For a long time I have felt that our subservient relationship with the US is not in our interests. It appears that this relationship has replaced our former relationship with the UK in moreways than one.
This toadying Alliance with a country half a world away decreases our abilty to have closer ties withour neighbours, whose nations of Asia and the South Pacific. We are oft times seen as a finger on the claws of US imperialism so we are distrusted and rightly so. There no need for our neighbours to attack us, it is cheaper to buy from us. We should cultivate long term friendship with the people of SE Asia and the Pacific even if that means not supporting governments at times. It is a great shame that Radio Australia was sold off.
I do not trust the government to act in Australias' interest. I think our failure to get Hicks returned has made being Australian meaningless. He languishes in an American torture camp and all that has been proven is that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. As for defense we all noticed the US marines swarming across Timor, or did you miss that. When it suits them we are for them or agin 'em if not, your on your buddy.
We should stand on our own 2 feet and cultivate a non alined policy of mutual benefit with all including the US

The good Doctor states that his position is not anti-American, and I believe him! His position is anti-Bush and anti-Howard rather than anti-American. I look forward to watching Woldring break his neck performing his u-turn when the Democrats eventually get back in in America.

The thing is bozzie... a close relationship with the democrats would probably be a little different to a close relationship with the republicans.

Woldring wouldn't need to to a u-turn. The democrats are less likely to yank us into chaotic wars, and aren't as reviled in the international community.

What exactly is "the international community"? I don't see how you can have a community without some sort of shared set of values, so:
Who is part of the international community?
What are it shared values?
Who decides?

By the way, the domains "internationalcommunity.com" and "internationalcommunity.org" are for sale, if anyone is interested.

The world has been managed by alliances since Adam had enough offspring for them to forget they were of the same family.

The Jews of Khaiber made a survival alliance with the banu Gatafan, a Bedoin tribe, to thrawt further genocide by Mohammed. (they already know of his treatment of the Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir (the remnants of Nadir were living now at Khaybar)

Without alliances.. we are dead meat...cat food...

Lets look at it..
200,000,000+ Muslims in Indonesia.
20,000,000 Aussies.

If anyone does not see ALLIANCE ALERT screaming out from the Arafura sea, then such a person is blind deaf and dumb.

We ALREADY had an ambitious Asian nation bombing Townsville and Darwin, and swarming down the Kokoda trail but we fought them with the assistance of... guess who ? yesssssssss first prize to he who said "the AMERICANS".

So, it can be morally argued that we owe our LIVES and freedom to the YANKS.. now.. I might be wrong here but when someone saves ur life, there is a tiny bit of obligation involved.
We should be thankful that the only major obligation they expect of us is our solidarity with them in such escapades as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Treaties and alliances involve 2 way obligations. There will be times when those obligations seem a bit uncomfortable such as with Iraq. (but not Afghanistan) The Americans have assured us that if our combat troops were pulled out of Iraq, the alliance is rock solid.

So, like em, or hate em... we still NEED them.

The author may be dead right, but the chances of this country downgrading the US relationship in favour of more rational, productive and mutually beneficial partnerships? "Not bloody likely".
Even if Howard is finally deposed in the next "election", i doubt Rudd and co are going to make any changes in that direction. Just hope he can stand up for Australias interests instead of being the caddy that Howard is, "Which club would you like Mr Bush?"

Ahh but DB - you're not looking at this through the one golden rule of international politics: no matter what, you do what's in your country's best interests.

With the US waging a war against Islamic extremists, do you really think the US would be keen to allow Australia to become a sharia state?

I dare say as long as Australia was friendly-neutral our interests would be looked after, as long as they are parallel to US interests. Where they aren't, such as FTAs, we can still voice our opposition without being an enemy.

And as with all things, yes the US have helped us out historically - because it was in their interests.

David

For me, the thing that counts against that position is that no American president has ever refuted the Guam or Nixon Doctrine. The US commits to meet treaty obligations (thought the fact that the US Ambassidor does not know the terms of ANZUS is slightly worrying) but expects everyone to be able to look after themselves. Basically- the US would intervene if it considered it important to their own interests.

