Australians oppose taking sides in US-China conflict. But weak Oz politicians are offside.
12 November 2024
PAUL KEATING *
SYDNEY - A Resolve Political Monitor poll published in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald makes clear that the Australian community at large possesses a contrary view to the foreign policy priorities of the Albanese government and its predecessor under Scott Morrison.
On the significant question of whether Australia should avoid taking sides in any conflict between the US and China, fifty-seven (57%) of those polled agreed that Australia should avoid taking sides in any such conflict with but sixteen per cent (16%) in favour.
These polling numbers, taken by a reputable pollster on a large sample, make completely clear that the public does not endorse any military engagement by Australia as party to a military dispute arising between the United States and China.
In other words, the public in its common sense, is peering through the haze of exaggerated strategic risks and the notional ‘China threat’ to dramatically affirm that Australia and Australians should have no part of a major military dust-up in East Asia between the major powers.
But that view, so clearly affirmed in this polling, is utterly at odds with the military commitment the Albanese government has made to allow the US to base four nuclear attack class submarines in Perth and seven or eight nuclear armed B-52 bombers south of Darwin.
These weapons, in all likelihood, would be central to any military exchange between the United States and China in the region, decisions about which Australia would have no part other than perhaps, being politely consulted by the United States before their employment.
So, very hard for Australia ‘to avoid taking sides in any conflict between the US and China’ when Australia will have already outsourced its real estate to the US military for use at its singular decision.
This is the kind of jeopardy that arises from a strategically-addled policy consciousness – the confused fear of abandonment central to the foreign policy acquiescence of the Albanese and Morrison governments.
It was the Abbott government in 2014 that signed the Force Posture Agreement with the United States, which ceded control of certain military operations by the United States to the United States from Australian territory.
Those options have now been subject to lock-in by the Albanese government in agreeing to both host and base US nuclear attack class submarines and nuclear armed B-52 bombers. And none of it with the explicit agreement of the Australian community – a community that was never consulted as these lock-in arrangements were put into place.
Despite this, today’s Herald Resolve poll makes clear that the public wants no part of it and provides no authority for it.
* Paul Keating is a former prime minister of Australia
Instead of discarding Adolf Hitler's legacy many of the world's politicians, especially those who consider themselves most enlightened, have in fact become his heirs.
(A N Wlson - Hitler-A Short Biography, 2012)
Posted by: Bernard Corden | 13 November 2024 at 08:55 PM
Perils of 1942 are less understood in 2024.
Posted by: Lindsay F Bond | 13 November 2024 at 08:27 AM
In the series 'Yes Prime Minister' it debunks the process of polling and explains how results can be skewed by asking the right questions.
It is quite clear that ex PM's and politicians have barrows to push, irrespective of which side of politics they come from or who they favour for whatever reasons. Isn't it amazing how Australia is always put on the defensive by those who turn a huge personal blind eye to their so called mates who are really the major problem?
Public opinion is notoriously fickle and can change with the wind, depending, as Lord Palmerston put it, due to 'circumstances' at the time.
There is no evidence that any nuclear devices (read munitions) are actually stored in or taken to Australia. Who knows however what lurks beneath our own waters since we have virtually dispensed with any real defence hardware and deterrence in order to fund political promises and election sweeteners.
For those who aren't aware of the difference, nuclear power is not about bombs. Is the peaceful generation of electricity that almost everyone except Australia, who has been lucky enough to have a large share of potential fuel available, now turns to in order to slow down global warming.
Our Pacific friends should think about where Australia obtains the funds to help them and try to reduce the impact of global warming.
Successive COP 'talkfests' are just that and have done zilch in reducing the onset of feared global warming since they are basically conducted by those who are doing the 'heavy lifting' of burning fossil fuels. PNG pulling out of the latest is a good, practical example.
I see uranium is now classified as a 'rare earth'. It has thus been referred to as very valuable commodity. When our coal and gas reserves are spurned or turned down, due to future punitive sanctions (e.g. rock lobsters, wine etc.) and our national income plummets, wait till someone starts screaming about our export incomes and how they support the average but fragile standard on living in Oz.
Posted by: Paul Oates | 12 November 2024 at 08:33 AM