Poirot, you say:

"Julia Gillard has recently continued Australia's
tradition of courting U.S. sentiment. Her injudicious
comments erroneously accusing Julian Assange and
Wikileaks of illegal activities was a rush to judgment
in an attempt to display solidarity with her U.S
counterparts - as is her deafening silence in her
failure to publicly defend Assange's right to the
presumption of innocence."

I'm just wondering whether there may not be a number of erroneous assumptions underlying that assessment, one which on the surface seems reasonable enough.

I guess the first assumption is that a GOA* posture of 'courting US sentiment' resonates with the Australian electorate, and, appropriately 'managed', or 'spun', duly translates to votes come election time. What if, however, a certain proportion of votes routinely cast at any (and/or all) Australian elections don't actually have their origins in the actions of genuinely enrolled and eligible electors, but are effectively in the gift of some other entity?

Could it be, if such an hypothetical entity actually operates in this way in the Australian electoral context, that the selection, grooming, and political career development of the GOA leadership pool across the 'party' spectrum has as a primary goal the emplacement of such persons in the recognised positions of political leadership?

Could it be that in the absence of any benchmark available to the Australian public as to the level and direction of genuine voting support, such hypothetical entity may, with nobody being the wiser, advance or retard the electoral fortunes of both parties and individuals according to the level and character of GOA obsequiousness deemed necessary?

Could it be that it was necessary that the public face of WikiLeaks had to be an Australian one, in order that a very public world-wide scapegoating of the 'messenger' could most smoothly proceed to a perhaps desired conclusion of demonstrating extraterritorial applicability of US 'law' to citizens of any nation? I mean, the Australian alliance is 'rock solid', isn't it?

*GOA: An acronym for Government of Australia, expressed in the US diplomatic vernacular evidenced in the leaked cables.

I am for an Australia-US alliance but not at any price and not if it means subservience or a betrayal of the electorate in relation to national sovereignty issues. A true friend does not insist but consults and respects the other.

The US is not about to take over Australia in the physical sense, even if it wields influence in other ways such as ecomonically and strategically (foreign policy). I would not trust a China-Australia alliance at the same level on many fronts. We can have a friendly relationship with China but again, do we betray a number of human rights and belief in democracy just for economic purposes. It is short term thinking.

There is no guarantee that the US would come to our aid in the event of an invasion. Would it be in their long term interests? Would outrage on the ground in the US be enough to spur the government to come to our aid? I am not sure that the presence of US military facilities would be enough to stretch the friendship that far. America was slow to respond to the invasions in Europe in the beginning of WWII. The truth is we don't know what the US would do in that scenario.

However, it is difficult, and there are no easy answers. The US greatest weakness is a perceived and a real lack of integrity in many foreign dealings. Obama alluded to this in his statement about being a better global citizen but it won't happen while there is too much power vested in the corporations that depend on government policy to protect their interests overseas.

I like the Squeers suggestion.

Their planes would be cheaper too, and at least Chinese know where Australia is, now they own most of it.

He's right, China is the workshop for the USA, the source of all the junk the USA feel they need, so America can hardly afford to fall out with them now, can they?

So, why not move some of our security over thataway?

At least they are 'close' to us.

As for Gillard, a total lost cause.

Very doubtful she will last to the next election too.

Forrest,

It does seem that there is a blueprint in Australian political machinations that seeks to perpetually deliver representatives with an unquestioning loyalty to the U.S. irrespective of that country's actions.
Can anyone recall any Australian government publicly criticising any major U.S. foreign policy decisions?

The Australian connection to Wikileaks through Julian Assange and Gillard's rapid-fire condemnation is interesting if we consider that Australia is seen as an extension of U.S. interests in matters of international concern.

Pelican's point regarding America's late entry into WWI is pertinent...and WWII. Still, it would be difficult to imagine the U.S. standing back it Australia was seriously threatened...although, one gets the impression that American has turned the corner in its absolute ability to maintain hegemony - it is probably in the first phase of decline.

Poirot

I think Gillard's machine-gun response to Wikileaks was probably very much like the Rudd comment on Henson's 'porn shots'.

Rudd, although he probably did find them offensive, simply blurted out what he thought the punters wanted to hear.

So too with Gillard's silly comments on the leaks.

This is what happens when politics is run by phone polls.

I'm reading the Megalogensis Quarterly Essay on the end of ideas (never mind ideals) 'Trivial Pursuits'.

Not 'exciting' but a good round-up of the failures of the last decade or so of our political drones, and we punters failure to demand more and better.

Worth a read.

Of course we're a minion, what else could a country of 20 million, who won't spend a decent amount of their income on defence, during peace time, be? The US will come to our aid, if it is in their interest, just as we go to their aid, at least in token, because it's in our interest.

The mere fact that other countries have to answer the same question is our main protection. Sit back & enjoy you twits, more than a few young Ozzies have died to maintain that doubt that keeps you safe.

We also go with the US because the majority of Ozzies agree, mostly, with their actions.

So we are a minion, get used to it. Now of course, with this fool Gillard swanning around the international stage we are a laughing stock as well.