world

U.S. to expand military presence in Australia to counter China

110 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

110 Comments
Login to comment

"China also has alarmed smaller Asian neighbors by reigniting old territorial disputes."

" Beijing rebuffed a proposal that Clinton made last week to host talks between China and Japan over one such dispute."

"The agreement is partly in response to the cyberthreat emanating from the Pacific region, especially China and North Korea."

If China was a little less intimidating none of this counter military cooperation would be necessary.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Sounds like more of American military expanionism.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

Why don't we set up something similar to NATO in Asia?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Go USA

4 ( +11 / -7 )

Sounds like more of American military expanionism.

Some nations have resources, some have history, and some nations have guns. And in a world with an increasingly uncertain future everybody wants the assurance that if push comes to shove they have the biggest, ugliest guy backing them up and who's bigger and uglier than a nation that’s been fighting since it's inception?

9 ( +10 / -1 )

So how come The Dojyo didn't make a speech in the Diet about US military expansion. America is, if I am not mistaken, the country that firebombed Tokyo and dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities full of women and children.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

hire a guard dog, rather than train your own...

then watch the dog bite and disfigure your kids...

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

hmmmmm.Hey USA, how about speeding along those planes we have been waiting for..and a discount too? SO will Australia do an LDP and allow nuclear warships into port on the sly, too? A lot of people in Aus will be thrilled about the money and business this will involve..and many others will probably not be so thrilled.An interesting tactic by my country to irritate our biggest trading partner.I bet the coal magnates are chuffed.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I thought Americas is bankrupt?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Darren: Australia can have it both ways. China might protest, but you think they're willing to give up Australia's natural resources?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

globalwatcherSep. 16, 2011 - 08:47AM JST

Why don't we set up something similar to NATO in Asia?

There used to be a thing called ANZUS

Austrailia, New Zealand , United States comibined millitary in the south pacific. NZ pulled out after the nuclear free zone was established in NZ because the US would not confirm or deny that the visiting war ships had nuclear weapons. Thats when ANZUS became known a ANUS.

1 ( +4 / -4 )

Shades of Douglas MacArthur!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Then what happens if Russia, China and North Korea team up? Ships in, ships out,planes in planes out, troops in, troops out,sounds more like the lyrics to Micheal Finnigans Ball

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Thats when ANZUS became known a ANUS.

If New Zealand dropped wouldn't it just be AUS?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

cold war 2.0

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I thought Americas is bankrupt?

Jan, that's only when it comes to programs that actually assist Americans.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Asia Pacific Treaty Organization (APTO) should be organized. US cannot afford to defend these countries alone

0 ( +2 / -2 )

China is Australia's important trade partner. Indonesia is Australia's biggest threat.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Thats when ANZUS became known a ANUS.

ExportExpert, thanks for the info, but what a name! Anus? LOL.

I have suggested the above that is more broad scope including Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan, Vietnam. They all have some territorial disputes with N. Korea, China and Russia. We all should consider this option seriously.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

ExportExpert,

It was the US that suspended cooperation with New Zealand, not the other way around.

Obviously, the NZ in ANZUS stands for New Zealand, so you would never end up with the acronym "ANUS" because there would be a stray "New" there for no reason. As it stand, one) the treaty still exists, and two) it's still called ANZUS.

I don't know what the point of your joke was, but I suspect it was some kind of juvenile jab at NZ for expecting it's supposed ally to come clean about its nuclear capabilities.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Darren Brannan

SO will Australia do an LDP and allow nuclear warships into port on the sly, too?

Are you under the impression that our CVNs don't pull into Australian ports?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

SMH. Will this BS ever stop? Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I am always impressed by how the Aussies rush to back up team USA.Good on em is what I say.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Time to come home to Daddy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Go USA!  Elsewhere preferably!

ANUS・・・love it! (笑)

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

America is, if I am not mistaken, the country that firebombed Tokyo and dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities full of women and children.

@Asago: Not sure how the acts of the US in WW2 factor into this. But since you brought it up, didn't Japan use Unit 731 in Harbin China, and ruin Manila when all was lost instead of surrendering it against overwhelming odds, and I could go on and on.

The US is not a bad guy in this deal. I don't see Australia asking for a stronger alliance with Japan and South Korea since they are in the region too and face China. They probably figured that if it came down to it, at least the US would probably fight, and that they have a viable military.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

RossBard,

They're not rushing to back up the USA. Even the story points out that the decision is controversial. A not small cohort of Australians oppose this.

I wonder who's going to pay the fuel costs on all this "troops in, troops out" stuff to prepare for an as-yet mostly imaginary war with China... oh, right. The American taxpayer.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I think the USA has something like 700 bases outside of it's own country?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Here we go again. The US war machine is constantly on the look out to expand and justify its so called MASSIVE defense spending. Once again, who are the major shareholders of the defense contractors. Oh yeah political families... Vested interest I here rationale thinkers say...

