Australia Worried China Buying Up Resources

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Australia Worried China Buying Up Resources

Written by Philip Dorling
Thursday, 03 March 2011

WikiLeaks detail worries over China controlling Oz strategic assets

Australia's foreign investment regulator privately acknowledged to US officials in 2009 that it is targeting investment from China in response to political concern about the control of Australia's strategic resources.

Contrary to Australia's claims that it supports a non-discriminatory foreign investment policy, the latest round of WikiLeaks releases indicate the secretive Foreign Investment Review Board told US diplomats that new foreign investment guidelines approved by Treasurer Wayne Swan signaled "a stricter policy aimed squarely at China's growing influence in Australia's resources sector."

The anti-China rationale was set out by Treasury Foreign Investment Division head and Foreign Investment Review Board executive member Patrick Colmer in confidential discussions with US Embassy officers in late September 2009. The embassy's report of Colmer's remarks, titled "New Foreign Investment guidelines target China" and classified "sensitive."

Based on Colmer's briefing, US diplomats reported that the Australian government privately wished to "pose new disincentives for larger-scale Chinese investments."

On Aug. 4, 2009, Swan announced changes to Australia's foreign investment review laws to increase the threshold for mandatory review of foreign investment proposals – so that private overseas businesses buying a stake greater than 15 percent in companies valued below A$219 million could proceed without review. (With annual indexation, the threshold was raised to A$231 million on Jan.1.)

The new threshold was more than double the old A$100 million mark that would trigger Foreign Investment Review Board scrutiny. Swan said these measures would ensure that the government would not become unnecessarily involved in uncontroversial business transactions. At the same time the treasurer denied that exclusion of foreign state owned companies from the new threshold discriminated against future Chinese investment.

"There's never been a threshold for foreign government or state-owned enterprise investments, so nothing changes there for anybody," he said. "It's not related to any particular country - the rules are the same for everybody - this is a change in the rules for lower value applications for private business investment."

Trade Minister Simon Crean also strongly rejected any suggestion that the Labor government was inclined to discriminate against Chinese investment in the Australian resource sector.

"We run a non-discriminatory policy," Crean said in a radio in October 2009. "Large investments from whichever source have to meet a national interest test and there has been huge approval of Chinese investment into Australia."

However, in the private talks with US Embassy economic officers the Foreign Investment Review Board confirmed the Australian government's preference for minority foreign shares in new resources projects, with the foreign share of greenfield developments limited to below 50 percent, and around 15 percent for major mining companies.

"FIRB general manager Patrick Colmer confirmed to Econoff [economic officers] the new guidelines are mainly due to growing concerns about Chinese investments in the strategic resources sector," the US Embassy subsequently reported to Washington. "According to Colmer, the FIRB has received more than one Chinese investment application every week this year [2009]. Colmer said the measure is also meant to prevent complex investment schemes, such as proposals with loans that are convertible to equity, which sought to circumvent existing FIRB rules."

Colmer explained that the new foreign investment thresholds were "largely meant to reduce the administrative burden on the FIRB," but emphasized that "the change excludes state-owned companies from the higher threshold -- virtually all Chinese investment."

Colmer's private remarks were made in the aftermath of Chinese state-owned Chinalco's abortive acquisition of 18 percent of resources giant Rio Tinto as well as the state-owned China Nonferrous Metal Mining Company's bid, subsequently withdrawn, to acquire a controlling interest in rare earths miner Lynas Corporation and the Australian Government's rejection on security grounds of plans by the state-owned Wuhan Iron and Steel Group of China to invest A$40 million in a 50-50 joint venture with Western Plains Resources to develop an iron-ore project on the Woomera missile test range in South Australia.

The US Embassy reported to Washington that the Labor government's new foreign investment guidelines "clearly signal a stricter policy aimed squarely at China's growing influence in Australia's resources sector, and serves as a warning to potential investors."

The Embassy's report of Colmer's private remarks provides the context for public observations he made at a Chinese investment conference in Sydney in late September 2009, in which he urged potential investors to consult informally with the Foreign Investment Review Board before making formal applications for approval.

"If you talk to us early, before the deals are signed, sealed and delivered between companies, we can point out where there might be concerns," Colmer told the Australia-China investment forum on Sep.24, 2009.

The Australian Government remains acutely sensitive about any suggestion that it has reservations about Chinese investment.

Last month another leaked US diplomatic cable revealed private remarks by BHP Billiton chief Marius Kloppers who was reported to have told the US Consul-General in Melbourne that the Labor government had a "real fear" that Beijing would win control of Australian resources.

"Australia does not want to become an open pit in the southernmost province of China," Kloppers said, adding that the Australian government was "drawing a line in the sand to keep Chinese-state owned firms from owning the larger mining companies such as Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and Woodside."

Last Friday Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith made an unusual digression in a speech on "International Legal Relations: Rule of Law and Australia's National Security" to emphasize that "Australia maintains, as it has for many years, a consistent, open and welcoming stance towards foreign investment, wherever it comes from, including from China."

Smith noted that since December 2007, around 220 Chinese proposals to invest in Australia had been approved, totaling around $60 billion in investment. Official statistics do not take into account investment proposals that have not proceeded to the point of an application to the Foreign Investment Review Board. The government has not yet released the board's 2009-2010 report.

Another version of this story appeared in The Age in Melbourne and The Sydney Morning Herald.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3029&Itemid=590
There were some spat over Rio Tinto earlier.

While foreign investments are required by any country including Australia, yet Australia has been chary over the growing influence of China in seas and territory south of China.

As a part of ANZUS, Australia has to be sensitive to US concerns.

Therefore, it is not unusual that while publicly not indicating discrimination, yet Australia internally are wary over the Chinese acquisitions within Australia.

The Chinese have been buying/ investing in raw materials the world over in a hell fired hurry so that it can use it to close the gap with the US in manufacturing and in military hardware.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
They better be wary of the Chinese. That they have let in so much of it already itself is surprising considering the west is known to be resource suckers than givers.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
What else Australia have to sell?. It is a country living out of selling vast natural resources it has. It has no other choice.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
there is a difference between selling mines and selling ores.
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
So, they are scared now. This should have dawned on them long back, they have already given so much to the Chinese.
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
The Chinese have been buying/ investing in raw materials the world over in a hell fired hurry so that it can use it to close the gap with the US in manufacturing and in military hardware.
Actually Sir, its more to do with their own requirements, since they need these resources to sustain their industrialization and for their own energy requirements, since they are short of mineral resources.
 

debasree

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
819
Likes
86
Country flag
If i m not wrong, a indian & a chineese company fought a bitter battle 2 aquire a mine in australia then the current australian govt vote in favour of ihe later one,so basically my question is why r u weeping now?
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
48,599
Country flag
If i m not wrong, a indian & a chineese company fought a bitter battle 2 aquire a mine in australia then the current australian govt vote in favour of ihe later one,so basically my question is why r u weeping now?
They are still selling uranium to the Chinese and not to India so they cannot be that worried.
 

kickok1975

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,539
Likes
350
In a not appropriate example, but Australia is acting like prostitute who love earn money by entertain her body and now is complaining she was raped too much.
 
Last edited:

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,016
Likes
2,314
Country flag
If i m not wrong, a indian & a chineese company fought a bitter battle 2 aquire a mine in australia then the current australian govt vote in favour of ihe later one,so basically my question is why r u weeping now?
As my understanding, business is business. No matter how much you don't like it, sometimes you have to kiss your biggiest customer's ass. I have no doubt, if india can be the no.1 buyer of austrolian sales, next the vote would be different.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,016
Likes
2,314
Country flag
Actually Sir, its more to do with their own requirements, since they need these resources to sustain their industrialization and for their own energy requirements, since they are short of mineral resources.
As an australian citizan, our main industry is-MINING! And my countrymen refuse most of industries in Oz. So, there is one thing for sure, we don't need those resources.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
One may like it or not, notwithstanding the non White population that has immigrated to Australia or second generation of such immigrant, Australian mindset is White.

