Bruce, How refreshing to read a reasoned analysis of Australia's defence needs. I think it was Talleyrand who said that a country has neither friends nor enemies, only interests. Australian politicians since 1941 have miserably failed on that standard, involving Australia in a succession of wars that had no greater purpose than the protection of America's imperial interests.. Such policies have manifestly not been in Australia's interests. The expansion of the American military presence in Australia (not just Darwin) seems guaranteed to involve us in further American imperial ventures.

James,

I don't agree, i find the article pretty ordinary.

How ridiculous is it to portray Australia as being a puppet of the US when other naitons in the region also have similar security concerns.

Also, the US anti-Chinese? That is ridiculous given the role that country has played in helping create the opportunities for China to rise.

Gee whiz, now the US is supposedly void of any positive role just because it, and others, have concerns about the balance of power,an important consideration of any half-decent international relations scholar.

Chris,

The U.S. at present is overly reliant on cheap imports from China - they are propping up the American economy. So it has a stake in economic machinations concerning China.

As for Australia being a puppet of the U.S....well yes it is, even if it's for reasonably sought security reasons. It's still incumbent upon us to align ourselves with the U.S. in all sorts of ways. It's a case of scratching each others' backs - always was.

As you distrust the US Bruce I suppose China is automatically more trustworthy...?

Wonderful stat use. Problem is your bright idea means Australia would need to provide for its independent defence - costing 15% of our GDP.

The increases to defence spending in the 1930s quoted by you are from an extremely low base at a time when Federal budgets were laughably low. Our armed forces were therefore totally unable to defend Australia in 1941.

Funnily enough the Japanese aggressors, seeking resources for their growing population (um, not like China?) were not impressed with the soothing words of Australia's diplomats. The soothing words of the League of Nations had long since failed.

We completely relied on Americans from 1942 to defend us from an enemy that bombed us.

In a region of rapidly growing nuclear forces and rapidly growing navies (that means India and China) it would be idiotic for Australia to cancel our alliance with the US. I suggest you read this and learn http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/latest-news-of-agni-v-test-may-be.html .

As soothing words don't work too well aginst expanding authoritarian countries we would need to replace the American weapons we just cancelled.

As your idea, Bruce, effectively requires Australia to buy its own deterrent weapons including nuclear warheads on ICBMs and in nuclear submarines I'm totally with you.

Pete

Chris,
You have a charmingly naive view of American foreign policy. Look at the encirclement of China by US bases, the latest three being provided for in Obama's latest visit to Afghanistan. What country has nuclear weapons in Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, all aimed at China?
What country is busy cozying up to sundry despots in the former Soviet Asian republics to the north of Afghanistan and establishing bases there?
Pete: You sure do like to set up straw men arguments. Foreign policy does not consist of making choices between the US and China. It surely does not mean engaging in an arms race with nuclear weapons and other fantasies that you like to dangle bewfore the gullible.
We neede a sane foreign policy based on a realistic appraisal of own own true best interests. I think the article added to that debate. It doesn't mean we stop thinking at that point.

We have a handful of front line fighters, pitiful air defences, 12 obsolete diesel powered submarines, and an army well trained but ill equipped. In short not enough to fight off anyone stronger than Fiji.

What makes it worse is that if there was trouble on the horizon, we no longer have the manufacturing base to ramp up our resources, unlike Finland, Germany etc.

The only cards we have on the table is suck up to the US and hope a base of theirs on our soil is a deterrent in itself.

Yes, indeed, the article is a neat summary, Australia's 'enemies' are really America's and with earlier generations we acquired Britain's enemies---we don't need to defend ourselves from America's enemies.

The Americans defended Australia in WW2 because it suited their strategic interests, the British abandoned us for the same reasons, 60,000 dead in WW1 counted for nothing. Tying ourselves to the fortunes of a declining, debt ridden imperial power is lunacy, but that's not unprecedented is it?

Any Australian who wants to fight America's wars is welcome to volunteer for the US armed forces.

James

"realistic appraisal" usually leans toward the Curtin approach rather than the Chamberlain (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna#Influence ).

mac

It doesn't matter that "The Americans defended Australia in WW2 because it suited their strategic interests,"

they still defended us when no-one else would. And we couldn't handle Japan by ourselves. Japan bombed us and was torn between blockading or invading us.

Pete

plantagenet,

Yes, but (1) it was a war we involved ourselves in without adequate preparation, and our only effective force was in North Africa because we were fighting in someone else's war and (2) we were duped by the British into believing the "impregnable" Singapore propaganda. We should have learned the lesson of the folly of relying on powerful allies by now, they're never around when you need them.

Hi mac

Certainly we learned not to rely on allies that couldn't deliver on our defence ie. Britain.

However the US in 1942, through the decades to May 2012 and for the foreseeable future is more than well-equipped to deliver on our defence.

Even the US self interest argument is to Australia's advantage as Australia sits at the junction of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. That is at, or very near, to the junction of the Middle East to East Asia oil shipping lanes - the most valuable international sealanes and the US strategic route to South Asia and the Middle East.

The US has the majority of its offshore naval bases within Australia's areas of interest including bases at Bahrain, Diego Garcia, Singapore, Okinawa (to increasingly be shifted to Guam and Darwin) and Pearl Harbour. Add a week and there's support from San Diego and the nuclear submarine base near Seattle.

Unlike our navy US carriers and subs move at 33 knots/hour without refueling, very fast moving.

And then there's the world largest airlift capacity. I won't even mention the stealth bombers and stealth fighters that regularly transit our Northern airbases (not publicly admitted).

