Australia Looks To Its Own/ Is US dominance in the Pacific Waning?

[Exarch]

Once upon a time in the big big pond that is the pacific ocean, there lived Big America Fish and little Australia Fish and all the other little Asian fishes in the pond; and Big America Fish was content and happy to maintain its own peace with the other fishes (so long as it didnt threaten its own supremacy) if the rest of the other Fishes, Asian and non-Asian alike kowtowed to Big America Fishes' overlordship.

that is, until one day, hibernating China Fish woke up and decided it needed a bigger defence force to police its own borders and commercial interests. Naturally this made Australia fishie crap its pants and unveil its China threat plan:

Australia to boost military might: government
Amy Coopes

May 2, 2009
Australia will spend more than 70 billion US US dollars boosting its defences over the next 20 years in response to a regional military build-up and global shifts in power, the government said.
A long-term strategic blueprint for the future of Australia's armed forces warned that war could be possible in the Asia-Pacific region in the next two decades, as emerging powers such as China flexed their military might.
The United States would continue its military dominance and be an "indispensable" ally for Australia, the defence white paper said.
But as emerging or resurgent powers such as China, India and Russia tested US primacy, the paper said there was "a small but still concerning possibility of growing confrontation between some of these powers."
"China will be the strongest Asian military power, by a considerable margin," the paper said. "A major power of China's stature can be expected to develop a globally significant military capability befitting its size.
"But the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern if not carefully explained, and if China does not reach out to others to build confidence regarding its military plans," it said.
If it did not take these steps, the paper said, there would be "a question in the minds of regional states about the long-term strategic purpose of its force development plans, particularly as the modernisation appears potentially to be beyond the scope of what would be required for a conflict over Taiwan.
"China will have even more interest in convincing regional countries that its rise will not diminish their sovereignty," the paper said.
Greater engagement with Beijing was essential for encouraging transparency about Chinese military capabilities and intentions, and securing greater cooperation in areas of shared interest, the paper said.
China's Premier Wen Jiabao in March vowed to modernise his nation's military across the board, asking legislators for a 15.3 percent increase in defence spending for 2009 to 472.9 billion yuan (69 billion US dollars) -- double 2006 funding levels.
The global financial crisis was likely to accelerate a shift of power to the Asia-Pacific, and regional security would pivot on how strategic dynamics were managed between the US, China and Japan, the blueprint said.
A major conflict on the Korean peninsula remained a possibility, and the paper said the collapse of North Korea could not be ruled out, while Myanmar remained a "serious challenge."
An escalation in tensions between India and Pakistan was also of "significant concern," and the paper said Islamist extremism would pose a direct threat to Australia and its interests.
The paper reiterated Canberra's commitment to the conflict in Afghanistan, which it said could endure another decade or longer.
Canberra will acquire long-range cruise missiles, double its submarine fleet to 12 and buy 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets and eight new warships under the plan, titled "Force 2030."
"Force 2030 will mean the best fighter jets, the most versatile armoured vehicles and the most sophisticated submarines available to defend Australia?s national security," said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at the report's Sydney launch.
The Sino-focused strategy, which was widely leaked to the press, was met with unease in Beijing, where it was reportedly perceived by some as Australia aligning itself with the United States against China.
"China definitely will not accept Australia adopting the so-called 'China threat' thesis," Beijing professor Shi Yinhong told the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on Friday.
"(China) will have to publicly criticise (the paper)," added Yinhong, international relations specialist from the People's University.

source: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...0502-aqni.html

Other Asian fishes started getting real nervous (probably because big America Fish liked to tell everyone they were all better off with big America Fish being in charge of Pacific Pond-whilst they all did business and allowed big America Fish to prosper) and not just because big America Fish went a wee bit crazy a few years back and started eating Iraq Fish and Afghanistan Skeleton Fish; big America Fish was running out of fish money and needed to borrow from China Fish and Japan sashimi fish but that's another story....

our tale thus far,
so Australia Fish starts wetting its daks and commences building up its own defence forces in a very obvious display (probably because Big Australia Fish's PM, ruddkipps has been labelled a sinophile and he wants to disprove it), to which China Fish starts wondering wtf are you doing, Ozfush?

