Latest news with #ANZUSTreaty
AllAfrica
a day ago
- Business
- AllAfrica
Australia is right not to commit to hypothetical Taiwan conflict
The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies. Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific. Australia's track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands have been placed that rankle. The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan. Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Defense Industry Minister Pat Conroy have declined to make a public commitment, alluding to the United States' own policy of 'strategic ambiguity' about how the US would respond. Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond. It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington Joe Hockey to coin the term '100 years of mateship.' The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long. However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties. More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory. This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defense spending. American policymakers appear oblivious of or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating. It is this context that makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defense of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful. Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia. The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns. In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment. Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances. The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that. The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees, either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington's demands means the prime minister effectively has no option but to push back: We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don't support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region. Defense Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any 'hypothetical' conflict: The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day. A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology. The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions. So why invoke AUKUS in such a way? Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere. The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it's hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement. Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point. The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place. As former PM, now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geopolitical disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition. This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary's military planners and political decision makers' thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war. China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted. And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided. But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly. John Blaxland is a professor, at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
7NEWS
06-07-2025
- Business
- 7NEWS
Where does Australia stand if WWIII begins?
In the event of a third global conflict, experts warn Australia would not be able to remain neutral. We would be automatically drawn into war by virtue of our strengthening military ties with America, two defence experts say. International security expert Dr Thomas Wilkins at the University of Sydney and Senior Research Associate at Nautilus Institute Richard Tanter agree that Australia's close strategic and technological bond with the US has effectively removed the option of neutrality from the table. 'If a third world war occurred, it would be reasonable to assume Canberra would live up to its presumed obligations under the ANZUS Treaty alliance and go to war with America,' Wilkins said. Australian involvement is no longer a question of if, but 'automatically' so, Tanter said. The experts also noted Australia hosts a series of major US military and intelligence bases, including Pine Gap joint defence station outside Alice Springs and the Tindal Air Base within the Northern Territory. 'The US has so many bases here — command and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — they would be used on the first day of the war unless there was a very active Australian government move to deny use of these facilities, which won't happen,' Tanter said. Pine Gap's function goes beyond conventional military action, he said. 'Pine Gap is involved in nuclear command, control and communications, and warning.' 'In that sense, we are highly involved in the nuclear policy of the United States.' Hosting B-52 Bombers raises risk profile Australia has just signed an agreement to host US nuclear-capable B-52 bombers at the RAAF Tindal air base, further inserting Australia into US strategic thinking. While the aircraft won't deploy nuclear weapons while based here, Tanter warned that this action was a shift in Australia's role. 'This is a step from communications and control to deployment,' he said. 'Refuelling tankers will be based here, and Australian fighter jets will be providing escort cover.' 'We are part of the deployment system.' 'You don't necessarily need to have the bomb here to be in the nuclear command structure.' Strategic target in world war Inclusion of Australia within US military bases also makes it a potential target in a global war. 'China will understandably interpret Australia's deepening defence ties with the US as a threat to its own interests, will not approve of this position, and seek to consistently denounce it as destabilising,' Wilkins said. On the other hand, Tanter said we are not likely to face a threat from Iran. 'China has the missile capability and numbers to realistically target Pine Gap, and Australian governments have acknowledged this risk since the Cold War,' he said. 'However, despite having political tensions with Australia, Iran lacks both the long-range missile technology and the resources to reach targets 10,000km away, like Australia.' 'It does not possess intercontinental ballistic missiles, so a direct attack is highly unlikely under current circumstances.' Lessons from history Wilkins made comparisons with Australia's position during World War II. 'Australia put its faith in a weakening 'great power ally' to defend it (the UK), whilst not doing nearly enough to prepare its national military capabilities should this strategy fail, as it did with the fall of Singapore in February 1942,' he said. He warned that Australia is not prepared to face a third global war. 'The lack of psychological and material preparation for a major conflict in Australia at the present time ensures that war will be more costly to the nation than otherwise, again mirroring the experience of the Allies in the first part of the Pacific War.' Conscription technically possible Tanter believes that conscription could be reinstated in the event of a large war, although politically it is impossible. 'It's just a matter of decision and law,' he said. 'But the way the conscription worked back in the Vietnam War, it was highly unpopular, and conscripts were not particularly suited for most combat opportunities.' Room for independent policy shrinking Australia has some room for independent decision-making in conflicts involving the US, but this would come at significant political cost. 'In the event of a US-China war, Australia could act independently, but probably only at the cost of the alliance,' Tanter said. Australia has already locked itself into a subordinate role, he said. 'We've chosen to be technologically tied to the Americans, which restricts our options.' Moral questions remain Australia's alliances raise tough moral questions as tensions escalate. Tanter was critical of the Australian role in global conflicts and the broader narrative about defending a 'rules-based order'. 'There are no clean hands here,' he said, referencing recent conflicts such as the war in Gaza. 'The US and Israel are engaged in what I regard as ethnic cleansing or genocide.' 'In those circumstances, I think we need to have a policy like the Whitlam government had in 1973 — that we don't take sides.' As tensions rise globally, Australia's path may already be set — not by choice, but by alliance.
