The A**US Treaty

[rickshaw]

Moved from the thead about the refusal of the US to sell F-22 fighters to Oz

No, Australia was not threatened by Konfrontasi.

The Australian Government appeared to differ. It, along with the 1960 West New Guinea dispute was the major reasons why Australia chose to become involved in the war in Vietnam and urged the US Government to as well, because of fears that the US had decided to disingage from the region.

Tho I'm grateful you brought it up because its been years since I boned up on that bush war. Actually America worked behind the scenes to overthrow Sukarno. I will add if Australia ever got into a shooting war, and had things in hand, then what would be the point of activating ANZUS? That we would come to the Aussies aid if they were ever seriously threatened is so accepted here its not even a point of debate.

This is the claim that many Americans in my experience make. However, as we've seen in other so-called "regional disputes", the US has not come to the aid of either combatant, even if they enjoyed a "close" or "special" relationship supposedly with the US. One then is forced to start wondering what the value of treaties such as A**US are.

But every free nation should be capable of defending itself. "I dont want to turn this into anything but a discussion of aircraft". "If you want to discuss those bush conflicts outside your land mass then start a new thread in Gen-Mil".

Discussion of these so-called "bush conflicts" are in fact actually, I would suggest, crucial to understanding the defence relationship between the US and its allies and our attitude towards America. They cannot be divorced, either from our procurement decisions in such an off-handed manner. I would suggest as they are the raison de'entre of our defence forces - assuming of course that you believe they should be defending our nation and our nation's interests, rather than fighting off in foreign wars on the behalf of your nation?

Such decisions do not, despite what you appear to believe, occur in a vacuum. They occur because politicians make them and they make them because of various factors, other than just the technical ones (indeed, it could almost be claimed that technical factors are consideably further down the list than most military people might believe, in my experience).

 

[Aussie Digger]

Excellent heading back to my earlier comments, whilst you might technically be correct (I've never bothered to read the thing) the fact that America didn't respond is not such a cause for concern.

They certainly assisted us in WW2, (though I take some umbrage at the notion that they "saved us") when our mainland was actually threatened.

The "bush wars" mentioned since New Guinea in 58, when we did NOT conduct combat operations of ANY kind,

Konfrontasi in the early 60's, when we in fact supported the Brits, it was hardly "Aus v Indonesia".

and Timor have NOT required a serious American response. We have not been in a situation where it was necessary. Just like the Five Power Defence Agreement and SEATO.

I didn't see any of our allies from those rushing to our side in those conflicts and making "substantial" contributions either. Does that make those (SEATO doesn't count any longer being abandoned, though it did in 58 and the early 60's) alliances worthless?

As I mentioned about Timor in 99, USMC Force Recon elements deployed in-Country. An entire MEU sat a VERY Short distance off the coast of Timor for the entire duration of the "early days". An MEU that btw possesses arguaby more combat power than the entire Australian contribution to Interfet.

For what reason would it have been there, if not to help if needed?

The day that we ask the US for assistance and an MEU, Force Recon and substantial logistic and communications support is insufficient will be a black day indeed and then perhaps I too will question the use of the A**US treaty...

 

[rickshaw]

You appear to be missing the point. Successive Australian governments have been willing to sacrifice Australian blood and lucre to promote the idea that the US Government would come, under the A**US Treaty to our aid, if we were ever threatened. In the three episodes I mention, we were threatened. In each case, we sought clarification from the US Government as to whether or not they would honor their commitments (as we perceived them) under the A**US Treaty. In two of the cases, they pointedly refused to. In the third, only after considerable and pointed prodding from Canberra, did they provide political and minor military committments to the East Timor operation.

After 1960 and out of fear of 1965, Australia pointedly became involved in South Vietnam and if Michael Waltzer is to be believe, we ensured that the US became involved there through the commitment of ground troops to the conflict. In 1975, while alarmed at the encroachment of Indonesia into East Timor, we were well aware that they had the US's backing, so made only token protests against that aggression, despite its impact upon our security environment.

