Posted on 11/26/2005 1:09:56 PM PST by naturalman1975
The American alliance – under the ANZUS Treaty – is "one of the fundamental institutions of our national life," according to Professor Hugh White of the Australian National University's Strategic Studies and who once headed the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
It is an assessment relatively few Australians would contest – even those who oppose its current operation.
As White points out, even when individual policies are unpopular, or US leaders are unpopular, Australians "still have a very high regard for the alliance as a whole".
He says at the time of the past US presidential election, about 80 per cent of Australians thought the alliance with the US was important, but 70 per cent did not want Bush to be re-elected.
However, there are critics of the alliance and the way it is working, including former Labor leader Mark Latham.
In his published diaries, Latham described the US alliance as "just another form of neo-colonialism" and that if the Australian people preferred being "an American colony under Howard, that's a nation not worth leading".
Some critics favour the alliance but would like to see it work differently. Before the last election political scientist Professor William Maley, writing in a Strategy publication produced by the institute, said the alliance needed reappraisal.
"There is room in a mature alliance for critical as well as supine or obsequious partners and, in the long run, a new generation of leaders will have the opportunity to explore these possibilities."
The significance of ANZUS is far greater than envisaged when it was signed in 1951.
It was then Australia's first alliance, in the sense, White says, "that it was the first one we self-consciously negotiated as a policy instrument".
White says that Federation, at the turn of the 20th century, was a recognition of Britain's declining capacity at that time to protect Australia in this part of the world.
He says although it may seem ludicrous now, at that time people felt Australian nationhood involved an inevitable strategic link with Britain. Australians regarded themselves as citizens of the British empire.
He says it is traditional to see December 1941, when the US entered the war, as the time that all fell apart and the US alliance emerged, "but in fact it was a slower process".
The ANZUS Treaty was proposed in 1951 as the US was trying to ensure support for the peace treaty with Japan.
But even then Australia's main focus was on defence co-operation with the British. Its strategy if there was a war (as Menzies predicted) was to send forces to the Middle East.
White says it was not until the mid-1960s that ANZUS really emerged. But he says the alliance was intended by Australia to maximise US engagement in the Pacific.
Can we really keep the "NZ" in "ANZUS"? I don't claim to be an expert on them, but it seems that the Kiwis have gone the way of Canada (ie leftwing flabbiness) pretty comprehensively over the past 20 years.
An Aussie friend of mine once said that the NZers are so uptight, "sometimes they're more British than the British." Course it might have been sour grapes, as the All Blacks had just won the Bledisloe Cup again.
Well, New Zealand isn't actually actively part of ANZUS at the moment - the US suspended its treaty obligations to New Zealand in 1985, after New Zealand refused to allow nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessels to enter its ports (and as the US refuses to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on any vessel, this fundamentally barred all US warships from New Zealand ports).
But all it would take is for New Zealand to lift that restriction, and it would be back in ANZUS. ANZUS is a treaty with a rather specific purpose - it is only enacted in cases of armed attack on the main territory of a partner or on the military forces of a partner in the Pacific Ocean. It's not a general defence or general mutual aid treaty.
The only time ANZUS has been invoked was by the Australian government in response to the events of September 11 - those events constituting an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of the United States were an ANZUS trigger - and as a result of that Australia committed troops to the war in Afghanistan.
The thing is, so did New Zealand - even though the ANZUS treaty is in abeyance as far as New Zealand is concerned, it still honoured its commitments under that treaty and committed troops to the war in Afghanistan.
It didn't commit troops to Iraq (well, not combat troops - it did send engineers in after the war), but Iraq actually didn't actually involve the ANZUS treaty (because there was no direct link between Iraq and the attacks New York and Washington DC). The first Gulf War didn't involve ANZUS either, nor did Vietnam - but both Australia and New Zealand committed troops to both those wars. It's important to realise that the ANZUS treaty is only part of the military relationship - and while New Zealand certainly hasn't been fully supportive of other parts of that relationship, on the only occasion that ANZUS has been invoked, New Zealand committed troops.
So, basically, New Zealand could still be part of ANZUS if it chose to be. It's never violated that treaty, nor abrogated it. It's simply put in place one policy that lead the US to suspend (not cancel) its defence obligations to New Zealand. A future New Zealand government would not find it hard at all, to get back into ANZUS (well, not internationally, domestically I think they would find it difficult).
Yes, I remember the issue with the Navy policy in the mid-80's. I had not heard that NZ troops were in Afghanistan - guess they don't get much play in US media (lots of good news doesn't).
My comment about NZ going the way of Canada was intended as a more substantive comment than it perhaps appeared. The Canadians have more or less abandoned the US not only because they've let their military atrophy, but more fundamentally because they no longer share the view of the world as the present US administration, representing as it does a majority of voting citizens.
NZ, likewise, in their splendid isolation, simply don't see things the way much of the US does. Even a conservative NZ government would find it impossible to do what was necessary to become a fully-functioning ally like Australia (God bless Howard).
A coople of points on Nz and ANZUS.
Firstly, is New Zealand out of the treaty. As a Kiwi, I know the US "booted" us out, however my understanding is that the New Zealand - Australia part of the treaty is still in effect (as is Australia - US). Is this correct?
Secondly, if NZ invoked ANZUS as did Australia following 9/11 it may indicate that NZ still considers itself in the treaty with respect to attacks on the US. If this was the case, it's a matter of NZ trying to get back in fully with the US.
Finally, I can't see NZ giving up the anti-nuclear policy, however the question is do they have a point (I'm a Kiwi living in Australia, so I do kinda see the NZ point). Should a treaty require all parties to accept everything from all other parties to the treaty? Put it this way - If France (as a NATO member) decided to visit the US with a nuclear armed vessel (or the like), would the US have any rigth to object?
Gidday BFPRufus. If you don't mind, I'll have a crack at answering your questions.
In practice, the situation is a bit murky. After NZ refused nuclear powered and armed ship visits, the US suspended its Anzus security obligations to NZ. This hasn't stopped NZ servicemen participating in US-led operations in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, or in Aussie-led operations in East Timor. The US has banned NZ from many training exercises - the Americans make exemptions case by case. The intelligence sharing side of things has apparently been little affected. NZ has not withdrawn from Anzus - I think a withdrawal would have to be formally lodged with Australia, from memory.
Regarding the total Anzus situation, the Australia-US leg is obviously closer than ever. In fact, it could be argued that NZ's effective withdrawal (which is more or less what it was) had benefits for the US-Aussie relationship.
NZ and Australia have a Closer Defence Relationship agreement.
As far as I'm aware, NZ did not invoke Anzus after 9/11. However, it has sent special forces to Afghanistan. They are now home while they refit and retrain and do all the things that military units do to stay in peak shape. NZ still has a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamian province - interestingly, led by a Muslim officer (A Kiwi who converted).
As for your final point, the US or any country is perfectly within its rights to reject ship visits. No one is disputing NZ's right to do so, just whether it's sensible or in the long-term interests of either NZ or the US.
IMHO, Naturalman's post sets out the position very well. Strewth, an Aussie who isn't one-eyed!
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.