes with startling swiftness, sometimes with glacial slowness. As you note, our perceptions about Communism were such that it was seen as a massive threat in the 1950s and 60s, despite its remoteness from our shores and yet in the 1970s and 80s it had largely lapsed in the thinking of most Australians.

I was one of them! Political Parties who took a strong stance against the spread of Communism received much stronger support than their opponents and universal National Service (3 months full time followed by 3 years in the reserve) was introduced in 1951 with very little opposition. The National Service sceme was scaled back and eventually abandoned towards the end of the decade largely as a cost saving measure as the government began to move away from a large citizen force to a policy of funding small regular forces expected to work well away from Australia alongside 'powerful friends'. Military spending began to be cut back from as early as 1954 and Australia entered a period of economic prosperity that kept the same political party in power for over 20 years. There is no doubt that the Vietnam War changed public opinion and people began to question and challenge the 'Domino Theory'.

They also started to question the wisdom of what had become known as the "insurance policy" theory of our foreign relations with our "great and powerful friends". A process which I cam continuing today. Rich however appears to take this as a personal affront for some reason.

In relation to terrorism, what has happened in Indonesia (Bali and the the embassy) together with threats issued against Australia by terrorist groups and arrests made in Australia of suspected terrorists, are sufficient for me to believe that a significant threat exists.

I believe there is a threat. How significant I remain doubtful about. I also question whether this really should be considered a security threat or rather a criminal one.

When you talk about conflicts where Australia took a lot of casualties are you referring to Korea and Vietnam? Neither of these conflicts involved the ANZUS treaty.

No, I was referring to Vietnam. There is more than sufficient historical evidence to show that the major reason why we became involved in Vietnam was not out of fear of Vietnamese Communism but rather because we feared that because of the responses we had received from Washington over the 1960 West New Guinea dispute, that the US was pre-occupied with events in Europe, thrown up by the Cold War. Canberra viewed this with alarm and cast around for ways to get Washington thinking about the Pacific again. As to whether or not this was a genuine concern is, as I've suggested rather immaterial. What is important is that Canberra had perceived this as a genuine concern and acted upon it.

In Korea Australia was involved as part of a UN force (probably one of the few times the UN has acted decisively IMO) and in Vietnam recently released cabinet documents suggest Australia initiated its involvement and actually asked the US to 'request' Australian participation.

Mike Sexton revealed that over 20 years ago in his book, "War for the Asking".

There is also, IMHO, little evidence to suggest that they would not. There is little evidence to suggest that my house is about to burn down but I make certain I have insurance. NATO was the insurance for Western Europe.

Yes, it was. However we were unable to get as good an insurance policy as the Europeans had, despite our having been more willing to engage in wars on the behalf of the United States, Tasman and that is one of the basic points I am making.

It is very easy with the advantage of hindsight to say that things would or wouldn't have happened. In this case, even with hindsight, I think there was a real chance that the Soviets may have invaded Western Europe if it had not had the NATO shield.

Cheers

Agreed. I also suspect its something the Europeans believed as well. Even the Americans more than likely didn't believe it perhaps.

 

[rickshaw]

The question is how would not shoring up some of these regimes have helped our security? How would walking around with a Halo on our head, full of righteousness, kept communism out of South America, or Africa, of for that matter, S/E Asia? Sometimes there is no right or wrong ,simply the "smart" thing to do.

Depends upon whether you believe you are following a moral course of action or not. Sometimes doing things the right way is far more important than merely doing things. Supporting those odious regimes betrayed the very principles that the US claimed it was attempting to uphold.

An example would be post WW-ll Japan and Douglas MacArthur. He kept the Japanese royal family safe from war prosecutions even tho they were guilty as hell. And he did it in order to ensure a smooth transition and Japanese acceptance of the new constitution,and instead only prosecuted token Japanese commanders. He protected the royal family from the shame of a trial because he knew to the Japanese it would have been like prosecuting Jesus Christ and would have caused untold problems.