The more I read of the history of our alliance with the US, the more I am forced to question whether the benefits outweigh the encumberances. It is clear that the US went into the A**US alliance with considerably different expectations and interpretations of what the Treaty would mean to it, as against what it would mean to Canberra and Wellington. They have seen it as a means to (initially) gain our aquiesance to a "soft" peace with Japan, so as to rebuild Japan as an anti-Communist "bulwark" in Northern Asia, while we saw it as a means of ensuring that if Japan did become resurgent, we would have a new (and formal alliance with our) "great and powerful friends" across the Pacific, after the disappointments of Singapore and British imperial strategy. Since then, our governments have made quite large of the defence guarantee aspect of it, while Washington have utilised it as a means to tie us into their strategic alliance more firmly.

The reality is there is no guarantee within the A**US Treaty. The reality is that all the signatories are required to do is "consult" in case of attack on either signatories' territory or forces in the Pacific region (Howard BTW was stretching the point considerably when he attempted to invoke the Treaty after 11 September - New York is not within the Pacific the last time I looked at a map). There is no NATO-like provision of "attack on one constitutes an attack on all". Yet we have continued with the "insurance policy" like belief that unless we pay our dividents in blood and treasure, the US will not come. The reality is, they haven't come and while they may claim they appreciate our expenditure of that blood and treasure, they have invariably ignored us or actively worked against us, in other arenas, such as trade and so on.

 

[Aussie Digger]

You appear to be missing the point. Successive Australian governments have been willing to sacrifice Australian blood and lucre to promote the idea that the US Government would come, under the A**US Treaty to our aid, if we were ever threatened. In the three episodes I mention, we were threatened. In each case, we sought clarification from the US Government as to whether or not they would honor their commitments (as we perceived them) under the A**US Treaty. In two of the cases, they pointedly refused to. In the third, only after considerable and pointed prodding from Canberra, did they provide political and minor military committments to the East Timor operation.

Then I guess that they've pretty much matched our military commitments to "their" wars... I understand your point but I disagree that we've been threatened as a nation that has required the US's assistance.

Not once since WW2 has the Australian mainland or our territories come under threat of attack by a foreign power.

Not once since Korea has a significant Australian force faced the possibility of being defeated in combat operations, simply because we deploy token forces or more significant forces to (relatively) benign areas. This is a political choice FORCED upon Governments who since WW2 have consistently refused to equip the ADF for serious warfighting operations.

When our mainland/territories has never been threatened and none of our forces have faced serious risk of defeat in any operation since Korea, it's a bit "rich" to accuse the US of not holding up it's end of the bargain. Have a bit of a look at what they HAVE done for us, defence wise.

For all the arguments about Australian involvement in Iraq etc, the most significant one should be the POINT of our military commitments. Militarily (from a US perspective) they are worse than useless insofar as the fact that the USA has to divert it's own military resources in time of war, to ensure that WE are adequately equipped to conduct operations. The political benefit is worth FAR more to the US, than the "niche" capacity we can cobble together.

Examples of the USA's assistance to Australia in the military field include: providing C-17 airlift capacity for RAAF over numerous operations. Providing ALL munitions for RAAF during GW2. Providing helicopter capacity for Australian specwarries in Operation Desert Fox, Afghanistan and GW2. Providing logistical and communitions support, plus the MeU "big stick" for an overstretched and ill-equipped ADF during Interfet.

We couldn't even DEPLOY to Timor last year without the assistance of 2x USAF C-17 aircraft. Kanimbla and Manoora were sailing "race tracks" off the coast of Fiji and our token deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan were "hogging" the majority C-130 availability.

The fact seems to me that everything we have needed to conduct operations, that we don't have, the US has provided to it's own operational detriment.

I cannot see a need for the US to have "stepped in" in ANY of the situations you outline, but at least they had the capacity to do so if necessary, which is more than can be said about ADF...

 

[old faithful]

AD,gotta agree with nearly everything in your last post.It actually points to fact that theUS really needs a co-alition of the willing to be seen on the ground. They definatley sacrificed a hell of a lot of resourses to make sure that we could feild a team in the middle east. The more teams from an international stage,and the less unpopular it is to conduct an otherwise illeagal action.

 

[abramsteve]

AD,gotta agree with nearly everything in your last post.It actually points to fact that theUS really needs a co-alition of the willing to be seen on the ground. They definatley sacrificed a hell of a lot of resourses to make sure that we could feild a team in the middle east. The more teams from an international stage,and the less unpopular it is to conduct an otherwise illeagal action.

Thats definatley one way to look at it. A little cynical maybe, but it does seem to ring true, depends on your point of view on other issues....