%@$ing disgusting. And the gullible/patriotic citizens buy into the BS they are fed by their war mongering government.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

China is still a paper tiger but I uderstand Aussies have fears,and Mother England can no longer protect them.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

No, I fully believe that Nuclear vessels enter our harbours. So here we go, the New World Order...another war fabricated to push through a new class of weapons and weaponise space even further. Depending on where you are from you could say that China had a pretty bad time of it in the past and has more than enough reason to develop it's military and military tech. Japan still has a rather large military capacity as does South Korea. It has borders with some other big players including a restive Islamic movement in Urumuqi, has previously had run-ins with a nuclear armed India too. Apart from the fact it joined the Korean war and had a bit of a spat with Vietnam, I think you could say that China has been a fairly docile giant. China does tend to use patriotism and nationalism to deflect from political woes and financial issues, but again, nobody does that better than the United States. China may well have the means to become belligerent on a global stage, but then...really how do most Non-Americans perceive the International policies of the US? It does seem that one country has invaded more countries than any other country since Nazi Germany and it isn't China. Failing US economy is pushing this.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

China brought this on Australia.That is the proper way to look at this, if you are one of those people who believe Australia's dependence on America is a bad thing.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Any step, no matter how small, China takes to becoming a full democracy is always welcome news. I expect, we'll see a democratic China within the next 30 years?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If peace loving people don't rise up and shoot these war junkies in the head one day, we will get war This needs to start in America because its America doing the overwhelming majority of the provoking. Its not like China has bases next door in Mexico, is it? But there is America right next door in Japan? And they need to expand to Australia?

If you can't see what is going on you need a plexiotomy. That is when they put a piece of plexiglass in your belly button area so that you can see out even though your head is shoved in your own backside. If you can see what is going on and you approve, go back to the beginning of this post.

I have pretty much had it. Some people in politics, the Pentagon, and military industry just need to be killed.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

zichiSEP. 16, 2011 - 08:32AM JST Sounds like more of American military expanionism.

And that's a good thing, for me anyways because it keeps the world a much safer place.

Don't be thinking all the world's problems and wars is because of America. That country goes to great lengths when allies ( or non allies ) call for protection and help at the cost of of it's own men and women.

I take my hats off to all American men and women serving and keeping this world a safer place so people like me can sleep well at night.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The US in Australia is nothing new, just ask anybody who has been or is in the US Navy! Every port of call to Australia by the US Navy is a reason for a big party, so I hear. Australian women seem to like American dudes and vice a versa, plus during the Viet Nam war plenty of US troops had to pass through Australia, real close to South East Asia right??

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The author of

American has no interest in the protection of the world and it's people. America's sole interest is economical...

sees some ulterior motive in the rescue efforts the US Navy and military led in Japan this last year and following the tsunami that devasted Aceh,Indonesia, in 2004?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

posturing by both china and the states. getting us nowhere fast. one is neither is at fault and neither takes the blame. judge for yourself. is china more threatening and acting more offensively than the states is in the middle east, europe, asia, well, almost everywhere? who is really amassing or has amassed troops, ships, artillery, missiles, etc, in places other than in their own countries?

dont let any form of media tell you what to believe. do your research and build your own stance. articles like this on this site are very pro american. rarely, if ever will you see china getting praised here. however look at it from their point of view. if a superpower like the states had bases in in countries very far away from its own, and very close to your country, what would you do?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

China should just play the docile and submissive part that's expected of Asian nations. Japan didn't know her place during WW2 and got her ass whipped.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Why do they call it "defense?"

0 ( +1 / -1 )

China should focus on internal problems. Do not go around claiming the land and sea around other nations. China do not worry if USA, Astralia, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, India, Philippines, Taiwan, Malayasia, Thailand form a group for ONLY SELF DEFENCE.

Russia and India are partners for half a centruy.Russia knows that one day China would claim most of thier east as Chinese land, that 8000 years ago most of those land were ruled by Chinese king. China can make historical evidence from thier factory of Pirates.

Even Russia also can form a unity with India, Taiwan, Vietnam to counter Chinese future claims.

If you want to have a fair trade with China you should have a a better stand to defend yourself.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

China should focus on internal problems.

Yeah, they are. The land claims are not all valid, but they are not exactly far-fetched either. Land claims ARE an internal problem and external both.

Why don't you tell the Americans to focus on their internal problems? The sun never sets on their empire you know.

And Japan? They got land claims more far-fetched than China!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

CptCrunchSep. 16, 2011 - 05:56PM JST ; And Japan? They got land claims more far-fetched than China!

Give me a break don't get us involved. PRC considered the Senkaku islands as Japanese territory as late as 1968 according to the maps published by the communist party.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Does Australia has satellites flying over China's space?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

CptCrunchSep. 16, 2011 - 05:56PM JST ; And Japan? They got land claims more far-fetched than China!

Give me a break don't get us involved. PRC considered the Senkaku islands as Japanese territory as late as 1968 according to the maps published by the communist party.@@@@

China always does this. In the early 50s they said Kashmir is part of India. And the Chinese president came to India and met the then PM of India and said they will never have problems with India. After he left China attacked India and invaded the lands of India.

The USA and Asuatralia never invaded Chinese land. They never claim too. The partnership of all Asian countires aganist China is ONLY FOR SELFDEFENCE. SO CHina do not have to WORRY about it my boy.

It is time to play the same cards to China as they were playing to other Asian countries.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

As long as America provoking asia-pacific countries getting hostility against China's survival, the PLA will arming MIRV in her ICB/SLBM as retaliations! So...may God help us!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

**Does Australia has satellites flying over China's space?

Hey China has developed a roket that can blow up satellites flying over Chinese Economic space Zone. Historically Chinese people were looking to stars for 1000s of years and most of the stars also belongs to China. Beware if you claim or even to look you need to get permission from China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How is it they're publishing article after article on chinas military spending, expansion and threaten g of its neighbours when in fact it's he US that has a huge armada in Japan and is looking to send more???? Australia is nowhere near he US . this has nothing to do with "defence" of the US. It's. Battle with china for military control of the seas. Strange how the us has plenty for THAT but 23% of it's children officially live in poverty.

