Views: 3995|Replies: 5

the australian threat [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 1

Post time 2012-1-22 12:38:03 |Display all floors

For a nation which has historically subordinated itself to larger powers, Australia’s Labour-led foreign policy shows little divergence away from being wholly complicit to American full spectrum dominance in the region. For all of its pristine natural beauty, the continent-nation has become a treasure chest of precious natural resources managed by a monopolistic elite, and a martial subsidiary of the world’s most militaristically aggressive empire. While the potential exists for Australia’s economy to hemorrhage in the absence of Chinese trade and demand, the permanent force of 2,500 US marines building up in the Northern Territory certainly does not appear to be in the public interest.

A document issued by the Australian Ministry of Defense in 2009 entitled "Defending Australia in the Asia-Pacific Century: Force 2030" cites the introduction of an expansive military program, which seeks to enable a“comprehensive set of reforms that will fundamentally overhaul the entire Defense enterprise, producing efficiency and creating savings of about $20 billion.” The agenda’s efficiency and the savings it can potentially yield however, are unquestionably a subject of speculation. Reconfigurations of Australia’s armed forces under Julia Gillard’s Labour government have ratified a $100 billion program to purchase advanced military hardware from the United States, such as F-35 jet fighters, missile-guided frigates and submarines.

With naval expansionism being cited as a high priority, Australia seeks to maintain twelve submarines, three destroyers equipped with SM-6 long-range anti-aircraft missiles, eight new frigates and a fleet of LHD amphibious shipsby the mid 2030s.

Australia has also recently purchased ten C-27J aircraftsequipped with missile warning systems and radar from the United States, to the tune of $95 million. While the Gillard government pays lip service to China by welcoming its rise, the zeros on her defense receipt suggest otherwise. With regards to China, the Ministry of Defense document states “China’s rise in economic, political and military terms has become more evident. Pronounced military modernization in the Asia-Pacific region is having significant implications for our strategic outlook.”

By heavily depending on China in the economic sphere and aligning itself militarily with the United States, playing both sides of the coin may prove to be most injudicious. Australia’s involvement in the ostensibly anti-Chinese multilateral trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) appears to be fencing China into an economic exclusion zone at the behest of US corporate interests. Much like the detested US-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the TPP requires participating countries to restructure their economies to benefit transnational entities. The carbon tax-pushing Gillard has also aligned closer to India in the form of a new trilateral security pact, which also incorporates the United States. The Chinese perspective on these developments remains plausible; commentators such as People’s Liberation Army Major General Luo Yuan reiterate, “The intent is very clear - this is aimed at China, to contain China".

As a means strengthen the foundation of the new trilateral pact, the Labour government has overturned its own ban on selling uranium to countries that are not signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). By giving India access to 40% of the world’s identified uranium reserves (possessed by Australia), the country plans to build 30 nuclear power stations in the next 20 years, earning billions for the Australian corporate elite. Australian uranium is also sold to the General Atomics Corporation; a producer of unmanned aerial drone aircrafts, which are frequently deployed against sovereign nation-states to indiscriminately exenterate any living being in its focus. The Australian leadership’s contribution to such unethical forms of warfare is truly against the will of the Australian people.

As the US faces economic torpidity and abject bankruptcy, it’s clear that a restored focus on Asia is not solely in the interest of economics, as professed by Hillary Clinton in her manifesto, America’s Pacific Century. The skulking encroachment of American militarism beneath the public relations-jargon of the State Department is increasingly evident in dealings with Australia. Although the Gillard government criminalized certain lethal armaments such as Cluster munitions under Australian law, US personnel transit and stockpile the weapons at US military facilities in Darwin. The people of Australian cannot tolerate a foreign military power illegally conducting operations on their territory and a foreign President asserting, “we’re here to stay.”

The underlining initiative of recent US foreign policy has been to continually thwart Chinese economic interests in various parts of the globe, irrespective of moral and ethical consequence. The moment that it’s provocations appear too reckless, China may incite a collapse of the US dollar by dumping its holdings of US treasury bonds. While the current Labour government spends an unjustifiable amount of money on military expansion, the original inhabitants of Australia have the shortest life expectancy of any of the world’s indigenous groups. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has reported that half of the Indigenous people in the Northern Territory do not have adequate housing, while various communities are unable to access potable water.