The Brits screamed bloody murder, the Aussies screamed bloody murder, as did the Koreans and Chinese. But MacArthur knew a stable democratic Japan was a linchpin to the future security of Asia and the containment of communism. Sometimes there is no right or wrong tho it sometimes seems only Americas decisions are looked under a microscope.

I am sure the victims of Japan's aggression are very glad that Macarthur protected Hirohito. I am also sure that many of them wondered who they fought the war for - themselves or as a means to ensuring that American hegeamony was ensured after the war finished. From an American perspective, I am sure that you believe Macarthur did the right thing. From the perspective of a family who had members who died and were damaged fighting the Japanese, as well as one who was a PoW, I can assure you we always believed that Hirohito should have been hung from the nearest lamp post.

Surpassed by who? And you know what my point was.

Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, to name but three. Appears we fought a war for different reasons...

Now what war are you talking about?

Vietnam.

The threat of triggering ANZUS deters any attacker because the threat of engaging the USN gives them zero chance of winning. Let alone Australia's 1st rate naval and air forces. But with USN involvement its zero!

Does it deter them? As I've pointed out, it is now public knowledge that we thought about invoking A**US and when approached your government were told no uncertain terms doing so would be pointless. Now, if your government is not going to stand by its obligations and if those obligations are merely to "consult", what is the value of the Treaty except as a firelighter?

You must be kidding??http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/news/pressreleases/pressrelease000523.htm

You obviously need to read your own sources:

Prepared by the Soviet General Staff and found in the Czech military archives in Prague, the war plan (written in Russian) assumes an initial NATO strike quickly repulsed with a Soviet-led offensive into western Europe...

Appears to have been made on the assumption that this was a defensive war, not an offensive one as you are obviously attempting to imply.

I dont think any of them did. But maybe the Cold WAr was before your time. And since your position is weak its give an excuse for your implied insult.

Excuse me? I lived through the Cold War. Try again.

Nope, and last time I checked the ones who did it are in jail.

As guards? Appears to be continuing at the Guantnamo Bay Hilton.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-torture-inquiry-sought/2007/02/07/1170524164102.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1494779.htm

I guess in the future you'll mention the hundreds of nations who torture with Government consent as a regular occurrence. And if you call keeping someone awake or dousing them with water "torture" then you have lived a very sheltered life. "BTW have you ever condemned China"? http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/chn-summary-eng Or is business to good?

I have condemned China. Have you? Doesn't the PRC have "most favoured nation" trading status with the US?

You just strike me as a guy who would see the negative concerning America no matter what. Even worse, your whining. And your comments have gone far past any objective analysis of a perceived failure on our part. Even worse, you are re-writing history in an attempt to trivialize what is, in effect, one of the greatest alliances in recent times. Thats their goal you know. Its why they have directed so many resources to threatening England. If the enemy can destroy these alliances of free nations then we will all be more vulnerable. The Soviets spent considerable resources trying to weaken NATO in the same way, and, with some success.

Are you attempting to imply that I am either a sympathiser or in the pay of the Terrorists? If so, then you are very badly mistaken. As for your claim that I have attempted to "rewrite history" is very laughable. If this Alliance is so great, then why do so many Australians feel they are being treated so badly by the United States?

Sounds like good advice for anyone. But we dont vote in Australia. For the record I believe the only "peace dividend" any of us will see is when we are buried. There is no free lunch for freedom.

Each to their own. I believe peace can be achieved through fostering good relations with one's neighbours.

Actually the figure is closer to 800 to 900. And yes, they have over 1,000 missiles. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/theater.htm

And they are all ICBMs? That webpage suggests that in reality only some 52 constitute a threat to either the USA or Oz. You don't think that the USA has rather overwhelming superiority in weapon systems?

And sure they do. Just like we have the right to suspend our obligations under ANZUS with New Zealand. Or did they think we would still come to their defense even tho our ships couldn't port there? I remember that David Lange guy and his sniveling over how Ronald Reagan was confronting the Soviet Union. And it was precisely Reagan's policies and Yank commitment that led to the Soviet Unions collapse.