Being isolated (in a manner of speaking) from the White world, to feel 'secure' they have a military alliance with the West ANZUS and are more aligned to the US than to the UK.

China is no friend of the US.

Hence, it is surprising that they are hurting US sensibilities by selling mineral ores/ buying s Australian mines so that China can overshadow the US and West's manufacturing industry as also obtain minerals that will assist the Chinese domestic military industry.

Strategic interests normally overrules economic and business interests.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Digging a hole for ourselves
March 2, 2010

Digging a hole for ourselves
March 2, 2010

Comments 42


Asia Mining Congress

www.terrapinn.com/2011/asiamining

Leading mining investment event in Asia with over 1000 attendees

If the Reserve Bank and federal Treasury are right, it is not only the world that is heading into a two-speed recovery. Australia is facing the same future - with Victoria one of the states on the slow track.

In a series of speeches in recent days, senior economic officials from Reserve governor Glenn Stevens down have spread the same message: the brief interruption of the global financial crisis is over, and Australia has gone back to where it was - into a resources boom so big it will dwarf the booms of the late '60s and early '80s.

To make room for it, they argue, the rest of the economy will have to surrender resources to the mining and construction industries. Other industries will have to grow less, or maybe shrink. That means states relying on non-mining industries - such as Victoria - will have to grow less.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The Reserve Bank's best and brightest argue that this will be good for Australia because it will allow us to earn more income now than we would if the minerals stayed in the ground for a few more years.

With the greatest respect, I sharply disagree. I think we need a national debate on whether it really is in our interests to try to sell off our mineral wealth as rapidly as possible, as our economic leaders believe.

At the risk of missing subtle points, let me summarise the argument as put in recent days by Stevens (to the House of Representatives economics committee), his deputy Ric Batellino (to the Sydney Institute), assistant governor Philip Lowe (to a business lunch) and Treasury deputy secretary David Gruen (to the American Chamber of Commerce).

The key to our future is China, along with India. China's output is expected to keep growing by about 10 per cent a year, and in a resource-intensive way. It will need lots of iron ore, and Australia has lots to sell. To preserve the life of its own coal mines, China has now started buying lots of coal, and Australia has lots of that, too.

India is on the same path. Its budget last week forecast it would be back to 9 per cent growth by 2012, and it too is hungry for our coal and iron ore. Then there are our traditional markets for minerals: Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

To glimpse our future, as they see it, look at the past. Since 2004, almost half the growth in Australia's export income came from exports to China. Another sixth came from exports to India, and the rest from the rest of Asia. In sharp contrast, Australian exports to the United States have fallen since the free trade agreement came in. Exports to Europe and New Zealand are also down.

Who is getting the money? Since 2004, 80 per cent of the growth in export income has gone to mining companies - mostly from higher prices, not higher sales. Of the rest, 10 per cent came from letting in more foreign students, and just 10 per cent from everything else: manufacturing exports, rural exports, tourism and our other services exports.

All the effort that many exporting firms have put in over the years to become internationally competitive and win overseas markets is running into the sand. Why? Because higher commodity prices and mineral export earnings have pushed up the value of the Australian dollar from about US75 cents over the previous 20 years to about US90 cents. That makes many Australian products and services no longer competitive on global markets.

The Reserve does not oppose this. On the contrary, in last week's speech, Batellino argued that the higher dollar helped keep prices under control, and tipped that it was likely to rise higher still.

''If the scenario works out the way people think, with all this investment taking place, particularly in gas, there's going to be a huge demand for investment, and a huge demand on real resources, which can really only be accommodated by a higher exchange rate,'' Batellino told a questioner. ''So my guess is that, in trend terms, the exchange rate will probably continue to rise.''

If so, that will intensify the squeeze on manufacturers, farmers and the tourism industry. The higher the dollar rises, the less viable their production becomes. The exchange rate becomes the mechanism by which the industries of south-eastern Australia are winnowed out to allow free rein for growth in the north and west.

To the Reserve and Treasury, it is self-evident that this is a good thing. Gruen, the Treasury deputy secretary, even mused in a speech last month: ''It is an open question whether, and in what way, there may be a role for government in promoting this structural adjustment.'' Exporting minerals lifts our incomes, and if it drives some companies and farmers out of business, it's for the greater good of the country.

But no. In reality, mining is different to other industries. Minerals are not a renewable resource, but akin to capital. Minerals can be mined once only, and even Australia's vast mineral wealth is not inexhaustible. Coal aside, there is no likelihood of Australia's minerals being left in the ground - and no reason to think that it is more valuable to export them now than it will be in future.

We need to think hard about this. The implicit argument from our officials is that we should allow otherwise-viable industries to be put down in the interests of making room for us to extract as many minerals now as possible.

This is wrong: not just because they are picking winners, or just because China, too, has its vulnerabilities and could fall, but because you don't put all your eggs in one basket.

We need to keep a mix of strong, diverse industries to guarantee our future. We need to debate how we do that, and learn from how others do it.

Tim Colebatch is The Age's economics editor.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/digging-a-hole-for-ourselves-20100301-pdi0.html
42 comments

Batman's Village Common on the skids...I am absolutely heart broken with memories Tim...memories like the time I inquired of a Caulfield bookie where the Brisbane Interstate Ring was...his response...we don't bet on brumbies here Son... your announcement breaks my heart Tim.
Bob Lansdowne | A to Zee - March 02, 2010, 6:46AM

I knew this coming , "Coal , Iron Ore and vocational Students" ..........knowledge economy ..yeh right!!!! (sounds a bit like Tui beer), high time Australia took some tuition about IT and next wave of internet tech from India.
Lalu | Bihar, India - March 02, 2010, 7:03AM

Spot on.

Once we have sold all our capital (as Tim so rightly puts it) we will have driven our skills in creative and sustainable industries down to rock bottom. All we well have are a lot of big holes and environmental problems.

But given the mining industry is the nearest thing to a free lunch we will get, I can't things changing any time soon.
Mycelius | Brisbane - March 02, 2010, 6:59AM

Not since Nugget Coombs have Australian central bankers had any understanding of the real world, as opposed to their rarefied financial world. They have left far behind the Keynesian real world to dabble in a world where money has become a commodity and economies in the West have decided that it makes sense to eliminate real industries, with their dirt and difficulties, and concentrate on making money out of--money, and of ripping out our capital assets, selling them overseas, all the while believing that the country is profiting.

Of course what is happening is that we are creating nothing of value in the finance industry except huge bonuses and ultimately un-repayable debt and in the mining industry we are stripping our national balance sheet of assets, selling them off and transferring the sales revenue to the profit and loss statement. Its parallel in household terms would be selling off the furniture then setting of the costs of selling the furniture against the sales revenue and saying we made a profit, without regard for the fact that our Blance Sheet equity has declined by the same amount. The companies doing it certainly have made a profit, but it is arguable that the Australian citizenry have suffered a huge and continuing loss.

