Australia, a growing geopolitical lap dog and not just in the Indo Pacific.

[Saint]

Not certain if that's a deal breaker between Aus and Indonesia as far as being in alliance is concerned. Haven't heard anything in regards to deteriorating alliance between Indonesia and Aus because Israel.

More than certain if it were to be a deal breaker we'd certainly hear and know about it.

And I doubt Indonesia would be as petulant as to deliberately sour our alliance coz Israel.

Have a look at item 21 from the joint release from Australia and Malaysia.

Joint statement for the 2nd Australia-Malaysia Annual Leaders’ Meeting

The Prime Minister of Australia, The Honourable Anthony Albanese MP, welcomed the Prime Minister of Malaysia, The Honourable Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim, to Melbourne for the 2nd Australia-Malaysia Annual Leaders’ Meeting on 4 March 2024.The Leaders noted the excellent state of the bilateral...

www.pm.gov.au

Scomo Sh*t the bed when he went all evangelical and upset the Indonesians.

Australia not moving embassy to Jerusalem. Will Oz-Indo relations improve?

Did Australia’s compromise really ease the tension with Indonesia?

theconversation.com

Calls for a 2-state solution, which Israel has now officially rejected. A 2-state solution is the policy of every nation on earth except Israel. (including the US).

This stuff matters way more to Indonesia and Malaysia than it does to Australia. Which is why we shouldn't be sticking up for the violent Israeli Govt's current policies.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Have a look at item 21 from the joint release from Australia and Malaysia.

Joint statement for the 2nd Australia-Malaysia Annual Leaders’ Meeting

The Prime Minister of Australia, The Honourable Anthony Albanese MP, welcomed the Prime Minister of Malaysia, The Honourable Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim, to Melbourne for the 2nd Australia-Malaysia Annual Leaders’ Meeting on 4 March 2024.The Leaders noted the excellent state of the bilateral...

www.pm.gov.au

After skimming over it, looks rather positive, not sure what you're trying to prove here.

The Leaders reiterated their shared concern about the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza following the 7 October attacks. They called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. All parties must respect civilian lives and international humanitarian law. They repeated calls for safe, unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access in Gaza, safe passage for civilians, and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. The Leaders recognised that both countries have strongly advocated for de-escalation and the need for a political resolution that achieves a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security within internationally agreed borders, based on the pre-1967 lines.

This doesn't display blatant support from Australia on how Israel is going about it.

Scomo Sh*t the bed when he went all evangelical and upset the Indonesians.

Australia not moving embassy to Jerusalem. Will Oz-Indo relations improve?

Did Australia’s compromise really ease the tension with Indonesia?

theconversation.com

Calls for a 2-state solution, which Israel has now officially rejected. A 2-state solution is the policy of every nation on earth except Israel. (including the US).

This stuff matters way more to Indonesia and Malaysia than it does to Australia. Which is why we shouldn't be sticking up for the violent Israeli Govt's current policies.

Scomo is irrelevant now.

We're 'sticking up' for Israel (while at the same time, the rhetoric is 'not happy' with the way Israel is going about it) because we're a lap dog and have to tow the 'democratic alliance' line.

Indonesia and Malaysia are not going to break ties with Australia over it, they would've already done it by now if they were so abhorred by our support for Israel.

Their citizens may see it as you do, I don't really know, but I haven't heard of masses of public dissidence calling for their countries to break ties with Australia.

Do you see them breaking ties with uncle sam over it? No.

I understand you're obvious emotional position in regards to Palestine, but the way the 'alliance' sees it is Hammas bad, Israel democracy.

Our neighbors aren't going to break alliance with Australia over it.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So you think NATO countries are all chumps then and should isolate themselves?

Yeah, but I also think Russia and China are chumps who should isolate themselves too!! Everyone to their own corners and not one foot outside the boundary with your military.

 

[Rob R]

Here’s a great suggestion for who Australia should ally with. ASEAN.

Our immediate and direct neighbours. 700 million people. 5th largest economy in the world. Establish our position as a regional player not one with colonial ties or US imperial lackey.

Putting aside the fact that ASEAN are already our friends and are not a military partnership of any sort, you are talking about the ASEAN nations subject to increasingly aggressive behaviour from Xis thugs and are now asking for an increasing Western, Japanese and Korean presence out of fear of what Xi will do next.

 

[Seeds]

Yeah, but I also think Russia and China are chumps who should isolate themselves too!! Everyone to their own corners and not one foot outside the boundary with your military.

Your view is the equivalent of saying lets get rid of the police and courts and just hope crime doesnt happen. Yes their are bad police and corrupt judges. But to think things arent a 100 times worse if we get rid of the whole system is extremely naive.

Instead of isolationism we should work towards the opposite. A global set of rules and enforcement that everyone signs up to.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Your view is the equivalent of saying lets get rid of the police and courts and just hope crime doesnt happen. Yes their are bad police and corrupt judges. But to think things arent a 100 times worse if we get rid of the whole system is extremely naive.

Instead of isolationism we should work towards the opposite. A global set of rules and enforcement that everyone signs up to.