Let me address the first point about New Zealand. I have no concern about your nation suspending its "obligations" (slight as they were) under ANZUS and deciding to withdraw from its alliance with that nation. However, I am concerned with your nation's decision to punish New Zealand for making the decision to exercise its sovereignity over its ports. New Zealand was treated very shabbily indeed, losing access to US markets and being barred from purchasing US military equipment under the MAP programme. It was frozen out diplomatically and essentially told that it must allow US nuclear warships to enter its harbour, under US government conditions or its economy would be destroyed. The US chose to bully New Zealand. David Lange decided quite sensibly that this was not tolerable and refused to buckle under. All I can do is heap praise upon him for the bravery of his actions.

As to the second point, about Reagan causing the end of the Cold War. Well, I suppose we all have to hug something to ourselves at night when we go to sleep.

Nope! But you "have a lot of nerve". So your close.

I don't shy away from making a point when I feel I need to, Rich. It appears that in doing so, you see this as a personal attack upon yourself, rather than an attempt to criticise both the way your and my nations have acted. I merely seek a more independent and assertive stance for my own nation. I feel we have lived in the shadow of our "great and powerful friends" for too long and we have lost too many Australian lives fighting too many foreign wars for other nations to protect their interests, rather than our own.

 

[Sea Toby]

As noted above, many friendly Asian nations, including Australia, request increased American interest and presence in the Pacific. Yet, when America does show up with a submarine or destroyer, New Zealand tells America to go home.....

That is how not only the American government saw the nuclear propulsion and weaponry issue, but how all of the American people saw it. Unfortunately, that is not how the people and government of New Zealand sees it.

Everytime a Russian, British, French, Indian and Chinese frigate arrives in Auckland, Americans wonder why an American frigate is still not welcomed. Why? Two New Zealand frigates just last year visited Indian, Chinese, and Russian ports. Why hasn't a New Zealand frigate visited America, not even Pearl Harbor, recently?

Good will runs both ways.......

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, to name but three.

Sorry to but in boys but i'd like some clarification. Australia's per capita GDP is slightly lower than Japan, significantly higher than singapore and much higher than malaysia.

Japan: $36 285 USD (2005)
Australia: $31 421 USD (2005)
Singapore: $24 124 USD (2005)
Malaysia: $4 916 USD (2005)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-nominal-per-capita&int=-1

GDP and inflation. 2005.

Australia 2.5% GDP growth and 2.7% inflations. Sustainable growth and inflation between 2% and 4%, just right.
Japan 2.7% GDP Growth and -0.2% deflation. Sustainable growth with deflation a signifigant economic problem.
Singapore 5.3% GDP growth with 2.9% inflation. Unsustainable growth with probable inflation problems in the future.
Malaysia 6.4% GDP growth with 1.0% inflation. Unsustainable growth with probable inflation prblems in the future.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0874911.html

So how is our standard of living being overtaken by the nations stated?

It seems to be built in our national psychie to rely on some international protector. Since federation it has been seen as paramount. We fought one and a half world wars for the UK, suffering the highest per capita casualties of any nation in WW1 with over 60 000 killed and over 200 000 casualties in total with a population of only 4 million. We fought in north africa, greece and the mid east in world war two all in the defence of the UK. Granted there was a genuine love for england at the time, but to a large extent it was done to protect the special relationship we had with the mother coutry. Yet in our time of real need during the pacific war were was the royal navy? Defending there own nation, which is to be expected of any armed forces and is understanable. (allthough activly opposing or even sabotaging the return of australian troops when there was a real threat of invasion was IMHO akin to betrayal) Was that massive investment of australian blood worth the dividend?
But even after all those wasted lives, entire generations destroyed, we just changed a mother for a big brother. I'm not saying the US would abandon us, and i'm not convinced that Sukarno's threats constituted a direct threat to Australia, worthy of envoking ANZUS. A percieved threat is not the same as a shooting war, Krustev threatened the British and French with thermonuclear attack during the Suez Crisis but that didnt envoke NATO treaty obligations either, doesnt mean it was worthless. But we shouldn't bet so much on an international protector. We bled white for the relationship with the UK and it
did nothing for us in 1942. We're obviosly not bleeding white now, but psycologically at least were relying on that realtionship (with the US) for our security. I'm not questioning the validity of the US alliance, just our reliance on it. Maybe its not so vital to our national interest to be envloved in every major war the US is. That same commitment to the UK was pointless.