When they "controversial" in Australia, they mean the majority of he population oppose it. Don't you love "democracy"? Public opinion is irrelevant.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

just-a-guy

Does Australia has satellites flying over China's space?

LOL. Define China's space.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JapanGalSep. 16, 2011 - 08:58AM JST. Go USA

I don't understand why the Japanese Gal, and some other Japanese and gaijin dudes and dudettes welcome such an event.

---For one, it will only increase real tensions with China, China's military preparations and expenses. China is also very worried about obscene US presence in the region. Thus, it will only decrease Japanese security and increase Chinese threat, and may even make it real. Do you need it, JapanGal?

---For two, the new US presence may produce US intervention into some local war on terror/democracy/etc., in which Japan will be inevitably involved financially or physically. Would you like to pay, what if?

---For three, the US will use that base to ALWAYS press Japanese government with the threat to relocate there US troops, which are stationed in Japan now. Not all of them, but enough to diminish Japanese security. Which will lead to either that Japan will do everything the US wants or again decreased security and increased threat (taking into consideration point 1). Maybe you do need that?

---For four, It's just in general strange to welcome increased military presence. Smart countries try to agree with neighbors peacefully. See examples of Europe and the US themselves.

I do not see any positive sides for Japan in this US expansion. Sorry.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

This fear of Chinese expansion that never quite happens while America expands everywhere but calls it "partnerships" or "just war" is reminiscent of the Nazi theory of the Big Lie. The theory goes that little lies are easily disbelieved, but if the lie is big enough people have trouble disbelieving it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

gogogoSep. 16, 2011 - 10:37AM JST. cold war 2.0

Not between China and the US. China is integrated into the US economy heavier than Japan. Cold war not possible by definition. Blatant American military build-up it is. Plus, an additional way to manipulate Japanese government.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

so....china, who has not invaded anyone in over 30yrs, has zero military bases around the world, is labelled as an 'expansionist'.

while the US, who has continued to invade and bomb countries into this century, 700+ military bases around the world, and whose military budget is almost the world combined, is not an expansionist?

and why is the US getting australia involved in this? china has ZERO beef with australia, and china is her largest trading partner. why question china's military build-up while we ignore america and their blatant war monger behaviour which is the most aggressive in the world since ww2?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

well IF Australia was bigger in defence it wouldn't be asking for US. also don't say the US is "war mongering" china is the one building up military. & most asian countries Don't Trust. china has NO actually Enemies. so expanding for what?! USA,Japan,UK & other countries MADE china rich. outsourcing Jobs to it. a NATO in Asia? sounds like a Good idea. china is the war monger here. Most countries in Asia question them, for Obvious Reasons.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

GO GO USA! This is the best news I've heard all week. America needs to counter the Chinese menace and spread her democratic values around the world. The only possible news better than this right now would be, "Bush back for third term!"

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

China and the US will never go to war. But because of their size, Australia obviously feels the need to team up with the US to protect their interests. There's nothing at all wrong with this and the Aussies are doing it because they feel it's in their best interests to do so. You'd have to be an ass to think the Aussies would decide to handle the Chinese territorial issues on their own. They want to create the most ideal position to protect their interests since China obviously isn't going to decide to play fair because they are a bunch of nice guys.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is a game of thrones in which certain bodies will always want to have hegemony over the rest of the world.It is purely about economy and control.Control of resources,land,technology,free speech and mainly,money. I wouldn't even say it was the West but big banks, the UN, big companies and big pharma. Events are created to keep us all conforming and fitting into the new plan. The USA owes a lot of debt to China.Debt that willl never be paid off.It is kind of amusing that you could consider nuclear weapons as conventional warfare but neither China nor the USA could win that war without basically blowing the world to smithereens.China seems to be edging USA in the space race.They are more than capable of winning a cyber war. The USA on the other hand, has the power to pull the plug on the internet, and also has HAARP technology.I am not going to go as far as some of the loons that infer the USA creates quakes and typhoons, but that HAARP tech is definitely not being designed for humanitarian reasons...not with that kind of money and effort being thrown into it...merely causing the Yangtze river or yellow river to flood would be catastrophic...likewise creating massive droughts and causing starvation on a massive level. Tibet,India,Vietnam and South Korea and recently the Philippines might consider China to be a bully. The USA would be considered a bully by maybe 3/4 of the planet. :) deserved or undeserved Equally,many nations would have good reason to fear Japan based on past events. it depends on your viewpoint. What is for sure is that the "War on Terror" is done and dusted...no real gains were made..the same pieces are still in place and if anything, the gulf between Islamic and non-Islamic worlds have grown wider.The combatant nations including my own cannot wait to get out of Afghanistan which has become this generation's Vietnam.Even with OBL gone, a war against an invisible enemy just becomes a cat and mouse game in which the citizens are kept scared and tit for tat guerilla warfare continues.The Arab Spring happened, the West welcomed mostly Islamicists in their fights and created the context for future invasions and land grabs.France and UK got into Libya and eventually the war on 'Islam' oops..terror will continue against the Shehab in Somalia and the Al Qaida in Nigeria and other despots in Africa... ...where China has quite comfortably set up shop doing the unforgivable thing of plundering African resources and treating Africans like dirt...wait...hasn't that happened before? Why should China get all of that oil and gold and rare earth..list goes on.. Still, the world needs an evil enemy with a face and the machinations of the likes of the Rockerfellers and Halliburton will give it to them.No wonder China feels it must protect itself...and no doubt we will see China be forced into bed with other "Pariah" states like Iran and Venezuela, as well as Russia and North Korea.

