The series Blackadder, set in World War 1, was full of farce built around black humour. In the final episode it has been determined by High Command to send those involved to go “over the top” in a hopeless race toward German machine-guns. The night before they are visited by their commanding general who pompously informs them that when they go tomorrow, High Command will be “right behind them” to which their captain replies, “yes, about 30 miles behind us.”
Being hung out to dry is never a pleasant experience. That, however, is likely to be the case for Australia which is being set up by its close US ally to take on China. Put aside for the moment the stupidity of Australian political leadership being convinced that they should antagonise our largest trading partner, one upon whom the economic well-being of the nation is highly dependent.
This antagonising of China at the behest of our US masters seemingly is done on the assumption that the US has our back. Every effort is being made by Australia to convince ourselves that is the case, with more and more real estate being handed over to the US military, US spy bases, dishonestly called “Joint Facilities” being permitted to carry out their nefarious activities, while the AUKUS agreement makes out that the US and the UK are going to share their latest technology with Australia. Like a newly bulked-up teenager, Australia is seemingly prepared to “take on the world”, or at least that part of it defined in a Manichaean type duality as “evil”.
But how reliable is that backing? Will it stand the test when needed, or will Australia, after being set up, be left to face the music? Will those who urged Australia to take this stance be, not 30 miles, but 12,000 kilometres behind?
It may have been a good question for those in Ukraine to have raised. It may be a good question for those in the Philippines, who likewise are being primed under pliant leadership to take on China, to ask.
Of course, the ANZUS Treaty, on which much of this is premised, is popularly viewed as an iron-clad guarantee of support from the US if Australia is in danger. It is, however, anything but, offering rather only “consultation”. At least the Philippines, in its sabre-rattling against China, is guaranteed US support if attacked, though they would be foolish to rely on it, particularly under a likely isolationist US, led by Donald Trump.
The Australian response to the limited guarantee of the ANZUS Treaty has been to continually offer our unquestioning loyalty as a downpayment (witness Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) in the hope that the US will favourably respond to any call for help. This reasoning is also behind the increasing acceptance of US military facilities on our soil. Supposedly, the hosting of such will make Australia indispensable to US interests. It is all a type of insurance game.
One wonders what causes Australia to have such insecurity, to maintain a belief that we live in a region of instability and danger, when in actuality the last Asian war was nearly a half century ago. Still, this fear lodges irrationally deep in the Australian psyche. Maybe it has a deep-rooted, though often subconscious, basis in that we know it is we who were the invaders.
In this, let us now put ourselves in China’s shoes. How does China view Australia, a US ally, meddling in their affairs as we, with ever-increasing provocative flights and sailings skirting the Chinese coast, incessantly “poke the dragon”? The whole rationale of AUKUS, with its nuclear-propelled submarines, is precisely that. Picture a scenario of China finally becoming tired of that (and who could blame them; imagine China encircling and provoking the US out of military bases in Central America and the Caribbean) and, with their increasingly powerful military, deciding to do so something about it. Which country is the more likely to suffer their wrath? China is unlikely to risk a conflict with the US. Far more likely with Australia, which will then be left as a sacrificial pawn.
Of course, AUKUS, as the current play, will fall over (the US can’t build enough Virginia class submarines for their own needs, while given ship-building difficulties in the UK, the AUKUS Class submarines are but a pipe dream), though not before milking Australian coffers for British and US shipyards. I doubt it is even serious policy, but rather a cover for the real goal of having US, and perhaps UK, navies and submarines based in Australian ports, the excuse being made, that having tied itself up so tightly to AUKUS, Australia, that having failed and therefore left vulnerable, must come under the direct protection of its close Anglo allies.
If such a situation eventuates, Australia would have totally sold out its sovereignty. One may ask, have we no national pride?
That is preferable only to the alternative, Australia sacrificed in US “forward defence”, our allies safe thousands of kilometres away.
As Henry Kissinger said, “it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal”.
Clearly a smarter option for Australia would be to cast off our irrational fear concerning our geographic position, and, standing on our own feet, live confidently in a region shaping to be the 21st century economic powerhouse.
After two centuries of being first a British, and then a US colony, it is time to for Australia, letting go of the apron-strap, to walk its own path.
John Queripel is a Newcastle-based historian, theologian, social commentator and published author of three books. His blog may be found at www.johnqueripelblog.com.
Substack / https://johnqueripel.substack.com
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