I also disagree with the notion that we were "saved" by the US in WW2. The pacific war was initiated by an attack on a US base, or arguably by a US oil embargo, so it is inconsevable that a pacific war would not have included the US. The AIF and CMF defeated the Japanese in the Kokoda/Milne Bay campaign with only minor US support. Granted that was only possible because of the Battle of the Coral Sea, but i doubt that the japanese could have sucessfully invaded Australia, even without significant US ground forces, once the bulk of the AIF was on the mainland, which would be the case by mid 1942.

 

[swerve]

Sorry to but in boys but i'd like some clarification. Australia's per capita GDP is slightly lower than Japan, significantly higher than singapore and much higher than malaysia.

Japan: $36 285 USD (2005)
Australia: $31 421 USD (2005)
Singapore: $24 124 USD (2005)
Malaysia: $4 916 USD (2005)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-nominal-per-capita&int=-1
...

That's exchange-rate converted. At purchasing power parities, the World Bank puts E. & SE Asia & Australias neighbours at (in 2005 USD)-
Hong Kong: 34670
Japan : 31410
Australia: 30610
Singapore: 29780
New Zealand: 23030
S. Korea: 21850
Malaysia: 10230
Thailand: 8440
China: 6600
Philippines: 5300
Indonesia: 3720
Vietnam: 3010

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf

The CIA puts Taiwan between New Zealand & Singapore.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Everytime a Russian, British, French, Indian and Chinese frigate arrives in Auckland, Americans wonder why an American frigate is still not welcomed. Why? Two New Zealand frigates just last year visited Indian, Chinese, and Russian ports. Why hasn't a New Zealand frigate visited America, not even Pearl Harbor, recently?

Good will runs both ways.......

The NZ legislation is ant nuke so if the ship is not carrying nukes or nuke powered it is welcome in NZ. With the neither confirm nor deny policy that the USN has in the 80s and early 90s that made it impossible for visits.

Personally I feel the ban on nuclear powered ships should be lifted. However democracy moves in mysterious ways and what we have does have popular support.

NZ would be happy to send a frigate to a US port, but my understanding is that it is not welcome.

Also I have to put the record straight on a comment I saw in a previous post, the PM at the time Lange, was not opposed to Nukes, his political party was. He tried several times to water down the legislation and organise a compromise with the US and due to faults and bad handling on BOTH sides this never came about, but that is history now.

Sea Toby 'Good will runs both ways' come on now, where has NZ failed to back the US on the war on Terror? Or before that in the First Gulf War? Yes NZ is not involved in Iraq but there was an initial deployment from a govt that did not even back the war! As for A-stan NZ has a had a 100 troops there now for 4 years and had various deployments of the SAS to fight.

Time to move on from old news.

 

[Tasman]

Could Australia survive and prosper without the A**US Treaty? Could the USA? Should we put the NZ back into the treaty?