I have to admitt to being sceptical at time of the US's resolve to help should it come down the line.

However I feel they would. Lets assume the we were under SERIOUS threat of invasion. Now assides from the fact that it would be against their best interest to let us fall, how would the US public feel about such an issue? I have faith that they would not allow their government to stand by and do nothing. Times have changed since the isolationalist days the of the first half of the 20th century...

The previously mentioned threats of confrontation doubtless went unknown to the US public, as they did to our own. At the time nobody besides those at the top levels would have had even the slightest idea of the possable outcomes of these events.

 

[old faithful]

Thats definatley one way to look at it. A little cynical maybe, but it does seem to ring true, depends on your point of view on other issues....

I have to admitt to being sceptical at time of the US's resolve to help should it come down the line.

However I feel they would. Lets assume the we were under SERIOUS threat of invasion. Now assides from the fact that it would be against their best interest to let us fall, how would the US public feel about such an issue? I have faith that they would not allow their government to stand by and do nothing. Times have changed since the isolationalist days the of the first half of the 20th century...

The previously mentioned threats of confrontation doubtless went unknown to the US public, as they did to our own. At the time nobody besides those at the top levels would have had even the slightest idea of the possable outcomes of these events.

I have no doubt that if we were under a serious threat that uncle sam would back us up. I strongly believe that they would,at what ever cost,not let Aust fall. Unfortunatley, to be in this position, of having that kind of back up, we have had to "bend over" so to speak, and wave the "we support you flag" no matter how unpopular that is to the voting public. I am a realist. I know that to defend Aust with out the US alliance,we would have to spend huge amounts on defence,and other areas of our lifestyle would suffer,pensions,healthcare,education etc Its a price we have chosen to pay,but i wonder if our grand children will benefit from that choice,because i think in future years, The US, UK and the rest of the west will be isolated by the rest of the world. Sure,we may have it relitivly good....but at what price, and how good will the poorer countries have it by then?

 

[abramsteve]

Fair and good points.

However so long as we watch out for number one, we should do alright. I understand your feelings, part of me says we should 'bend over' for no one. But I too am a realist.

I dont see us falling behind, I do see others catching up. Is this a good thing? I dont know.... but its a different disccusion all together

 

[drjn]

Providing ALL munitions for RAAF during GW2. ...

Point of order........we were billed (and payed) for all the munitions used.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Point of order........we were billed (and payed) for all the munitions used.

We've paid for airlift too. I am aware of this, but they still provided something that wasn't available to us. Look at the war payments Britain had to pay after WW2 as well.

Point is they assisted US when we needed it and we didn't pay "up front"...

 

[Tasman]

To the best of my knowledge the ANZUS Treaty has only been invoked once and that was by Australia immediately after 9/11.

Howard Government Invokes ANZUS Treaty

September 14, 2001

The Federal Government has invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time in the 50-year history of the defence alliance with the United States.

Cabinet met today following the Prime Minister's return from Washington and in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

Following the Cabinet meeting, the Prime Minister, John Howard, issued the following statement:


"The Australian people have been shocked and outraged at the enormity of the terrorist attacks on the United States. These heinous crimes have caused catastrophic loss of life, injury and destruction. We anticipate that a significant number of Australian nationals are included among those who lost their lives.

I have already conveyed to the President of the United States the condolences of the Australian Government and people, and expressed our resolute support for the United States at this most difficult time.

The terrorist attacks on the United States were discussed today at a special Cabinet meeting that I convened on my return from the United States.

The Government has decided, in consultation with the United States, that Article IV of the ANZUS Treaty applies to the terrorist attacks on the United States. The decision is based on our belief that the attacks have been initiated and coordinated from outside the United States.

This action has been taken to underline the gravity of the situation and to demonstrate our steadfast commitment to work with the United States in combating international terrorism.

The Australian Government will be in close consultation with the United States Administration in the period ahead to consider what actions Australia might take in support of the US response to these attacks."

Article IV of the ANZUS Treaty says:


Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2001/01-09-14c.shtml

To read all 11 articles of the treaty follow the link below:

http://www.australianpolitics.com/foreign/anzus/anzus-treaty.shtml


The articles that set out the basic obligations of the three countries are II - V which state:

Article II

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.


Article III

The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific.


Article IV

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article V

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

It can be seen that ANZUS is very different to NATO and since 1986 it has really been a treaty between the USA and Australia.

