It's time to trade in, and trade up, the outdated ANZUS treaty

But ANZUS makes no mention of terrorism. It speaks only of the dangers presented by an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of the parties to the treaty (too bad New York or Perth!).

The demands on the signatory partners are nominal, calling for an "act" in response. What this might involve precisely has been the subject of perennial debate, though it is generally accepted that this does not impose any military obligation. And the treaty calls for action through the United Nations, hardly a favoured forum these days.

So why not renegotiate the alliance, to bring the text up to date to account for contemporary challenges - and while we're at it, stop pretending that the NZ part still plays a role?

A new treaty could institutionalise the relationship between Australia and the US, making it less susceptible to the kind of political prevarication that Howard says is the risk of electing a Labor government.

Howard's favourite line in foreign policy is that, under his stewardship, Australia's relationship with the US has "never been stronger or closer". If that's true (and why should we ever doubt his word?), surely now is the perfect opportunity to trade-up ANZUS, this antiquated security relic of a bygone era, for the latest model available in modern security agreements.

Our government won't adopt this progressive stance, most obviously because of the fear that its special relationship with the Bush Administration will be exposed as an empty pantomime. Australia's interlocutors in Washington regard the modern era as a time when the very idea of alliance is itself outmoded.

Instead, the prevailing view is that the "war on terror" demands shifting coalitions of convenience, assembled for specific purposes. Statements attributed to US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld make the disdain for allies clear: "The mission must determine the coalition. The coalition must not determine the mission."

Still, if the number of times that Winston Churchill's hackneyed wisdom is cited around Washington today is any indication - "There is at least one thing worse than fighting with allies. And that is to fight without them" - reality may be finally catching up to the Bush Administration.

Alliances will very quickly return to favour, especially as the limits of American power become evident in Iraq.

Australia should take the opportunity to make its formal security commitments relevant for today. If the current government has courage and a genuine interest in the future defence of Australia, it should exercise its much-touted political capital in Washington to bring the alliance into the modern era.

And if it remains too timid, Mark Latham has promised that a future Labor government will approach the US as "genuine partners at the negotiating table". Could a modern Australia-US alliance be a Latham legacy?