They have no comprehension that the productive industries destroyed by their financial manipulations were the ones actually creating real economic value and not just selling off the assets as they wound Australia Inc down.
Lesm | Balmain - March 02, 2010, 7:43AM

Spot on.
LP | Doncaster - March 02, 2010, 7:56AM

Ditto to Lesm.The finance industry particularly those who refer to themselves as fincancial "engineers" (as apposed to real engineers who actually produce something tangible and useful) are the epitome of a parasitic sector of our economy. They are a service sector who although, do have an important role in keeping the economy going,at the end of the day, they simply shuffle paper around and live of the efforts of others (those that actually manufacture something). The problem in the global economy is that these parasites have become a law unto themselves and with the help of greedy politicians and weak governments, have elevated their positions to become, as they say "masters of the universe", although in reality, they are masters of deception and manipulation.
andrew | werribee - March 02, 2010, 8:27AM

Demand for mineral resources has pushed the Australian Dollar high, and as a result, left our other industries less competitive. If Colebatch suggests the Australian economy needs more diverse industries, what way can this be achieved other than diverting resources away from our most viable export industry?
Our manufacturing, farming and tourism industries will suffer during our mining boom years. During these years an equilibrium is established which is skewed in favour of mineral export industries. When mining demand declines, equilibrium diverts resources back into the comparatively more viable industries(manufacturing, farming and tourism etc). What Colebatch suggests is an interference in the natural market forces, which will always results in a less than efficient allocation of resources and less than optimal growth. We don't need uncompetitive and flabby industries holding us back.
Curtin | Liverpool - March 02, 2010, 8:40AM

3 manufacturing facilites (factory's) so far in Sydney this year already have announced they will be closing.
So what does the future look like ? Its not improbable that 90% of Australia's population are living in Queensland and WA digging stuff out of the ground for the Chinese as there will be no factorys or any work elsewhere in Australia.
By then the Chinese will probably own these mines as we tend to sell everything and eventually Australia is left with a giant empty quarry and no future.
vae | Syd - March 02, 2010, 8:59AM

Spot on.

At the end of this resource run, all the wealth generated will squandered. China has a plan for the next 20 years and is executing it.

We, on the other hand, don't really have a plan other than more of the same. We don't have leaders that believe Australia can lead the world in anything other than selling the continent one truckload at a time.

When Rudd looks back 20 years from now and realizes he should have invested in education and industries that would be relevant to a post resource economy, he can always apologize. He's good at that at least.
Ya Ya Ya - March 02, 2010, 9:05AM

Curtin,

You are missing just one small element in that theoretical analysis and that is THE REAL WORLD. By the time mining demand declines the other industries to which resources will be "diverted" no longer exist.

"natural" market forces are of course no such thing. There is nothing "natural" about the market. It is a human construct. It does not exist in nature. The market's concept of "efficient allocation of resources" has led to a world economy that has produced massive oversupply of many consumer products, as is demonstrated by vast stockpiles around the world of motor vehicles, computers, air-travel, consumer electronics and many other goods and services. It has also produced a western world that, but for the intervention of governments, would now be in a depression of the dimensions of 1929.

Apart from that your scenario is very plausible!
Lesm | Balmain - March 02, 2010, 9:46AM

Show more comments
Comments are now closed

The above is what is the real voice of Australia.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,016
Likes
2,314
Country flag
One may like it or not, notwithstanding the non White population that has immigrated to Australia or second generation of such immigrant, Australian mindset is White.

Being isolated (in a manner of speaking) from the White world, to feel 'secure' they have a military alliance with the West ANZUS and are more aligned to the US than to the UK.

China is no friend of the US.

Hence, it is surprising that they are hurting US sensibilities by selling mineral ores/ buying s Australian mines so that China can overshadow the US and West's manufacturing industry as also obtain minerals that will assist the Chinese domestic military industry.

Strategic interests normally overrules economic and business interests.
No, Strategic interests was normally overruled by economic and business interests TODAY.
Kevin Rudd was overthrown by his own party, because people are fuerious about his new tax policy to mining industry.
The thing is australia can worry about china purchase, but this mine trading cannot be stopped without risking a recession. The problem is no politician would like to answer those unemployed workers.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
That is a new one:

No, Strategic interests was normally overruled by economic and business interests TODAY.

So, why not open up the defence secrets for all to see?

Why have strategic reserves and hoard it, when opening up means money?

So, the Australian press is wrong and your claim is right.

Here is what the Australian Press has to say. Compare it with your opinion.

Rudd's China Policy

The big story of 2009 has been the economic downturn, better known as the Global Financial Crisis, and the biggest part of that story has been the continuing upswing of China. Its ability to keep growing at 8 or 9% has so far saved the world from a much longer and deeper crisis, and saved Australia from recession. This has interesting and lasting implications far beyond economics. Future historians may well mark 2009 as the year in which the political and strategic implications of China's remarkable growth at last became clear – for the world as a whole, and for Australia specifically.

It's taken a while. In the 1980s, as China started to grow, we in the West made two reassuring political and strategic assumptions. The first was that China could only keep growing if it became more liberal and democratic. The second was that if China didn't play by our rules we would exclude it from the game: we could control China's growth by controlling its access to the markets, finance and technology it needed, and that only the West could provide.

If these assumptions were correct, China's growth would have posed no challenge to the Western-led global order that has served Australia so well. But today, both assumptions look false. Sixty years after the communists seized power in 1949, China has been a market economy longer than it was a Marxist one. And twenty years after it faced its last serious test in Tiananmen Square, the Communist Party seems as firmly in control as ever. It appears that a Leninist one-party state can manage a successful market economy, after all. Likewise, back in 1989 the world was willing to ostracise China for the way it crushed dissent in Tiananmen, but today such measures are unthinkable: China is simply too important to the world economy. China has in fact made itself essential to everyone's economic, and hence political, survival.

This means that in the last decade especially, while America has been preoccupied with its War on Terror, China has not just grown rich. It has grown strong – quietly moving to the centre of the global power stage, and doing so very much on its own terms. Suddenly Washington finds that its most important relationship in the world is with the unreconstructed communists in Beijing, as talk of a 'G2' and a 'Chimerican' global order attest. All this raises new and uneasy questions for Americans about the future of their global primacy, which only a decade ago seemed set to last indefinitely.


It also raises new, uneasy and especially acute questions for Australia, because we are in the front row of this issue. China is our biggest customer, and our resources are vital for its economy. We are in Asia, and our future depends on our engagement with it. But we see ourselves and are seen by others as the local champions of Western values and assumptions. We are America's closest ally in Asia, and rely on them for our security. But will that always be the case? Might China soon be Australia's most important international relationship? And if so, how would we manage it?

It seems like a propitious moment in Australian history to consider these questions. Our prime minister knows more about China than any of his predecessors, and probably more than any other Western leader, past or present. But in fact it turns out to be an awkward time. Rudd's fluency in Mandarin has not prevented 2009 being a difficult year for relations between the two countries. Like everything else these days, Australia's buoyant economy, and hence Rudd's buoyant poll ratings, are Made in China, and he knows it. A series of mostly minor issues has overshadowed dealings with Beijing and highlighted the deeper challenges we face as we learn to live with China's power. The Stern Hu case, Chinese investment in our mining sector, China's problems in Xinjiang, its objections to the visit of activist Rebiya Kadeer, and the clumsy wording of the new Defence White Paper have made the relationship difficult to handle at a time when managing it well – and being seen to manage it well – has been more important than ever.

Canberra can really only be blamed for the Defence White Paper, which combined a little sensible strategic analysis with a great deal of wishful thinking, jingoistic populism and fiscal fantasy. The other issues proved hard to manage for the government because each of them brought Australians face to face with the new realities of Chinese power in ways that surprise us, but should not. We have been quick to assume that the Australian economy will continue to thrive on China's meteoric growth, but slow to recognise the ineluctable political and strategic consequences of that growth for Australia.