The United Nations Security Council was intended to do that. But it permits only five member nations a permanent seat. Each with powers of veto.

Do you like the veto system?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah, but I also think Russia and China are chumps who should isolate themselves too!! Everyone to their own corners and not one foot outside the boundary with your military.

This is rather utopian thinking, China and Russia are expansionists, and not in a good way.

They ain't gonna comply to isolationism, trump is an isolationist, and that'd be bad for the democratic alliance.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

This is rather utopian thinking, China and Russia are expansionists, and not in a good way.

They ain't gonna comply to isolationism, trump is an isolationist, and that'd be bad for the democratic alliance.

I'd actually like to know if China would be 'happy' with finally settling the Chinese Civil War if they take Taiwan. You might be right, under Xi they might well be expansionist and greedy for more. Russia definitely wants to stop rival powers encroaching on its buffers.

But the United States does not lead by good example. Pax Americana's rules-based order is a 'rules for thee, not for me' system. It and the nations it allows to can get away with every kind of barbarity it seems.

To lead and lead WELL a leader needs to lead by example. The United States teaches us that might is right, and that money makes morality dissolve.

That aint right either.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'd actually like to know if China would be 'happy' with finally settling the Chinese Civil War if they take Taiwan. You might be right, under Xi they might well be expansionist and greedy for more. Russia definitely wants to stop rival powers encroaching on its buffers.

But the United States does not lead by good example. Pax Americana's rules-based order is a 'rules for thee, not for me' system. It and the nations it allows to can get away with every kind of barbarity it seems.

To lead and lead WELL a leader needs to lead by example. The United States teaches us that might is right, and that money makes morality dissolve.

That aint right either.

Never ever suggested that the US is 'right', very very far from.

Vlad is definitely an expansionist, same for Xi, fact of the matter in your post is that it is far better to be aligned to liberal democracies than not, the US (currently, unless the isolationist takes office) is far better than being aligned to oppressive dictatorships.

Not the point of the thread though is it, the point of the thread is to point out that we're are a high end medium power (militarily if you go by the sources linked, and likely economically, as being part of the g20) and as that sort of power we're likely a perceived threat of some measure by dictatorships.

How much I don't know, but I know this much, we're no longer considered some backwater no threat like 50 years ago when most of the world didn't know we existed.

Not top of the list, granted, again not the point.

 

[Rob R]

I'd actually like to know if China would be 'happy' with finally settling the Chinese Civil War if they take Taiwan. You might be right, under Xi they might well be expansionist and greedy for more. Russia definitely wants to stop rival powers encroaching on its buffers.

But the United States does not lead by good example. Pax Americana's rules-based order is a 'rules for thee, not for me' system. It and the nations it allows to can get away with every kind of barbarity it seems.

To lead and lead WELL a leader needs to lead by example. The United States teaches us that might is right, and that money makes morality dissolve.

That aint right either.

The Chinese civil war was settled long ago after the CCP largely sat out WW2 and then defeated an exhausted nationalist government (who were not good either but at least they fought). Taiwan is a separate independent democracy with no interest in being part of Xis dictatorship or even China when the Chinese people eventually rid themselves of the CCP.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The Chinese civil war was settled long ago after the CCP largely sat out WW2 and then defeated an exhausted nationalist government (who were not good either but at least they fought). Taiwan is a separate independent democracy with no interest in being part of Xis dictatorship or even China when the Chinese people eventually rid themselves of the CCP.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Not according to the Chinese Communist Party. To them it would be like if during the U.S Civil War the Confederates still held Hawaii. Personally, If I led the PRC I would just let Taiwan go. It just aint worth it,

 

[Spearman]

Not according to the Chinese Communist Party. To them it would be like if during the U.S Civil War the Confederates still held Hawaii. Personally, If I led the PRC I would just let Taiwan go. It just aint worth it,

Agreed in that Hawaii was not a part of the USA at the time, like Taiwan wasn't a part of China.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not according to the Chinese Communist Party. To them it would be like if during the U.S Civil War the Confederates still held Hawaii. Personally, If I led the PRC I would just let Taiwan go. It just aint worth it,

I reckon if you led the PRC you wouldn't be an oppressive dictator with expansionist ideals either.

Problem is you don't lead the PRC.

 

[Seeds]

I'd actually like to know if China would be 'happy' with finally settling the Chinese Civil War if they take Taiwan. You might be right, under Xi they might well be expansionist and greedy for more. Russia definitely wants to stop rival powers encroaching on its buffers.

But the United States does not lead by good example. Pax Americana's rules-based order is a 'rules for thee, not for me' system. It and the nations it allows to can get away with every kind of barbarity it seems.

To lead and lead WELL a leader needs to lead by example. The United States teaches us that might is right, and that money makes morality dissolve.

That aint right either.

Expansion includes taking over taiwan. You cant brush taiwan aside. Its 20 million people from a democracy. Whens the last time the usa has claimed a democratic nation with 20 million people as their own?

 

[Seeds]

The United Nations Security Council was intended to do that. But it permits only five member nations a permanent seat. Each with powers of veto.

Do you like the veto system?

No i dont. But the answer isnt to abandon global order. Its to improve it. Without global order war will rise dramatically. Trade will crumble.

