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.