Those consequences are among the biggest changes in Australia's international environment since European settlement. But Australians tend to avoid asking how we should respond to China's growing power, and instead prefer to remind one another why we do not want to. Australians do not seem to fear China, but we do find it a country hard to like. Its amazing achievements – truly 'making poverty history' for hundreds of millions of people – excite little admiration when weighed against some real, but arguably less significant, injustices. No influential element of the domestic political spectrum could be called 'pro-Chinese'. No one much likes the idea of living under China's shadow.

Whether or not we want to live with a powerful China is beside the point. If we want to keep trading with China, we have to learn to live with its power. We might not need to do that entirely on China's terms but we cannot expect to do it entirely on our terms either. We are going to need to 'accommodate' – an uncomfortable word, almost a synonym for appeasement, but those who reject it need to explain what they intend to do instead.

Of course, many people still doubt that China can keep growing. They may be right. China's rise could well falter for any number of reasons: political, ecological, strategic or economic. I'm sceptical of those who are too sure that it will, because I suspect their confidence may at least partly reflect an inability to imagine a world no longer dominated by our closest friends. We see this as the natural order. But why should it be? China was the largest economy in the world for centuries before Europe's industrial revolution, and now with its own industrial revolution it is simply catching up again.

Great political leaders reshape national debates to address new realities like this. This should be Rudd's moment. He understands how China's rise changes our world. He understands that this is not simply a matter of China being 'a threat', because he can see that China's power could be peacefully accommodated in a new regional order. He understands that whether China becomes a threat or not depends at least as much on decisions made by others – including Australia – as on the decisions made in China itself. He understands that how well Australia fares in an era of Chinese power depends on the choices we make about how to adapt to such change. And he understands that Australia has seldom, if ever, faced a more complex and important diplomatic challenge than playing its part in all this.

And yet he will not explain this to Australians. He has hardly spoken a word about the real issues in Australia–China relations. For all the talk about making the tough decisions in the nation's interest and shaping long-term policies to meet long-term challenges, Rudd's government has so far spent its time and energy on short-term reactions to transient political imperatives. His foreign policy agenda has focused on trophies like a seat on the Security Council, which is a symbol of what he calls "activist middle-power diplomacy", not its substance.

Real, substantial middle-power diplomacy is just what we need now, based on a deep national consensus about what outcomes we want. But substance is hard. Like most of us, Rudd does not like telling people things they do not want to hear and is reluctant to explain the tough choices we face. He is reluctant to say that our America alliance might be worth less in future, or that we might not be able to dictate the terms of Chinese investment as we wish.

In Rudd's case, this natural reluctance is amplified by something more specific. He fears that, because he knows China so well, he will be seen as too close to it. He fears being accused of being on China's side. This means that for Rudd, speaking Chinese turns out to be a liability. It may turn out to be irrelevant as well. As China's power grows, managing the relationship will be less and less about explaining to the Chinese what we want, and more and more about deciding how to respond when they tell us what they want. That means that Rudd's most important contribution will not be to explain Western perspectives to the Chinese in elegant Mandarin, but to explain the new realities of power to Australians in plain English.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/nation-reviewed-hugh-white-comment-rudd-s-china-policy-2186
This article shows that notwithstanding how Australia's economy is dependant on China, Australia still does not trust China.

That Australia is still operating on a White mindset and dependant on the US for strategic survival.

Rudd got a drubbing because he was appearing to be 'selling' Australia to China.

Strategic consideration cannot be overruled by Business and lure for the filthy lucre!

Mining will continue, but with Australian safeguards and not be a sellout. Strategy demands that.
 

debasree

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
819
Likes
86
Country flag
As my understanding, business is business. No matter how much you don't like it, sometimes you have to kiss your biggiest customer's ass. I have no doubt, if india can be the no.1 buyer of austrolian sales, next the vote would be different.
first learn to spell australia,then talk about business.u chineese **** lover
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
As an australian citizan, our main industry is-MINING! And my countrymen refuse most of industries in Oz. So, there is one thing for sure, we don't need those resources.
I suggest you apply some common sense, and then respond. I was referring to the Chinese, and my reply was to our fellow member Ray. I hope your government doesn't sell out all your resources in the spirit of business, and then keeps running all over Africa looking for the same to meet your domestic requirements. Since, the Chinese are already sucking up Africa for all its worth.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,016
Likes
2,314
Country flag
I suggest you apply some common sense, and then respond. I was referring to the Chinese, and my reply was to our fellow member Ray. I hope your government doesn't sell out all your resources in the spirit of business, and then keeps running all over Africa looking for the same to meet your domestic requirements. Since, the Chinese are already sucking up Africa for all its worth.
Well, business is business. As long as Chinese give highest price in the market, no one can refuse it. Remember: we don't have steel industry to consume these resources. These resources are only for export. So if india can offer a better price, we would love to negotiate with you. If you don't have that kind of money, please step aside.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,016
Likes
2,314
Country flag
That is a new one:

So, why not open up the defence secrets for all to see?

Why have strategic reserves and hoard it, when opening up means money?


We are talking about exporting resources here not military industry. Please keep that in mind: our economy is relying on resource exportation. By the way, we don't have much military industry. We rely upon US for tech and key parts. So we don't have lot say on that.

So, the Australian press is wrong and your claim is right.
Well, it is not who is right or wrong, it is about money and opinion.



This article shows that notwithstanding how Australia's economy is dependant on China, Australia still does not trust China.

That Australia is still operating on a White mindset and dependant on the US for strategic survival.

Rudd got a drubbing because he was appearing to be 'selling' Australia to China.

Strategic consideration cannot be overruled by Business and lure for the filthy lucre!

Mining will continue, but with Australian safeguards and not be a sellout. Strategy demands that.
Of course Australia doesn't trust China! So what? Either does US. But it is still No.1 trader partner of China!
Regarding Kevin Rudd, he didn't sell anything to China except some lip work. The only thing hurts him is his new tax policy, which will impose extra tax on mining industry. If you check last federal election result, you may find labor lost their seats in the mining-concentrate areas where used to be their strong point.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
We are talking about exporting resources here not military industry. Please keep that in mind: our economy is relying on resource exportation. By the way, we don't have much military industry. We rely upon US for tech and key parts. So we don't have lot say on that.
Percy Bysshe Shelley in his Ode to the West Wind had written - If winter comes, can spring be far behind?

Therefore, to believe that economy and strategic requirement are not interdependent is like having a car without wheels!!

I am surprised that you claim to be an Australian but you know more of China than Australia.

This may interest you:

Get used to paying for bigger military: experts

Experts say taxpayers may have to get used to increased military spending if Australia is to remain a force in the Asia-Pacific region.

On Saturday the Federal Government released its much anticipated white paper assessing Australia's strategic outlook in the coming decades.

The white paper outlines a multi-billion-dollar upgrade to Australia's military, especially its air and naval capacity.

Defence analysts say Australia has to get used to a changing strategic environment where the United States might not remain the dominant military force in Asia. (obviously meaning China!)

They say that this means Australia may have to become more self-reliant.

Professor Hugh White from the Australian National University says he sees some serious risks for Australia as China increases its economic and military power.

"The risk is that as China's power grows, as America's primacy erodes, Asia will move from a very stable US-dominated era into something less stable, more contested, and potentially more violent," he said.

This changing strategic landscape provides the setting for the latest white paper.


The paper sets out a series of projects costing billions of dollars over the next couple of decades.

The most costly project is the acquisition of 12 submarines fitted with land-attack cruise missiles.

Other projects include the construction of eight frigates as well as the purchase of 24 naval helicopters and around 100 Joint Strike Fighter combat aircraft.

Professor White says the boost is needed to counter what could be the decline of US military supremacy in Asia.