 

[Spearman]

From the WSJ, the US putting in B52 bases in NT. I would be funny if it was just down the road from a Chinese owned mine.

 

[Seeds]

Latest episode of real time and bill maher tries to go all populist and get his guests to agree that the un is a joke.

Unfortunately for bill he had intelligent people on this week in Yuval Noah Harari and Ian Bremmer and they both pushed back and made bill look like a fool as they explained why despite its flaws we absolutely need a UN for countries to talk and occassionally agree on ways to co-operate. Protecting Liberal institutions such as the UN (even if some of its particpants are very much not liberal) are critical to human rights and our standard of living. Without them we are cactus.

 

[barreness]

Meh, we have always been a lapdog to the strongest naval nation. Look at our independence in 1939 and 1914.

“Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially, that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war. No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement.”

“Remember that when the [British] Empire is at war, so is Australia at war ... I want to make it quite clear that all our resources in Australia are in the Empire and for the Empire, and for the preservation and the security of the Empire.”

In the sixties and seventies, we were willing to draft young men to fight in Vietnam.

Our lapdogness has deceased over time and may well be at its lowest state ever at present. Given we are an island that relies on trade we need a strong alliance with the predominant world naval power. In the real world such an alliance has costs.

Lol you quote Menzies, he bailed when it got real and also drafted our 18yo's later, possibly the weakest political mind.

Look to Curtin at least


But yeah generally on your last point I don't really disagree; we rely on trade which is why we don't piss off china, we retain the US alliance until it is no longer useful, ie when they lose a war in the pacific

 

[Episode IV]

From the WSJ, the US putting in B52 bases in NT. I would be funny if it was just down the road from a Chinese owned mine.

Well, I'd imagine they fly over the Port quite a lot.
Leased, not owned, but still.

 

[Spearman]

Well, I'd imagine they fly over the Port quite a lot.
Leased, not owned, but still.

I guess there are few US installations around the outback. An old school friend's wife was stationed at Woomera in the 80s.

 

[Episode IV]

Meh, we have always been a lapdog to the strongest naval nation. Look at our independence in 1939 and 1914.

“Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially, that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war. No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement.”

“Remember that when the [British] Empire is at war, so is Australia at war ... I want to make it quite clear that all our resources in Australia are in the Empire and for the Empire, and for the preservation and the security of the Empire.”

In the sixties and seventies, we were willing to draft young men to fight in Vietnam.

Our lapdogness has deceased over time and may well be at its lowest state ever at present. Given we are an island that relies on trade we need a strong alliance with the predominant world naval power. In the real world such an alliance has costs.

I object to your use of the statements by respective Prime Minsters in 1914 and 1939 regarding Australia's entry to the war, declaring both announcements as evidence of Australia being a "lapdog" to "the strongest naval nation".

Most of what I'm about to post here I've covered elsewhere, at least in part (from memory) in a thread discussing conscription in Australia.

In 1914, Australia had no legal power to declare war on anyone. Federation of the States (colonies) had only occurred just over a decade before, and the relatively new Australian Constitution did not specifically cover who has the legal power to commit Australians to war.
The wording of the second statement there (PM Joseph Cook, 1914) reflects that. It makes it quite clear that no decision had been made by any Australian authority to enter the war; Australia was just in it, because Britain was.

In 1939, Robert Menzies announced Australia's entry into World War 2 under much the same conditions, with his "It is my melancholy duty to inform you" speech. That was the announcement of a Prime Minster who had misgivings about getting involved in another European conflict, but who was subject to much the same conditions as Cook was in 1914.
A little OT, but Menzies was a rather complicated character. Had a lot going for him, and was a far cry from being "the weakest political mind" as someone posted above. Nor am I really sure what the "quit" part was about, other than in reference to him standing down as PM after his return from England in 1940 because he felt he'd lost the support of his party (I think that might be a demonstration of the sort of integrity politicians seem to have lost in modern times, but whatever).

It is, however, important to note the tonal difference between the two announcements. By 1939, a shift in the Australian political landscape was already occurring, in that the power of the British Crown (represented in Australia by the Governor General) was already becoming more titular in nature rather than the authority it had (being the Crown's representative) some 25 years before. The difference between the announcements of Cook and Menzies reflects that shift, but it's important to note that no legal change had occurred.

In both World Wars, Australians were, if it makes it any clearer, British subjects, in service to the Crown. Australians remained British citizens until the National and Citizenship Act of 1948.

British Citizens. Not lapdogs.

There's quite a lot more to this story in a legal sense alone, not least of which was the Defence Act of 1903 and its subsequent revisions, and the debates surrounding further proposed changes to that act (particularly in this century) to ensure parliamentary approval before an Australian PM can commit troops (at present, there is no such requirement).

Main thrust being, though, that Australia's political situation and power to commit troops under its own recognizance simply wasn't present in the first half of the twentieth century, and therefore your connection in that respect to Australia being a lapdog to "the strongest naval power" is an oversimplification.

You're more on track with your comments post-World War 2, subject to the above comments on the Defence Act, but there's another essay again.