Blaming the USA is too simplistic...the idea of countries running things now is a thin concept. The chess pieces are set in place and the pawns are being moved.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Who's going to pay for this?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Raymasaki

also don't say the US is "war mongering" china is the one building up military

china is the war monger here

and the US isint building up their military? your logic fails. the US spends more on their military than any other country in the world. they invaded more country than any other. without a doubt, the US is THE MOST military aggressive nation in the world since ww2. not just that, look at all the times CIA has infiltrated other countries and topple democratically elected governments, and replace it with a pro-US/puppet. the US is the biggest threat to world peace.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Go Go usa!!!!! Good news.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

china has NO actually Enemies

neither does the US. the soviet union collapsed, yet that didnt stop them from building their military and expanding their bases worldwide. what you got to say about that huh?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Australia obviously feels the need to team up with the US to protect their interests

this is hilarious. and what is australia's 'interests'? china and australia have no territorial disputes. china is autralia's largest trading partner. australia needs china to keep buying their iron ore and coal. it was thanks to china that australia escaped the global financial crisis. so tell me, what 'interests' does the australians need the US to protect?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

this is hilarious. and what is australia's 'interests'? china and australia have no territorial disputes. china is autralia's largest trading partner. australia needs china to keep buying their iron ore and coal. it was thanks to china that australia escaped the global financial crisis. so tell me, what 'interests' does the australians need the US to protect?

ONLY FOR SELFDEFENCE. If you do not know the meaning then ask China....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

They needed something new to put fear into us. It won't work this time. Or maybe they need money and need to sell more weapons to China and a few other countries. I feel sorry for China who is trying its best to save the world and is getting stabbed in the back.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ONLY FOR SELFDEFENCE. If you do not know the meaning then ask China....

self defence? on what evidence? exactly what does australia need to defend from china? if self defence can be an excuse, then china's military build up can be justified due to the expanding american military presence in asia. how about that huh?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

jackieng: the US spends more on their military than any other country in the world. they invaded more country than any other. without a doubt, the US is THE MOST military aggressive nation in the world since ww2.

It's this type of simplistic analysis that keeps the majority of the people in the world stupid. The US leads the world in spending so when action is required it's obviously the US who is going to take the lead. Or were you expecting the EU to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? They couldn't even handle Gaddafi without US help, and I'm sure you're counting Libya as yet another country the US has attacked. What about the former Yugoslavia? The US took the lead once again because no one else was able to handle it because they don't spend the money to put themselves into position to handle it, even though it was in Europe's sphere of influence. The US "attacked" Somalia as well to help stop warlords from stealing aid. Yet another attack, eh? Don't forget about Grenada.

You can obviously count military operations that you don't agree with, but don't treat us like we're stupid and simply "count attacks" and say it's aggression. You've obviously trying to peddle bullshit.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The US leads the world in spending so when action is required it's obviously the US who is going to take the lead.

haha yea right! we all know its to protect AMERICAN INTERESTS. the americans didnt mind shaking hands with saddam back in the 80's and assisted him in weapons when it suited their interests. the americans didnt mind teaming with gadaffi to secretly torture suspects when it suited their interests. the americans didnt mind backing mubarak for 30yrs, suppressing his own people of egypt, when it suited their interests. yugoslavia? you mean the bombing of the country which resulted in hundreds of civiilans deaths, and thelegitimacy of the bombing was even questioned? the US always gets involved in conflicts that suited their interests. hey, what are you going to do about the israeli-occupied territories? why dont your military get involved like you always do? oh wait...israel is your best friend....

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Ty NeilsonSEP. 16, 2011 - 03:36PM JST @southsakai - American has no interest in the protection of the world and it's people. America's sole interest is economical... They will happily force their perception of democracy on countries that they can either sell weapons to, put strategic military bases on or are rich in natural resources that would benefit the pockets US companies and politicians. While I take my hat off the ALL ALLIED TROOPS (NOT JUST AMERICAN-THERE IS MORE TO THE WORLD THAN JUST AMERICA) who lose their lives, so that politicians and foreign companies can further their own interests. Let's not forget Afghanistan is mineral rich, and companies are jockey for the lucrative contracts to mine those minerals in abundance!!! I am not anti-USA I am anti-US foreign policy and their global bully for oil profits under the guise of delivering so called democracy!!!

Ty firstly Thank you for your comment. I respect your opinion. Secondly my bad that I always forget to refer to allied folks ( Men and Women ) from many countries around the world. Not just America. You're absolutely right and my sincerest Thank you to all our Allies serving to protect us and keeping us safe.

That being said, in regards to America invading countries for it's own economic benefits and gains. You may be right but this is not always the case. Also take note that Wars cost a lot of money. To invade a country to free it's people from tyrants and dictators is a huge cost.

Of course America has to think what's it to gain from any foreign invasion. Any country would, Any reasonable person would.

When America invaded Iraq to take Saddam down, I had told my friends, the Iraqis should pay the cost of the operation with it's oil reserves.

Same goes for Afghanistan, As America and it's allies try to free the Afghan people from the oppressive Taliban, the Afghans should pay for the cost of this war through it's rich mineral deposits.

I never except American of Allied Tax Payers to foot the bill. After all they are already putting their own Men and Women in harms way for another's freedom.

How the Iraqi's, Afghans and people of other invaded countries take the invasion is a different matter. Peoples minds are too far apart, too different and people only pick on the negative actions of any country to pull themselves down.

