http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/w...ard-expand-us-australia-military-ties.html?hp I am not much into politics, but I have made a guess that this would happen, perhaps based on false assumptions. I have recently taken a class on world history and I have followed this up with some reading. It seems that the Australia is sort of a Gold Mine in Southeast Asia, one which has for some reason has not been settled by the Chinese. It is certain that Chinese power in this area has been expanding. Singapore is more than 50% made of Chinese immigrants. The whole region is still very highly underdeveloped, compared to Europe and the US, but also in some sense compared to densely populated Asian countries. It seems like it would be the wish of many Chinese to receive work in Australia - something which is impossible due to Australian immigration law. But, I have just started to think that the US has a fairly solid presence in Asia anyways. There are US bases in Japan and Korea right? So, I don't know just how effective a force here would be, other than the strategic location at the southeast border of China's zone of influence. Seeing how I am completely naive as to politics, I would appreciate to see some other opinions on this subject.
The US is going to station about 2,500 military there which to me isn't that big of a deal. There are over 50,000 troops in South Korea and more on Okinawa in Japan plus more in other SE asian countries.
IMO, there are two sides to this. Australia has a long standing security relationship with the US and there has been a US presence in the NT since WW2. The door has been, and is always open to enlarging this presence. This show is purely a re-commitment, albeit publicly done. IMHO Miss Gillard loves the limelight of rubbing sides with heads of State and Obama and is either naive or negligent re the repercussions and nuances of public/visible security commitments which, given Australia's solid relationship with China - huge economic investments to and from China and Asia, and is an insulting public display of disregard for diplomatic protocol. The Chinese are quite aware of the longstanding OZ/US security agreement, but will certainly not appreciate this recent public display of Australian sycophancy, and they will certainly say as much. On the other hand, it is clearly in Australia`s best interest, and rightly so, to stay closely allied with the US (and the West) re short and particularly long term security alignment as China continues to rise as a world power and as it starts to project it military power outwards, which is practically a given. It is far from unimaginable that at some point in the next century China may pursue an imperial agenda, and Australia will be a prime and logical (underpopulated huge mass of mineral rich land) target for Chinese Imperial expansion.
Your kidding right? There is no way that China would invade Australia and even IF they did there is no chance in Hell about the US defending us or even caring. Firstly by that point the US will be so weak they wouldn't even be able to defend themselves
You're utterly clueless. Stop pretending to predict the future. Australia is listed as "the essential ally" (along with our friends in the UK/USA pact). The US would consider it an attack on itself were Australia invaded. You, as is typical of you, have no clue how much USAmerican respect and adore Oz (take that for what it's worth, but Americans have a very romantic place in their heart for Australia). You're using this--again--as an opportunity to come up with some more bitchy nonsense to say about the USA. And why not? You've made up lies before (need I bother listing them) about the USA just so that you have something to say. Give it a rest. It's not "the US". It's the UK/USA alliance (the UK, USA, Canada & New Zealand). The ONLY part you got right was stating that China wouldn't invade. They won't. It's not their MO. It's massively expensive. They'll do the next best thing: use their state resources to buy whatever Australia has. It's not like the Chinese are begging for more land (they have LOTS of dry, uninhabited land of their own). In fact, word 'round the scuttlebutt is that the Chinese government is considering revising the "one child" policy because they are worried about population stagnation. ~String
? China is already pursuing an "imperial agenda" under any sensible definition of such a term that I can think of. All of the intrigues regarding the South China Sea, for example. This isn't happening on a global scale at this point, but China has been making a point of throwing its weight around outside of its borders since Mao's time. They've invaded Korea, Vietnam and India in the intervening years, etc. More to the point, Australia is a tight US ally and makes an excellent base for containing and balancing China's pressures on Southeast Asia/Indonesia/Straits of Malacca. This is as much about catering to the emerging coalition of Asian states who feel threatened by China's rise and are looking for an alternative framework to counter them, than about defending Australia itself.
if we still "feel threatened" by china we are idiots, they are the best market we have and have the potential to get even BIGGER. We shouldn't be doing ANYTHING to piss them off and that includes supporting YOU pissing them off. The US is history, MAYBE you will come down to the level of Brittan but your finished as an empire. China and India are the countries which matter now and we are in the perfect place to exploit this because we produce what they want.
Nah, that's crazy. The USA would back Australia to the hilt in the event that someone invaded them. The long-standing ANZUS treaty is similar to the NATO treaty in that it regards any armed attack on any member of the treaty, as an attack on all of them.
Absent some very powerful friends, that puts you in the perfect place to get exploited by them. Hence the reinvigoration of the US presence down under.
what? the taiwan issue? are you defending the aboriginal tribes against chinese colonization? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! what would you like to see happen?
Well, there's that as well. But I chose the specific examples I listed there for a reason. If I were, I wouldn't be siding with Taiwan vs. China. Taiwan was overrun by Han Chinese a long time ago, and they call all the shots there as well. With what? Taiwan? Balance of power in East Asia in general?