Australia is the only rogue state where cases of blinding trachoma still exist. While basic infrastructure and housing in Aboriginal communities is abjectly insufficient, clearly, owning amphibious warships is more of a priority for the Australian leadership, who sheepishly play junior to American authority. While the rate of Aboriginal imprisonment in the state of Western Australia is eight times the figure than that of South Africa’s apartheid regime, the scene of mining bulldozers demolishing invaluable Aboriginal artwork on the walls of expansive natural caves situated on traditional tribal land is truly the weltschmerz of an entire people. Canberra’s allegiances are evidently not to its population, but to amoral mining enterprises and the military industrial complex.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-1-22 12:42:23 |Display all floors
Her majesty penal colony have lot to answer , very dark history indeed.

But what can one expect from convicts?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2012-1-22 13:18:43 |Display all floors
Thanks for the insults, Smithi.
However,  although Boriqua's article is written to be unbalanced, it makes some fair points.
1. Australia has aligned itself with the USA. The USA's support in WWII will not easily be forgotten. China is not seen as a threat as long as it prospers, but its actions suggest it wants expansion, just like the US and all the powers in the past. China's words (like the USA's) are saying the opposite
2. The US base has been here since WWII and will increase by 250! Not a big number, but you are right that the USA is starting to think of Australia as a possible serious base in the Pacific if Japan, Korea, Guam... shrink. At the moment, I hardly think the PLA will be panicing at 250 extra soldiers in Australia.
3. Australia's military is reconfiguring because it is in bad shape. The navy is basically landlocked, the airforce will not get the fighters it needs and the army is strugling to support even the small numbers in Afghanistan.
4. Exporting uranium to India is good politics and supported by the vast majority of Australians. India is a stable democracy with a good track record on nuclear safety and responsibility.
5. Finally, the living conditions and health outcomes for Aboriginal Australians are a national embarassment. Billions are spent by the government to try to fix the many problems these communities face, but little has changed. If you have any suggestions that work, you will become Australian of the year 2012!
Hosting US bases does not mean Australia wants war with China, although there will be fools in China and Australia who will say that is the case. We want to continue our good relations with China, but we also want to be protected by the Americans. We have done this for 60 years, and it will continue for many more.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-1-22 13:24:32 |Display all floors

That was a superb and hard hitting article.
9/11 was an inside job.
No second plane.It was a bomb.Bomb in the other building.
You KNOW without a doubt the videos are fake,right ?!
Planes don't meld into steel and concrete buildings.They crash into them !!!!!!!
It's amazing how the building ate the plane !!!
Imagine those fragile wings cutting slots in massive steel columns !!!!!
How STUPID can they think the people are to believe that crap ??!!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2012-1-22 13:58:13 |Display all floors
I agree with most of the article, and the bits i don't agree with are minor errors, but not totally wrong. I also agree with much of what "ielts2u"had to say. personally I don't want the 2500 ( not 250) US troops here, though the prostitutes will be happy, raise there prices many fold for US customers. But yes our military is very small and greatly neglected over the years. Australia does not pose a threat to anyone..... except maybe NZ ( LOL) Our soldiers are very well trained, though not in the idealogical way that US soldiers are trained, in fact most Australian officers and soldiers do not hold much respect for US troops, but that's another story.
As for Gillard, she is an idiot, though I prefer the labour party , I do not like her. if it was the Liberal party, the yanks probably would have putt 250, 000 troops ( exaggerated).
But as for Australia needing US protection, that's a load of#@%&, we don't need them. We are not in danger
I'm a little bit wrong and your a little bit right.
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2012-1-23 07:30:40 |Display all floors
This post was edited by ielts2u at 2012-1-23 11:46

Ronny, As I understand it, the agreement was for an extra 250 US troops. The 2000+ have always been here. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.