Australian Politics Forum

Quote:

My former ASPI colleague Carl Ungerer has pointed out that Doc Evatt first used the term ‘middle power’ at the San Francisco conference that established the United Nations in April 1945. In a recent op-ed I questioned the accuracy and utility of this label for Australia. My thoughts were prompted by a new international grouping launched last month known as MIKTA on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly by a meeting of foreign ministers of ‘middle-power’ countries. But you’ll have to go the foreign ministry websites of South Korea and Turkey to find out about it, because there’s nothing on the DFAT or the Australian Foreign Minister’s websites.

‘MIKTA’ is an acronym for an informal collaboration platform between Mexico, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Turkey and Australia. According to South Korea’s foreign ministry:

[a]t the meeting, the five foreign ministers shared the view that in the current situation where challenges facing the international community are becoming more diverse and complex, middle-power countries, which have the willingness and capabilities to contribute to the development of the international community, need to create a cooperation mechanism to address the challenges. They agreed to hold the meeting of middle-power countries’ foreign ministers on a regular basis.

In terms of function, it was decided that MIKTA wouldn’t be a new exclusive bloc, but would function as an ‘unofficial consultation to freely exchange opinions on major global issues’. Mexico serve as a coordinator of MIKTA for a year from 2013.

According to South Korea, MIKTA is expected to:

… serve as a useful forum to discuss a variety of global and regional issues and to explore ways to help resolve them, while maintaining transparency and flexibility… The launch of a new mechanism among middle-power countries, which have a certain level of political and economic status and capabilities, as well as the willingness to contribute to creating a new world order, is expected to help resolve issues facing the international community and maintain world peace.

Turkey pointed out that MIKTA countries are members of the G-20, with open economies and enjoying democratic pluralistic systems. Council of Foreign Relations’ Korean analyst Scott Snyder suggests that MIKTA might be able to play a helpful role within the G-20.

Yet I’d argue that putting the ‘middle power’ label to the forefront of the MIKTA grouping isn’t helpful to Australia. Instead, I’d agree with former foreign minister Alexander Downer, who described Australia as a ‘considerable’ power and a ‘significant’ country.

In the South Pacific (a quarter of the earth’s surface) we’re a superpower, and we’re a major player in the Indian Ocean (Australia has the largest area of maritime jurisdiction in the Indian Ocean region) and in Southeast Asia. In fact, we’re a top tier player in the southern hemisphere.

When Australia’s claim to the Antarctic landmass is included, Australia becomes the country with the largest jurisdictional claim to an area of the earth’s surface—around 27.2 million km2, of which about half is over ocean or sea.

We’re 12th largest economy (in GDP terms, thus the 12th largest contributor to the United Nations), the 5th wealthiest nation (GDP per capita, current US dollars) and 51(out of 214) in population. We’ve got the 12th largest defence budget and 10th largest defence expenditure as percentage of GDP from OECD countries.

We’re the eighth largest aid donor country. In a world where economics and strategic issues rule, values and soft power still have a crucial role to play in international relations, especially for a country like Australia. The significance of what influence our aid program buys us in in particular places and at particular times, (and the way it’s perceived by Australia’s OECD colleagues), is very much under-rated.

So I’d suggest that we’re at the very least an ‘upper middle’ country, and certainly not ‘lower upper middle’ (to adapt a nice line on Britain’s class system). But a better label for Australia might be pivotal.

As characterised by global analysis company Oxford Analytica, pivotal powers are those countries that by virtue of their strategic location, size of population, economic potential, policy preferences and political weighting, are destined to shape the contours of geopolitics in key regions of the world as well as constitute important nodes of global economic growth. We shouldn’t limit our ambition by resting comfortably under the ‘middle power’ label.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/is-australia-a-pivotal-power/

Is Australia a pivotal power?

...for those with eyes to see and ears to hear...

Love 'n' Light,
x

RAAF No 9 SQN Insecticide Spraying Nui Dat MAY-OCT 1970

Vietnam War Picture: C-123 Spraying Defoliant Over the Target Area

"I clearly remember that on the first Sunday I was at Nui Dat in 1967, having done my washing, I was standing outside our tent on the fence line on the south side of the Task Force area near Wah Long village, in my green baggy shorts, replete with full regimental dress thongs on the feet, when a C-123 Provider roared overhead heading south to north at about 100 feet overhead spraying from wing booms. I was covered with the crap and went straight down and had a shower. When I enquired later I was told that they were spraying insecticide for flies and mosquitoes. Many years later I was informed, via some papers that came out of a US inquiry, that the C-123’s were the same aircraft used for spraying defoliant chemicals but their internal spray tanks were not cleansed of those chemicals between spraying operations and that after a defoliant run the tanks were simply filled with insecticide and then used to spray camps such as ours. 9 Squadron RAAF flew Iroquois (Huey’s) and the Australian force had no C-123’s they were all Yank equipment.
We spent our time in the 1st Australian Land Clearing Team clearing scrub that had the powder residue from Agent orange (dioxin) showering plumes of it over us and we did not know until later that it was toxic, but neither the government nor veterans Affairs could care less now. In fact if you mention Agent Orange they show you the door.

Can you recall them ever spraying over our plant lines at Vung Tau??

In my mind there has never been any doubt about spraying over Nui-Dat.
I have a very clear photo that I took sometime in 1968 showing a plane spraying over our plant lines of 17 Const Sqn at Nui-Dat.
This is a typical Government tactic to not let any of us know what was going on. Not only did they send us to a war on a lie, they have been lying to us ever since. See the attached photo.
Durro.

http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blyviet69.htm

Photograph courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration.
Pink Rose. During the Pink Rose test program target areas near Tay Ninh and An Loc, Vietnam were sprayed with defoliation agents twice and with a drying agent once. Ten flights of three B-52s each dropped 42 M-35 incendiary cluster bombs, per aircraft, into the target area setting fires that burned the heavy growth as well as enemy fortifications hidden there. Sweeping over the tree-tops this C-123 Ranch Hand aircraft sprays defoliant over the target area. (January 1967)

Has there ever been any Govt response to this report , on spraying of Toxic Chemicals , on Soldiers , in Vietnam , & if not , WHY NOT ???