"Since the first European settlement, we've regarded our safety on this continent as being guaranteed by the fact that a great and powerful friend - first Britain, then America - has been the dominant maritime power in Asia," he said.

"Now, over the next couple of decades, we may see the point at which we find ourselves living in a region with a much more equal distribution power, and one in which Australia's own relative position is, despite our good economic performance, declining."

The Federal Government says the country can afford the military build-up, and the Defence Department has been ordered to find $20 billion in savings over the next decade to help fund it.
But Professor White says ultimately the taxpayers are also going to have to get used to paying more for Australia's defence.

"Australia will have to work harder than we have in the past to support our allies, or do more than we have in the past independently," he said.

"And in either case it seems to me likely that we'll need to spend a larger share of our GDP on defence, or else accept that we are no longer going to be able to afford to be the kind of middle power we've been in the past."

Dr Andrew Davies from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says the white paper contains some important initiatives, especially the new submarine fleet.

"What we have to do is spend our Defence budget in a more focused way, so that we make the best of what we can spend and keep our strategic weight in a region where some new superpowers are emerging, essentially," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/04/2559620.htm
Australian Military Buildup And The Rise Of Asian NATO

n March 2, 2009 the Australian Department of Defence released a 140-page white paper called Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific century: force 2030 (1), which announced $72 billion in new military spending for an island nation of barely 20 million inhabitants with no adversaries except those it chooses to make for itself.

The document details the Australian government's plans to acquire and expand a full spectrum - air, sea and land - arsenal of advanced weaponry in the nation's largest arms buildup since World War II. Canberra will replace six submarines with double that amount possessing greater range and longer mission capabilities, "hunter-killer submarines" [2], representing "a big new investment in anti-submarine warfare" [3] ; three new destroyers "specialising in air warfare" [4], which presumably be be Aegis class ones with missile killing capacity, and eight new frigates.

All of the above are to be equipped with land-attack cruise missiles with a range of up to 2,500 kilometers, almost certainly of the Tomahawk ground-launched cruise missile variety, which will make Australia "the first regional defence force to have the potent weapons system." [5]

The nation is also to acquire 46 Tiger [German-French Eurocopter multi-role combat] helicopters, Hercules and other new generation military transport planes, 100 armored vehicles and, most alarmingly, 100 F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighters. The last is a Lockheed Martin-manufactured fifth-generation, multi-role stealth-capable military strike fighter capable of short- and medium-range bombing.

Australia has been working with Norway on the Joint Strike Missile, "a newly developed anti surface warfare and land attack missile that will be adapted to meet an uncovered operational need on the F-35 Lightning II - Joint Strike Fighter" [6], which will be available for the 100 of the latter Australia plans to obtain.

In addition, plans include "the veteran AP-3 Orion [anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare] fleet being replaced with a mix of at least eight P-8 Poseidon [US Navy anti-submarine warfare and electronic intelligence] long-range surveillance aircraft, together with up to seven unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles, possibly the US-made Global Hawk...." [7]

Insular, comparatively isolated, unthreatened Australia has no legitimate reason to amass such an array of offensive, advanced weapons for use on land and sea and in the air. An article in a major Australian daily entitled "Kevin Rudd's push for missile supremacy," referring to the prime minister's unprecedented peacetime military expansion, states inter alia that the "navy will acquire a formidable arsenal of long-range cruise missiles for its new submarines, destroyers and frigates, able to strike at targets thousands of kilometres from Australia's shores." [8]

To project deadly force thousands of kilometers from its shores, in various interpretations of the new military policy, is based on designs that "Our military strategy will be a proactive one in which we seek to control the dynamic of a conflict, principally by way of sea control and air superiority" and "The government intends to place greater emphasis on our capacity to detect and respond to submarines" [9] and "Force 2030...will be a more potent force in certain areas, particularly in undersea warfare and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) surface maritime warfare, air superiority, strategic strike, special forces, ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) and cyber warfare" for use in a potential "wider conflict in the Asia-Pacific region."

What the nature of that conflict might be and which nations are viewed as prospective co-belligerents in it was alluded to in a feature in the Financial Times: "Joel Fitzgibbon, defence minister, said the country's first defence white paper in almost a decade acknowledged the continued regional dominance of the US. But he warned of 'strategic tensions' arising from new powers, particularly China but also India, and the re-emergence of Russia." (10)

India is a red herring as it too is enmeshed in US-led plans for the creation of an Asian-Pacific military bloc unless, of course, a change in the political leadership and foreign policy orientation of the country would ally it with Russia and China, thereby in fact creating "strategic tensions" from the West's point of view.

The white paper, as seen above, grants the United States "regional dominance" in an area thousands of miles away from the superpower yet simultaneously attempts to strike a pose of Australian assertiveness and even self-reliance and independence. This is quite in keeping with the foreign policy of the Nixon-Kissinger years in which certain key allies were assigned the role of regional military policemen and enforcers or, as many described it at the time, regional subimperialist strongholds.

There is no truth is this 'patriotic' posturing, though. Australia is being built up as the major military strike force in its neighborhood and far beyond even as it is being integrated ever more tightly with the Pentagon. And NATO.

In February of 2007 in an article called "Secret new US spy base to get green light," it was announced that "Australia's close military alliance with the United States is to be further entrenched with the building of a high-tech communications base in Western Australia" which "will provide a crucial link for a new network of military satellites that will help the US's ability to fight wars in the Middle East and Asia" and "will be the first big US military installation to be built in Australia in decades, and follows controversies over other big bases such as Pine Gap and North West Cape."[11]

Last September Australian Prime Minister Rudd visited Hawaii and met with the head of the Pentagon's Pacific Command, Admiral Timothy Keating, to brief him "on the Australian Defence Force deployments in East Timor and Solomon Islands.

"The pair are understood to be discussing broader strategic trends in the western Pacific, including the steady build-up in regional maritime capabilities.

"Admiral Keating told a seminar at the East-West Center in Honolulu in July that Asia wanted the US to maintain a strong and visible presence throughout the region. 'It is certainly in the minds of all our friends, partners and colleagues that the US should maintain military superiority in the theatre.'" [12]

Australia has more troops serving with its US counterparts and under NATO command in Afghanistan, over 1,000, with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announcing a few days ago that 400 more (including some to serve with the Special Operations Task Group elite combat group) on the way, than any other non-NATO member.

Australian troops, along with those from New Zealand, are among the foreign forces scheduled to be evicted from the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan where US and NATO personnel have been stationed for several years in pursuit of the war in Afghanistan.

Last June the nation's Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, was already calling for an expansion of the Afghan War theater to include neighboring Pakistan, saying: "I think we've got to start looking at the border between Afghanistan not just as a bilateral issue between those two nations, but a regional issue in which the international community has to play a role." [13]

In the same month the head of Australia's Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, said of the US and NATO war in South Asia: "I would say it's an endeavour that will last at least 10 years." [14] If so Australia has no plans to leave.

As it will not leave Iraq. Australia's troops were among the first to enter Iraq after the March 2003 invasion and are among the few national contingents that are remaining there. At the end of 2008 the Iraqi parliament, not without dissension, passed a resolution authorizing individual agreements on the only non-US troops there: Those from Australia, Britain, Estonia, Romania and NATO.

In January of this year when the head of the US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, announced plans for aggressive naval moves in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia, Australia was one of the first nations to offer support.

