Our star spangled manner

Australia is foolish and naive to rely on American military power for its security.

THERE are too many who believe that if we support the United States and go to war when it wants us to, it will in turn support us on issues that we regard as fundamental to our own security. History strongly suggests that the real determinant of the actions of great powers is their own interests.

Too much reliance on great powers for one's security is not wise. Our own skill, our own strength, our own diplomacy, wisdom, our contribution to our region, our contribution to the overall security of that region - these are what will secure Australia's future. But this does not mean we cannot have alliances.

The United States' major interests are in the western hemisphere. Our major interests are in east and south-east Asia. We live in the western Pacific; our secure and peaceful future depends on our relationships with countries of the region. We do not have the luxury, as the US does, of being able to withdraw across the Pacific to the western hemisphere. We must rely more on ourselves.

There have been a number of occasions when the US has not supported an Australia view when we felt our particular interests were affected. During the period of the [Indonesian] confrontation, The Economist had this to say: "No Indonesian regime short of a blatantly communist one would earn active American hostility, no matter what harm it did to the national Australian interests."

To point this out is not an anti-American statement. It is a statement of fact. If we blind ourselves to these realities, we blind ourselves to the necessities for our own survival. The US remains enormously important. On some counts it remains the world's best hope for a peaceful and secure world.

This does not mean that Australia can buy security by supporting America unconditionally. Unconditional support diminishes our influence throughout east and south-east Asia. It limits our capacity to act as an independent and confident nation. It limits our influence on the US itself. The US would expect an ally to have views and to put those views and help form policy.

I believe that in dealing with countries in our own region, we need to show a greater element of independence and a greater strength of mind. We need to increase our sophistication in our approach to relationships throughout east and south-east Asia. For example, our government still tends to say that strategic considerations have no impact on our good economic and trade relations with China. That is plainly not true.

We cannot expect our trade relationship to be unaffected if on every occasion we follow America in strategic matters.

Independence of mind and recognition of Australia's national interests will become more important in the light of developments in the relationship between China and the US. The only solution that I can see of minimising the potential friction between these two major powers is by co-operation. It is, if you like, by a concert of nations. This should contribute greatly to peace, security and progress throughout our entire region. A major part of Australian policy should be to work for such a result.

If we continue on a path of unthinking compliance with American policy, we will very soon find that we have made ourselves irrelevant to east and south-east Asia, politically and strategically. Irrelevant, because Australia will have nothing to contribute.

The choice for Australia to make is not for China or for the US, but independence of mind to break with subservience to America. Subservience has not and will not serve Australia's interests. It is dangerous to our future. Australia should not do anything, for example, that suggests that we could be part of a policy of military containment of China, but marines in Darwin and spy planes in the Cocos Islands make us part of that policy. We should be trying to lead the US away from containment.

It is not always understood, as China understands very clearly, that the US is running a two-track policy, where there is mutual understanding and a desire to resolve difficulties through diplomacy and dialogue. We want to understand each other better. That seems to be the message coming both from China and the US.

If that is the true American attitude, why does the US talk of rebalancing military power to the Pacific? What is the need to enhance naval co-operation with the Philippines and Singapore? What useful purpose do marines based in Darwin fulfil? The US can say this is not containment, as does the Australian government, but nobody believes them. To continue to say that something that is obvious is not so, is to damage your own credibility. If the US is genuine in wanting dialogue and discussion with China, what is the need for this military rebalancing?

If the US believes the way to establish good relations with China is to have a military alliance of nations whose purpose is to limit China's influence, or to contain China, the US is mistaken. This is the wrong way to preserve peace and security. We should not be part of it. Such views demonstrate a significant failure to learn from the military mistakes of the past.

The great task for the US is to recognise that many of the things it wants for itself and for others cannot be achieved by military means. It needs to place much more emphasis on "soft power", on diplomacy. Australia should use every effort to persuade the US that its two-track approach to relationships with China is wrong. We should tell the US that we will not be part of it and not allow joint facilities on Australian soil to be used to support policies of containment.

If the consensus for military containment of some kind prevails, then there will be prospects of military conflict - and military conflict between China and the US is the one thing that would be most dangerous to Australia.

In 1956, when many feared that China might invade Taiwan, Eisenhower moved the 7th Fleet in or close to the Taiwan Straits. Many feared war between the US and China over Taiwan. Prime minister Menzies then advised Eisenhower that if there were such a conflict, Australia would not be part of it. Menzies had a keen understanding of Australia's own interests.

We need to articulate Australia's national interests as a country allied to but separate from the US. We need leadership that will tell Australians in plain terms that our security ultimately depends on ourselves and the relationships we build with the countries of the western Pacific and of east Asia. It is our relationship with these countries that will determine our security.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/our-star-spangled-manner-20120606-1zwi...

