Allies and Adversaries

[Diuretic]

I spent some time reading about the history of the ANZUS Treaty. It seems to have worked fairly well between the US and Australia, but I was surprised to read the US had suspended its treaty obligations to NZ, due to the fact that USN ships are forbidden to enter NZ ports. This is because NZ declared itself a “nuclear free zone.” Let’s hope the UN passes a resolution that no one can shoot at NZ. Although, why would anyone waste a missile on Hobbiton? From what I have read, US diplomats, and certainly the military, consider the US-NZ component of the ANZUS Treaty dead. Moreover, the US refuses to consider a free trade agreement with NZ because of its anti USN stance. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501174&objectid=10430512
From memory that was under the Lange government, I think. Again from memory the government required the USN to announce whether or not its visiting ships were nuclear-powered. Why I don't know. Perhaps it was so that the government could organise the necessary plans in the event of a problem with the reactor or armaments. The US refused. The NZ government said don't come here (there). For NZ, so far so good.

It's in New Zealand's interests to avoid a free trade agreement with the US at all costs. They have an economy smaller than ours. They would lose from a free trade agreement with the US.

Unlike NZ, Australia seem to be a country that wants to defend itself. But the US has made the bonehead decision not to sell the F-22A Raptor to Australia, even though it was requested. Now Japan and Israel both are insisting that they should be able to purchase the fighter. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21602809-2703,00.html I hope that the Raptor is made available to all three countries. The US is using the lame excuse that Raptors in the hands of these three countries will change the balance of power in their regions. Sounds good to me. I think the real reason that the US does not want to sell Raptors is that such sales will blow up the financing of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which Australia in particular has an investment. But F-35s are years down the road and Australia needs a new fighter now. It is reluctant, and understably so, to settle for current generation F-18s as a stopgap until the F-35 is available. Even when the F-35 is available, the F-22 will still be vastly superior. Australia, Japan, and Israel want the best fighter, and in my opinion, they should get it. But they should be careful what they wish for. Right now, the total R&D plus production cost for each of a planned 184 USAF Raptors is “about” $335 million each! http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48232 The USAF wants a lot more than 184 aircraft, but is having trouble getting the cash. We have come a long way. I remember reading that Spitfires cost about $50,000 each. Anyway, the R&D is already paid and the current fly away cost of a Raptor is $137 million each. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/04/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated/index.php Maybe in exchange for agreeing to sell the F-22, the three interested countries could ante up a few dollars on the R&D. Even if the did not want to do that, America should still provide the plane. These guys are our best allies. They should get the Raptor if they want it.

Our PM is obsequious when it comes to George Bush. And I mean George Bush, not the president or the US as entities. Our PM will do exactly what Bush requests, even though - as you have pointed out - it's not in our interests to do so. We are buying a second class aircraft because of domestic economic reasons in the US. Our PM has sold us out yet again.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

china is a serious threat, their military is 300 million, ours is 1 million. WE have a problem no?

 

[onedomino]

I spent some time reading about the history of the ANZUS Treaty. It seems to have worked fairly well between the US and Australia, but I was surprised to read the US had suspended its treaty obligations to NZ, due to the fact that USN ships are forbidden to enter NZ ports. This is because NZ declared itself a “nuclear free zone.” Let’s hope the UN passes a resolution that no one can shoot at NZ. Although, why would anyone waste a missile on Hobbiton? From what I have read, US diplomats, and certainly the military, consider the US-NZ component of the ANZUS Treaty dead. Moreover, the US refuses to consider a free trade agreement with NZ because of its anti USN stance. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501174&objectid=10430512
From memory that was under the Lange government, I think. Again from memory the government required the USN to announce whether or not its visiting ships were nuclear-powered. Why I don't know. Perhaps it was so that the government could organise the necessary plans in the event of a problem with the reactor or armaments. The US refused. The NZ government said don't come here (there). For NZ, so far so good.

It's in New Zealand's interests to avoid a free trade agreement with the US at all costs. They have an economy smaller than ours. They would lose from a free trade agreement with the US.



Our PM is obsequious when it comes to George Bush. And I mean George Bush, not the president or the US as entities. Our PM will do exactly what Bush requests, even though - as you have pointed out - it's not in our interests to do so. We are buying a second class aircraft because of domestic economic reasons in the US. Our PM has sold us out yet again.

