Posted on 09/23/2004 9:43:08 PM PDT by Hazzardgate
Mr Downer simply outlined for the press how the ANZUS treaty works and what it says. There would be outrage from the US government - and rightly so - if Australia's Foreign Minister started suggesting ANZUS said something it didn't.
Treaties are rather precise documents - and you don't mess around and say that they cover things they don't, and if a reporter tries to claim they cover things they don't, the only sensible approach is to correct that misrepresentation.
It's not a sign of appeasement - it's a sign that Alexander Downer knows what the job of a Foreign Minister is.
The left wing press here has tried to manipulate this issue - and I'm afraid you have fallen for those manipulations, hook, line, and sinker.
Now, it's certainly possible - maybe even likely - that in a war with China over Taiwan, something might happen that then invoked ANZUS. And if Mr Downer had been asked a specific question about that specific scenario, his answer would have almost certainly been different.
But when he's asked about pure hypotheticals, he's not going to commit Australia's policy based on a journalist trying to trick him.
To continue with this metaphor, China will not respect Austrlia in the morning. That is Dwoner and Howards major error.
THe Aussies NEED the US for the day when Indonesia realises it has 240 million people and not much land space while to the south they have a practically empty continent with only 20 million people
Well put. I actually think this is a major consideration for the appeasement of China. They think China will protect them.
But more likley is that China itself is a much bigger problem in such a scenario, not Indonesia.
Islamists present a more immediate threat to the lives of Australians in terms of being killed randomly in attacks such as in Bali.
But in the long run, the Chinese communists pose a much greater threat to Australia's freedoms, way of life and sovereignty than do the Islamists.
It's an interesting time in human history and the sort of things we are touching on here we won;t live to see play out. Who knows what will happen.
Secondly, Australia acts in Australia's strategic interests. They very often coincide with the interests of the United States, but ultimately an Australian government will act in our interests. We don't base our foreign policy on US interests, first and last.
With regard to those nations establishing official diplomatic relations with Taiwan and Australia, not China, taking the lead to pressure them to not recognize Taiwan.
Australia succeeded in PNG but not Kiribati.
China dismantled and left it's tracking and listening posts in Kiribati. If Australia had succeeded the communists would still have that very valuable asset.
He's a prissy, pedantic, officious person, and he tends to use language very precisely. That may sometimes cause problems with people who see things in a very black and white fashion.
But he's not going to mess around with the language of a treaty. It says what it says. And if he's called on it, he'll talk about the specific language and what it says. That's part of his job - but it's also part of his nature.
Cette phrase resemble les pensées français -- à bientot.
He played Clintonian word games.
We've had a commitment to ANZUS for 53 years. We invoked it on the only occasion, it has been relevant, and we went to war based on that invocation. I find it rather insulting to suggest that having gone to war because of the treaty, you seem to think it's necessary for the Foreign Minister to quote it to a journalist who is trying to score left-wing political capital from the treaty.
Actions speak louder than words. Australia's actions if Afghanistan show that we take ANZUS seriously. There should be no need to quote the thing to every journalist who wants to try and sour relations.
It was total nonsense meant only to appease the communist regime in China whom he was toadying up to at the time.
What war is there going to be where US forces are not attacked? It's not a war if they aren't attacked.
Australia has a 'One China' policy. Australia's actions in Kiribati were based on Australia's 'One China' policy.
The United States also has a 'One China' policy.
Apparently, you think Australia is acting against the United States' strategic interests, by having the same policies as the United States.
Now, as a personal matter, I disagree with the One China policy - I think the Taiwanese should have the right of self determination, and that should be supported.
But it's a policy Australia shares with the United States of America so I find it odd to see suggestions that it's not in accord with US strategic interests.
The issue isn't ANZUS per se. It is appeasement of the communists and how far out he will go and how much a fool he will make of himself to do that.
Anyhoo, me sleep now. g,nite mate. Throw a shrimp on the barby doll for me. Tell Downer if you ever see him to grow a spine or to just quit and form Downer Associates. He'll be a multi-millonaire acting as agent and PR man for the ChiComs before he can say "wo ai zhong gong".
Take care.
A war in which vessels of the United States were attacked in the Indian Ocean, would also not invoke ANZUS.
A war in which US troops ashore in China were attacked would not invoke ANZUS.
There are plenty of hypothetical circumstances in which the ANZUS treaty is not relevant.
In any of the hypotheticals above, Australia might well go to war in support of the United States - but it wouldn't be under the ANZUS treaty, just as the recent war in Iraq, was not under the ANZUS treaty.
The journalist was trying to portray it as a blank cheque. It isn't.
No, what the sentence resembles is the view of a fiercely independent nation that stands with our friends when there's a fight - but also stands up for what we believe is in our own best interests.
If we didn't do that, we would be a US vassal.
Has he gone to bed yet? I hope so. I certainly found your explanations profoundly interesting.
Particularly the comment "the journalist was trying to portray it as a blank cheque. It isn't."
(As for me, I should know better than to respond to a poster whose first comment is an obvious insult.)
Oh yeah? Even if JF'nKerry wins the election? You gotta be kidding!
<< Actions speak louder than words. Australia's actions if Afghanistan show that we take ANZUS seriously. >>
Australia's actions ever since there has been an independant Australia speak very loudly indeed to the Absolute fact of that nation's being America's First and best ally and steadfastly at its side in every altercation in which America has been engaged. To suggest otherwise and/or that any Australian government -- even the bloody awful governments of the moronic Gough Whitlam -- who gutlessly withdrew Australia's Vietnam Forces -- and of the mobbed-up unionist Bob Hawke and gangster-like Sydney's-Western-Suburbs bovver-boy, Paul Keating -- was other than an unshakeable American ally is to demonstrate ignorance and/or stupidity.
And there has never been a more dedicated American ally among Australia's legions of them than is John Howard and are Prime Minister Howard's Cabinet Ministers!
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.