If I was an Iraqi, I'd say hey! It's great news, we are free people now. Now let's Thank the Allies by guaranteeing and supplying them Oil for a decade or so! It's our way of saying Thank you.

Now that we are free, let's work hard and build a great country where everyone will be free and have opportunity and freedom of speech and higher education and a better standard of living.

Unfortunately most people don't think that way. I think if people would think in that direction, we would be living in a better place. Regardless I respect your opinion. Thank you

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The true reason for war, however it is rationalised by the government of the time, is to protect national interests - intrests which change with time. Australia and the United States have similar values, which is why there is a closer natural affinity and closer ties that have existed since Australia became a federated nation in its own right. That isn't to say close ties cannot be made with China - Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minster, diplomat in China and now current Foreign Minister has advocated them in public (while privately expressing his disdain with dealing with Chinese bureaucracy).

Konsta said @ Sep. 16, 2011 - 08:12PM JST

---For one, it will only increase real tensions with China, China's military preparations and expenses. China is also very worried about obscene US presence in the region. Thus, it will only decrease Japanese security and increase Chinese threat, and may even make it real. Do you need it, JapanGal? ---For two, the new US presence may produce US intervention into some local war on terror/democracy/etc., in which Japan will be inevitably involved financially or physically. Would you like to pay, what if? ---For three, the US will use that base to ALWAYS press Japanese government with the threat to relocate there US troops, which are stationed in Japan now. Not all of them, but enough to diminish Japanese security. Which will lead to either that Japan will do everything the US wants or again decreased security and increased threat (taking into consideration point 1). Maybe you do need that? ---For four, It's just in general strange to welcome increased military presence. Smart countries try to agree with neighbors peacefully. See examples of Europe and the US themselves.

All valid points. I counter the first point by highlighting the strong economic ties between not only AUS/US and China but also Japan. However I acknowledge that any action perceived as aggresion (and a perception, not a reality is all that is required) will be countered with sanctions and trade restrictions, such as those that occured after the incident in near the Senkaku/Diaoyu border, where China cut off the supply of rare metals until Japan backed down. Rather than direct conflict, see this strengthening of the alliance as a chess move; a political move - China may complain, not for rational reasons, but because they have to maintain face, even though they know they would do the same in the same situation. Rebutting the other points, they don't refer directly to the situation in Japan, so I don't see the relevance, other than that this article is on a Japan oriented forum. Feel free to elaborate so I can agree or disagree.

jackieng @Sep. 16, 2011 - 11:26PM JST

this is hilarious. and what is australia's 'interests'? china and australia have no territorial disputes. china is autralia's largest trading partner. australia needs china to keep buying their iron ore and coal. it was thanks to china that australia escaped the global financial crisis. so tell me, what 'interests' does the australians need the US to protect?

One of the tenets of democracy, in both US and Australia is respect for human rights - something that has been liberally interpreted in the past, where suited I agree. This has enabled the deals with dictators that you have mentioned in the other posts. It also enabled the allied powers to counter the expansion of autocratic empires in the World Wars. So physically no interests are being infringed upon by China's military and economic growth. But many citizens of both the US and Australia oppose the crackdown on minorities in Xinjiang/Uighur provences, occupation in Tibet, and perhaps most alarming, the detaining of Australian citizens for extended periods of time without notifying embassies/consulates after pressing charges. These fall under the banner of national interests, and will be defended, albeit sometimes in a very superficial manner. If you disagree, I wish to know why.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Australia is important allies but they are located in such a distant location from potential conflict areas of Southeast Asia, and U.S. ships will take many days to get to destination. Better stragic location to counter China's expanding Navy is for U.S. military to work with Philipino goverment and set up a defense base there. Philipino's need to money and jobs. The time has changed from 20 years ago, when U.S. left Subic, and maybe, they need to look at the same sites that is still in place.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

southsakai, you touched a very important point. I would like to ask you several questions. They may look provocative, but it is not intended, so I apologize in advance:

Do you agree that the current head of Afghanistan state, Karzai, is the choice of Afghani people, and he would win free elections over Taliban, if those would be possible?

Do you agree that the current "recognized" Muslim government of Libya, which includes members of Al-Qaeda among other terrorists is a democratic representation of Libyan people, which will follow democratic principles and not repress them further?

Do you agree that the current regime in Iraq was chosen by people and will lead the country to democracy and prosperity Japanese style? Same question (prosperity) holds for Afghanistan, Libya and in the future for Syria?

I am very curious. Thank you in advance for your replies.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

andrewfx51Sep. 17, 2011 - 03:45AM JST. Rather than direct conflict, see this strengthening of the alliance as a chess move; ...

I totally agree. It is a chess move. However, I am not an idealist like you. I do not see it as a strengthening of the alliance. I see it as a creation of a backup base for a possible retreat to a safe spot and far away from the future hotspot with net negative effect for Japanese security and political independence.

andrewfx51Sep. 17, 2011 - 03:45AM JST. ... a political move - China may complain, not for rational reasons, but because they have to maintain face, ...

Sorry, I can't operate in this terms. I disagree. For every rational move, China will reply with a rational response. They are mature nation, who understand how things work.

andrewfx51Sep. 17, 2011 - 03:45AM JST.Rebutting the other points, they don't refer directly to the situation in Japan, so I don't see the relevance, other than that this article is on a Japan oriented forum. Feel free to elaborate so I can agree or disagree.