In 1986, the United States and Australia announced that the United States was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access after NZ banned visits of American warships, but in May 2006, US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, Christopher Hill, signalled that the US wanted a closer defence relationship with New Zealand and he praised New Zealand’s involvement in Afghanistan and reconstruction in Iraq. In July 2006, during a press conference with New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters, US Senator John McCain said that New Zealand and the US should resume joint military exercises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS

Hopefully the NZ situation will be fully resolved so that A**US can be called ANZUS again.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

It can be seen that ANZUS is very different to NATO and since 1986 it has really been a treaty between the USA and Australia.

In 1986, the United States and Australia announced that the United States was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access after NZ banned visits of American warships, but in May 2006, US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, Christopher Hill, signalled that the US wanted a closer defence relationship with New Zealand and he praised New Zealand’s involvement in Afghanistan and reconstruction in Iraq. In July 2006, during a press conference with New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters, US Senator John McCain said that New Zealand and the US should resume joint military exercises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS

Hopefully the NZ situation will be fully resolved so that A**US can be called ANZUS again.

Cheers

As I understand it, the A-NZ portion of the ANZUS treaty has remained in effect, though I would be glad for a resumption of the NZ-US treaty obligations.

Regarding the viability of the ANZUS treaty, as far as I can tell, the provisions have never been met (aside from 9/11) for the treaty to come into effect. Take a look at Article II

Article II

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Since the treaty was signed, Australia proper hasn't come under armed attack. Nor as far as I'm aware, was there armed conflict in Australian-held New Guinea. As for the applicability of the ANZUS treaty in local "bush wars" I wouldn't think the ANZUS treaty could reasonably be applied. While Aussie (or Kiwi, or Yank) interests might come up, leading to involvement, there isn't a direct threat to a signatory nation. If one did extend the ANZUS treaty to apply whenever a participating nation deployed troops, then the US could be obligated to respond, via the FPDA, to attacks on Malaysia or Singapore, despite not being a signer of the FPDA. Similarly, the US could've called upon Australia or NZ to contribute whenever the US became involved in operations in the Phillippines, or most of Central America or western South America. From what I've read of the treaty, it was never really intended to include overseas deployments.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

As I understand it, the A-NZ portion of the ANZUS treaty has remained in effect, though I would be glad for a resumption of the NZ-US treaty obligations.

That is also my understanding, but it is certainly causes complications. I think it would be great if the problems could be resolved.

Regarding the viability of the ANZUS treaty, as far as I can tell, the provisions have never been met (aside from 9/11) for the treaty to come into effect. Take a look at Article II



Since the treaty was signed, Australia proper hasn't come under armed attack. Nor as far as I'm aware, was there armed conflict in Australian-held New Guinea. As for the applicability of the ANZUS treaty in local "bush wars" I wouldn't think the ANZUS treaty could reasonably be applied. While Aussie (or Kiwi, or Yank) interests might come up, leading to involvement, there isn't a direct threat to a signatory nation. If one did extend the ANZUS treaty to apply whenever a participating nation deployed troops, then the US could be obligated to respond, via the FPDA, to attacks on Malaysia or Singapore, despite not being a signer of the FPDA. Similarly, the US could've called upon Australia or NZ to contribute whenever the US became involved in operations in the Phillippines, or most of Central America or western South America. From what I've read of the treaty, it was never really intended to include overseas deployments.

-Cheers

I must admit that I had never read any of the articles until this thread was opened. The thing that surprised me is that attacks on island territories, ships or aircraft outside of the Pacific would fall outside the treaty. My interpretation from this is that an attack on, say, an Australian ship in the Indian Ocean or the shooting down of an American airliner over the Atlantic, would not be a provide a reason for ANZUS to be invoked.

This means that a conflict between Australia and Indonesia, for example, would only cause the treaty to be invoked if Indonesia launched attacks on mainland Australia.

So in lots of ways I think Australia and the USA have worked together in areas that are well outside the ANZUS Treaty (Gulf War 1 for example). I suppose the current actions in Afghanistan and Iraq could be seen to come under the treaty because they are part of the War Against Terror which followed 9/11.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

That is also my understanding, but it is certainly causes complications. I think it would be great if the problems could be resolved.