Oh it'd be great to be more self reliant security wise.  However, what happens anytime the issue of military spending is raised?  The leftwads go into a spin about how the money would be better spent on boat people, IVF for homos and increased dole payments. 

Make up your mind kids.

It makes more sense for Australia to make defence agreements with Indonesia.

The US is never going to protect Australia. Indonesia is a barrier against Chinese invasion.

Australia should make better friends with Indonesia.

BigOl64 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 3:19pm:



That was between the US-backed Suharto military dictatorship and Fretlin communists.

The US-backed military dictatorship, and the communist movement no longer exist.

BigOl64 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 3:44pm:


Not really.  Such an operation would have required a LOT of fighter cover to keep the Indonesian Air Force off your Aardvarks. Between the refueling needs of running constant sorties of F-111s to keep up a sustained bombing campaign and the need for refueling fighter aircraft to escort the F-111s the RAAF simply didn't have anywhere near the aerial refueling assets needed to conduct such a campaign.


BigOl64 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 3:44pm:


You really don't know much about our history, do you... During the Cold War the US pretty much funded every strong-arm dictator we could find as long as said dictator was committed to killing communists.  Why?  Because at the time it was in our best interests as part of the war-by-proxies Cold War bullshit that the Russians and us used as an alternative to directly confronting each other and triggering world war three.

We've since toned that kind of thing down, but we still only act if there's some form of benefit for us.  Even when we seem like we're being altruistic we're still doing it out of self-interest simply to score "see, we're the good guys" points. Here's the fun part...

Every country with the means and ability to act in any meaningful capacity on the international stage does the exact same thing.  Welcome to International Politics, try not to let your disillusionment get you down.

Chard wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 6:46pm:



Yeah their air-force wasn't that great during my time, we still had the biggest swing dick in the region. Along with the 24 Pigs, we had 70+ F18's and refueling capability through our 707s.

I doubt the indons would have taken too much of a pounding before deciding to leave the East Timorese alone.

The primary purpose of their entire military is to kill people from their invaded lands, up against a technologically superior force they are nothing more than a target rich environment.


[quote]During 1986–88, there was a tight competition for the contract to provide a new fighter bomber, between the General Dynamics F-16 and Dassault Mirage 2000, (especially after the Indonesian Air Show in 1986). Indonesia ordered 12 F-16A/B Fighting Falcon Block 15 OCU as a new fighter to strengthen the Indonesian Air Force in 1989. A follow-up order for 9 more F-16A Block-15 OCU was cancelled in favor of 24 Su-30 MKK,[18] this order was also cancelled due to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.  A total of 10 F-16A and F-16B are still in service with Indonesian Air Force: 2 planes crashed in two different accidents. However, only a few of these are still serviceable. [quote]




As we can see they like to kill inniocent people and they are still doing it today, just not the Timorese anymore.


JAKARTA: Indonesian soldiers went on a rampage in the troubled province of West Papua early yesterday, killing at least one person, injuring 10 others, one critically, and burning down dozens of buildings.

But an Indonesian military spokesman denied anybody had died and accused separatists in the remote town of Wamena of burning their own shops down.

A Catholic priest in Wamena, Franz Lieshout, confirmed the rampage late yesterday, but told the Herald that earlier reports by activists of eight dead were not true.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Father Lieshout said a meeting between the warring parties yesterday had soothed the dispute.

"The government had a meeting with all the elements of the people here from the churches, from the young people from the different tribes and from the army and they decided that they all want to have peace," he said.

"People are still afraid but the situation now is good."

The violence reportedly began on Wednesday afternoon after two soldiers from Kostrad, the Indonesian Army's strategic reserve, ran over a boy playing by the side of the road in the outlying village of Honai Lama.

In revenge, the soldiers were dragged from their motorcycle and beaten by villagers. One died after allegedly being stabbed and the other was hospitalised.

When news reached them of their comrade's death, the soldiers' battalion mobilised. Papuan witnesses claimed the soldiers opened fire in Wamena using live rounds, firing at anybody appearing to be Papuan.

Activist group West Papua Media reported that eight people were dead and 19 injured, with 100 houses set alight by soldiers from Battalion 756. Earlier reports suggested kiosks and shops had been hit with flame throwers.

The activists' reports also claimed that elite police units Brimob and the counter-terrorist Detachment 88 mobilised.

Local human rights sources claimed that ''scores'' of people had been beaten or shot.

The executive secretary of the Papua NGO Forum, Septer Manufandu, last night told the Herald he was still waiting on confirmation of events, but his best information was that nine people were shot by soldiers, and one killed. He said many houses had been burned down as well as one police station. But an army spokesman, Colonel Ali Hamdan Bogra, said soldiers had been prevented by their commander from going to the village to take revenge for the death of their comrade.


Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/activists-and-army-clash-in-troubled-west-papua-20120607-1zz35.html#ixzz1x9Zd11Go