Sky News AU
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
'In retreat from the wider world': Former prime ministers criticise Anthony Albanese's delayed response to US strikes on Iran
Former prime ministers Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison have criticised Anthony Albanese, after he took over 24 hours to directly express support for the United States' strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. In the early hours of Sunday, local time, President Donald Trump gave the green light to the US Air Force to carry out attacks on key nuclear facilities of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. In his address to the nation shortly after the strikes, he declared the facilities had been "completely and totally obliterated" as he urged Iran to "make peace". It took the Labor government 24 hours to confirm, on Monday, it supported President Trump's actions, then several more hours before Mr Albanese fronted the media. The government's delayed response has since been called out by key political figures such as Mr Morrison, who pointed fingers at Labor's ambiguity on the Middle East since the October 7 attacks. On Monday, the former Liberal prime minister stressed the US was Australia's greatest ally, adding it was critical to inform President Trump he was supported by the Australian government. "If you're in the United States and you take an action like this, and it wouldn't have been an easy call for the President this is not something he would have been rushing to do, itching to do, but you'd want to know your allies were with you 100 per cent," Mr Morrison told Sky News host Sharri Markson. "How hard is it to go: 'Well done, Mr President, on taking out the nuclear capabilities of a despotic authoritarian regime that, you know, imposes all sorts of extinguishment of liberties on their own people'." Mr Morrison further criticised Mr Albanese, saying his response should not have taken "this long" and that he should have convened a meeting of the National Security Committee of Cabinet on Sunday. Mr Abbott shared the same sentiment as his former Liberal colleague and lashed Mr Albanese's response to the Middle East conflict. Speaking to Sky News on Monday, Mr Abbott said "Australia has been in retreat from the wider world" under the Labor government. "The most obvious sign of that was about 18 months ago, when the Albanese government refused to send a frigate to the Red Sea," he said. "This was the first time since the ANZUS Treaty in 1951 that Australia had turned down a specific request from America for military help." The Albanese government's initial statement, which was attributed only to a government spokesperson, did not express support for the US, but instead called for 'de-escalation' and 'dialogue'. On Monday, when Mr Albanese was pressed for answers on the issue he said: 'Well, we aren't a central player in this conflict, that's just a fact… What we do is we run an orderly, stable government". 'I made comments about this in three countries over recent days. My comments today are perfectly consistent with that.'
The Guardian
22-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The US-Australia alliance has created a unique kind of subservience. What if we don't need the US to come to our rescue?