I must admit that I had never read any of the articles until this thread was opened. The thing that surprised me is that attacks on island territories, ships or aircraft outside of the Pacific would fall outside the treaty. My interpretation from this is that an attack on, say, an Australian ship in the Indian Ocean or the shooting down of an American airliner over the Atlantic, would not be a provide a reason for ANZUS to be invoked.

This means that a conflict between Australia and Indonesia, for example, would only cause the treaty to be invoked if Indonesia launched attacks on mainland Australia.

So in lots of ways I think Australia and the USA have worked together in areas that are well outside the ANZUS Treaty (Gulf War 1 for example). I suppose the current actions in Afghanistan and Iraq could be seen to come under the treaty because they are part of the War Against Terror which followed 9/11.

Cheers

I tend to agree with this, and have a few thoughts on different parts. From an Australian POV, Australia wouldn't want to become involved (keep in mind the Cold War mindset when the ANZUS Treaty was signed) in a war in Europe between the West/NATO & USSR/Warsaw Pact, which could happen if the restriction wasn't made on Pacific territories/assets. Most Australian possessions would be covered, because they are in the Pacific (I believe Heard & Macdonald Island aren't) So it wouldn't require an Indonesian (or any other nation) to actually attack the Australian continent, an attack on Norfolk Island, or Australian assets (shipping, military, etc.) would suffice.

As evidence of good relations and defence cooperation between the US & Australia, GW1 & 2 (though I don't consider GW2 to be related to 9/11 or the GWOT) Afghanistan, the Phillippines, etc. etc.

I do feel the need to include this though, I've done it before, and I'm sure I'll do it again. Australia first and foremost, needs to have the ability to defend itself, without outside assistance as much as possible. The ANZUS treaty introduces the potential for US assistance to Australia, making any attack on Australia possibly much more difficult and/or costly. However, there are situations where the US might be unable, or unwilling, to come to Australia's assistance. The situations aren't very common (like the US already engaged with an enemy and doesn't have forces to spare) but they do exist.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

I do feel the need to include this though, I've done it before, and I'm sure I'll do it again. Australia first and foremost, needs to have the ability to defend itself, without outside assistance as much as possible. The ANZUS treaty introduces the potential for US assistance to Australia, making any attack on Australia possibly much more difficult and/or costly. However, there are situations where the US might be unable, or unwilling, to come to Australia's assistance. The situations aren't very common (like the US already engaged with an enemy and doesn't have forces to spare) but they do exist.

-Cheers

Article II almost requires each of the signatories to contribute to their own defence and also to provide aid to the others to help them to do this. So the transfer of technology ,the supply of arms, and assistance with training through joint exercises would all come into this.

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Cheers

 

[rickshaw]

Then I guess that they've pretty much matched our military commitments to "their" wars... I understand your point but I disagree that we've been threatened as a nation that has required the US's assistance.

Not once since WW2 has the Australian mainland or our territories come under threat of attack by a foreign power.

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).

Not once since Korea has a significant Australian force faced the possibility of being defeated in combat operations, simply because we deploy token forces or more significant forces to (relatively) benign areas. This is a political choice FORCED upon Governments who since WW2 have consistently refused to equip the ADF for serious warfighting operations.

"forced" or taken? I'd suggest it was the latter - a conscious decision to both save money - funnelling it to social needs, rather than defence and not to become so over-committed to conflict that we would be in danger of needing to spend vast sums. This conscious decision was taken as a consequence of the mistaken belief I have mentioned in the guarantee that the A**US Treaty has supposedly provided.

When our mainland/territories has never been threatened and none of our forces have faced serious risk of defeat in any operation since Korea, it's a bit "rich" to accuse the US of not holding up it's end of the bargain. Have a bit of a look at what they HAVE done for us, defence wise.

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?

For all the arguments about Australian involvement in Iraq etc, the most significant one should be the POINT of our military commitments. Militarily (from a US perspective) they are worse than useless insofar as the fact that the USA has to divert it's own military resources in time of war, to ensure that WE are adequately equipped to conduct operations. The political benefit is worth FAR more to the US, than the "niche" capacity we can cobble together.

Examples of the USA's assistance to Australia in the military field include: providing C-17 airlift capacity for RAAF over numerous operations. Providing ALL munitions for RAAF during GW2. Providing helicopter capacity for Australian specwarries in Operation Desert Fox, Afghanistan and GW2. Providing logistical and communitions support, plus the MeU "big stick" for an overstretched and ill-equipped ADF during Interfet.

