US Alliance a distinct liability for Australia

Well, the problem is it's hard to see why the US should keep a very strong military presence in the region in the coming years. South Korea clearly can defend itself in conventional terms against North Korea, Japan could do much more to help promote stability in the region and the US is very involved elsewhere. I mean, the US has taken on enormous responsibilities in the Middle East. So I think that given the change in the region - that is America's friends have grown much stronger, while the threat of hegemonic communism is diminished - there really is not a good argument for the US keeping that strong military presence there.

What about China?

Bandow: Well, the question frankly, for both parties, is how to deal with China. Does Australia want to turn itself into a perceived enemy of China by being part of some kind of alliance of containment against China? And the question is does the US want to follow that policy as well? I think that the rise of China is the most important issue for East Asia, but it's not at all clear to me the countries in the region will want to be part of a kind of a containment policy even if that's what Washington wants to do.

Not surpringly, the Sydney Morning Herald columnist Gerard Henderson came out strongly in support of the Alliance just recently. He claimed that that "there is no denying that the partnership works" (February 20, 2007). What does "works" mean here really? There is no proof of that in his article whatever. The fact that the major parties support the Alliance, in different ways, and that a majority of Australians "support" it is no proof either.

One could argue that national security has actually been put in jeopardy in recent years as a result of the US Alliance. Australia would be far better off pursuing a foreign policy of neutrality. In the absence of that experience the Henderson's claim that the (unequal) partnership "works" is plainly spurious, another example of His Master's Voice.

Environmental Behaviour in the US: the nuclear power debate revisited

As a society that uses huge quantities of energy and oil, with a Government that refuses to sign the still modest Kyoto Treaty, could the US be a model for Australia? The answer surely is NO but to advocate that the solution for the US is to import yellow cake from Australia is preposterous, yet this is no doubt on the mind of Mr. Howard and his uranium mining exploration constituency.
 
A persistent and passionate critic of American foreign and environmental policies is Dr Helen Caldicott, an Australian who in her 2002 book The New Nuclear Danger warns, again, against the madness that emanates from George W. Bush’s military-industrial complex.

Her extensive experience in the US, in educating Americans about the dangers of nuclear energy and weaponry, is well known. Given the new commercial voices that are again raising the prospect of uranium mining in Australia under the moral rubric that “the world needs our nuclear energy”, no matter how costly, inappropriate, unnecessary and fraught with danger, her book has proved very timely.

In July 2005 the Howard Government ruled, over the head of the Northern Territory Government, that new mines could be started there again to boost lucrative uranium exports.

Dr Caldicott’s book provides material, which demonstrates also that Australia is taking “its marching orders from Washington”. A list of outstanding examples of PM Howard’s subservient relationship with America is provided for good measure.

Conclusion

The conclusion surely must be that Australia’s has reached a “fork in the road”! The answer is to go it alone and end the US dependency. There is no sound argument left to persist with the Alliance based on the ANZUS Treaty, the content of which is not even known by the current US Ambassador.

Those who say that Australia cannot be defended (Dibbs, 1980) should think again. Defence is not just a military activity. Sound international relations in the region are far more effective than military hardware. Australians should realise that a preference for a neutralist foreign policy is NOT an anti-American position. It is a pro-Australian position, nothing less.