Rudd accused of fuelling new arms race

• John Garnaut in Beijing and Jonathan Pearlman
• May 4, 2009

THE Rudd Government's new defence blueprint has raised fears it will lead to an arms race across the region.
The white paper, released on Saturday, was attacked in China as a "crazy" and "dangerous" document likely to incite a regional arms build-up. Australian and Indian analysts also warned that other countries were likely to take their cue from the rearmament drive.
A Chinese military strategist, Rear-Admiral Yang Yi, told the Herald yesterday that Australia had spawned a new variation of "the China-threat thesis" that could be emulated by other nations and encourage them to accelerate their rearmament programs.
"I really can't understand this stupid, this crazy idea from Australia," he said. "I am very concerned and worried about it."
The Government has justified the 20-year build-up - including a doubling of the submarine fleet and the purchase of 100 fighter jets - by pointing to potential regional instability caused by the emergence of China and India.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said the white paper was designed mainly to secure Australia, an aim for which he would "make absolutely no apology".
"We are seeing a period of significant military and naval expansions in the wider Asia-Pacific region and it's important therefore that Australia makes proper provision for that."
"This is quite dangerous," said Admiral Yang, who recently stepped down as director of the National Defence University's Institute for Strategic Studies in Beijing, which was closely involved in drafting China's defence white paper released this year.
"This assessment by Australia carries the risk of stimulating an arms race in the region," he said.
An international security analyst at the Lowy Institute, Rory Medcalf, said Australia's white paper could add to the anti-China paranoia in the region and fuel arguments for further arms build-ups in countries such as South Korea, Japan and Vietnam.
He said hawkish leaders in some countries - particularly those near China - could seize on the paper to argue for further military modernisation.
"There could be a ripple effect," he said. "For many countries the question is whether we are sending a signal to them that the guy at the back of the room is getting scared."
A leading Indian analyst, Raja Mohan, wrote in India's New Express last week that Australia was "becoming a trendsetter in the Asia-Pacific region" and its defence plans were being watched as a guide to China's capabilities.
The Chinese media was muted over the weekend as the Government weighed its official response.
Officials and analysts are reluctant to add more fuel to what they see as a heated anti-China backlash in Australia, particularly as they await the Federal Government's decision on Chinalco's $US19.5 billion investment in Rio Tinto.
"I think they will take a slow and low-key response and not provide further ammunition for the domestic debates within Australia," said Shi Yinhong, director of American studies at the People's University in Beijing.
But Professor Shi said Beijing's response might escalate if Mr Rudd persisted with his "dramatic"strategic argument.
"Kevin Rudd has turned his face against China," said Professor Shi. "This is close to the most severe 'China threat thesis' ever issued formally by a sovereign government."
A senior Australian official said the scathing reaction was "not unexpected from academic commentators".
Mr Medcalf said Japan and Korea were likely to welcome the military build-up because it would enhance Australia's ability to protect them if they faced attack from North Korea or China.
The Pentagon is not commenting on the white paper until it has had time to study it.
An American analyst, Ralph Cossa, said adverse reaction was unlikely, even though the paper suggested US influence in the region was waning.
"What it was really saying is that the US will remain pre-dominant through to 2030 but that the Chinese might get too big for their boots on some issues and that required planning to deal with such a development," said Ralph Cossa, the president of the Pacific Forum of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies in Honolulu.
"People here were worried that Kevin Rudd might be naive and soft on the Chinese. This paper shows he's very clear eyed about their ambitions in the region."

source: http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-...9.html?page=-1

to be continued.....

discuss

[Stavroforos]

According to the articles you posted, no.

They say that Chinese power is increasing, and so Australia might want to increase its own military power, not that the US power is waning.

[Exarch]

According to the articles you posted, no.