A month earlier Australian Prime Minister Rudd traveled to the United Arab Emirates "where Australia is in the process of consolidating its air crews and Middle East command headquarters in a single secret base." [15]

This April Australia completed its first command of the Combined Task Force 152, a permanent naval surveillance and interdiction operation in the Persian Gulf run by the US Naval Forces Central Command. "The Royal Australian Navy's command rotation also saw the integration of representatives from Australia, the U.S., Bahrain and other Gulf Cooperation Council nations into the CTF 152 staff." [16]

Australia also participates in Combined Task Force 150, a sister operation in the Gulf of Oman and the Horn of Africa.

Last summer the commander of the US Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, Admiral James Winnefeld, referred to Iran as an "unpredictable adversary" that "demands our immediate attention in the event of a need for Australia or NATO response." [17]

Like the secret consolidated Australian base in the United Arab Emirates, Winnefeld was evidently speaking of matters not known to the general public or ordinarily divulged by Western military officials.

In February Canberra announced that it was quadrupling the amount of Pakistani military officers to be trained in Australia for the expanding war in South Asia, the same month that Australian troops killed five Afghan children while engaged in a combat mission.

Foreshadowing what would become this month's defense white paper, in September of last year Prime Minister Rudd stated that his nation needed "an enhanced naval capability that can protect our sea lanes of communication and support our land forces. We need an air force that can fill support and combat roles.'' [18]

The press wire service from which the above is quoted reminded its readers that "Australia still has 1,000 personnel in and around Iraq, about 1,000 soldiers under NATO command in southern Afghanistan and about 750 peacekeepers in East Timor and 140 in the Solomon Islands."

In the case of the last two nations, Australia's role is indeed that of a subimperialist regional policeman, with its nearly nine-year deployment in East Timor (Timor Este) as much a matter of protecting preferential oil and natural gas concessions in the Timor Gap and defying its major regional rival Indonesia as it is one of peacekeeping.

Though in the same news conference reported above, Rudd also affirmed that "Australia will strengthen security cooperation with Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore."

There are two significant aspects to the last statement. The first is the nation not mentioned, China, and the second is that it reflects a basis for what for several years now has been referred to as Asian NATO.

The expression has been used since the beginning of this century but first gained wider currency after then US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz paid a five-day trip to Japan, South Korea and Singapore in May of 2003. The first two countries already had troops stationed in Iraq, and South Korea and Singapore would later deploy military forces to Afghanistan with the Japanese navy playing a supporting role in the Indian Ocean.

Asian NATO has been referred to with increased frequency over the past several years and the concept, and project, was poignantly demonstrated in the 2007 Malabar naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal where warships from India, United States, Japan, Australia, and Singapore engaged in the largest multinational exercise of its sort - 25 ships - in Indian history. The exercises ranged from "Vizag on the eastern seaboard to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands that guard the approaches to the Strait of Malacca, considered the world's busiest waterway." [19]

The Malabar exercises before 2007 were bilateral US-India affairs but two years ago were employed to showcase an emerging American-led Asian military bloc.

In most discussions of Asian NATO the term is used metaphorically, as in an Asian-Pacific military alliance that parallels the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the Euro-Atlantic zone, if in no other manner than it is becoming a military bloc in a world that has only one other, NATO.

This loose connotation of the term doesn't do justice to the truth.

Even with the addendum that Asian NATO is an attempt by Washington to reproduce NATO in the Asia Pacific, also under its domination, it is not the full truth.

In fact what has developed is an ever-broadening structure for integrating Asian nations directly with NATO as well as with its individual members, the US primarily of course, and an extension of NATO into the East. Previous articles in this series have examined direct NATO penetration of Asia and the South Pacific [20], the stationing of the bloc's military forces and the securing of permanent bases from the Balkans to the eastern rim of the Caspian Sea [21] and efforts by the US and its NATO allies to establish a global naval fleet to dominate most of the world and the Asia Pacific region in particular. [22].

The main components of this absorption of the Asia Pacific zone include individual partnerships; establishment of bases and positioning of military, including combat, forces; actual invasions, wars and occupations; conducting regular Western-led multinational military, including live-fire, exercises; recruiting and deploying troops from Asian nations to war zones like those in Afghanistan and Iraq; and in general integrating the military of Asia Pacific states under the direction of individual NATO nations and the alliance collectively.

Applying the above criteria, as will be shown below or has been examined in reference to the South Caucasus and Central Asia in the Stop NATO articles referred to earlier, there are few nations in the entire Asia Pacific area, including the South Caucasus and West Asia (the Middle East), that are not to some degree involved in the process of creating a Western-dominated Asian military bloc.

Excluding several smaller island nations in the South Pacific, those exceptions are Russia, China, Laos, Myanmar, North Korea, Bhutan, Iran and Syria.

In addition to collective NATO partnerships partially or entirely outside of Europe and North America - Partnership for Peace includes all three South Caucasus and all five Central Asian former Soviet republics; the Mediterranean Dialogue takes in all North Africa nations on the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea from Mauritania to Egypt except for Libya as well as Israel and Jordan; the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative includes the Persian Gulf states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, with Oman and Saudi Arabia soon to follow, NATO has a category of individual partnerships it refers to as Contact Countries.

This is how NATO itself describes it:

"In addition to its formal partnerships, NATO cooperates with a range of countries that are not part of these structures. Often referred to as 'other partners across the globe' or 'Contact Countries', they share similar strategic concerns and key Alliance values. Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand are all examples in case." [23]

The Alliance has de facto individual partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan and heads up a Tripartite Commission with both nations for the prosecution of the war in South Asia.

Asia Pacific partners are also integrated in other fashions.

Last autumn the US Congress "passed a bill...aimed at helping South Korea purchase American weapons systems cheaper and faster in order to
strengthen the Korea-U.S. alliance, as well as increased interoperability between the two countries' militaries. Under the bill, South Korea will be granted the same status as members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and three FMS [foreign military sales]-favored nations - Australia, Japan and New Zealand." [24]

When the Senate passed an equivalent resolution days later, a South Korean official stated, ``Now we can call the highest U.S. FMS group `NATO+4.' That is a symbolic move to prove the Korea-U.S. alliance has been upgraded further.'' [25]

Australia and Japan both participate in a NATO/Partnership for Peace Trust Fund in Azerbaijan, the Alliance's main military outpost on the Caspian Sea and the most pivotal partner for trans-Eurasian energy strategies.

This January NATO held a conference in Turkey called Changing Security Environment and a Renewed Transatlantic Vision for the 21st century which "highlighted the importance of setting up cooperation ties with countries such as Japan and Australia." [26]

This year the Standing NATO Response Force Maritime Group 1 was scheduled to visit Pakistan, Australia and Singapore and travel through the strategic Strait of Malacca - the first time the bloc would penetrate this part of the world - but was diverted to the coast of Somalia. However, the warships joined with the Pakistani navy for a two-day exercise in late April.

In September of last year NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, General John Craddock, visited Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Japan to "provide their leadership with an assessment of the current operations in Afghanistan and express his appreciation for their efforts in the NATO-led mission." [27]

Australia is the only non-NATO country involved in the global SeaSparrow (ship-borne short-range anti-aircraft and anti-missile missile) system, along with members Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Turkey and the US.

This March it was announced that "Australia is set to conclude a deal with NATO on exchanging secret military information" in order to insure "a deeper strategic dialogue between Australia and NATO and increased cooperation on long-term common interests." [28]

In June of last year NATO deployed AWACS to Australia for the first time for Exercise Pitch Black "a Royal Australian Air Force led exercise with international participation that includes 3,000 participants and more than 60 aircraft from Australia, the United States, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, France and the E-3A Component." [29]

The E-3A is "NATO's Flagship Fleet. The E-3A Component is the world's only integrated, multi-national flying unit, providing rapid deployability, airborne surveillance, command, control and communication for NATO operations." [30]

"This historic deployment to Australia is another example of our transformation into a world-wide deployable force," said Brig. Gen. Stephen Schmidt, Component Commander.

