US trying to hold us over a barrel over ANZUS

[just maybe]

US took Downer to task over China, cables show

By Richard Baker
May 17, 2006

THE US sought an immediate explanation after a statement by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, in 2004 that Australia would not automatically support it in a conflict with China over Taiwan, says a diplomatic cable.

The cables obtained by the Herald's sister paper, The Age, reveals the US's sensitivity to Australia's increasingly close relationship with China and, in particular, any implications for the ANZUS treaty if conflict between the US and China arose over Taiwan.

The revelation comes as the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the US President, George Bush, went to great lengths this week to demonstrate the strong affection existing between their nations. Though beneath the surface tensions still remain over Australia's desire to get closer to China.

Another six cables and one email on the subject were sent between the two countries following Mr Downer's 2004 remarks.

The Federal Government has refused to release all of them under the Freedom of Information act, claiming they could damage Australia's international relations and divulge information communicated in confidence by another government.

In what was seen as a dramatic shift in Australia's foreign policy, Mr Downer described the ANZUS defence treaty between Australia and the US as "symbolic", during a tour of China in August 2004.

He said it would only be invoked if Australia or the US were attacked and not in the case of "some military activity somewhere else in the world". But Article IV of the treaty commits each party to meet the common danger from an attack on their "armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific".

According to the cables the US embassy immediately sought comments from the Federal Government after Mr Downer's remarks were reported.

In reply the Government tried to ease US concerns by blaming media coverage of Mr Downer's comments."Some media reporting had taken elements out of context," it said.

"Mr Downer had not described the ANZUS treaty as 'symbolic' in the sense of merely symbolic, as some media reports suggested," one document said. "Rather, Mr Downer had noted the centrality of the alliance in our relationship with the United States … Prime Minister Howard and Mr Downer had worked hard to maintain the vitality of the alliance. There should be no doubt of the strength of Australia's commitment to the United States."

At the time, several Australian foreign policy experts said Mr Downer's comments were a blunder, possibly undermining the alliance with the US and encouraging China to step up its efforts to bring Taiwan to heel.

China's insistence that Taiwan return to its control and Taiwan's desire to remain an independent democracy, backed by US military power, remains a test for Australia as it draws closer to Beijing.

China has 650 short-range ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan and the US has given a commitment to defend Taiwan if it comes under attack. The US would expect Australia to honour its ANZUS obligation, regardless of any desire for closer economic and cultural ties to China.

The 2004 document also stressed that Australia told Taiwan's leaders that "any proclamation of independence would be provocative" and could "create very substantial upheaval".

Before leaving for the US last week, Mr Howard said China and other Asia-Pacific issues would feature in his discussions there.

Gee, I'd love to know what those communiques actually said.

Firstly, we owe no obligation to the US to support them in a conflict with China. That is bad journalism. There is merely an obligation to consult.

Secondly, it's presumptuous of the US haranguing us over assisting them under ANZUS, considering they've never done a thing for us under the treaty and are never obliged to, yet Howard has invoked it as justification to galloping off behind Bush's crusades in Afghanistan and Iraq.

China is an extremely important partner and giving the US any guarantee that we would support them in a China-Taiwan conflict would be monumentally stupid.

 

[- PC -]

I'm guessing a few cables from the Chinese wold be arriving just about now on Alexs desk asking for a Please Explain

 

[Monkster]

considering they've never done a thing for us under the treaty

Completly forget that the treaty was signed after WW2, also completly forget the fact that the USA helped us greatly during WW2.

 

[dan warna]

Completly forget that the treaty was signed after WW2, also completly forget the fact that the USA helped us greatly during WW2.

so japan was once our ally before the war.

germany was our ally against hte french.

if the US wants to start anohter illegal war of aggression let them, we should keep well clear of them.

 

[London Dave]

Downer, or for that matter, anyone else in the govt. wouldn't know what was going on. It appears to be standard operating procedure not to read cables.

 

[just maybe]

Completly forget that the treaty was signed after WW2, also completly forget the fact that the USA helped us greatly during WW2.

Yes, it was signed AFTER the war. And was very specifically worded.

Thank you for affirming my point.

 

[Monkster]

Yes, it was signed AFTER the war. And was very specifically worded.

Thank you for affirming my point.

What point? What exact threat have we faced since WW2 that we would have to invoke the treaty? How exactly did I affirm your point?

 

[Monkster]

so japan was once our ally before the war.

germany was our ally against hte french.

if the US wants to start anohter illegal war of aggression let them, we should keep well clear of them.

What does that have to do with my post? All my post was, was a rebuttal to JM's statement that the US have done nothing for us under the ANZUS treaty.

 

[dan warna]

What does that have to do with my post? All my post was, was a rebuttal to JM's statement that the US have done nothing for us under the ANZUS treaty.

my understanding was anzus was signed after ww2

as for the US intro to ww2...that was primarly because of pearl harbor nothing to do with defending australia.

we were merely an ally against hte japanese...not some altruistic mission to save us.

so I can't think of anything the US has done for us under the treaty...except drag us off to wars of conquest...vietnam where hte US got their heinies handed to them..korea which despite carpet bombing they couldn't win and has been a stalemate in korea and of course iraq which is still in occupation and conflict.

 

[Monkster]

my understanding was anzus was signed after ww2

That's what I said in my post My point was that ANZUS was signed after the last time we faced any sort of threat, so what exactly did we expect the US to do for us?

 

[just maybe]

What point? What exact threat have we faced since WW2 that we would have to invoke the treaty? How exactly did I affirm your point?

Actually, during the East Timor crisis, we invoked the treaty and got flat out knocked back by the US. It caused quite a lot of tension in the ANZUS alliance.

 

[dan warna]

That's what I said in my post My point was that ANZUS was signed after the last time we faced any sort of threat, so what exactly did we expect the US to do for us?

so er...why should we help them on a war of aggression?

 

[Monkster]

so er...why should we help them on a war of aggression?

When did I say we should?

 

[Monkster]

Actually, during the East Timor crisis, we invoked the treaty and got flat out knocked back by the US. It caused quite a lot of tension in the ANZUS alliance.

So they refused to consult with us? Got any proof?

 

[just maybe]

So they refused to consult with us? Got any proof?

No, they consulted. Which is exactly my point - that is all there is an obligation to do. There is no obligation to run to the US' side if there is a war in the Taiwan Strait.

We've now run off to their wars of aggression on the other side of the world multiple times, and they haven't returned the favour at all. Wouldn't even back us over East Timor. Presumptuous to then be haranguing us over not wanting to pyss China off.

 

[dee_molisher]

Probably because yanks = fook heads and wan kers ... Bush, get fuuuuuuuckkkkkked

 

[Monkster]

No, they consulted. Which is exactly my point - that is all there is an obligation to do.

Well than your line "we invoked the treaty and they knocked us back" is a little misleading, it gives the impression that they didn't hold up their end of the ANZUS treaty.

BTW, do you remember WHY they knocked us back over East Timor?

 

[just maybe]

Well than your line "we invoked the treaty and they knocked us back" is a little misleading, it gives the impression that they didn't hold up their end of the ANZUS treaty.

BTW, do you remember WHY they knocked us back over East Timor?

Yes, the official line was that 'political exigencies in Washington effectively barred any US military commitment of that size'. Given how we gallivant off to their wars of aggression they weren't good enough reasons. In fact, that's a pretty offensive slap in the face for the junior partner really. Given how often we've run to their side since ANZUS occurred, it's fair to say that our return on ANZUS has been much less than theirs when it comes to military support.