I am sorry that you do not see relevance to Japan. We have different vision, then. I see positive effect for Australian security, negative effect for Japanese security and more operational freedom for the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope China does not fall for this kind of arms race, it is just a big waste of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!! As long as China does not mess around with say, Vietnam, where Ho Chi Minh City a.k.a. Saigon is asking the USA NAVY to come in and have joint US/VIETNAM naval operations, too let the Chinese to keep their hands of Vietnam, since the Chinese for thousands of years have always dreamed of taking over Vietnam, ask any Vietnamese what they think about China and the Chinese, or for that matter ask most of China's neighbors, as long as it is only $$$$ no problem, but China has too many people and when they taking over smaller countries like Malaysia, yes Malaysia, then took over what is now SINGAPORE aha, yes many of you all here do not remember when that tip of the Malaysian peninsula was not another country but part of Malaysia right?? Too many Chinese took over that area, had a war with Kuala Lumpur, so the other Asian countries can only be afraid that if the Chinese did this in Malaysia and made a new country there called Singapore, well, it could happen not just Malaysia but other Asian countries and heck anywhere in the world, including SEVERELY under populated Australia??

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

America's sole interest is economical...

It may be true. My mentor who was a smart economist told me many years ago when I was a college student if we all learn how to put up with hunger, then the world would be a better place to live without wars. A simple quote with full of wisdom and truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the 2006 census, the number of people identifying themselves as Chinese in Sydney was 7.1% of the total population. I don't have figures that are more up to date than that, but from what I saw in January, when I was there last, I would say that it has increased enormously.

Australia is the playground of rich Chinese and many of them are buying land and settling there.

Economically, China is doing very nicely, the U.S.A., not so.

In fact, the U.S.A. is very heavily in debt to China.

I wonder what the Australian Chinese are going to think of Aussie military getting into bed with the US Armed forces?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

johninnaha

I wonder what the Australian Chinese are going to think of Aussie military getting into bed with the US Armed forces?

John, dont know if you realise it or not but the Australian military has as you put it been in bed with the US since WW2. Australia already hosts US bases. Australia holds military exercises and exchange programs with the US and also plays host to numerous visiting warships throughout the year. What difference will some propositioned equipment and extra troops make. If it increases stability in the region thats good. As for the Australian Chinese, they need to realise they live in Australia not China so if they dont like the increase they can always jump on the first available plane and head back to China

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Jackieng: haha yea right! we all know its to protect AMERICAN INTERESTS.

And we all know Australia is on board to protect Australian interests. They share a common goal so they are working with the US to protect their interests. You make it sound as if the US is forcing cooperation onto Australia so we can be the aggressors which it utterly stupid. Just about every country around China is aligning themselves with the US because they have a fear of Chinese intentions. If the US pulled that off by forcing these countries to work against their own interests then you must think the US is pretty badass. Even the Vietnamese are working with the US and to think they are doing so because they US is forcing them to just makes you sound like you have no grasp on reality. The relationship is mutually beneficial so both countries are agreeing to it. If China would learn to cooperate then the countries surrounding China would have to no interest in working with the US unless they want to pick a fight with China which is, once again, utterly stupid. Countries in SE Asia are running to the US for support because they obviously feel Chna is the aggressor, not the US. If this is news to you then you're utterly lost.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes, America is bankrupt and the way things are going will become a second world country. Yes US of A has no business expanding their military influence into Australia. What really tick me off that the comments here that reflect that general direction and marked as BAD. Wake up who ever you are, from what ever part of this otherwise wonderful planet. I leave in USA, I see, and hear, and know that decision to be ridiculous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What really tick me off that the comments here that reflect that general direction and marked as BAD. Wake up who ever you are, from what ever part of this otherwise wonderful planet. I leave in USA, I see, and hear, and know that decision to be ridiculous.

Arizonski, you have lost me here. What are you saying? I live in USA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not just Australia that wants US protection.

Australia is part of the commonwealth.All the nations in it want US help and pretection.So China gets slapped down.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Liebermann2012,

All the nations in it want US help and protection.

That is not correct.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Tell Hillary to change the routes of their own and their ally satellites in space, there will be another round of 'territroiral disputes of soverignity in space! You know we are a 'non-Kawaii state' when your 'eyes' peeping from outer atmoshpere!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are Sun and Moon in your territory, just-a-guy? LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia is part of the commonwealth.

Do you mean the Commonwealth, that used to be the British Empire?

In which case, the U.S.A. has NOTHING to do with it, having opted out way back in 1776!

All the nations in it want US help and pretection.

Protection, as in:

"Give us a fiver, guv, and we'll protect your car for yer! If yer don't, yer never know what might 'appen. Tires get nicked a lot round 'ere!"

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I still don't understand why they call "aggression" "defense."

A euphemism, I suppose.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Smile topic!

Am I right understand that USA run from Okinawa to Australia? Great news! USA afraid of China! USA make digressions under power of China!

Japan would be alone to China.

Politics elite of Japan and Noda must worried about it! That is problem for strategic security of Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BessonovYanSep. 19, 2011 - 05:03AM JST... Am I right understand that USA run from Okinawa to Australia?...

That is what, I suppose, they are going to do. However, they are not going to run (relocate) there just yet, but play that tactical card against some stubborn nations.