"We are a lead element of the NATO Response Force and our daily mission requires that we be prepared to deploy on short notice to any location in the world as required by the Alliance...." [31]

Last winter NATO conducted joint training in Germany with Afghan troops and their counterparts from the United States, Germany, France, Hungary, Canada, Slovenia, Slovakia, Italy...and Australia.

In the same month perhaps the most influential - and infamous - Australian, media baron Rupert Murdoch, citing the "Russian invasion of Georgia," delivered himself of this demand:

"Australia needs to be part of a reform of the institutions most responsible for maintaining peace and stability. I'm thinking especially of NATO....The only path to reform NATO is to expand it to include nations like Australia. That way NATO will become a community based less on geography and more on common values. That is the only way NATO will be effective. And Australian leadership is critical to these efforts." [32]

Murdoch echoed demands of a Republican presidential candidate in last year's primary campaign: Rudolph Giuliani, who in 2007 called for NATO to admit Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore to its ranks as full members.

This January NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer while visiting Israel spoke on this and related topics:

"NATO has transformed to address the challenges of today and tomorrow. We have built partnerships around the globe from Japan to Australia to Pakistan and, of course, with the important countries of the Mediterranean and the Gulf. We have established political relations with the UN and the African Union that never existed until now. We've taken in new [countries], soon 28 in total, with more in line.

"[The] Alliance is projecting stability in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, in the Mediterranean (with Israeli support), and elsewhere - including fighting pirates off the Somali coast...." [33]

The incoming US ambassador to NATO, the Brookings Institution's Ivo Daalder, is reportedly an advocate of "Washington want[ing] NATO to be expanded by inviting counties like Australia, Japan, Brazil and South Africa and becom[ing] a global organization...." [34]

The mainstays for the evolving Asian NATO, or as Daalder's, Scheffer's and Giuliani's positions make clear an Asian NATO plus, are Australia and Japan with India eyed as the third leg of the stool.

Australia and Japan both have, in addition to hosting US military bases and deploying forces for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, entered on yet more dangerous ground by joining the American worldwide interceptor missile system.

In May of 2007 "Australia said...it had joined the U.S. and Japanese missile defense plans and would consider the deployment of a missile shield on its soil" at the same time that NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer announced that his "organization will create its own missile defense system, which would be linked to the American system." [35]

With US interceptor missile installations in place at Fort Greely on the Alaskan mainland and the Aleutian Islands in the Bering Sea facing Russia, the incorporation of Japan and Australia into the missile shield system complements plans for similar facilities and deployments in Poland, the Czech Republic, Norway and elsewhere in Europe, neutralizing Russia's deterrent and retaliation capabilities on both ends of its territory.

Ahead of a visit to Japan in October of 2007 Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said "Moscow regarded the joint missile defense effort as an 'object of concern,' expressing wariness over what he called the possibility that the system could be directed against Russia and China.

"We oppose the construction of missile defense systems whose purpose is to ensure military superiority." [36]

Lavrov would reiterate Russian concerns late last year when he "mentioned the problem of antimissile defences, which actually stands to reason, since the United States seeks to build such system on a global basis and deploy, among others, some of the system elements in Asia and the Pacific."

The report from which the preceding came concluded with the observation that "Moscow has major strategic interests in Asia and the Pacific, interests that invariably clash with no less significant US interests." [37]

A week later the US and Japan, in a significant return of the latter's military to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, conducted a sea-based interceptor missile test.

"The Japanese missile destroyer Chokai will take part in a training firing session as part of the American-Japanese programme for testing a sea-based missile defence system, Christopher Taylor, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defence Agency says, adding that the destroyer which is equipped with the AEGIS BMD Weapon System and with the Standard -3 interceptor missiles, has already arrived at the U.S.-operated Pearl Harbor Base in Honolulu.

"Missile defence complexes the Japanese destroyers are equipped with are linked to the U.S missile defence system.

"They can receive information about targets and provide it to the American warships, equipped with both missile defence systems and bases for interceptor missiles in Alaska and California." [38]

The US has also shifted substantial military forces and focus from Okinawa to Hokkaido on the Sea of Japan immediately across from Russia.

It is not only Russia that is alarmed by these developments and not only Australia and Japan that are being integrated into the global American interceptor missile, so-called son of Star Wars, network.

Last December the defense ministers of China and Russia met in Beijing and "Anatoly Serdyukov and Liang Guanglie [discussed] a project by the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Taiwan to establish a regional missile defense system. China is against the project...." [39]

Earlier in the year Andrew Chang, a Hong Kong-based military expert, remarked on the US missile shield component in Asia that "it is aimed at targeting not only North Korea but China as well" and that "that China has every reason to voice unease over the matter, adding that US plans stipulate the deployment of elements of the missile defense shield also in Japan and Australia.

"Aside from missile interceptors, an array of high-power radars will be deployed in the areas – a move that will make it possible for the US to track down China's launchings of its missiles from the main launch pad in the Shangsi province." [40]

The purpose of Asian NATO, then, is to establish US and broader Western military superiority, even invincibility, throughout Asia across the full spectrum of ground, air, naval and space forces and weapons.

Lastly, the following survey of reports over the past few months is not an exhaustive one, but provides an overview on how the web of Western military penetration of the Asia Pacific region is simultaneously widening and tightening.

As an illustrative example, the US has just completed the two-week (April 16-30) Balikatan 2009 joint military exercise in the Philippines, the latest in a series of annual war games. This year 5-6,000 US troops participated and at one point US Marines conducted a drill that can only be training for use against unarmed civilians - "'When you've got a big crowd agitated and moving at you,'" the nonlethal grenade would be a good choice." [41]

The exercise was held on the grounds of the former Clark Air Base which the US Air Force had vacated in 1991, one of only a few bases the US has departed voluntarily. Not only were US Marines back on the site of the base, but F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft were employed for Balikatan 2009, the first American warplanes operating in the Philippines in sixteen years.

The Pentagon also deployed the PHIBRON-11, the Navy's only forward-deployed amphibious squadron, consisting of four warships, from Japan for the occasion.

The war games, note, were conducted in a nation that is waging several years-long counterinsurgency operations against not only the Abu Sayyaf Group but also the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the secular New People's Army.

That war is backed by and includes the direct participation of US military forces (and those of Australia) who have established camps in Mindanao.

Given that the war games were designed for combat operations in an armed conflict zone, it's revealing that military observers were present from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos and South Korea. [42]

May 2008:

The defense ministers of Japan and South Korea met to "boost three-way military ties with the U.S." and to "revive a suspended three-way military dialogue with the United States as soon as possible...."

South Korean Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee "also met his Australian counterpart Joel Fitzgibbon and stressed the need for a military information protection accord between the two countries." [43]

June:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Japanese and Australian foreign ministers Masahiko Komura and Stephen Smith, respectively, met at the third ministerial meeting of the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue and vowed to "to work in close strategic partnership to boost stability and security in the Asia-Pacific region as well as the world at large." [44)

July:

US Pacific Air Forces commander Gen. Carrol Chandler, mentioning that the US Air Force has partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, said "We're not at war in the Pacific, but we're really not at peace, either," and stated that a "good example of...bilateral cooperation is missile defense." [45]

It was announced that a large US military contingent would participate in Exercise Maru in New Zealand along with Australian warships and aircraft and with Japan contributing a P3 Orion surveillance aircraft.

"In what will be seen as another step in breaking down the 20-year freeze by the Americans on joint participation in routine military exercises, its military will be strongly represented...." [46]

The US hosted the annual Rim of the Pacific naval exercise in Hawaii which involved naval forces from Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Peru, the United Kingdom, Singapore and the US.