For Australia, these statements really acted as a catalyst for the creation of an unified defence force and gave us a real burst of independence. For a time there, we saw ourselves as a force distinct from all others (US, UK).

However, much of the Howard term has seen us lose that indenpendence and turn back towards the supposed safety blanket of the US. For example- we purchased (used) Abrams tanks that are too heavy to be airlifted by our own assets. Why- so they can interact better with American units. Helpful if we ever come to deploy O/S as part of an American force. Not too helpful, though, if we need to rapidly deploy an armoured force within our own borders.

Regardless of the support Howard has shown Bush, Bush has not come out and recanted the Nixon Doctrine. We have no greater gurantee that America will support us now than we did a decade ago, yet we have tied ourselves more tightly to thier coattails- economically, militarily, and diplomatically.

In the meantime, free trade agreements bought by the government with the blood of our troops seem to fizzle and die. No great wins, no significant openning of American arms to Australia- "a tale .. full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"!

Personally, I am tired of being America's gimp- the ball-gag is starting to chafe.

We can be friends to America without being subservient. We must stand on our own as an independent, soverign nation. Only then can we build alliances with foundations in mutual respect.

Well said BOAZ_David:

Without alliances.. we are dead meat...cat food...

What we have never heard from the anti-American brigade is that if we did end the alliance with America, who would defend us? You know, in 20 or 30 years time, when there is a huge undeclared war between the first and third worlds? When there are 12 billion people in the world and there is such an inundation of refugees trying to come here that the navy is using their boats for target practice?

Does anyone suggest the UN would defend Australia? Don't get me laughing in the aisles!

The reason the ANZUS treaty is vague about US assistance, is that the US Constitution gives to the Congress, and the Congress alone, the power to declare war. Any further comittment to what has been laid down in the treaty would only serve to pre-empt Congress.

The secret communications facilities in Australia benefit us enormously, as they are the main reason the US would defend us, come what may.

I would imagine that in the unlikley event of a future Federal government attempting to implement the ideas put forward in this article, Wall Street would consider it a good time to call in the Australian foreign debt.

A couple of points.

1. The Americans didn't actually "save us" from the Japanese. We knew in 1943 that we weren't under serious threat of invasion. If anything, we provided them with a safe operational base.

2. We aren't safe because we need the Americans. We are safe because at the moment, they need us or they don't see us as a threat. Like all sovereign nations, they act only in their best interests of their own people and nobody else.

Is New Zealand under significantly more danger than us because of their stance on ships with nuclear weapons or is the ANZUS alliance still valid?

Anybody who thinks that it's all just cuddly backslapping and mutual admiration watches too much (American) television.

Thanks to Klaus Woldring for a clear run down on the history and hazards of Australia’s subservient attitude to the U.S.
I don’t see it as anti-American – to question the Howard government’s apparently mindless following of George W. Bush, taking us into an unnecessary and immoral war in Iraq.
I don’t see it as un-American to be unwilling to have U.S. military bases in Australia. It is surely enlightened common sense for Australia to avoid setting itself up as a target for extremists. We have the Howard government to thank for our present status as a target, precisely because of Howard’s following and copying of Bush and his military-industrial puppeteers.
Australia has now the opportunity to take a different tack – and to become a world leader in truly clean energy research and development, rather than going down the Bush nuclear path.
Perhaps we still can do that, with the prospect of more intelligent administrations soon taking over in both Australia and the U.S. Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

This is all very confused.

The US FTA has nothing to do with the ANZUS treaty or alliance, or the alliance of the willing in warfare. Howard and Bush said this plain and simple. Though there are conspiracy theories. One is a trade agreement, and the other is a military alliance. Different activities. Allas, George W Bush and John Howard for better or worse opened some doors between the two countries.