On the other hand (it is a fantasy, of course), if India will drop its neutrality status and join the anti-China campaign, Australia may be a center of a new Asian NATO. Australia is much better for that purpose than a non-militarized Japan. This will be very fortunate for Japan, I suppose. Surprisingly, it will be also good for Russia (just for your info, ;) ) and for the US. It will be only problematic for China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@KonstaSep. 20, 2011 - 01:22AM JST

I sure that USA relocates to Australia because that is need China. China is creditor, USA is debtor. Debtor doing that want creditor. USA and China don't want military conflicts. They play a game and save own faces. USA also need sell debs to Japan and not want lose own face but need Japanese credits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BessonovYanSep. 20, 2011 - 03:59AM JST. I sure that USA relocates to Australia because that is need China. China is creditor, USA is debtor. Debtor doing that want creditor. USA and China don't want military conflicts. They play a game and save own faces. USA also need sell debs to Japan and not want lose own face but need Japanese credits.

I don't know if it is that simple. The US will never do what China wants, unless it is in US interests. However, it is clear that the US will never engage China directly. Asian NATO, however, can be created for just that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"CptCrunchSep. 16, 2011 - 05:56PM JST ; And Japan? They got land claims more far-fetched than China!"

No they dont.. China has 17 territorial disputes with it's neighbors. None of which are supported by any other countries. Japan has 4. Of these 4, Japan's position on the Senkakus is supported by the United States. On the Northern Territories, Japan's position is supported by the U.S., U.K. and the EU. Best not to post total nonsense.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yes, OssanAmerica, it is best not to post total nonsense. The support, you have listed, is a parliamentary support, which has no real value and follows current political agenda. Legally, the US supports status quo (also defined in the documents), otherwise it would be obliged, for example, to attack Russia based on the defense treaty with Japan. Besides, since when the US support is a measure of truth? And the numbers mean nothing. Seriously...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

China has 17 territorial disputes with it's neighbors.

Not surprising since China actually has land neighbors. But what was said was not about disputes, but rather, ridiculous land claims.

None of which are supported by any other countries.

Why would they be?

Japan has 4.

For a country surrounded by ocean, that is a lot!

Japan's position on the Senkakus is supported by the United States.

Well isn't that special! Might have something to do with Japan being a protectorate country?

On the Northern Territories, Japan's position is supported by the U.S., U.K. and the EU.

Which is odd for the U.S. and the U.K., being as they gave those to Russia at Potsdam and the simple fact that Russia has held them for over 65 years. The claim by Japan is ridiculous.

Then we have Dokdo which is also a ridiculous claim by Japan and your skirting it speaks volumes. Doubly so since the U.S. supports South Korea in that one.

And we got Okinotorishima which is just blatant desperate insanity for Japan to try and call islands and belonging to them.

What was said was that Japan has land claims more far-fetched than China. Not all of them, but some of them obviously.

Best not to post total nonsense.

Those are words you really should remember.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This is what happens when China puts fear into its neighbors.........

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

lostrune2Sep. 20, 2011 - 05:11PM JST. This is what happens when China puts fear into its neighbors.........

What happens? The US expands its military? The US doesn't need Chinese incentive for that.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@KonstaSep. 20, 2011 - 04:27AM JST

USA dependents from China. As I know some decisions of USA doing for China. I sure that topic action for China only. USA drop Japan to China. My prognoses that sometime Okinawa see Chinese navy would be more really. That is easy logic: USA debtor, China creditor. Politics of USA don't want start anarchy in USA and lose it. They will sell own debt to the world and do that doing while resources of the world not end. China need more wide are in Asia region because USA drop Japan. I sure that after two years YuriOtani would told to us: "I not see USA nave, but I see Chinese navy". Japanese politics elite haven't many time for meet new reality. After two years they would remember fly of our Tu-95MC as comfortable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China has too many people and when they taking over smaller countries like Malaysia, yes Malaysia, then took over what is now SINGAPORE aha, yes many of you all here do not remember when that tip of the Malaysian peninsula was not another country but part of Malaysia right?? Too many Chinese took over that area, had a war with Kuala Lumpur..................................

utter rubbish ! go to library and check out just one volume on Singapore history. PLEASE

0 ( +1 / -1 )

BessonovYan, I don't think that Okinawans would like to see Chinese more than Japanese. Okinawa is de facto Japanese land now, as well as de jure. Okinawa is not a small disputed piece of rock. China will not dare.

Both China and Japan are very important to the US economy. I don't see that the US will give up on Japan for China. The US base in Okinawa is actually a pretty good thing from the point of view of regional security. Not all American presence in the world is negative. The place, however, is becoming too hot for the US, so they might diminish their presence in Japan and S.Korea (they will not remove it completely), and give more support for local nations to fight. This may be somewhat good for Japan, as it will play a more active regional role as a leader.

What people tend to forget here, is that Chinese prosperity is also 100% US dependent. China will not do stupid things to the US and its allies.

And, BessonovYan, its Tu-95MS and not Tu-95MC, just fyi. ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Konsta Sep. 21, 2011 - 07:30AM JST. Both China and Japan are very important to the US economy. I don't see that the US will give up on Japan for China.

The difference is that U.S. military can separates the economic connections with China. Since the Iraq war is winding down, the U.S. main focus is in Asia. U.S. will be playing hardball in South China Sea. China only understands force and U.S. is quietly working with all the neighboring countries around China. This is a reason why U.S. decided last week to make a annoncement on upgrading the F-16's to Taiwan to piss off the Chinese. Taiwan has bunch of F-16's which has become an potent offensive weapon. The containment of China is a main focus for U.S. and they are not scared to create a imaginary conflict is needed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I keep reading in comments of the need for an asian NATO.