We couldn't even DEPLOY to Timor last year without the assistance of 2x USAF C-17 aircraft. Kanimbla and Manoora were sailing "race tracks" off the coast of Fiji and our token deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan were "hogging" the majority C-130 availability.

The fact seems to me that everything we have needed to conduct operations, that we don't have, the US has provided to it's own operational detriment.

I cannot see a need for the US to have "stepped in" in ANY of the situations you outline, but at least they had the capacity to do so if necessary, which is more than can be said about ADF...

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?

 

[rickshaw]

As I understand it, the A-NZ portion of the ANZUS treaty has remained in effect, though I would be glad for a resumption of the NZ-US treaty obligations.

The treatment of NZ during the 1980s over the issue of nuclear armed/powered ships was IMO one of the lowest points of American diplomacy. The US Government's reaction was completely out of proportion to the problem and provoked the New Zealand population into its reaction when a series of US Naval visits were deliberately scheduled against the advice of the US Navy's CINCPAC by the White House.

Regarding the viability of the ANZUS treaty, as far as I can tell, the provisions have never been met (aside from 9/11) for the treaty to come into effect.

It has not been invoked, except for 11 September. As I noted, Howard pushed the envelope somewhat by interpreting an attack on New York as being covered by the Treaty. While its invocation no doubt played well in some quarters in Washington, to those who knew and understood the Treaty, it was seen for what it was.

However, on the three occasions I have mentioned, the Australian Government has approached the US Government informally over the question of the possible need to invoke the Treaty. On all three occasions, the US Government has informed Canberra that it would not view such an attempt in a favourable light. In 1960, in particular, this led to Australia having to suffer a humilating backdown in the face of Indonesian aggression and led directly to our decision to become involved in the Vietnam War.

Since the treaty was signed, Australia proper hasn't come under armed attack. Nor as far as I'm aware, was there armed conflict in Australian-held New Guinea.

The 1960 West New Guinea dispute was the closest, until 1999, that Australia and Indonesia had come to such a conflict. Its effect on our foreign policy should not be under-estimated.

As for the applicability of the ANZUS treaty in local "bush wars" I wouldn't think the ANZUS treaty could reasonably be applied. While Aussie (or Kiwi, or Yank) interests might come up, leading to involvement, there isn't a direct threat to a signatory nation.

Depends upon how it is "spun". In 1960 we definitly viewed the possibility of a shooting war in New Guinea over Dutch West New Guinea with Indonesia as being a threat to our "territorial integrity, political independence or security".

If one did extend the ANZUS treaty to apply whenever a participating nation deployed troops, then the US could be obligated to respond, via the FPDA, to attacks on Malaysia or Singapore, despite not being a signer of the FPDA. Similarly, the US could've called upon Australia or NZ to contribute whenever the US became involved in operations in the Phillippines, or most of Central America or western South America. From what I've read of the treaty, it was never really intended to include overseas deployments.

-Cheers

Why then are "forces" specifically mentioned?

 

[Rich]

The more I read of the history of our alliance with the US, the more I am forced to question whether the benefits outweigh the encumberances. It is clear that the US went into the A**US alliance with considerably different expectations and interpretations of what the Treaty would mean to it, as against what it would mean to Canberra and Wellington. They have seen it as a means to (initially) gain our aquiesance to a "soft" peace with Japan, so as to rebuild Japan as an anti-Communist "bulwark" in Northern Asia, while we saw it as a means of ensuring that if Japan did become resurgent, we would have a new (and formal alliance with our) "great and powerful friends" across the Pacific, after the disappointments of Singapore and British imperial strategy. Since then, our governments have made quite large of the defence guarantee aspect of it, while Washington have utilised it as a means to tie us into their strategic alliance more firmly.

Well its worked out pretty well for you, "yathink"? 62 years after WW-ll Australia hasn't been seriously threatened, has a very successful economy and standard of life, and you still go to the Polls to elect your leaders. Take a good look around you to see what "might have been"? Your region is chockful of police states, dictatorships, military juntas, and communism. To even think that ANZUS was not worth the price goes beyond cynicism. Honestly, sometimes I think our allies go around as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

We paid a far, far bigger price then you in the fight against communism. And we are paying a far bigger price then you in the current battle against terrorism. Both threats directly threaten Australia far more then the Euro-empire bush wars your crying about. There would be no Asian Democracies without the US commitment and nuclear umbrella.