Secondly, you just can't stop the Free Trade Agreement with the US!
Canada tried to do that in the 1990s with NAFTA when they saw a bad deal. The US then threatened to legally sue Canada for billions of dollars in compensation. There is a clause in the agreement that mentions that no government can undo the agreement. We can't change our minds, we can't afford the compensation law suits.

Canada tried to warn Australia about the trap they had already encountered, but alas, Australia never listens to Canada.

Another arguement that I've been saying for months, our trade and security agreement should be a Pacific Economic Community of Commonwealth Countries: Canada, NZ and Australia.

We should mix, mingle and join an economic block with one currency one economy with the three countries that we share so much similarity and familiarity with in the Pacific Commonwealth countries.

As to putting the US down, well, thats all too late now anyway.

I agree that neutralism is a perfectly respectable position, and not at all anti-American. It's just not pro-American, is all.

I used to oppose the alliance, but I have changed my mind. My main reason for doing so is the urgent requirement for the maximum level of intelligence-sharing and cooperation in the face of an escalated terrorist threat.

One does not have to be a subservient ally, though John Howard most certainly is that. If we are "true blue mates", then we have the right to tell our mate if he makes a blue. In essence this is what Dick Cheney has conceded in saying that Australia cd withdraw from Iraq without harming the alliance.

As for neutralism, it depends what one means. Strict neutralism I view as a strategic strait-jacket, severely limiting our choices. What might be called "unalignment" ("nonalignment" has a another meaning) is more feasible.

But at the end of the day the widest intelligence cooperation is now necessary if the west is to protect itself against terrorism. Our alliance with the US greatly facilitates this, and despite the very real costs, I think we are wise to retain it. But of course, Howard's grovelling is another matter. We are a US ally; he acts as tho we were a satellite state.

Mhoram write " used to oppose the alliance, but I have changed my mind. My main reason for doing so is the urgent requirement for the maximum level of intelligence-sharing and cooperation in the face of an escalated terrorist threat. "

Mhoran I believe that Australians are quite capable in gathering first class intelligence about events and movements of importance and interest to the security of their nation. To the extent that Australia is not sufficiently capable that can be developed surely.

A lot of intelligence that is shared with the US is vetted by them and often coloured by US views of THEIR national interest. Last year I read a very interesting book by James Carroll, "House of War - The Pentagon and the distrous rise of American Power", quite a detailed account of the onset and the maintenance/dynamics of the Cold War. This account showed that on many occasions the perceptions of US intelligence of the communist military capability and moves by them which, to the US analysts, looked like preparation for all out (nuclear) war, were often plainly wrong almost right from the beginning. The responses were accordingly inappropriate and were productive of unnecessary polarisation. The entire "scholarly" underpinning of the Cold War was so flawed that the end of the Cold War was not even predicted! Do we ever want to be associated again with such "intelligence"?

Klaas Woldring

Klass

Yes there's always a risk that when one state shares intell with another that it will vet the material. It's even poss that false intell might be supplied - tho v risky if U R caught.

We cannot collect all needful intell on our own. No state, not even the US, can. That's why they have some facilities here: for certain tasks, a particular location is necessary. The kind of intell I'm talking about is not The Classified Plan For The Secret Weapon, but near realtime data - terrorist communications, movements, money transfers etc etc. Patterns in these can be revealing as to intentions. But one needs global data to maximise the chances of finding useful correlations. No intell sharing is ever going to be 100% transparent state-to-state, but in this area all concerned share an interest.

The level of cooperation and trust we have with the US as an ally is of course still limited by national interest considerations on both sides. But as an ally we have better access than most. The mistake is to think that access equals influence: it doesn't. But that access is invaluable in the face of an amorphous and elusive enemy that lurks in the nooks, crannies and dark corners of our societies. And, as I wd stress, we should act as an ally, not a satellite.

There are so many opposing interests and agencies in the US administration that you wonder if they are on the same side. Bush senior was once the head of the CIA, so you can imagine the President's familiarity with their people.