So the US is a very good ally to have with the weapons and the motivation.

Naturally diplomacy is the first form of defence and in that respect the US is the most persuasive country politicly. Somehow the Chinese model has found few followers. Every time we have faith in China they arrest someone, fight before they free a writer, or poison some Brit businessman.

Pete

Well said Pete

plantagenet,

I certainly agree with your comments on the military capacity and technological superiority of the US, after all it's still 'number one', unlike Britain which was about #3 in 1939. It's also worth remembering it has an enormous debt which will have to be controlled sooner or later and, if Niall Ferguson's thesis is correct, military expenditure could decline rapidly as result. What strategic decisions, the Americans might make in a financial crisis are extremely difficult to predict.

It really is a worry when you get this naive sort of rubbish from someone who should be reasonably close to current diplomatic thinking.

Sounds like trying to hide behind a little wooden cross, if one met a vampire.

Perhaps our wonderful government has decided to cut more than 5 Billion out of the defence budget, & is getting a bit of ground work laid by some old diplomats.

Thanks Chris

mac

I pretty much agree with you on British decline and US still on top.

Its an odd dynamic of our big 4 banks and the US economy that they are held as being too big to let fail. Hence over recent decades the Saudis, Japanese and lately China have actually payed the US (by buying Treasury bonds) to prevent it from failing. They, but less so the US, realise they rely on each other or they all go down as inter-country trade drops.

Another thing about the US is its extraordinary economic depth - most of its wealth is internal and far less is at risk from international downswings than most other countries.

The US also makes a good ally because its economy thrives on defence spending, often boosted by warring, a good country to be onside. Orwell had it right in 1984 about constant war and fear driving great powers.

Bruce could probably tell you that most up and coming military officers and many professional noncoms from Oz actually want to go to war, as that shows professionalism, accelerates promotion and the pay and (for some) excitement is good.

Hasbeen

What with Bruce's service in Vietnam and unusually courageous diplomatic service (like hiding Black activists from the South African Security Police (BOSS) a bit like the Stasi in its day) he is unusual.

I think/hope Bruce takes my usual disagreements as backhanded respect.

Pete

What are we actually defending ? The right for people with no I.D. to come here & gradually take over without the need of a war ? Great defence system indeed, fostering a silent invasion.

The current alliance with America presents no exclusion to pursuing a new (perhaps more limited) alliance with China. They are afterall our biggest economic partner and a key supplier of "new" Australians.

There is a lot of naive thinking among these comments. The U.S. is an imperial power which, though in decline, is still trying to control the whole world. It has military bases every whichplace and engages in endless wars to secure scarce resources and strategic advantage.

Australia, by fawning and grovelling to the U.S. and allowing it to place its military on our soil, is making many enemies. If we had politicians that had vision and backbone, we would be seeking to be neutral rather than allowing our nation to become another U.S. attack dog like Israel is.

The U.S. is our enemy and the enemy of both the world and peace.

Wake up, Australia!

http://dangerouscreation.com

David G,
I must admit you & your mates in the pic above the rocket look way more pleasing than the Greenie below the pic of the rocket.

Yeah individual

I spose there are violent habits among some in any group.

Planta

Individual and Planta, that you both support the warmongers is not unusual. Our society is brought up thinking that war is a normal part of human civilization even though it shows clearly we are low IQ barbarians.

The American Empire is a blot upon our world, a rogue nation. It has killed millions since WW3!

David

And above I also said:

"Naturally diplomacy is the first form of defence and in that respect the US is the most persuasive country politicly."

and

"Orwell had it right in 1984 about constant war and fear driving great powers."

Life is more complicated than blaming America for everything.

Pete

you both support the warmongers is not unusual.
David G,
We support those who fight those who support the war mongers, get your lines right.
How do think your life would be like if it weren't for those you condemn ? Prove me wrong & go to Afghanistan when the troops leave & stay on without the protection of the US & other forces.
I suppose you could always try & lecture the locals in political correctness.

The number of Australians who have no idea or awareness of American Imperialism is staggering. In fact, most Australians don't even know what 'imperialism' means.

Too many Australians are still caught in a 1945 mindset and think Americans are saviours. They refuse to see the endless wars that the U.S. engages in and ask themselves: why is the U.S. doing this?

It is doing it to try to gain military control of the world for its own ends.

David g,
You make it sound like as if it were some silly competition as to who has the power. It's a deadly serious game to keep evil under control. If you think the methods are silly then just remember (if you capable of understanding that is) that the ONLY way to fight stupidity is by fighting fire with fire. Or are you a religious middle eastern religious fundamentalist who wants to live under that yoke. Well, I don't so I rather support America than Iran in keeping the world under whatever possible control. Most people need to be controlled like it or not. Just look at yourself.

Individual, did you know there are lots of folk who are called 'sheeple'?

This is just for you David

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE&feature=related

Enjoy

Planta

plantagenet,
An even better version in portuguese by one of the world's great singers, Freddy Quinn. He's in his 90's. now.
http://youtu.be/JYDHsq421_I

folk who are called 'sheeple'?
David G,
Yes, the David G's of this world.

Time gentlemen, puleeeze!

Oh individual!!

the Porto version sounds like a French love song :)

Pete

It's a shame that this fine and important article has been trivialized by a few people who can't get their minds around the fact that the U.S. is not what it claims to be!

Australia will pay a heavy price in the future because of its U.S. sycophancy and blindness.

It's not a matter of one or the other.

Australia's national interest is best served by taking advantage of the china boom, the rise of the asian century whilst maintaining our historical and cultural links with the anglosphere.