"A total of 35 ships, six submarines, 150 aircraft and 20,000 personnel from the maritime forces of the 10 nations were involved in the exercise.

"[T]he 22-day sea phase exercise which covered combined anti-submarine and air defence exercises including the live-firing of the missile off the Hawaiian coast...." [47]

In a related development, the 2008 Pacific Rim Airpower Symposium was held in the capital of Malaysia, hosted by Royal Malaysian Air Force and US Pacific Air Forces' 13th Air Force officials and including the participation of delegations from Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Philippines, South Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the United States and Vietnam.

"'Through this symposium, we have a great opportunity to share and understand what each nation brings to the battlefield,' said Lt. Gen. Loyd S. "Chip" Utterback, the 13th Air Force commander." [48]

August:

The Japanese defense ministry announced that in his upcoming visit to the United States the country's defense minister would discuss a series of proposals for expanding bilateral military cooperation including "rendering ...logistical support by Japan to a group of US battleships in the Indian Ocean that are involved in a military operation in Afghanistan.

"[T]he last few years saw Japan and the US successfully cement bilateral military cooperation, including the joint deployment of missile defense
systems....Aside from missile interceptors, an array of high-power radars will be deployed...." [49]

September:

Australian and New Zealand troops were among 2,000 from the Anglo-Saxon quint, along with forces from Britain, Canada and the United States, that trained in Germany for warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"[A] group of New Zealand soldiers are practicing breaking into buildings and then making instant decisions on whether the occupants are friendly or hostile.

"The Kiwis are taking part in joint exercises with four other English-speaking nations — the U.S., Britain, Canada and Australia — designed to help them operate together and work out any kinks before they hit the battlefield...." [50]

October:

India and Japan signed a defense pact during a visit by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Tokyo, "a security cooperation agreement under which India and Japan...will hold military exercises, police the Indian Ocean and conduct military-to-military exchanges....Japan has such a security pact with only two other countries - the United States and Australia." [51]

In a trip to the Czech capital of Prague, US Missile Defense Agency chief Henry Obering and Czech first Deputy Defence Minister Martin Bartak signed a framework treaty on strategic cooperation in missile defence, about which the local press revealed, "The United States has signed a similar agreement only with Australia, Britain, Denmark, Italy and Japan." [52]

A New Zealand government website inadvertently divulged that military ties with the US were being strengthened.

"After decades of cold-shoulder treatment, United States military brass are now saying a US-New Zealand military partnership is vital to meet security challenges in the Pacific region.

"Joint military exercises are on offer again, according to US Air Force commander Lieutenant General Loyd S. Utterback, who was in Wellington last month for a conference hosted by air force chief Air Vice-Marshal Graham Lintott." [53]

November:

Spanish Defense Minister Carme Chacon and her Australian counterpart Joel Fitzgibbon signed an agreement for defense industry cooperation. "Earlier this year, the two members of NATO [verbatim] struck a deal to enhance cooperation between their naval forces." [54]

December:

Australia and Japan signed an agreement in Tokyo to increase security cooperation and to conduct more joint military operations.

"Japan only has a similar security pact with the United States, while
Australia has agreements with the US and Great Britain." [55]

Japan's parliament voted to extend the nation's naval operations in the Indian Ocean to support the US-NATO war in Afghanistan by another year.

January 2009:

The outgoing US ambassador to Japan, Thomas Schieffer, called for Tokyo to play a larger role in global military missions "including reinterpreting its pacifist constitution to allow it to defend an ally if attacked." The Japanese constitution forbids what it calls collective defense.

Evoking a hypothetical case, "if a Japanese destroyer failed to eliminate a missile launched from Asia on the basis that it was headed for the US," Schieffer warned "I think the American people would find that very difficult to understand the value of the alliance with Japan."

He added that, in regards to US-Japanese post-World War II military relations, a "redefinition would be appropriate." [56]

The Financial Times reported that "The US is in preliminary talks with India over the sale of missile shield systems" in reference to Pakistan and "other volatile countries in the region." [57]

An Indian press service reported that "After signing its biggest-ever military deal with the US for eight long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft for the Indian Navy for $2.1bn, New Delhi is now eyeing to fast track three key military pacts with Washington." [58]

February:

In a visit to Japan US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Washington and Tokyo had "agreed to intensify consultations and coordination with the Republic of Korea, Australia, and India, which share universal values." [59]

March:

The head of Singapore's military, Lt-General Desmond Kuek, visited India to meet with his counterpart, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, to discuss increasing military ties and to sign pacts for joint military training.

"Singapore has signed similar agreements for training facilities with countries like the US, France, Australia, Thailand and Taiwan...." [60]

The US deployed F-15s to Thailand for Exercise Cope Tiger 2009 to engage in air combat training with the Thai and Singaporean air forces.

An American military official speaking of the exercise said:

"This exercise is a great opportunity to hone our air combat skills while practicing against different adversaries than we normally train against here.

"This will facilitate any responses to regional events or contingencies in the future." [61]

Gen. Songgitti Jaggabatara, chief of the defense forces of the Royal Thai Armed Forces, invited the Philippines to join in a US-led multinational military exercise in his country.

"We have a multi-national exercise between Thailand, the United States, Indonesia, Singapore, and Japan and the Philippine Armed Force still is an observer. After this, maybe the Philippine Armed Force will join the exercise."[62]

Cambodia announced it will host a US and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) military exercise.

Pol Saroeurn, Commander-in-Chief of Royal Cambodian Armed Forces, said: "It is an honor for Cambodia to be chosen by ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and the superpower U.S. as the location for such a large-scale international military exercise" and recalled that in 2008 his forces had participated in a three-week exercise in Bangladesh in 2008 which "involved some 400 soldiers from 12 countries, including Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Nepal, Brunei, Mongolia, Tonga, Cambodia and the U.S." [63]

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd met in Seoul and signed a bilateral security treaty, one which "calls for increasing joint military training exercises and peacekeeping operations, as well as military-to-military exchanges and cooperation in defense industry, including the exploration of airborne early warning and control aircraft." [64]

April:

American arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin officials met with ranking Indian naval officers to discuss Aegis ship-launched anti-missile missile acquisitions.

"Apart from the US Navy, the Aegis system is operational on Japanese, South Korean, Norwegian, Spanish and Australian naval vessels." [65]

In coordination with US-supplied Aegis class destroyer and joint US-Japanese ground-based missile shield elements, Japan announced what the government called its first strategic space policy.

By which is meant not only space surveillance but preparing for warfare in outer space. Joining the United States in the militarization of the heavens. Plans for Asian NATO are not limited to Asia. Or to the Earth.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13523


Well, it is not who is right or wrong, it is about money and opinion.
It is simple. It is not money. It is about SURVIVAL. What is money, if survival is not guaranteed?





Of course Australia doesn't trust China! So what? Either does US. But it is still No.1 trader partner of China!

Regarding Kevin Rudd, he didn't sell anything to China except some lip work. The only thing hurts him is his new tax policy, which will impose extra tax on mining industry. If you check last federal election result, you may find labor lost their seats in the mining-concentrate areas where used to be their strong point.
Trading partner No #1.

But if everything is Chinese owned or Chinese exploited, then where is Australia? It would have mortgaged itself to China!!

Australia is a country and its overall opinion in the form of votes matter and not what is the result in one segment of the country. This is called Democracy and it takes time to understand its mechanics!

Rudd did not do lip service for China. he kowtowed as per the Australian press. China should have the goodness to recognise that. Australians have and so they showed him the door!
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top