THE former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser says the new American marine "base" near Darwin is a mistake, and that Australia's grovelling to Washington is hampering ties with Asia.
In a strongly worded submission to the federal government's white paper on future relations with Asia, Mr Fraser has criticised Australia's subservience to the US as a product of misguided assumptions America offers a security guarantee.
"Over 20 years now we have given the impression of doing that which America wants," Mr Fraser writes.
"We seem to believe that our security can be best assured if we do what we can to win brownie points with the US. This is a mistaken assumption.
''No country can really win brownie points with great powers. Great powers follow their own national interests and we should follow ours."
Mr Fraser is highly critical of the deployment of US marines in the Northern Territory, saying it fuels Chinese concerns over a policy of containment. He also dismisses claims by Labor and the Obama administration that the presence of the marines does not amount to a "base".
"For America to say that 2500 troops do not constitute a base is nonsense, indeed a fabrication," Mr Fraser writes.
"In military terms, a base does not have to be bricks and mortar. If 2500 troops are stationed in a particular place then the language makes it quite plain that they are based in that place. It is a base.
"To say that they are just passing through and that it is not a base is deceptive and misleading. It sends the wrong message, not only to China, but to countries like Indonesia."
He told the Herald he was also concerned Australia would lose more of its independence in Asia should the US turn Cocos Island into a base for unmanned surveillance drones, as reported last month in The Washington Post.
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, commissioned a white paper last year guided by the former head of Treasury, Ken Henry, titled Australia in the Asian Century.
Mr Fraser said he had only decided to put his thoughts on paper after the marines' presence in Darwin was announced and reports of plans for a US military presence in the Cocos Islands emerged.
In his submission, he said he was not against the US alliance but for Australian independence.
He said in assessing what to do in the future, Australia should conscious of our history and a dependence on Britain before World War II: "We believed that Britain would be able to secure our future," he writes. "It never occurred to us that Britain would be so preoccupied, so beleaguered, that in a situation of emergency she would not be able to help."
ETA: The Liberal Party is the more Conservative Party in Australia though Fraser has always been very liberal (small l liberal) than most of the party. He was particulary critical of the social policies of the previous Liberal Howard Government and is now almost entirely alienated by the current Liberal party.
Source
In a strongly worded submission to the federal government's white paper on future relations with Asia, Mr Fraser has criticised Australia's subservience to the US as a product of misguided assumptions America offers a security guarantee.
"Over 20 years now we have given the impression of doing that which America wants," Mr Fraser writes.
"We seem to believe that our security can be best assured if we do what we can to win brownie points with the US. This is a mistaken assumption.
''No country can really win brownie points with great powers. Great powers follow their own national interests and we should follow ours."
Mr Fraser is highly critical of the deployment of US marines in the Northern Territory, saying it fuels Chinese concerns over a policy of containment. He also dismisses claims by Labor and the Obama administration that the presence of the marines does not amount to a "base".
"For America to say that 2500 troops do not constitute a base is nonsense, indeed a fabrication," Mr Fraser writes.
"In military terms, a base does not have to be bricks and mortar. If 2500 troops are stationed in a particular place then the language makes it quite plain that they are based in that place. It is a base.
"To say that they are just passing through and that it is not a base is deceptive and misleading. It sends the wrong message, not only to China, but to countries like Indonesia."
He told the Herald he was also concerned Australia would lose more of its independence in Asia should the US turn Cocos Island into a base for unmanned surveillance drones, as reported last month in The Washington Post.
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, commissioned a white paper last year guided by the former head of Treasury, Ken Henry, titled Australia in the Asian Century.
Mr Fraser said he had only decided to put his thoughts on paper after the marines' presence in Darwin was announced and reports of plans for a US military presence in the Cocos Islands emerged.
In his submission, he said he was not against the US alliance but for Australian independence.