Yet it is the NZ left (also the right) and PM Clark that wants a free trade agreement with the US. NZ feels left out in the cold. Without a FT agreement, NZ has no hope of competing in the US market. Regarding the NZ refusal to permit USN ships to visit NZ, it pertained not with whether the ships were nuclear powered, but whether they carried nuclear weapons. By 1987, the extreme left in NZ had taken control of the government, and since it was USN policy to not discuss whether its ships carried nuclear weapons, the NZ government (having declared itself a “nuclear free zone”) denied permission for USN ships to enter its ports. Maybe such a policy will work for NZ. As I said, who would waste a missile on Hobbiton? NZ is nothing, if not irrelevant. But they do want a free trade agreement with America. Yet they are uninterested in participating in ANZUS. Every US President since 1987 (that would be three Republicans and one Democrat) have shown NZ the door. Clark recently visited Washington begging for a free trade agreement and she was sent packing back to Kiwi land empty handed.

Regarding the F-22, Australia should demand access to that aircraft. The Aussies have done everything that was asked, and fought side by side with Americans, even when it was unpopular. Australian Special Forces were among the very first on the ground in Afghanistan, long before the main event started, when it was most dangerous. It was not a question of Howard’s loyalty to Bush. Australians standing by the side of Americans in Afghanistan during the early most dangerous days was a matter of honor and shared ideals. What more can a nation do? No nation was above Australia when America needed help, and they should get America’s best stuff to defend themselves.

Will the F-22 change the balance of power in Australia’s region? Hopefully. With enough F-18s, Australia can maintain “air superiority” wherever it must fight. But there could be casualties. With the F-22, Australia can maintain “air dominance” wherever the battle may lead. And possibly avoid any casualties, since the F-22 is all but invisible to enemy radar. With the F-22, Indonesia, China, or any challenger has no chance. That is why the Aussies want the F-22. And America should be happy to provide it.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

i cant speak for the u.s. government but i care deeply about australia

 

[onedomino]

i cant speak for the u.s. government but i care deeply about australia

As well you should. It is a land of freedom loving people who are not afraid to stand up for what the believe in.

 

[onedomino]

It's only my take. And I base it on our trade interests. We have a very smal economy that relies primarily on exporting our natural resources. We have a very small manufacturing sector and it's getting smaller. Our IT industry, because of our federal government which has never really understood the place of IT in the modern international economy, is on its knees. India will become a bigger economy than China and will be able to dictate to us, just out of the sheer size of its economy, how we do things.

If I was in the Australian government, I would try to think as big as my continent. Take, for example, the situation with the F-22. That fighter, as you know, is not just an airplane. Beyond the strategic benefits it can wield to back up diplomacy, it is a technological system that could provide thousands of Australian jobs and improve its competitive economic posture. Australian integration with the F-22 program would mean massive IT investment and other aerospace innovation. For example, to be completely effective, the F-22 requires integration with orbital satellites, land forces, and naval assets. Why is there no near-equator Australian launch facility for military and commercial satellites? Use the F-22 to develop such facilities, provide thousands of additional jobs, and thrust Australia to the forefront of IT competition. How can Australia convince America to provide the aircraft and the assistance? I am not sure, but as was mentioned, the flyaway cost of a F-22 is $137 million each. Why cannot Australia seek to license the aircraft, build it in Australia, and figure out how to build it for less? Everyone knows that American defense contractors are riddled with waste and corruption. Come on, an aircraft the size of a tennis court and it costs $137 million per copy less R&D!? Compete. Show us it can be built for less and maybe the USAF can get its wish to purchase more than 184 of the nasty little wonders.

 

[Diuretic]

Sadly onedomino, for the past 11 years we have had a federal government that has had absolutely no vision. I won't bang on about their inability to do anything right - our Defence Department is a shambles and is letting down every single person in our military. Articles have been published in our better newspapers about the procurement debacles - the F-22/F-35 issue is just one of the latest. But happily the mood is for change. Our tired, incompetent, limited, visionless, clueless federal government is going to be shown the door just as soon as our PM works out what he thinks will be the best date for a federal election. We are waiting for him with baseball bats at the ready.

