Posted on 09/20/2005 5:02:42 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
THE US no longer expects Australia to automatically support it in a conflict with China over the flashpoint of Taiwan, Bush administration officials have told Australian MPs.
The message was delivered by US military, Pentagon and State Department officials to a delegation of visiting MPs, before John Howard delivered one of his strongest speeches in New York last week distinguishing Australia's approach to China from that of the US.
Under the ANZUS treaty there has been an expectation that Australia would support the US in a conflict over Taiwan.
But Foreign Minister Alexander Downer shocked the region with a speech 12 months ago in Beijing in which he hinted Australia would not automatically support the US.
South Australian Liberal senator Alan Ferguson, chairman of the Joint Defence Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee and a delegation member, said "in general terms it was made clear that in the unlikely event of a conflict over Taiwan, the US doesn't automatically expect military support from Australia".
Senator Ferguson said he believed the shift in American thinking acknowledged Australia's military was "already stretched" with its contributions to Afghanistan and Iraq.
"There is an acknowledgement in Washington that in our relationship with China we don't always follow the United States," he told The Australian.
.
It is disgraceful that any free nation would stand by while the Red Chinese invade and conquer and free and democratic state.
Don't fret, we are small, useful enough to keep our eyes and ears open.
It's disheartening that a firm ally like John Howard would do this. I suppose China is offering trade deals that the government couldn't resist.
I feel we can trust the Aussies. If the SHTF, they won't care about some formality, they'll do the right thing and fight on the side of democracy, liberty, and freedom.
There's been a lot of confusion about ANZUS - some people have misunderstood the ANZUS treaty and come to the conclusion that this treaty obliges Australia to participate in nearly all US wars (and for that matter, vice versa). Many people are under the misapprehension that Australians served in Vietnam and in both Gulf Wars as a result of the ANZUS treaty. This is not the case.
ANZUS is a very specific treaty set up with a very specific purpose. It relates only to attacks on the territory of the signatory nations, or on their maritime assets, and only in some circumstances.
It has not been at all helpful for some people to try and claim that this treaty addresses issues that it does not address - and that has happened so many times.
All that the US has acknowledged here is that Australia is not obliged to automatically support the US in a war with China over Taiwan. That acknowledgement has been necessary only because some ill informed people have consistently tried to claim that ANZUS does oblige Australia to do so.
Acknowledging that the ANZUS treaty does not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in such a war, is not the same as saying Australia would not become involved in such a war.
ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in Vietnam. ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in the Gulf War of 1991, ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in the Iraq War of 2003.
But in all those cases, Australia chose to become involved despite there being no automatic obligation to do so. By the same token, ANZUS did not oblige the US to become automatically involved in Australian operations in East Timor.
But again, despite there being no automatic obligation for the US to become involved in East Timor, nonetheless, the US did provide significant support to Australian lead operations.
Australia was however obliged to go to war in Afghanistan under ANZUS - as that war was directly related to an attack on the mainland of the United States - which is one of the triggers for ANZUS.
The point is that all the US has done here is acknowledge that the ANZUS Treaty says what the ANZUS Treaty says - it's written down in black and white. Australia would not be automatically obliged to participate in such a war.
The only reason the US has had to make that acknowledgement is because of the media trying to stir up trouble - the US government has certainly always been aware of what ANZUS actually says - it's made this acknowledgement just so hopefully the media will now become less likely to misrepresent it all the time.
That does not mean Australia would not participate in such a war - as it did in Vietnam and in both Gulf Wars without ANZUS playing any role at all. It's just that participation is not automatic.
They're sandbagging. Australia will be there for us.
See my post #9.
I saw it...we are on the same wavelength.
It will, of course, depend on whether the Australian government's assessment is that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan represents a problem for Australian national interests. If it does, then the question isn't whether the Australians will help the U.S., it's whether the U.S. will help the Australians.
Oh great...I'm waiting for Japan to quietly issue the same press release...great...just great...
What Mr Downer said was as follows:
"Well, the ANZUS Treaty is a treaty which is, of course, symbolic of the Australian alliance with the US, but the ANZUS Treaty is invoked in the event one of our two countries, Australia or the US, being attacked. So some other military activity elsewhere in the world does not automatically invoke the ANZUS Treaty."
Well, the point is, that is exactly what the ANZUS Treaty says.
Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
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.
ANZUS is a treaty with a very specific purpose. To deal with attacks on the direct interests of the parties involved - on their own territories, or on their own forces, vessels, or aircraft.
That's all Mr Downer pointed out - what the treaty says.
But Australia went to war in Vietnam, and against Iraq twice, without ANZUS being relevant.
ANZUS would not be relevant in a war with China over Taiwan - but that does not mean Australia would not be involved in such a war.
This was merely a clarification, between honest friends, with many common interests in the world and region.
There is, of course, another explanation. And that is that Taiwan is being set up to go the way of Hong Kong - quietly, and into the night.
Yes, I know, this is heresy. But it does explain all the facts currently in evidence.
So much for America's most dependable ally. Secretary of State Rice ought to consider making a trip to Tokyo to hint that the US would not automatically support Australia against future Japanese Imperialism in the Coral Sea.
I doubt it. Japan has more interest in Taiwan than U.S..
I agree with the interest Japan has in Taiwan. I also believe that Japan is basing this on a unified effort which would include Koras, Japan, Austrailia and the USA.
Any public notice that weakens this union will be exploited by the PLA/PRC to further divide this unity - whether its real or not.
No wait. We already got that messsge from the US State Department in the 1960s (not a criticism, as naturalman has pointed out, there are some things the treaties do not cover - and when they don't, support is not automatic)
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.