Australians like to cast the CIA and the Bush Empire as always the bad guys, particularly in the generation of the Iraq invasion.

It was a little more complicated than that. The CIA actually advised against the invasion of Iraq and advised the President to focuss on terrorism and the Taliban and terrorist groups themselves, settling Afghanistan to leave there as soon as feasible.

Chaney: the Vice President, and Rumsfeld: the secratary of defence, were also stakeholders in the munitions industry. There was much information that even Bush was not aware of.

Chaney and Rumsfeld had their own secret service in the White House, in the beginning without the President's knowledge, to silence and block all advise and intelligence meant for the white house that was against their personal interest. They had their own advisers to push for an Iraq invasion. Bush was not nearly as enthusiastic as we are lead to believe. Neither was his father. He never believed in "occupation" as it was too expensive.

He was literally tripping over his own words as it slowly hit him that he was not in control at all over the white house, never was, and never will be. No wonder he rattled on about God.

The US administration are not one group of people, they are opposing agencies with rival agendas with a dysfunctional mess.

The look on Chaney's face as he boarded his broken down aircraft: cast a pregnant pause over the Australian landscape.

For once I saw no malice. Just regret, and to some degree, dread. To tell John Howard that they don't mind us cutting back was a hint that we have done quite enough for them.

Howard has his own agenda. He too has the look of regret and dread. This war ghost will follow him after Government from madness to his grave.

Dear Mhoram.... I can't remember if we have clashed or agreed in the past, but your most recent post was very spot on.

I want to add that Neutrality (for Klaas's sake) is not sufficient to save us on a day when insurmountable odds are overtaking us.

If we are "neutral".... in what way ? If that means not having an alliance treaty with any great and powerful friends, what do we expect them to do for us in the event of a greater and more powerful ENEMY biting at our northern shores ? Precious little I suspect unless their vested material interests are threatened, such as reliance on Iron ore etc.. We could probably expect more help from China if Indonesia decided it had more right to the N.T. than us ?
Given their history and the situation in Tibet, I highly doubt that Australia would in anyway benefit from such a dependance.

No, neutrality is not really an option. To be neutral means we would not help the USA and could not expect then to help us.

Alliances are part of life. They determine much about our future.

References to the personal interests and agenda's of the likes of Rumsfeldt and Chaney just doesn't ring true to me. I don't believe sain people with the values background of the USA would embark on such an adventure simply for personal gain. (Though I could entertain it being for a broader national interest).

We should all be reminded that the leftist mantra of "We were deceived, there were no WMD" is actually a lot of total rot and rubbish.
The Pilot who FLEW some of them to Syria has openly confessed and testified to their reality, but this does not suit the leftist media and it gains little attention.
As to the question of Sadaam and his WMD being a threat to the USA, well.. its a bit moot now, but.. they DID have a Nuclear program until Israel sorted them out... right ?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200602%5CSPE20060202a.html

I find great humour and irony in that Klaas Woldring chose the internet to seek debate on a neutered foreign policy to protect Australia from cooperating in the development of the world experience. I have no idea what information or intelligence one might arrive at alone concerning the goings on around the world isolated by a do not get involved foreign policy. Is it that Woldring, like many others wants to throw stones but, not be the recipient of said stones? The cost of being alone in the world can be best illustrated by the formation of the non-aligned countries. Bit of an oxymoron that, after forming an alliance. It's laughable that those same individuals who claim Islamic terrorism is all neocon hysteria are the same who promote such hysterics in the Bush/Blair/Howard, white slash anglo slash Christian slash oil slash world domination slash etc. slash etc. conspiracy and advocate retreating from any involvement or taking responsibility in world affairs.

It seems to me that many of the responses are based upon preceived threat. Is this threat real? I see 3 historical reasons for invasion.
1. The vain glorious, done for personal glory, nationalism or to spread "gods word". This would include Chingis Khan, The Crusaders, Hitler and Japan in WW2
2. Need for land to live off. This would include the Anglo-saxon invasion of Celtic England and its subsiquent ethnic cleansing and the European invasion of Australia.
3. The desire for wealth. This incudes the Norman invasion of England which created the wealthest people the world has ever seen. The european colonialists didn't do too badly either.