There used to be SEATO.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330Sep. 21, 2011 - 08:23AM JST ... The containment of China is a main focus for U.S. and they are not scared to create a imaginary conflict is needed.

If they will do create it, it will be a true disaster. China is a real thing. It is not even Iran. As the result, they will get another Russia-Georgia type of conflict, where China will get its new land and the US will abandon its allies. And a lot of countries will silently support China. And, after a year everything will calm down with a new status quo. I hope Taiwan knows, what it is doing, increasing offense, because it will be the first...

Asian nations should try their best to calm the situation, and not to escalate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Konsta..Your right, China is a real thing. However, do U.S. want to wait 10-15 years when China's military capabilities might be equal or surpass the U.S.? Military strategist differ to the impact of China's problem in short and long term. Timing is very important in getting the upper hand in military stategy by the U.S. for containment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lostrune2 Sep. 20, 2011 - 05:11PM JST. This is what happens when China puts fear into its neighbors.........

What happens? The US expands its military? The US doesn't need Chinese incentive for that.

The neighboring countries invite the US to expand to them, opening the doors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yey, Go the US. Go Down Under, and enlighten the propaganda that is settling in there while youre at it. Tax them Aussies too; the good lord knows that the ones that would pay the most would be mostly foreigners anyhow. Time they paid their share of freedom. And if China has too many people, Australia has a tonne of land to share. The Chinese and their pay-pocket, it would seem, is more welcome than the unpaying type of people that are running from some oppression-the good lord knows who they might be comparing with??-and expect if they use all their monies to get to Australia their is the taxes to cover them being set-up there.....So China flooding Australia is not a problem; it's been done before, for all those countries who would say China has too many people and they overtake your land. Of course while we all do the right thing here, we can ignore the gender issues that play into construction hands, might as well ignore a pack of liars, who want you to believe that land is scarce, and materials limited. The good lord knows theyve manipulated the net so that you cant see that info for yourself; so lets just focus on the numbers then. In the meantime the US will keep the language balanced in that area down under, where all sorts of words of banal influence grow to portions of such dryness that only the Australian dessert can handle :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@OssanAmerica

Ah, common sense returns...

Good to see you OssanAmerica!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The truth is that no-one in the region wants to be the lone chicken picked off by a hungry chinese fox. No-one is saying America is some kind of perfect angel, but at least is mostly a decent country and offers the hand of protection in exchange for some small favours here and there. Certainly, letting America have bases in their country has made South Korea and Japan safer from external threats and being influenced by the sole remaining superpower has lead to some incredible economic growth. Of course, I'd love a safer world and for all this money to go into schools and hospitals rather than battlefields, but smart strategic thinking means you have to be ready for the unthinkable. It's actually a lot cheaper to work with America rather than try and build up an independent deterrent, a kind of pooling of resources.

Though for all this, this is a two-edged sword for the Australian conscience. Positioned far from the events of the rest of the world, there must be a natural instinct to call for pacifism and a return to civilised norms, even when the cultures confronting each other are so different. If the US does use Australia as a launchpad for a colonial war of 'liberation' (a big if, as much of their actions in this region have been humanitarian in nature), it will be hard for Australia to keep a distance from it. They are traditionally strong allies of the US, so it would be unlikely they'd want to, but they might this way be more strongly involved than otherwise. I personally think it's worth the risk and worth trusting America to let them keep the freedom to opt out of any operations they conscientiously object to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yes I agree; it is now. The distance can be felt, and the time to build on those ties is now. America will benefit from the communications that happen in that area, instead of a undermining effect, which you can start to see already. Australia will benefit from being bought closer to world conscience-there is a lot more going on in various avenues of major players in society-I mentioned construction, but also medicine-in Australia that is already at a dangerous level of politics. It would be wise to hurry this move along-and in fact, you could thank China for beng a little bit bully-like, in order for this connection to be strengthened in an orderly manner, and without seeming aggressive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@KonstaSep. 21, 2011 - 07:30AM JST

China haven't some reasons and motives for attack Okinawa. China need peace with Japan, because China need hi-tech and competition. May be Japan would have some risks of military conflict with China if Japan lose hi-tech leadership in the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BessonovYan, I agree that it is against mutual interests to pick a fight between Japan and China. As you may have noticed, I also insistently vouch for much better relationships between Japan and Russia. I have my own view of Russia's importance for both, Europe and Asia, as an ally. I also think that Japan would be better off with the real army and without the US presence. But, that is a whole another story.

But, back to "Chinese threat". It is simple, really. You can not move away from China, it is always there. And, you can't prevent or control its development. At least not while China is the main trading partner of the US, you (Japan) and and the rest of the world. Thus, it really pays to have good relationships with China, and it will be too expensive and stupid to live in confrontation. I think, that Japan may actually want good relationships with China, but there are always small countries like Philippines, which are backed by the US. Hence, a direct analogy with the Russia-Georgia conflict. Such countries can ignite a small war out of stupidity and a false impression of invulnerability having the US support.

I am pretty sure that if Japan would not "step in" here and there in between, then China would not "step in" either. Everything else can be solved by talking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@KonstaSep. 26, 2011 - 05:28AM JST

Hence, a direct analogy with the Russia-Georgia conflict.

I'm sorry, but Japan is thirth economic in the world. Japan had change the wold for last 20 century. But Georgia is criminal Kavkaz area. Really Geogia is not state. Because I can't compare great Japan nation and criminal Kavkaz area.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Neither did I. I was paralleling China to Russia and Philippines to Georgia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites