We are a subimperial power. The metaphorical "empire" here being the "rules based" world order the US has established since WWII
We are the most powerful nation in Oceania but ultimately cannot confront the US when differences between us arise
We're one of the world's largest sources of minerals and land for the next few centuries. I don't think it's impossible we can't be invaded by a certainforeignpower by 2100
We're locally important, globally powerless and are clinging to the existing relational ties we have with our big brother, the US. Even to the determent of our own citizens
But in Australian politics, Indonesia as a potential, albeit very unlikely, threat has been discussed, with the point being that 275 million people in a somewhat politically unstable country has that potential.
It's only in this century that Indonesia has become a functioning democracy and has had authoritarian and sometimes brutal leaders, slaughtering hundreds of thousands, in the not so distant past. It currently has relatively good relations with Australia but they are not close or secure. No one is accusing them of anything but there is a non-zero chance of them becoming a threat.
If China can credibly restrict shipping in the south of the South China sea, then that accrues substantial economic power in the coming decades.
Which is another way of saying that if Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines don't believe in the US's regional power projection, they'll allow China to do as it wants.
In any escalation scenario, Guam gets plastered. Taiwan is blockaded. Okinawa is... well, that's a wildcard.
But Australia has land. A LOT of land. So establishing closer military ties (also with the Philippines) affords freedom of dispersement.
Which in turn increases US retaliatory options in the case of escalation.
Which makes sudden escalation less likely, as China has less to gain from it.
Or, in other words, the Pacific is now Europe ~1960, with the US trying to establish a credible capability to surge into the region in the event of hostilities.
"Japan never seriously intended to invade Australia, a fact known to the Australian Government by mid-1942 and confirmed by intelligence reports, principal historian to the Australian War Memorial, Peter Stanley, said yesterday at a conference examining the events of 1942."
https://www.theage.com.au/national/japanese-invasion-a-myth-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_...
While it's true that Australia is a minnow compared to the US, it doesn't mean that it can't influence the US, it just means it can't coerce it, which no one can anyway.
Australia has done well so far by being a "middle power" and using diplomacy and statecraft. That's where its future lies. Everyone has to deal with the enormous power of the US, it's much better to do it as a "good friend".
But yeah any amount of reading about the CIA in Aus, especially 1975 stuff, makes the power relationship clear.
The Aukus deal is completely crazy. Australia is paying the US to build their own shipyards in the hopes that they get the right to share OLD submarines with the UK.
> “Now some people say there’s an alternative: you can go with China,” said Mearsheimer. “You have a choice here: you can go with China rather the United States. There’s two things I’ll say about that. Number one, if you go with China, you want to understand you are our enemy. You are then deciding to become an enemy of the United States. Because again, we’re talking about an intense security competition.”
> “You’re either with us or against us,” he continued. “And if you’re trading extensively with China, and you’re friendly with China, you’re undermining the United States in this security competition. You’re feeding the beast, from our perspective. And that is not going to make us happy. And when we are not happy you do not want to underestimate how nasty we can be. Just ask Fidel Castro.”
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/03/14/on-war-with-china-au...
Australia has a lot of the world's iron ore deposits [1]. Russia and Brazil are the other options, but each with about half Australia's size. And China with half Russia and Brazil's size.
China needs steel. Which means China needs iron ore. Which means China needs Australia / Russia / Brazil.
Which means if Australia avoids overtly antagonizing China, they'll most likely look the other way to avoid disrupting supply.
What would upset Australia's power is a breakdown of freedom of navigation by commercial shipping in the Pacific.
Historically, the US has been supportive of this. China is much less inclined to do so, absent benefit to itself.
Cue AUKUS opportunity. Principly focused on the type of assets that would allow Australia to credibly make sea denial costly for China.
> Australia is paying the US to build their own shipyards in the hopes that they get the right to share OLD submarines with the UK.
Australia gets US and UK nuclear submarine technology.
And 3 new-build US Virginia-class attack submarines, with an option for a further 2.
And help updating their port facilities to enable servicing nuclear submarines, which potentially means additional US SSN/SSBN visits.
In addition to closer cooperation on drone and other programs.
If Australia can keep China unhappy, but shy of angry, it's a good deal for Australia.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_Australia
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267381/world-reserves-of...
AUKUS subs to disrupt PRC shipping is highly questionable, not least because there's only a few of them, and they won't be available for 30+ years if ever, by which time PRC subsurface will dramatically out number them, not to mention their survivability / detectability against PRC ASW / subsurface detector infra. The tactic / strategic value of the subs are questionable on short/medium/long term timelines. The real and immediate value of AUKUS was forward positioning more US assets in west AU (bombers / subs), which announement also happened essentially concurrently with AUKUS announcement. The complexities of the nuke boats, not the subs themselves, is the glue that politically bind AU with said US posture for decades. The subs themselves, IMO will do little in terms of force balance/deterrance in 30+ years, or half that considering how much long range strikes PRC will be building to make west AU and most of US infra in AU unsurvivable.
We see what their first impulse to do with that is in the militarization and claiming of the South China Sea.
We'll see what their use of naval power is in the next few decades.
If you're betting on "Use it to enforce rules based international order," then I'll gladly take the "Politics by other means" opposite side of that bet.
Do you believe if given a credible naval force that could rival the US Navy, China wouldn't blockade Taiwan tomorrow?
> AUKUS subs to disrupt PRC shipping is highly questionable
That wasn't my suggestion. It was AUKUS subs to deter interdiction and threatening of commercial shipping by PRC naval forces, in support of PRC political goals.