He said in assessing what to do in the future, Australia should conscious of our history and a dependence on Britain before World War II: "We believed that Britain would be able to secure our future," he writes. "It never occurred to us that Britain would be so preoccupied, so beleaguered, that in a situation of emergency she would not be able to help."
ETA: The Liberal Party is the more Conservative Party in Australia though Fraser has always been very liberal (small l liberal) than most of the party. He was particulary critical of the social policies of the previous Liberal Howard Government and is now almost entirely alienated by the current Liberal party.
Source
And why do you think that Fraser is in 'China's pocket'?? Is there something you know that I don't. This is the guy who has a reputation for calling out human right abuse overseas. He's got a long distinguished career on that front.
Australia has a long history of being BFF super-powers, Britain threw us over when the Japanese invaded - I'm pretty sure America will do the same thing. He's not saying we shouldn't have trade or diplomatic ties with America he's saying we shouldn't prioritise them above all others which we have been doing for decades.
As far as being thrown over by super-powers, if you got into a problem where it is in America's best interest and you are on good terms w/ them, they will help you. If not, they will certainly throw you over. That simply can not be denied. I don't know about anyone else, But I'd rather have that 50/50 chance of having a super power back me up than 0/0. Not to say that you ought to bend over backward for that, or make sacrifices you aren't prepared for. Absolutely stand your ground when the time comes to do so. But I'd choose my battles carefully, on a self-interested level. I certainly wouldn't blatantly side with another rising power, which clearly has its own ulterior motives which often --and definitely in this case-- go against said super power's agendas. Thinking politically, I cant see how it is in Australia's best interest at this point in time, for Fraser to be saying any of this. So my conclusion is, he must has his own ulterior motives. Nothing concrete, but that's my gut.
Q: How many casualties has Australia had in the Iraq war?
But as of now, according to my google-fu we've lost about 30ish in Iraq and in Afghanistan it's a little higher, not counting suicides (which there has been a few post-service).
I still don't get Fraser's MO here, but that I can relate to.
I can perfectly understand not wanting an American base on your soil for several reasons. I just don't agree with Frasier's reasons for not wanting it (essentially not to 'give in' to the American super power, make America top priority, and not wanting to 'piss off china etc). It doesn't seem strategic or smart to me and even a little contradictory. I think there is more to it.
A: Australia has had 2 in Iraq (and 32 in Afghanistan)
I mean, are you talking about Imperialism? Resources? What is this alternate theory and who is saying it? Why do you think there is some iron-clad consensus amoung Historians that this is not the cause?
I don't think America truly cared about the Vietnamese labor market. Their main influence was that they don't like enemy regimes. If they cared so much about the Vietnamese labour market why didn't they fight with the French for it. When the French could no longer hold onto it -- against soviet backed militants, the Viet Minh, that's when America suddenly cared.
Honestly, I am surprised if you've found such a consensus in your studies. If every source you have corroborates I'd wonder if I've been exposed to a full spectrum of information. Academia is all about debate so I find that very odd.
I actually agree with this. I just get tired of people who use phrases like 'stop the spread of communism' the way a serial comic would use 'fighting the forces of evil'. It's simplistic, and implies that whoever is doing it must be right. Using a third country to try to 'contain' another is vastly out of line, no matter who is doing it or what their rationale is- if they're stopping the spread of communism or imperialist capitalism or whatever.
China has a huge economic impact on the South Pacific, and is doing much more for our economies* than the US is. Why shouldn't we choose to recentre ourselves around our nearest and strongest economic ally?
You say that the US *might* come help out Australia if it gets into a scrape. Or it might not, but the possibility is still better than nothing. But really, who is Australia going to get into trouble with? Most of the flack they cop is to do with toeing the US line, not for the wild adventures they get up to on their own.
Tl;dr, it's Australia's prerogative to choose who they want on their own soil and the US reaction says a lot about their views of their "allies".
*I'm from NZ but it's pretty much the same issue.