Subject: Fw: RAAF No 9 SQN Insecticide Spraying Nui Dat MAY-OCT 1970
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:41:54 +1000
Hi Guys, I think this is important enough to be distributed as far and wide as possible. Ken

I received this today ....send it on and be informed !!!!

Have received the following and attached information and believe that it may be of interest to you. This information follows on from a previous request for information from John Mordike regarding spraying at Nui Dat.

For all of us who were subject to being sprayed within our barracks or took part in the aerial missions I believe that you will be most interested.

Over the last two years I have undertaken a study on the use of insecticides at the 1 ATF base at Nui Dat, the home of the Australian and the New Zealand fighting force in Vietnam. The most important finding of this study is that much of the truth about insecticide use by 1 ATF has never been revealed.

Taking a broad perspective, my study has revealed the roles played by the Army, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Primary Industry in the examination and reporting of the use of insecticides by the Australian Army in Vietnam.
This article narrows the focus. It presents a synopsis of the findings of my study in relation to the use of insecticides at Nui Dat.

The article is based on primary source documents from Army’s Vietnam records. The records are held by the Research Centre, Australian War Memorial, Canberra, and are available to the public for research under the terms of the Archives Act (1983).

After the passage of forty years and a Royal Commission in 1983-5, it is time the truth was revealed.

For more information or if you wish to add to John's data base you can contact John at:

John

Facts about Herbicides
is a blend of tactical herbicides the U.S. military sprayed from 1962 to 1971 during Operation Ranch Hand in the Vietnam War to remove trees and dense tropical foliage that provided enemy cover.

Agent Orange
More than 19 million gallons of various “rainbow” herbicide combinations were sprayed, but Agent Orange was the combination the U.S. military used most often. The name “Agent Orange” came from the orange identifying stripe used on the 55-gallon drums in which it was stored.

Herbicide-sprayed areas and
forests near the demarcation zone, forests at the junction of the borders of Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam, and mangroves on the southernmost peninsula of Vietnam and along shipping channels southeast of Saigon.

Heavy sprayed area

We are a declining power heavily in debt &
surrounded by billions of hungry people who have advancing technology.
Our economy is going down hill fast.

China could snuff us out like flies.

Indonesia has 250 million angry Muslims right above us.

To answer the question, Australia is only a "pivotal power" to itself as are other countries. If you mean is Australia a "pivotal power" to other countries I'd have to say no. Australia's position holds no crucial strategic value or significance to others. It's a long way to come and it's a long way to go home for any other country........except of course Indonesia, but we knew that anyway.

viewpoint wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

blessings

all offhanded comments are resigned to the ignorance

it portrays with observation through forgiveness

pine gap satellite arrays mineral wealth strategic position

US military bases in and around australia and

there is no significance?

australia is the eyes and ears of the US in this region

any entity proposing otherwise is either

1. useful idiot

2. willing dupe

3. ignorant misinformant

4. illusionist of a freemasonic persuasion duped or

duping

all are forgiven

in love and light

namaste

ॐ

Australia doesn't even control its biggest material asset - its mining and energy resources which are 83% foreign owned (mainly in the hands of US corporations which own about 58%)

Australia also has a foreign head of state in control of its armed forces as well as undemocratic vetoing powers over the Australian elected PM (ie the British Monarch, via the Governor General)

To refer to Australia as a pivotal Power is just laughable

Australia is best described as a pathetic and smelly

puppet2.jpg (30 KB | 28 )

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

If you think Indonesians are angry Muslims, you've clearly never met one.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

Well, that certainly is the glass half empty view of the situation.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

I have visited Indonesia many times (and not just Bali) and the people of Indonesia are generally better quality people than people in Australia.

Indonesian people look after one another far more than Australians do.

We Australians are not very nice people. In the top 3 in the world for greedy nasty dishonest immoral people.

You should visit one day

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

Isn't it another British colony.

athos wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

Isn't it another British colony.

...we apparently learnt from the best in the business

ask the aboriginal people in Australia. The Brits invaded many lands over their Imperial pompous period of Naval based fascist tyranny. They did however agree to 76 TREATIES with the indigenous peoples of these lands

There was only ONE conquest that did not involve a treaty right up to this very day - and that was with the Indigenous people of Australia, post invasion 1788.

Instead they decided to technically and legally classify the Indigenous people of Australia as Fauna - animals. Then proceed and thieve everything on behalf of the crown. One of the first major Bio-Warfare terrorist acts perpetrated in the world was the deliberate introduction of Small Pox into AUstralian Indigenous communities (it also occurred in Southern and central America}

FOR NOT DEALING WITH THE TRUTH, THIS IS WHO WE ARE DEEP DOWN INSIDE - COLLECTIVE MORAL COWARDS

TERRA NULLIUS

aboriginals_1906_007.jpg (93 KB | 30 )

Q. Is Australia a pivotal power?

A. Meaning of word - pivotal
adjective
of crucial importance in relation to the development or success of something else.
synonyms: central, crucial, vital, critical, focal, essential, key, decisive, deciding

So is Australia Pivotal?
I would suggest - No!

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 10:57am:

Oh NO! not totally positive?

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Thinking Globally >> Is Australia a pivotal power? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1381889728 Message started by Ahovking on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:15pm