I don’t think there is any doubt that the sense of security felt by successive Australian governments enabled Australia to get away with low spending on defence for many decades. As a consequence the country thrived economically. This is similar to the situation in Japan where an even lower percentage of GDP has been spent on defence since WW2. The downside of this reliance has been, IMO, that Australia has sometimes been too reliant on the alliance. It has been suggested (with a fair amount of evidence) that Australia actually requested to be asked to be involved in Vietnam in order to gain favour so that the USA would feel obligated to help Australia if it was in trouble in future conflicts. This was at a time when Australia was worried about the rapid growth of the Indonesian armed forces, especially their navy and air force and Indonesia was involved in confrontation with Malaysia with whom Australia had defence ties. Whatever the truth of the Vietnam claim, the fact is, IMO, that Australia’s forces were too weak for it not to pursue every way possible to bolster the alliance with the US, even at the expense of its independence in foreign policy. To have avoided this Australia could have built up much stronger forces. The basis was certainly there after WW2 when the RAAF was one of the world’s strongest air forces. But that would have resulted in slower economic growth. I believe that Australia needs to develop a balance between defence self reliance and being overly dependent on the alliance. This means spending enough on the armed forces and spending it wisely so that money is not wasted on things that are unnecessary. IMO, this means ensuring air supremacy within the region, developing a navy that (with the air force) can dominate the sea approaches to Australia, protect our trade and combine with the air force to ensure that the army can deploy rapidly and in sufficient force to protect Australia’s interests. The alliance would still be important, both to help directly in the event of an attack by a major power and/or to provide material assistance in the event of Australia being involved in a regional conflict.

The US also gains much from the alliance. It has valuable intelligence gathering bases in Australia and Australia’s participation in conflicts well outside the ANZUS Treaty is helpful politically even if the forces provided are sometimes so small that they make little difference in the military sense. Let me add here that I am in no way belittling the performance of the ADF and its personnel in these conflicts, just commenting that the size of the forces is often insignificant in the overall scheme of things. Overall though I think the US would survive without Australia far better than the other way around.

It would be great to see NZ back as a full member of the alliance. The US and NZ governments do seem to be patching up differences. I think NZ had every right to take a stance on ships entering their ports when the US would not confirm they were not carrying nuclear weapons (the argument wasn’t just about nuclear powered vessels). I guess it’s hard for people in countries who have lived with nuclear weapons for decades to understand the determination of countries in the Southern hemisphere to be nuclear free. In Australia, for example, there is a huge debate about whether even nuclear power stations should be allowed to be built, and even the transport of radioactive waste from hospitals alarms many people. It is just a different mind set. But I also accept that the USA had the right to react the way it did and as Sea Toby suggests in his post, the same action is seen very differently depending on which country you are in and "good will runs both ways". The US was also able to take the action it did because it still had access to Australian ports. Australia still has very close defence ties with New Zealand but these are complicated by the US position. I believe it would be very much in Australia’s interests to try to broker an agreement that would fully restore the NZ/US relationship and turn A**US back into ANZUS.

Cheers

 

[old faithful]

As noted above, many friendly Asian nations, including Australia, request increased American interest and presence in the Pacific. Yet, when America does show up with a submarine or destroyer, New Zealand tells America to go home.....

That is how not only the American government saw the nuclear propulsion and weaponry issue, but how all of the American people saw it. Unfortunately, that is not how the people and government of New Zealand sees it.

Everytime a Russian, British, French, Indian and Chinese frigate arrives in Auckland, Americans wonder why an American frigate is still not welcomed. Why? Two New Zealand frigates just last year visited Indian, Chinese, and Russian ports. Why hasn't a New Zealand frigate visited America, not even Pearl Harbor, recently?

Good will runs both ways.......

Mate,NZ declaired it self Nuclear free. If the US war Ships would/could guarentee the NZ Govt that their warships were not carrying Nukes (or nuke powered vessels for that matter) they would have been welcomed. However,for security reasons,the US refused to give that assurance.NZ understands the reasons why the US cant give that assurence,so stands by its decsision not to allow entry. The same go,s for passengers entering any airport,some items of luggage are prohibited to enter some countries...in NZ its nuclear weopons/power! How outragous!!!

 

[rickshaw]

As noted above, many friendly Asian nations, including Australia, request increased American interest and presence in the Pacific. Yet, when America does show up with a submarine or destroyer, New Zealand tells America to go home.....

That is how not only the American government saw the nuclear propulsion and weaponry issue, but how all of the American people saw it. Unfortunately, that is not how the people and government of New Zealand sees it.

Everytime a Russian, British, French, Indian and Chinese frigate arrives in Auckland, Americans wonder why an American frigate is still not welcomed. Why? Two New Zealand frigates just last year visited Indian, Chinese, and Russian ports. Why hasn't a New Zealand frigate visited America, not even Pearl Harbor, recently?