 

[Mr.Conley]

If I was in the Australian government, I would try to think as big as my continent. Take, for example, the situation with the F-22. That fighter, as you know, is not just an airplane. Beyond the strategic benefits it can wield to back up diplomacy, it is a technological system that could provide thousands of Australian jobs and improve its competitive economic posture. Australian integration with the F-22 program would mean massive IT investment and other aerospace innovation. For example, to be completely effective, the F-22 requires integration with orbital satellites, land forces, and naval assets. Why is there no near-equator Australian launch facility for military and commercial satellites? Use the F-22 to develop such facilities, provide thousands of additional jobs, and thrust Australia to the forefront of IT competition. How can Australia convince America to provide the aircraft and the assistance? I am not sure, but as was mentioned, the flyaway cost of a F-22 is $137 million each. Why cannot Australia seek to license the aircraft, build it in Australia, and figure out how to build it for less? Everyone knows that American defense contractors are riddled with waste and corruption. Come on, an aircraft the size of a tennis court and it costs $137 million per copy less R&D!? Compete. Show us it can be built for less and maybe the USAF can get its wish to purchase more than 184 of the nasty little wonders.

Would the US Gov. consider selling F-22's to Australia? Unlikely, the military would simply be too concerned about spies. Would the government license the plans and allow Australia to commence its own F-22 program? No way in Hell.

 

[onedomino]

Would the US Gov. consider selling F-22's to Australia? Unlikely, the military would simply be too concerned about spies. Would the government license the plans and allow Australia to commence its own F-22 program? No way in Hell.

You are probably right. But that does not mean Australia should not try. Who knows? America may come to its senses. If we cannot trust Australians, who can we trust? Australia deserves the best that America can provide. Through the decades they have earned that and more. They are a loyal ally to America and more than that they are loyal to themselves and their ideals. In a world where the forces of totalitarianism well up from almost every spring, we must safeguard those places where individual liberty are held in the highest regard.

 

[Mr.Conley]

You are probably right. But that does not mean Australia should not try. Who knows? America may come to its senses. If we cannot trust Australians, who can we trust? Australia deserves the best that America can provide. Through the decades they have earned that and more. They are loyal allies to America and more than that they are loyal to themselves and their ideals. In a world where the forces of totalitarianism well up from almost every spring, we must safeguard those places where individual liberty are held in the highest regard.

I don't believe the concern would so much be that Australia might betray us, but that 3rd party countries (ie. China) would attempt to gain access to plans for the F-22 via espionage.

From a US military perspective, I would imagine that the Pentagon feels that the risk associated with giving away the plans to the centerpiece of American defense for the next 10-15 years and the associated risks outweighs the benefits of tranferring the technology to an ally, however loyal, especially when you can offer other, less strategically valuable weapons platforms in its stead.

 

[onedomino]

I don't believe the concern would so much be that Australia might betray us, but that 3rd party countries (ie. China) would attempt to gain access to plans for the F-22 via espionage.

From a US military perspective, I would imagine that the Pentagon feels that the risk associated with giving away the plans to the centerpiece of American defense for the next 10-15 years and the associated risks outweighs the benefits of tranferring the technology to an ally, however loyal, especially when you can offer other, less strategically valuable weapons platforms in its stead.

Those are good points. But I would maintain that there is no difference between "American defense" and Australian defense. Or at least there should not be. Regarding "stragetically valuable weapons platforms," America should want an ally like Australia to dominate its region of influence in the Pacific. What are the alternatives? China? Indonesia? America? We have enough to do; let's share the load. I think the same argument holds for NE Asia. Do we want China to call the shots, or Japan? Well, we know the answer.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Those are good points. But I would maintain that there is no difference between "American defense" and Australian defense. Or at least there should not be. Regarding "stragetically valuable weapons platforms," America should want an ally like Australia to dominate its region of influence in the Pacific. What are the alternatives? China? Indonesia? America? We have enough to do; let's share the load. I think the same argument holds for NE Asia. Do we want China to call the shots, or Japan? Well, we know the answer.

I think the plan is something along the idea of having your cake and eating it too. We sell the Australians, the Japanese, the Indians, the South Koreans, etc. etc. all the various weapons platforms we've developed in recent years such as the F-18 which, while not as good as the most up to date technologies found in the F-22 type platforms, are still signifcant weapons systems and do offer a deterent against any possible threat from China.

That way we're supporting our allies with sound weapons thereby ensuring these countries an increased profile in their respective regions while guaranteeing that, at the end of the day, the real goodies- and power- stay firmly in American hands.

Now I'm not endorsing this position, mind you. I'm just trying to look at the situation from the Pentagon's POV.

 

[onedomino]

I think the plan is something along the idea of having your cake and eating it too. We sell the Australians, the Japanese, the Indians, the South Koreans, etc. etc. all the various weapons platforms we've developed in recent years such as the F-18 which, while not as good as the most up to date technologies found in the F-22 type platforms, are still signifcant weapons systems and do offer a deterent against any possible threat from China.