Look at your standard of life and compare it to other nations in your region. The Alliance with the Yanks is what gave you the 60+ year peace to help build your country into what it is today. Yeah you "bent over" all right. You bent over about as much as west Europe, which would also be flying the Hammer and Sickle if we wouldn't have protected them also, placing our own cities at risk of nuclear holocaust.

I wonder how many billions, indeed trillions, weve spent maintaining overseas postures that give these alliances teeth? I spent 4 years of my life walking around ground zero, some of it in countries I'd scratch my head over "what in hell were doing here"?

Fast forward to 2007 when our allies quote Al Jazeera to us, or the latest Hollywood movie. Or, they have become puppets of a United Nations which is dominated by non-Democratic voices and political posturing. A place where Russia is allowed to incinerate Chechnya without anyone whimpering but we are lambasted for following military Law in holding terrorists prisoner. China can point 1,000 missiles against another democracy but there is sniveling about a Yank nuke aircraft carrier visiting. Where the no go of a sale of a war plane your own people say you dont need and cant afford provides a convenient outlet for more anti-Yank bashing.

You need us far, far more then we need you. And west Europe is going to be finding that out as well. Russia is going into another recycling act, as their historical dreams of empire becomes more flush with energy wealth. And its only a matter of time before China asserts itself with a splendid little war.

I should be surprised when someone down under flames ANZUS and America, what with more then 60 years of peace and prosperity the treaty has given you. But I'm not! Nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[old faithful]

East Timor signed the paper work today,to allow the drilling of Gas(LNG) and oil in their waters. No surprise to me, but Dick,s (Vice Pres of USA) ,old company has lot of work coming up. Australia will make a bit to, but Indonesia wont. Another bush war? Think bush should be spelt OIL.

 

[rickshaw]

Well its worked out pretty well for you, "yathink"? 62 years after WW-ll Australia hasn't been seriously threatened, has a very successful economy and standard of life, and you still go to the Polls to elect your leaders. Take a good look around you to see what "might have been"? Your region is chockful of police states, dictatorships, military juntas, and communism. To even think that ANZUS was not worth the price goes beyond cynicism. Honestly, sometimes I think our allies go around as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

You appear to believe that this circumstance is purely down to the USA. I wonder why? Might these circumstances in truth be a combination of geography, politics and economics?

We paid a far, far bigger price then you in the fight against communism. And we are paying a far bigger price then you in the current battle against terrorism. Both threats directly threaten Australia far more then the Euro-empire bush wars your crying about. There would be no Asian Democracies without the US commitment and nuclear umbrella.

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.

Look at your standard of life and compare it to other nations in your region.

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

The Alliance with the Yanks is what gave you the 60+ year peace to help build your country into what it is today.

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?

Yeah you "bent over" all right. You bent over about as much as west Europe, which would also be flying the Hammer and Sickle if we wouldn't have protected them also, placing our own cities at risk of nuclear holocaust.

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

I wonder how many billions, indeed trillions, weve spent maintaining overseas postures that give these alliances teeth? I spent 4 years of my life walking around ground zero, some of it in countries I'd scratch my head over "what in hell were doing here"?

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

Fast forward to 2007 when our allies quote Al Jazeera to us, or the latest Hollywood movie. Or, they have become puppets of a United Nations which is dominated by non-Democratic voices and political posturing. A place where Russia is allowed to incinerate Chechnya without anyone whimpering but we are lambasted for following military Law in holding terrorists prisoner.

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?

China can point 1,000 missiles against another democracy but there is sniveling about a Yank nuke aircraft carrier visiting.

I 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 sovereignity over their own ports, I take it?

Where the no go of a sale of a war plane your own people say you dont need and cant afford provides a convenient outlet for more anti-Yank bashing.

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-relient and less relient upon the US for its security needs. Isn't this essentially what your nation desires?

You need us far, far more then we need you. And west Europe is going to be finding that out as well. Russia is going into another recycling act, as their historical dreams of empire becomes more flush with energy wealth. And its only a matter of time before China asserts itself with a splendid little war.

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

I should be surprised when someone down under flames ANZUS and America, what with more then 60 years of peace and prosperity the treaty has given you. But I'm not! Nothing surprises me anymore.

Appears I have touched a raw nerve.