It is also a go-to document for Australia and the U.S. to consider in relation to the loss of regional air superiority and overall regional strategic force posture. The later cannot be healthy without the former.
Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator presents some strong reason which includes solutions for the current tepid approach by Australia and the U.S. in relation to regional strength. He also has some advice for Australia's Foreign Minister Mr. Carr to take a proper look at the direct language in the ANZUS treaty.
Myself? I am not a Carr fan. But, he is all we have. So, moving right along.
Article 2 and Article 3 of The ANZUS Treaty are strong. Take a moment to consider them.
I also like this part in the beginning:
DESIRING to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that any of them stand alone in the Pacific Area,
Unfortunately, some here in Australia give the impression that they prefer a division. That, Australia seek more approval from China.
I wonder what that same crew thinks of this?
The lead article the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times on Tuesday contained an alarming call for a declaration of war against Vietnam and Philippines, two nations that in recent weeks launched the loudest protests against China’s sweeping maritime sovereignty claims over the South China Sea.
The fiery rhetoric of the article states that “the South China Sea is the best place for China to wage wars” because “of the more than 1,000 oil rigs there, none belongs to China; of the four airfields in the Spratly Islands, none belongs to China; once a war is declared, the South China Sea will be a sea of fire [with burning oil rigs]. Who will suffer the most from a war? Once a war starts there, the Western oil companies will flee the area, who will suffer the most?”
The article further calculates that “the wars should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, the two noisiest troublemakers, to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys.”
But back to the loss of regional air superiority. This negative trend is underway with not only the currently failed RAAF/Defence roadmap but that too of incompetent leaders in the United States Air Force and U.S. Department of Defense.
If one wants to avoid war, they have to prepare for it. Today, that is only platitude.
All of the suggestions by Gottliebsen are on-point and are a dire warning of our current path if our governments do not change. If senior Australian leadership ever comes to its senses, they must tell the U.S. (in the spirit of friendship) that their Pacific strategy, is weak without a strong air power roadmap.
Are Mr. Carr and this current government, the people to stand up and do that?
2 comments:
Excellent write up, Eric... and a very appropriate selection to post today.
Things are definitely moving fast in general, without naming names, while it seems others are moving very slowly both diplomatically and militarily to address the rapidly evolving balance of power and uncertain future intentions and capabilities (eg, threat matrix).
I personally feel there's a tremendous justification and requirement for a robust - yet proactive - multi-lateral diplomatic press to engage one offensive after another.
Just call it what it is... diplomatically and even behind the scenes if it's perceived as better to do so.
Make a direct diplomatic challenge to those increasing the military-political tensions and antagonisms by asking the simple question to governments (and not a military in question)... ie, what are your intentions and do you agree as a government with various hawkish and unacceptable rhetoric by your military? Just nail governments down on this issue, nothing more nothing less. Force the issue at the top governmental level and demand a response.
Then, if government is unwilling to answer or unwilling to correct the offensive rhetoric, then other counter parties at least have a much better feel of what they're faced with in the short-term and how to more properly pursue the game strategically. Regardless of the party in question.
With regard to the US in particular, with respect to the greater equation, the US has been demobilizing and redeploying from the region for the past 10 years and continue to do so.
This has been a fairly good opportunity and yes, a test to help interpret the future potential of the region as a whole and it's intentions as a response to the adjusting shift of power et al.
Personally, I fully support an assertive and robust diplomatic push by those in the region, eg Philippines most recently, to take their respective various issues, one by one, straight to the UN for arbitration as they should be!
Don't stand down and demand your fair and EQUAL representation!
If any party objects, then simply let them be assessed as adding to the military-political tension and not the solution. Then, enact and adjust foreign policy and next moves to respond accordingly to the hopefully positive results and dynamics at play.
Yet very importantly, it really shouldn't be an 'us vs them' debate... and I'll be firm on that again and again. Everyone in the region respectfully relies on the other, as does both China and US rely on the other... so that right there is the biggest empowerment and justification for all parties in the region to remain assertive and decisive in tackling various issues diplomatically head on. Let that do the talking the loudest on EQUAL footing. In my humble opinion.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/US-alliance-Bob-Carr-defence-JSF-pd20120424-TN2XP?OpenDocument&emcontent_Gottliebsen
Post a Comment