That way we're supporting our allies with sound weapons thereby ensuring these countries an increased profile in their respective regions while guaranteeing that, at the end of the day, the real goodies- and power- stay firmly in American hands.

Now I'm not endorsing this position, mind you. I'm just trying to look at the situation from the Pentagon's POV.

Let me try answering from another perspective. Many believe that nations do not have allies, only interests. So be it. Here are some American interests regarding the sale of F-22s to our allies. Are we not stronger in the Pacific when our defenses are integrated with Japan and Australia? The F-22 is not merely (or even mostly) about air dominance or invisibly putting GPS bombs on targets. Rather, it is about raising the level of our economic and technological infrastructure to the point where we cannot be assailed by totalitarians like China and Russia. This is the ascent we have been on since Kitty Hawk, whether we realized it or not. Do we not want our most trusted allies (interests) to come with us and stand by our side with equality? By making allies like Japan and Australia stronger, we make ourselves stronger, and we can better contain the forces that seek to overthrow individual liberty. Some may say that this is too idealistic, but what better thing can we provide than our best defenses against the totalitarians?

By itself, perhaps Australia does not have enough leverage to swing the deal. But what if Japan, Australia, and Israel combined to press the Pentagon with a single voice? Yes, there is the F-35 that will be available in the future. But it is only the modern equivalent of the F-16. It can contest for air superiority against a Chinese challenge, but it is the F-22 that can without doubt deliver air dominance. But at $335 million per aircraft!? Why should America be the country that pays the entire bill when we have allies that share our ideals and goals, and want to be our partners? We should dump the Air Force and Navy versions of the F-35 and continue the jump-jet Marine version. We should use the money to build far more than 184 F-22s, including a F-22N for the Navy. We should integrate our most trusted allies with this approach in a way that allows them to develop their own infrastructure. We have done this before. When the F-15 was on top, we delivered it to Israel and allowed Japan to build its own versions. We should do that with the F-22, this time including Australia, and the UK if it is interested.

 

[onedomino]

Mr. C., are you still in Bejing? Give us some impressions. Are you free to write without being snooped?

 

[onedomino]

Our tired, incompetent, limited, visionless, clueless federal government is going to be shown the door just as soon as our PM works out what he thinks will be the best date for a federal election. We are waiting for him with baseball bats at the ready.

Can you elaborate on this? From here, I think Howard has done ok. The Australian-US FTA inked in 2005, should give you an economic advantage over other Pacific and South Asian competitors. Tell us who you want to take charge of the Australian government.

 

[Diuretic]

Can you elaborate on this? From here, I think Howard has done ok. The Australian-US FTA inked in 2005, should give you an economic advantage over other Pacific and South Asian competitors. Tell us who you want to take charge of the Australian government.

On the Free Trade Agreement. We - ie ordinary folks - still don't know the minute details. One of our greatest fears was being sold out on things that are very important to us. For example, it's strongy suspected here that our PBS - Prescription Benefit Scheme - which gives us affordable medicines because the fed govt uses taxpayers money to supplement the price which the consumer is charged, is on the chopping block to allow big US pharmaceutal companies to charge the consumer full tote odds. I'd dump the FTA immediately. SE Asia and the Pacific aren't our economic competitors, the US is one of our major economic competitors.

Howard has actually done nothing constructive. We are going through an economic boom that was faciliated by the policies of the Hawke Labor government in 1983 and consecutive Labor governments (under Keating) until 1996. Howard has been saved by China's demand for our resources. I admit to being prejudiced against the party in federal govt but as objectively as I can make the point I stress that this is a laissez-faire govt that has failed us. They have used the budget surpluses generated by the resources-exported boom to offer tax cuts without setting up the infrastructure for our future.

Howard is in thrall to big business and definitely certain big business sectors. I want Labor to run the country. They're not perfect by any means but they're my preferred government.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Threats:

1. United States

Could you explain that one? How could the U.S., a country that shares so much in common with Australia, be a threat? This is not a smart-ass question. I really want to know.

 

[Diuretic]

Could you explain that one? How could the U.S., a country that shares so much in common with Australia, be a threat? This is not a smart-ass question. I really want to know.

No problemo. Can I begin by saying that this isn't anti-Bush/GOP thing. The irony is that, although I'm not enamoured of the current administration that if our current (conservative/reactionary) government wins the next election and in their three year term the Congress becomes dominated by the Dems and the White House goes Dem that we - Australia - will be in deep shit because of our current Prime Minister's almost homo-erotic devotion to Bush? If we don't get a Labor (ie social democratic party but to the left of the Dems) government then we are screwn (sorry, too much lurking in Freeperville), we are screwed.

