Posted on 09/23/2004 9:43:08 PM PDT by Hazzardgate
Can you tell me where and when the Labor party withdrew this promise. I've heard it repeated this morning. They have slightly modified their language, and said they will take advice if elected, but as far as I am aware, it is still ALP policy to withdraw all Australian troops (with the possible exception of a small force to guard our embassy) from Iraq by Christmas, if elected.
It's not impossible I've missed something, but the ALP website still says it's their policy.
What you said. All of it spot on.
I know about Howard and his corrupt band.
They are selling Australia down the river, or ocean as it were.
I am not saying whomever his comptetition is is better or worth supporting only that Howard is a weasel of the French Clintonian type.
He has allowed his administration to be a surrogate for the Chinese which is very strange.
I think he is either scared or purely corrupt. Maybe a combination of the two.
When Howard's administration stated that if there were a war involving the US and China that Australia would not back the US and that the mutual defense treaty between the US and Australia is "symbolic" it was noticed.
Just goes to show how the 'slightly modified language' penetrates and in this case, misleads one. Thanks for the correction. Just where did you hear this 'repeated this morning'?
I wouldn't be the only one one mislead, surely? The perception seems to be that the opposition will continue with our support of Iraq.
One question: Is Howard going to throw Downer out on his rear end? Why hasn't he?
I have seen this matter previously discussed on FR, the conclusion I reached was the Aussies and the US are playing good cop bad cop, keeping the door open, with your Admin sagely nodding in approval. All's not black and white. Diplomacy. Tactics, etc.
There is absolutely no question of which side Australia would support in a US/China war. Australia would support the United States - the precise amount of support would depend on the precise situation - it could be full military support, it could be diplomatic only. But Australia would support the US over China.
This is a simple and clearly understood fact in Australia.
Now, because it's clearly understood that Australia is closely allied to the United States, some sections of the media (generally left-wing sections) attempt to suggest that this is a blank cheque arrangement - that Australia would automatically, without thinking, support the United States in any situation. Some of these people have attempted to frame questions in such a way as to try and get Mr Downer (as our Foreign Minister) or Mr Howard to say publically that we'll automatically rubber stamp US requests for help. And that is the type of question that was asked in this case.
What Mr Downer pointed out is that there is no treaty between Australia and the United States that automatically commits Australia to assist the United States, in any situation, except an attack on US soil. That does not mean that Australia would not assist the United States in a war. It doesn't even come close to meaning that.
The clearest example of this is Afghanistan and Iraq. Because there was a clear connection between Afghanistan and the September 11 attacks, Australian troops went to war in Afghanistan under the auspices of the ANZUS Treaty.
In the case of Iraq, no clear case was made prior to the invasion of Iraq that Iraq had a clear connection between the September 11 attacks. Because that connection was not made, ANZUS was not relevant. Nonetheless Australia went to war, not under ANZUS, but under a separate agreement specifically drafted to deal with Iraq.
ANZUS only covers a very specific situation. Mr Downer pointing out what the treaty says, does not, in any way, shape or form, indicate that Australia will not go to war to support the United States if needed.
Since ANZUS was signed, Australia has gone to war beside the United States in Vietnam, in the first Gulf War, in Afghanistan, and last year in Iraq. In only one of those cases, was ANZUS relevant to the decision.
The ALP has made a commitment to continue some support of Iraq if they are elected - just not military support, not troops. Rather they have pledged to support other means of assisting Iraqis - helping to rebuild infrastructure, etc. All together, it comes to a special aid payment of around $75 million. It's not actually a bad plan, on some levels - that type of support is needed. But even if Labor planned this from the start, they should never have made the commitment they did to withdraw troops in the way they did - you don't promise to withdraw troops by Christmas, in April - you make the decision at the time it seems appropriate. If Latham had said, 'Provided the security situation is stable, we'll withdraw by Christmas', I'd have a lot less problem with him - but he painted himself into a corner, by making a commitment to do so, whatever the circumstances. That's not sensible.
As far as this: Australia would support the United States.
I believe that. I don't necessarily believe Downer and Howard would though.
Howard's administration has already moved against US strategic interests solely on behalf of China acting as China's surrogate.
I disagree. Appreciate your honesty.
But Australia ain't going to have a bed if that's who they getting in bed with.
That's why I disagree.
Hello Naturalman! Thank goodness you are around to clear this up, I was starting to feel as grumpy as Howard! Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Vietnam, the first Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq; what more could one ask?
It depends. If Australian troops were attacked in Sarawak, would the ANZUS Treaty be in effect?
The treaty states:
For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.
An attack on US forces in Japan would constitute an attack on the armed forces of the United States located in the Pacific - so in that situation, ANZUS would be invoked. Automatically.
However, if, hypothetically, Taiwan was attacked by China, and the US went to war with China over Taiwan, ANZUS would not be invoked. Australia would almost certainly go to war with China, in support of the United States and Taiwan, but it would require a vote by parliament, and a special agreement to do so formalised by the signing of a separate undertaking.
This is what occurred in both Gulf Wars. It's a normal practice and procedure.
It's obvious you don't understand how these things work. I have been involved in the Australian Defence Force, and I have been involved in Australian politics. The current Australian government is the most likely we've had in a long time to support the United States on any issue, and John Howard is the most pro-US Prime Minister we've had since Holt.
But we're not a US vassal. And if you expect that as a condition of frienship, the only friends the US can expect to have will be spineless cowards.
Yes, he painted himself into a corner when he said he would have the troops home by Christmas and ever since, he has been trying to wriggle out of it, because the statement was not generally well accepted by the public. All the promises re education and health spending have that question of Iraq hanging over them and the question remains; who can we best trust on the matter of security?
The answer is Howard, naturally.
It was pure horse manure put forth by Downer as simple appeasement.
One should expect more intellectual honesty from one in his position.
Nor should it be. But why is it a Chinese vassal?
Acting as China's surrogate in relation to Papua New Guinea and Kiribati is acting as a vassal state.
It is very troubling and in the latter case directly worked against US straegic interests.
I believe so. Why would it not be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.