It seem like 2,500 marines isn't going make that much of a difference. However, if these are 'military advisers', that could be a very significant number. This could always be the cover for something a lot more substantial, it is very ambiguous what 2,500 soldiers installed at increments of 250 symbolizes. This will give plenty of opportunities to post headlines as well. This is a bold move on behalf of both parties - I would think that it is just as much an attempt by President Obama to get attention at home as it is for Miss Gillard. It screams : THERE IS A GROWING FRONTLINE IN EAST ASIA. It is very sensational. To my intuition it seems that spending money to curb China is a GOOD idea, especially compared to the amount of money that is spent in the Middle East. But, this could be exactly the message for Americans at home. Yeah, weren't they parading a new aircraft carrier in the South China Sea just a while ago ? I think that this is a key point here - it may be another way of reassuring other Southeast Asian countries of Australia's comittment to stand against a rising China. God damn, politics is a complicated matter isn't it?
Breaking news: The President of China has recently agreed with the government of Brazil to station 250 military advisors to maintain peace in the N.S Americas region and to counter the rising power of the United States. It is not inconceiveable that the United States may one day have imperial ambitions (having already invaded Mexico, Spain, Cuba and recently developing a carrier of its own) This number will rise to a total of 2500 military advisors in all. After the Brazil visit, the President of China will be visiting Canada and Mexico to reaffirm the security arrangments with 50,000 Chinese troops stationed in Mexico and Canada, as well as 4 of the 7 Chinese super carriers patroling the Eastern Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. "We are here to re-affirm, with our allies, our commitment to peace and security in the Americas. China is here to stay and will play an important part in the region. We welcome the rise of the United States and hopes it can be a responsible power," said President Hu. The President added, "in recent years, the United States has begun to assert its military power in the Gulf of Mexico region, which it considers to be an American Lake." President Hu announced increases in the number of War Games to be held with Mexico in the Gulf of Mexico to counter US claims to the sea. "These are international waters, and China will not be intimidated from using them by anyone," said Hu. Naturally, the US is concerned with War Games being held so close to its capital in Washington D.C.. ***If this sounds inane and ridiculous to you, imagine how the story sounds on the other side. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You mean like sell India Uranium? Yes, what a lovely little switch around that was from Gillard. I'm still facepalming that one. When she has that white jacket on, look out... To be honest with you, when it was declared that a major announcement would be made about our "joint alliance", a large part of me was hoping that Obama was going to take Julia home with him. Permanently. That aside, the US has had a presence of some sort in Australia for a number of years now. Areas like Pine Gap, for example, make that very clear. China is not a military threat. Even without a US presence of soldiers stationed here, it would not be deemed a military threat. One thing this new deal will do is allow the US a bigger presence in the Asia Pacific region. As much as I am gagging at the thought of this deal, there is one thing that Asguard has not realised. It will be a huge boost to the local economy and will hopefully result in greater publicity being given to the plight of Indigenous people living in the area. It could also result in better living conditions, as if they are being based outside of Darwin, the Government will be forced to invest in infrastructure which could provide a lot of benefit to the local population living there.
I don't believe i have once said I'm happy with everything Gillard does, that DEFINITELY qualifies, as does the fact that the ALP wont make marriage equality a policy, the fact that she just gave MORE land here to the US millartry (and remember what happened with the last lot of yanks here, one of them rapes a girl and the US government tries to get them away from an Australian court) Lets see what other stupid policies have Labor enacted, slashing the access to psychologists under Medicare comes to mind, dropping Denticare, refusing to support Palestine, not abolishing the law which restricts the NT from having voluntary euthanasia, not abolishing the "intervention" and actually putting the money into service provision However they are still better than Abbott
Simple reasons for US military presence in Australia 1. It is a Marine corps base 2. India said no, Turkey said no, Pakistan said no [although the US refuses to believe that no means no] so all they have is Diego Garcia (see also here) and Guam 3. China is the next bogeyman see: shipping lanes - Think Pearl Harbor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Chinese pearl necklace: don't miss the one in Pakistan Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So everyone is trying to get rid of US bases, and the US needs some place to position and refuel their boats and troops. You would have to be completely blind not to notice that the US is aiming to gain the most strategic positions on all the major land masses! Why wouldn't the US try to strong arm other nations to get what they want? In just the past 10 years US military spending has been close to half of total federal spending! And US troops and commanders are very well prepared for an urban war which must be fought humanely.
As to the US-AU love affair, I remember a significant kerfuffle a few decades back when AU detected radiation from a US warship (containing weapons — torpedoes I think — with nuke warheads) visiting one of their ports, and AU told them to get out (having neither warned nor obtained permission to bring them in). So it hasn't been all lovey-dovey. Quadraphonics is the only one here who mentioned Indonesia (with the world's largest Muslim population), and that's what I see as the main reason, followed by Iran and China, perhaps in that order. Purpose? The projection of power into southern Asia, a base for intelligence operations, a potential spot for military marshalling, training troops in the region's climate, the convenience of a country halfway around the world that's English-speaking with a European/Christian culture, etc. But not to protect AU from China, which has little means to invade any country, contiguous or non-contiguous.
