Replies

As I have just mentioned in a previous post, all Mr Downer did was point out the reality that the ANZUS Treaty does not automatically oblige Australia to become involved in such a war. It's probably useful to set this out.

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.

Article IV

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.

Article V

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.