Good will runs both ways.......

Indeed it does but you don't think that you're betraying your ignorance about the Geographic region, confusing New Zealand, which is part of Oceania with Australia which is also part of Oceania and also as parts of Asia? Further, you seem to be confusing all of these different nations, with very different issues and concerns, with each other? New Zealand's concerns are not Oz's and vice-a-versa.

Good will does run both ways. New Zealand wanted to remain part of the US dominate alliance but wanted to do so on terms which were in fact very similar to how the US interprets the ANZUS Treaty. The New Zealand population wanted reassurances that when nuclear powered and/or armed ships came a calling, their government would know, so that if an accident was to occur (as unlikely as it was), it would be able to respond appropriately and decisively, to protect New Zealand citizens. It was attempting to fulfill its "duty of care" towards its citizens through exercising its sovereignity over its own ports. Washington took umbrage at such an upstart interpretation of the A**US alliance and deleted the initials NZ from it.

Was New Zealand right to exercise its sovereignity? Of course it was. Was the US right to take umbrage at this? Perhaps. IMHO, Washington completely over-reacted and in doing so, betrayed the very principles at it claimed it was upholding. Was the US alliance one of equal and soveriegn partners or a case of an Imperial power imposing its hegeamony over vassal states? What would it have mattered in the overall scheme of things? Not much and the US could have used it to its advantage, pointing out the massive difference between how it treated its allies, as real allies, as against how the fUSSR treated its "allies" as subject states.

If the US had been more mature and had tolerated New Zealand's actions, perhaps giving them a mild rebruke, then Wellington and the New Zealand people wouldn't have in turn over-reacted in the way they did and impose a complete ban on nuclear powered and/or armed ships in their ports. However it didn't and so we have the present situation, with considerable bad blood on both sides.

 

[Tasman]

In perhaps another positive sign of a thawing in relations between NZ and the US, Hobart is to have a visit in the next two weeks by two Anzac class frigates, HMAS Ballarat and HMNZS Te Mana accompanied by the USCG Polar Sea. It will be good to see the three nations represented together in the port. I'll try to get some photos. Hopefully the sky won't be as grey as it was during Hobart's last naval visit by HMAS Newcastle for the recent Regatta!

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Whoops! It looks like the movements of USCG Polar Sea and the Kiwi and Oz frigates are not connected, although Polar Bear and Te Mana will be in port together on 28 February. Ballarat will join Te Mana on 3 March.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

I also disagree with the notion that we were "saved" by the US in WW2. The pacific war was initiated by an attack on a US base, or arguably by a US oil embargo, so it is inconsevable that a pacific war would not have included the US. The AIF and CMF defeated the Japanese in the Kokoda/Milne Bay campaign with only minor US support. Granted that was only possible because of the Battle of the Coral Sea, but i doubt that the japanese could have sucessfully invaded Australia, even without significant US ground forces, once the bulk of the AIF was on the mainland, which would be the case by mid 1942.

I disagree with the notion you were "saved" by the USA in WW-ll too, "who was it that said that"? If anything you were saved by a Japanese high command that failed to fight the war in a true strategic sense. Think about it? Much of Australia's forces were dispersed around the world fighting for the Empire and both the Aussie and Brit navies were heavily tasked in the Med. and Atlantic. The Australian apple was ripe for the picking in 1942 for the Japanese. And there were a few brilliant Jap generals who understood this, however for having such a propensity for taking risks the Japanese high command was also overly cautious. They showed both Yin and Yang.

They knew they were armor weak, the Aussie land mass was far away and stretched their supply chain. And yes, some thought that invading Australia would kill any chance they had of a negotiated peace with America and Britain. At the time, and before Midway, Yamamoto was the most influential voice in planning and he constantly warned that Japan would lose a prolonged war against America.

So no, I dont think we "saved" Australia. I do however think we "saved" Asia. Its true the Aussies fought well but probably 95% of the firepower that beat Japan had "made in USA" on it.

As to my Link about Soviet war plans?? Almost every Soviet war plan ever dreamt up had as a prelude such talk about initial operations being defensive in nature against an enemy attack. The Reds had a sense of humor and no doubt they copied NATOs "defense in depth" language. However when one looks at the makeup of their forces in Europe at the time, maritime strike, SSK, the tank heavy divisions and motor rifle brigades, one only sees an offensive force aiming to overun western Europe before the Yank re-supply line could reinforce.

I know it was before your time, and no doubt the Soviets would have screamed "defensive action" when they came boiling thru the Fulda plains, but no NATO commander doubted the intent of the Soviet, and pact, forces steering at them from across the curtain. To say here the Soviets were never a threat in western Europe is asinine. It was also the stated goal of the Soviet communist Ideology to export communism by any means.

 

[rickshaw]

As to my Link about Soviet war plans?? Almost every Soviet war plan ever dreamt up had as a prelude such talk about initial operations being defensive in nature against an enemy attack. The Reds had a sense of humor and no doubt they copied NATOs "defense in depth" language. However when one looks at the makeup of their forces in Europe at the time, maritime strike, SSK, the tank heavy divisions and motor rifle brigades, one only sees an offensive force aiming to overun western Europe before the Yank re-supply line could reinforce.

Only problem with that rationale is that once German reunification occurred, NATO was then able to look at the "other side of the hill" as Arthur Wellesley put it and they found that the Warsaw Pact did not have the logistics necessary to sustain an offensive war deep into Western Europe. Their logistics system was predicated upon any war being a defensive war and them falling back on their logistics tail, rather than forging forward as NATO had feared. The Soviet "threat" was primarily a chimera which was utilised by Western politicians to frighten their populations into supporting them, just as the American "threat" was for the Soviet politicians IMO.

I know it was before your time, and no doubt the Soviets would have screamed "defensive action" when they came boiling thru the Fulda plains, but no NATO commander doubted the intent of the Soviet, and pact, forces steering at them from across the curtain.

Rather conderscending of you, Rich as I've already pointed out I was more than old enough to have served during the Cold War. As for what NATO commanders may have believed about what the Soviet and Pact forces were doing at them from across the curtain, that doesn't necessarily mean it was true, any more than that there were Weapons of Massed Distraction present in Iraq. Perceptions are not necessarily reality.

To say here the Soviets were never a threat in western Europe is asinine. It was also the stated goal of the Soviet communist Ideology to export communism by any means.

Oh, bullshit. The Soviets were opportunists. They were also governed by their ideology, and if you you knew what that stated, you'd find that they had had a massive internal fight over the issue at the end of the Russian Civil War, when they did try a Bonapartist approach and attempted to export their Revolution at the end of their soldiers' bayonets. It failed, at the outskirts of Warsaw. The result was that Trotsky lost and was exiled and Stalin won and the Soviet Union adopted "Fortress Communism". When Stalin died, they became more adventurous but they were usually rather timid. Most Communist regimes came to power despite the fUSSR, not because of it. More often than not, they refused to help Communist revolutionary movements in their initial stages. They were much more interested in consolidating their hold on what they did have, than acquiring more. When Communist revolutionaries were successful (and it was more often than not the hamfisted response of Washington that provided their successes IMO), they usually had to go cap in hand to Moscow, begging, rather than see massive quantities of Soviet largess showed down on them from on high.

 

[Rich]

Only problem with that rationale is that once German reunification occurred, NATO was then able to look at the "other side of the hill" as Arthur Wellesley put it and they found that the Warsaw Pact did not have the logistics necessary to sustain an offensive war deep into Western Europe. Their logistics system was predicated upon any war being a defensive war and them falling back on their logistics tail, rather than forging forward as NATO had feared. The Soviet "threat" was primarily a chimera which was utilised by Western politicians to frighten their populations into supporting them, just as the American "threat" was for the Soviet politicians IMO.

