In a Quadrilateral Australia would have problems being allied to:

- Japan. Because Japan, has intense strategic problems with China (in the EAST China Sea) and with North Korea's Navy and nuclear missiles. Australia doesn't want to be obliged by (non-US) alliance to get into shooting wars against China or North Korea.

- India. India may get into:

= yet another war with (now) nuclear armed Pakistan, AND
= another war with now nuclear armed China on the India-China border (noting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War_of_1962 ). Another war against Pakistan or China may have a naval aspect that (non nuclear armed) Australia may get dragged into.

+ India has long term aims of dominating the Indian Ocean (bordered by Western Australia). As India's Navy and nuclear weapons arsenal grows India may actually become a strategic threat to Australia. This India-future-goals aspect may or may not justify alliance with India.

Pete

Picky,picky, Plantagenet.

Robert Conquest, arguably the greatest historian of the 20th century, used to argue in favour of a world-wide 'anglo' alliance ie USA, England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, with membership open to non-white societies who had absorbed the ethics of British enlightenment eg India.

Others such a Thatcher and Niall Ferguson (Mr Hirsi Ali) have supported the long-term notion.

It is clear that the values that Britain gave the world are going to be under sustained attack in the course of this century just as they were last century and it will take a monumental effort to defend them all over again.

A mutual defensive alliance between like-minded nations seems not only advantageous but probably inevitable given the challenges a resurgent and expansive China and Russia pose.

If Trump gets up, Britain moves to regain its independence, and, seemingly, India continues getting its act together, the times might be right for such a defensive alliance lest the world descend into the darkness that a Chinese hegemony would entail. Others such as Japan and the smaller ASEAN nations would then be able to shelter under that defensive umbrella - provided that, this time, they made their fair contribution to the joint effort.

Mark Steyn has observed that China will get old before it gets rich due to its demographic problems. But as its rise begins to falter, it will become increasingly dangerous to its neighbours. Russia will go along for the ride. By 2050, China will either be in decline or triumphant world-wide. There is no middle ground.

A grand alliance will become obligatory and strong action is becoming urgent. A surrender on the South China Sea islands isn't the equivalent of Munich but it is a Rhineland 1936 moment. Just as a strong, determined alliance would have averted so much misery had it acted in 1936, a strong determined alliance acting now will avert the coming disasters.

I've long been a supporter of Australia becoming a Republic, a 'neutral' Republic. Let's revisit the OLO thread from January 2014.

It became a bit 'religious' with some of our contributors, but the highlights cut n pasted below:

"...Before we can become "neutral," we need
to become an Independent nation first."
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 4 January 2014 12:25:49 PM

"...So no thanks, let the stupid Americans provide the deterrence instead: yes it comes with a price, but not as high.

At least, let us not be involved with the rest of the world any more than the minimum required to maintain the American deterrence."
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 5 January 2014 12:46:10 AM

"Becoming independent would be the quickest way possible to become subjected.

We wouldn't last a year, without big brother, with that big nuclear stick standing behind us. We have too much wealth in the ground, & too little a defense force.

Greenies don't like the idea of nuclear, but it is the only thing that has prevented a major war, for the last 60 years, & kept us free."
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 5 January 2014 7:39:40 PM

"...Building much closer relationships with this part of the world would serve Australia's interests far more that some 60 year old consultative treaty, which at the end of the day may prove not to be worth the paper it is written on."
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 6 January 2014 6:33:22 AM

"...I think it was FOXY who said we must first, be truly independent. And we do really need our powerful ally, the USA to protect us from just such a scenario as described above."
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 6 January 2014 2:49:21 PM

To expand a little on my feelings...I'm not an economist/financier like you Shadow and I'm only a soldier/tradesman who turned lawyer in the last few years, so no, these are only my opinions fwiw.

Set up legally binding agreements with India, China, Korea, etc (a Sth East Asia Forum if you like). I don't subscribe to the UN.

(TBC)

Continued... the UN has become irrelevant post Glasnost, nothing more than an unofficial mercenary squad for the likes of Neo-Con entities.
Witnessing what went on in Timor - Leste and the Solomon's, it disgusted me to the core.

I keep thinking of Smedley Butlers speech from 1933 quite often, in which he says: "WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

See: www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html