How likely is any of this today.
1. These people arise randomly, but do they get far today. The Korean guy, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussan never got far. I think this kind of threat is very unlikely to persist today.

2. In search of land we have small groups, we call them refugees. They have no military capacity and are no threat. This could change if global warming brings big change but by then the US and other economies will have collapsed and little help would be forthcoming.

3. Why start something messy like a war when it is cheaper to buy and doesn't piss off the customers. Still there are fools like Bush. I don't imagine a MacDonalds franchise is worth much in Bagdad.
Ofcouse their are combinations.
So there is some possibility of threat but its not enough to base a whole relationship on. I feel we allow ourselves to be short changed by the US.
Instead we should be on good terms with all decent people and a good friend to those in need or those that just want to be friends. We also need a well equiped professional military to hit heads and a strong international police force to forefil our obligations. We have no need to tug the forelock, kow tow or any way debase ourselves to take our place in the modern world.

Whispering Ted, you say that "we should be on good terms with all decent people and a good friend to those in need or those that just want to be friends", which is all very charming, but what about the others?

What about the ones who, by our values, are not 'decent people' and who, for whatever reason, prefer car bombs to being friends?

You talk about historical reasons for invasion which (be they right or wrong) do not seem to address the threat from those who wish to destroy rather than to invade.

Ian to answer your question we must have a well equiped, well trained professional army and friends. Your second point is very valid, I exceeded 250words. Terrorism as Western Governments define it does not arise in a vacumn. It arises amongst down trodden, humilitated and unemployed young males. There are 25 million o these in the middle east, AIDS has prevented a similar build up in Africa. The phenomia is not Islamic, it is true that most of this group are in Islamic countries. Before the implosion of Bagdad the Tamil Tigers were the leading suicide bombers, secular Maoist comunists.
Defense from such people doesn't depend on USA, in fact they seem to create the conditions for more dispear and humiliation. Whilst we must defend ourselves from attack the long term answer is change the life conditions of young males. True the militery Industrial complex will not make money but it is cheaper than the present fiasco. We would preserve our personal freedoms although those that wish to rule by fear will not be happy.

With the decline of world standing, the USA is now being challenged on all fronts, but our defense problem remains the same, how to defend ourselves from Asian attack. I'm not just talking military attack here, but economic and cultural. The Americans like the Brits and Europeans are our cousins. When we chose to get into bed with the Yanks as opposed to the Brits, who withdrew from Asia, we chose a frontier nation like ourselves, still wet behind the ears. The Americans have made a real mess in their subsequent take over from Britain. Britain, had after all, centuries of experience in dealing with Asia and the Middle East. The blatant use of violence against America's opponents has increased animosity against them and made the world a more insecure place.
Britain has done well from its retreat from the pacific. The European common market is a tremendous success. They have a common currency, no borders for travellers and workers and a free flow of goods throughout the market. The cure to prevent a third European war has worked.
If the USA had sought to integrate its currency and markets with us and we had joined in an ecomic pact earlier and gone into it boots and all like the Brits did into Europe we may be in better shape. As it is we are nervous over American aggression and the fall out coming our way. We need to strengthen our relationship with NZ and as many others that can join in an economic trade zone like Europe. Only in this way can we avoid sliding into more violence.

I do not fear an Asian attack, its cheaper to buy the resources they need. As for cultural invasion, if I eat sushi rather than Big Macs I will be healthier. We are developing our own style, housing and foods that relate to the area we live in and evolve. This process has been delayed by us pretending we are another than what we are, an Asian/ Pacific nation.
I agree we need to start working on a regional union. Trade alone is not the basis of peace. European nations have traded with each other for centuaries but had little peace until the formation of the EU. What does bring peace and prosperity is interdependance