I am patiently awaiting your supporting material.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-5-2005_pg7_41
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB154/index.htm
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj88/campbell.html
http://sierratimes.com/archive/vanity2001/nyquist.htm

I was a member of NATO in the '70s my young friend. Believe me we didn't need anyone else to scare us. And its remarkable to even suggest the Soviet army, which sustained massive offensives thru a worn torn theatre in 1944, wouldnt be capable of the same in 1977. I dont remember any problems rolling tanks to Hungary of Checkoslovakia.

Besides their plan was to forward assemble all needed units, under initial cloak of exercise, and launch the attack with successive waves of armor.

Rather conderscending of you, Rich as I've already pointed out I was more than old enough to have served during the Cold War. As for what NATO commanders may have believed about what the Soviet and Pact forces were doing at them from across the curtain, that doesn't necessarily mean it was true, any more than that there were Weapons of Massed Distraction present in Iraq. Perceptions are not necessarily reality.

No problem kid. BTW everyone knows Saddam had a vast WMD capacity. Its just we didn't know what he did with the bloody things, and still dont. You do remember the 10 years of his screwing the inspectors, the U.N., and the supposed world community, dont you?

Oh, bullshit. The Soviets were opportunists. They were also governed by their ideology, and if you you knew what that stated, you'd find that they had had a massive internal fight over the issue at the end of the Russian Civil War, when they did try a Bonapartist approach and attempted to export their Revolution at the end of their soldiers' bayonets. It failed, at the outskirts of Warsaw. The result was that Trotsky lost and was exiled and Stalin won and the Soviet Union adopted "Fortress Communism". When Stalin died, they became more adventurous but they were usually rather timid. Most Communist regimes came to power despite the fUSSR, not because of it. More often than not, they refused to help Communist revolutionary movements in their initial stages. They were much more interested in consolidating their hold on what they did have, than acquiring more. When Communist revolutionaries were successful (and it was more often than not the hamfisted response of Washington that provided their successes IMO), they usually had to go cap in hand to Moscow, begging, rather than see massive quantities of Soviet largess showed down on them from on high.

They much preferred winning thru covert means, "I guess they read Sun Tzu", or thru the use of 3rd party allies. That's why they financed Cuban military action in Africa and various Arab adventures against Israel. I would also ask you to provide some instances of "ham fisted responses" by the Americans that aided the Soviets.

Hungary, Checkoslovakia, Afghanistan, Finland, Cuban missiles, Korea "Russian pilots", Vietnam, Chechnya, The Soviets/Russians were more then willing to use military force, the threat of force, or material assistance to spread their Ideology and national goals. And I'm not even mentioning the mass Liquidations of Intelligentsia during and after WW-ll in countries they over-ran. I do understand that nowadays, in Russia and beyond, most are obsessed about the USA and the former USSR is oft remembered as kinda a cuddly thing. At least among the simple minded.

 

[Rich]

Was New Zealand right to exercise its sovereignity? Of course it was. Was the US right to take umbrage at this? Perhaps. IMHO, Washington completely over-reacted and in doing so, betrayed the very principles at it claimed it was upholding. Was the US alliance one of equal and soveriegn partners or a case of an Imperial power imposing its hegeamony over vassal states? What would it have mattered in the overall scheme of things? Not much and the US could have used it to its advantage, pointing out the massive difference between how it treated its allies, as real allies, as against how the fUSSR treated its "allies" as subject states.

RickShaw you are treading on the very edge of Lunacy here. I suspect even your countrymen, and New Zealand allies, are reading this and choking. Could you imagine of any of the enslaved Soviet satellite states would have complained about nukes, or nuke ships, entering their ports or territory?nfloorl:

BTW its "hegemony". And we didn't have any in New Zealand, or about as much as we did in the Philippines. And you saw there what happened when they said they didn't want us?

Oh I get it! They want security guarantees from a Yank public spending over 4% of GNP on defense but they dont want our ships or sailors there? Gosh, that sounds like a swell deal for us doesn't it? Especially for a Pacific navy with all those nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Gee, thats just swell.

And were all still waiting for your facts and figures about your standard of living compared to other regional countries.