Proposal: That ANZUS is a security blanket

C

Challenger78

Valued Senior Member
I propose that Australians are being fooled by the ANZUS treaty, and that it is not applicable in the current day climate. That it is out dated and false.

Ok.
Since that was just a giant truism, if someone wants to propose other (not crazy terms) I'm willing to debate.

btw, ANZUS was the treaty to fight against communism in case we were attacked, signed in 1951.
 
hardly a treaty to "fight communism". what it did was allow the americans free use of oz and nz as military bases on whatever conquest they were pursuing at the time. if it was really to "stop communism" then why did the americans opt out of their obligations when nuclear ships were denied access to nz?
 
the only other one i can think of is ANZAM - between nz oz and malaysia, not sure what year that was signed though.
 
i always asumed there was and that it went futher than just the millatry. of course i may have gotten the name wrong again:p

It pathed the way for multi country organisations like the one which regulates our food and the fact that we can use goverment services in both countries and imigrate with automatic visa's ect

At least i belive so:p
 
I haven't heard about that one. It might be APEC. But It isn't really a treaty, more like a club.

I'm wondering whether James will challenge me again..(revenge....mmmm)....
 
Reminders:

1. The Formal Debates forum has rules. See the sticky thread on the forum list.
2. Proposals for debates are to be suggested in appropriately-titled "Proposal threads".
3. Topics are to be debated in Debate and Discussion threads, not in Proposal threads.

Thankyou.
 
The US didn't "opt out" of the treaty, but NZ has been left out in the cold, in terms of intelligence (despite NZ siting part of the global intelligence monitoring network about 100 k North of Auckland, the largest city) and military exercises and perks. Australia, thanks to Howard and his predecessors, were happy to cozy up to the bomb, as it were.

So maybe they should change it to just AUS. Of course, apart from the humorous or other impact of a name change, the US insists we're still "very, very good friends". But we might have to wait for someone to invade to find out how good. They might send a few tanks to protect their satellite dishes, I guess.
 
Last edited:
BTW, ANZAC was an unknown military moniker before the Allies got to Gallipoli and suddenly realised they had a few shipfuls of colonial soldiers, so decided to give them a name (as you do); since they were from NZ (and the other place, Australia), they called them an "Army Corps", the Australian and New Zealand one. Both countries were in the war because of something called "patriotic duty to the motherland", or England called on its "colonial forces", to come and shed a bit of blood for them, which we both did, in considerable amounts.

At Gallipoli, they handed its command over to some Aussie git, which didn't go down so well with the Kiwis, but there it is - it was some Aussie general who got all the "glory". I don't think anything got signed, it's just the accepted name (since Gallipoli) for the combined forces of Aussie and NZ, and it's survived for the now.

P.S. I don't think there are any ANZAC forces serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. But under ANZUS, I know NZ has intelligence agents over there and a few soldiers in Afghanistan - of course, all the guv'nor will say is that there are "SIS forces deployed as part of our ANZUS obligations", so no-one really knows. ANZAC is more a sort of military "pact", at the time it was an agreement by both NZ and Australia to serve under a British flag during WW1; the name came later on, as a bit of military book-keeping - so they could label the symbols on battlefield maps, maybe...?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top