Following in the footsteps of many fixtures of far-right America, Fox News turned independent commentator Tucker Carlson toured Australia in July 2024. Brought here by mining magnate Clive Palmer, Carlson found adoring audiences. At an event in Canberra, Carlson attracted the expected figures from the Australian right and a few sceptical journalists. Much was made of a 'viral' moment in which he berated the Australian media. His audience, of course, loved it. But Carlson is as slippery as he is ideological. At one point, he would no doubt have made that audience – a group of people deeply committed to the idea of American primacy and righteousness – rather uncomfortable. Asked if China posed a threat to Australia, Carlson pivoted to the US-Australia alliance. He reflected on 'the fears that have pushed generations of Australian governments into a counterproductive alliance with the United States and Great Britain'. That enduring fear of hostile powers, Carlson continued, meant that 'the view here is that the US will rescue us if we ever really have a problem. And I don't think that's true. I'm sorry to say that … I just don't think it's true, and I think you're unwise for believing it's true.' Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Tucker Carlson has abhorrent views on most things. But on this point, he is right. That even Carlson can see this truth should be a source of great embarrassment. The myth that the Americans will come to our rescue should we ever need them has endured for evermore than 70 years, but it has always been just that – a myth. The mythology of our security relationship with the United States stems, of course, from the experience of the second world war and our 'abandonment' by Great Britain. It was further ingrained by the 1951 ANZUS Treaty and the formalisation of the security alliance. But despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, the ANZUS Treaty promises us nothing – it gives only the assurance that both parties will 'consult' when 'political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened in the Pacific', 'act to meet the common danger' and report to the UN security council 'all measures taken as a result'. All of this means nothing more nor less than what anyone wants it to mean. Successive Australian governments' desperation to shore up this mythical security guarantee is what makes the alliance, as Carlson astutely observed, so counterproductive. It has drawn Australia into unnecessary and damaging wars reaching far beyond the Pacific and created a unique kind of subservience. It is what gave us the indefensible Aukus submarine pact. Deeply ingrained fears have led Australian governments to believe that Australia must stick to the United States no matter what it does and no matter who is in charge – even if it is someone like Donald Trump. At one particularly worrying point for American democracy, one Australian journalist even insisted that when it came to the US alliance, 'cosying up to a madman … [was] a necessity'. But what if all of that failed, when and if it came down to it? Or what if cosying up to madmen and handing them $368bn and our sovereignty actually made things more dangerous for us and our region? What if we listened to Tucker Carlson and understood that Americans aren't coming to save us? Or, even better, that we don't need saving? Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion That would not mean abandoning our alliance with the United States. It would mean changing the way it works and how we understand it. It would mean dramatically rethinking what we mean when we talk about 'security'. In our counterproductive alliance with the United States, security seems to mean only the temporary absence of war that political and military leaders on both sides of the Pacific believe to be inevitable – war that can only be prevented by projections of military might. Security, though, should mean a lot more than that. It should mean collective human flourishing – not just the absence of war but genuine wellbeing grounded in equality and prosperity. That would mean identifying and working in genuine partnership on the things that do threaten us: climate change, nuclear proliferation, inequality. It would mean distinguishing between those genuine threats and risks – like our relationships with great powers – to be managed. A productive relationship with the United States would be grounded in democratic solidarity – not fear. At times, that democratic solidarity might make for some uncomfortable conversations. Democratic solidarity would mean focusing on transparency and accountability and being consistent in those commitments – not something the alliance is particularly good at right now. But it is in Australian interests just as much as in America's that US democracy survives and thrives. Australia – as a thriving, though imperfect, democracy – has a lot to offer in that regard. And we know we can have those uncomfortable conversations and survive them. The Australian government did that only recently when it secured the release of Australian citizen Julian Assange. For a brief moment, the Australian government demonstrated that it could advocate for its and its citizen's interests while simultaneously challenging Americans to see what is also in their best interests. Holding an Australian citizen hostage for publishing the truth was never in the interests of the most important democracy in the world. Confronting the glaring hypocrisies of American power is difficult. But more than that, it is necessary. That was clearly demonstrated when, not long after Assange's release, the Biden administration secured the release of American journalists held hostage in Russia – something that arguably could not have happened while such appalling treatment of an Australian citizen was allowed to stand. Assange's release was a preview of what the US-Australian relationship might be, and how it is possible to advocate for our own interests without succumbing to fear or subservience. Because we matter. We just have to accept that truth and ask ourselves: what could we bring to the world if we weren't so afraid? This is an adapted extract of Dr Emma Shortis' essay 'Democratic Solidarity' in What's the Big Idea? 34 Ideas for a Better Australia (Australia Institute Press, $34.99)