Yes, PRC disrupting commercial shipping is a valid strategic concern but the hypotheticals of it don't actually make much sense given where force balance is heading. PRC trend towards mainland based long range fires = PRC doesn't need navy to blockade TW (and increasingly US assets in 1st island chain including SCS). Real work is credibly deterring the US from intervening at all by expanding strikes to disrupting 2/3IC and even AU/CONUS. I think people, especially those brought up in the US military talking points, fixate too hard over the naval component in IndoPac for both sides but signs are pointing to increasing irrelevance of naval projection - large reason for B21 and NGAD and trying to get JP/PH/AU to expand basing is to plug loss of fires from diminishing role of naval power which US says is important to rectify while inaction to reform US ship building and acquisitions suggest it's not. They see which way the next potential war is heading.
Ultimately what makes more sense is the threat narrative of PRC disrupting SCS shipping is useful to rationalize US forward deployment just like AUKUS subs are about getting US bombers in west AU. Which circles back to AUKUS subs, the consensus criticism is deterrence value for a few nuke boats is minimal especially in 30 years it will take to get subs online and especially in SCS which is borderline PRC lake at this point given state trend of PRC ASW and subsea monitoring expansion. That's without mentioning PRC's own nuke sub procurement that will reach if not exceed parity of US+AUKUS with post reveal that initial batch of AUKUS subs will be redirecting hulls from USN. Criticism of AUKUS subs deterrence value is explicitly about how little deterrence it offers relative to cost and how it will bind AU defense to US interests and erode long term AU sovereignty. The latter being the primary strategic logic of AUKUS.
Obviously, it would benefit Australia to keep a good relationship with the US, but that doesn't mean they have to acquiesce to every American demand. What is the US going to do? Find another Australia?
There are many countries that don't share much of the nebulous "values" with America yet enjoy a membership of US-led military alliances, because they're important enough. (Might not be a great example, but see Turkey.)
and it's because the ones that persist in doing so would wear their entitlement on every bloody sleeve so hard until every consulate is jammed up dealing with the procedural consequences of every half-cocked larrikin pisshead that tries stealing a tuk-tuk or whatever, and by the gods we export enough of them, sorry world
You may have missed the word “child”, as sex tourism of this kind is unfortunately still a problem.
* But not exclusively, see Gary Glitter for instance.
And they're not my airports. If they were, parking would be cheaper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...
Australia potentially has more value to the US than vice versa.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/07/27/views-of-china...
Calling yourself a journalist is not a get out of jail free card.
Meanwhile Australia relies on the US for it's security. It has basically no hope of defending its land mass with its existing defense force and has no interest in funding one that could.
If you put your proposal to Australians you'd basically have no hope of getting a majority that agreed.
No? Then why is it important?
You were right, it is a fig leaf for ones and a strawman for others.
The main problem, we as a society have, is a embassing lack of problem awareness! Guess what wikileaks does, i beg you.
He accepted hacked emails from the Russians and released them in a way to effect his goal of having Clinton lose the election. That was his stated goal.
You wouldn't call it a lie, but calling yourself a journalist on that basis certainly is.
Most people who back Assange just agree with his politics and/or means to an ends. But they don't have that level of awareness.
Stories of high interest, not coming from him.
See about every whistleblower of the last decade and a half.
McAfee, Assange, Snowden... and yet not one official ousted or inconvenienced. Astonishing really.
The rub is that he is not a journalist.
Edit: this is a joke about our National Security Laws and frivolous use of Gag Orders. Plus the AFP raiding journalists on a whim
they'll gladly sacrifice their own economic growth and autonomy to bolster the US hegemony. this is patently obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together. it's less than 20 million white people sitting on a continent the size of the US. they need protection at any cost, no questions asked. this isn't rocket science.
DC wears the commonwealth crown these days, london is a literal sideshow/museum/slush fund and canberra is basically just a military/listening outpost with a mining station attached.
It is more likely pure fear. If current trends continue, at some point Australia'll have to knuckle under and start aligning ourselves with Chinese policy or get squished by them. And If the US/South America dynamic is any standard to go by, they'll probably start taking a more active role in moderating Australian politics which isn't welcome to the current politicians.
the entire anglosphere follows the beat of their drummer. it's obvious if you ever travel outside of the 5 eyes countries + NATO, which i'm guessing like 90% of english speakers don't, and never will.
One issue Australians have is their vastly inferior (in general) level of rhetorical facility on these matters, as compared to Chinese. We just don’t have the quality of critical thought that many young Chinese are displaying. This sounds ridiculous, I know, but again it’s true.
If Australia is going to effectively think about, and eventually negotiate, its place in the changing order, its citizens need to get a lot more cosmopolitan, critical and perceptive about international affairs.
For educated Chinese, I suspect thinking critically about international perceptions and power (and possibly even relations) is almost second nature: it makes sense to have it as a National pastime for an emerging power.
Australians need to recognize the necessity of this for their own position, too, and work to let go of the limiting policy dogma that continues to constrain and limit their political thinking.
It may not be too useful to promote Paul Keating as a role model for this type of critical faculty as his stances will provoke too much opposition for people to want to admire or follow him. Yet the truth is his kind of contrarian policy thinking is exactly more of what Australian needs, even if of not exactly the same flavor.
Unfortunately, we’ve been a victim of our own success, and our economic buffer will conceivably for the midterm, insulate us from the urgent need to develop the critical faculties that are so essential to our long-term future.
In other words, people can say “why do I need to rethink it? we’re doing great.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/russias-dipl...
Did it once already:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-...