Okay, aside.

You have the largest economy in the world. We have a very small, almost boutique economy that would probably fit in Paris Hilton's handbag and still have room for her pink Chihuaha and her panties she has to take off before she gets out of a car to flash the paparazzi.

Us negotiating a free trade agreement with the US is akin to a drunken Fray Wray telling a horny King Kong on a few tonnes of viagra that it ain't gonna happen. You will simply steamroll us by virtue of your size. We were mugs to even think of it but our PM who has the hots for Dubya sold us out. We just don't know it yet.

You invaded Iraq. You occupied Iraq. Regardless of the dirty corrupt bastards at our agrarian socialist wheat trading desk (Australian Wheat Board) you did the dirty on us big time. Our wheat exports to Iraq have collapsed. Your farmers have now got the contracts we once had. With friends like you we don't need enemas, we've been done anally and done hard, no reach-around, no lube.

Nothing personal, it's about money I know that. But the US is a threat to us because of the various manifestations of the domestic imperative. No one does pork like a US politician.

 

[onedomino]

No problemo. Can I begin by saying that this isn't anti-Bush/GOP thing. The irony is that, although I'm not enamoured of the current administration that if our current (conservative/reactionary) government wins the next election and in their three year term the Congress becomes dominated by the Dems and the White House goes Dem that we - Australia - will be in deep shit because of our current Prime Minister's almost homo-erotic devotion to Bush? If we don't get a Labor (ie social democratic party but to the left of the Dems) government then we are screwn (sorry, too much lurking in Freeperville), we are screwed.

Okay, aside.

You have the largest economy in the world. We have a very small, almost boutique economy that would probably fit in Paris Hilton's handbag and still have room for her pink Chihuaha and her panties she has to take off before she gets out of a car to flash the paparazzi.

Us negotiating a free trade agreement with the US is akin to a drunken Fray Wray telling a horny King Kong on a few tonnes of viagra that it ain't gonna happen. You will simply steamroll us by virtue of your size. We were mugs to even think of it but our PM who has the hots for Dubya sold us out. We just don't know it yet.

You invaded Iraq. You occupied Iraq. Regardless of the dirty corrupt bastards at our agrarian socialist wheat trading desk (Australian Wheat Board) you did the dirty on us big time. Our wheat exports to Iraq have collapsed. Your farmers have now got the contracts we once had. With friends like you we don't need enemas, we've been done anally and done hard, no reach-around, no lube.

Nothing personal, it's about money I know that. But the US is a threat to us because of the various manifestations of the domestic imperative. No one does pork like a US politician.

Currently in the polls, the leading Republican candidate for President defeats the leading Democratic challengers. And the only thing with lower approval ratings in US polls than Bush, is the Democrat led US Congress. Moreover, the relationship that the US has with Australia is not driven by the personalities of its current leaders. To think otherwise would be denying a long and close history. For example, the 2004 inked FTA has been on the agenda of every Australian government since 1946. In fact the Hawke Government, which you have mentioned favorably, renewed mordern interest in a FTA with the US in the 1980s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement

Australia has an economy that has grown very significantly during the past five years and is 1/14 the size of the US economy. Quite impressive for a country with only 25 million people or so. Your GDP per capita is more than US $33,000, near or beyond the UK, and among the leaders in the world. You seem very worried about US competition. In 2006, the US comprised only about 13 percent of Australian imports, while the EU was more than 20 percent. I'd be more worried about the EU, if I were you. The reason that the Howard Government finally concluded the FTA with the US is that only about 6 percent of your exports went to the US (2006) and, obviously, a FTA with America will make Australia more competitive in that market. http://www.economist.com/countries/Australia/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=8952993 Are you saying that wheat contracts for Iraq were not competively bid, but just handed to US farmers? Clearly that was not the case. In 2006, Australia won new wheat contracts with Iraq and the previous losses were said to be because of bribes paid to Saddam Hussein’s regime and corruption in the Australian Wheat Board. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2006/s1583338.htm and http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/27/news/australia.php Maybe that Wheat Board should keep its pencil sharp.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Mr. C., are you still in Bejing? Give us some impressions. Are you free to write without being snooped?

No, I was only in China for the fall semester at Peking University. I have now returned to my regular university in the States.