They say that Chinese power is increasing, and so Australia might want to increase its own military power, not that the US power is waning.

the first article alluded to a shift in the balance of power
see, prevously australians were comfortable relying on the US navy to keep things more or less peaceable, not just because these 2 pacific countries share a predominantly western culture and hence western values.
the fact that the AUSG seeks to militarize itself against a perceived 'china threat' (ridiculous considering theamount of trade that occurs between the 2) will cause indonesia (which doesnt exacty like australia much) to gear up. and so on and so forth.

btw, rainbow fish came out of the closet ages ago and got eaten by Religious shark fish.

[Lord Claremorris]

According to the articles you posted, no.

They say that Chinese power is increasing, and so Australia might want to increase its own military power, not that the US power is waning.

Ah my friend, but that is precisely what "decline" means. There were very few countries who have declined absolutely, meaning that they continue to grow in terms of population and economic/military might, but there were several that declined relatively. This simply means, for example, in the late nineteenth/ early twentieth century, the United Kingdom's economy continued to grow at a healthy pace, but Germany's economy was growing much faster. So even though the United Kingdom was making more money than ever before, it's margin of superiority was beginning to narrow, and then was overtaken altogether. This is precisely what is happening today between the United States and the Far Eastern Powers of China and Japan. The U.S. economy is expected to grow barely 2% this year, whereas China's will be close to 10% or more. So, even though the U.S. is still becoming richer, it is doing so much more slowly, and China will swiftly narrow the gap and then eventually overtake the U.S. If you have read Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" you'll know about Imperial Overstretch, which it can be argued the U.S. has reached. Furthermore, the book was published in 1988, and Kennedy predicted that the United States and the Soviet Union were racing each other to bankruptcy and ruin, a mere three years after that prediction, the Soviet Union ceased to exist and Russia was plunged into chaos. It seems the turn of the United States has come, or is getting very close.

[lordoftheT]

Yes but what about Rainbow Fish?

[Phier]

As an American I think it would really be a shame if more countries decided to arm themselves to counter the emerging Chinese threat.



Oh wait, what was I thinking? Its about damn time.

The Chinese surplus of males alone should be enough to keep a lot of countries nervous.

[Exarch]

The Chinese surplus of males alone should be enough to keep a lot of countries nervous.

what the heck is that supposed to mean?

[lordoftheT]

what the heck is that supposed to mean?

Industrial workers maybe

[manofarms89]

what the heck is that supposed to mean?

he thinks China will start to wage wars aggressively.

[lordoftheT]

he thinks China will start to wage wars aggressively.

That doesn't make sense, China doesn't invade people they just flood their market with cheap goods.

[Exarch]

That doesn't make sense, China doesn't invade people they just flood their market with cheep goods.

in which case, it's a good thing
free trade FTW

he thinks China will start to wage wars aggressively.

unlikely,
china's insertion in the global economy makes a major war nigh on impossible

[Mikelus Trento]

That doesn't make sense, China doesn't invade people they just flood their market with cheap goods.

In recent memory....the people of Tibet and Viet Nam would disagree with your assessment of "peaceful" China.

[Fishy]

he thinks China will start to wage wars aggressively.

Wouldn't be all that strange to start ways to claim more land and possibly more woman for the man already in China. Definitely wouldn't be without precedence.

[Lord Rahl]

Wouldn't be all that strange to start ways to claim more land and possibly more woman for the man already in China. Definitely wouldn't be without precedence.

If this weren't the 21st century...

[Phier]

what the heck is that supposed to mean?

You should hang out with more Taiwanese.

[manofarms89]

You should hang out with more Taiwanese.

he lives in Taiwan.

[Phier]

he lives in Taiwan.

Funny, everyone from Taiwan I know is rather alarmed by the fact that Chinese males outnumber females by a growing amount and that China has never exactly claimed Taiwan is anything but a rebel province.

But if he feels safe, thats great, I'm sure there is nothing to fear from a government like China's.

[lordoftheT]

Tell that to the Vietnamese.

Well everyone whose anyone invades Vietnam even the Vietnamese, its just the cool thing to do. What was that war even over, was it just China being a jerk or did Vietnam do something?

[Caelius]

Well everyone whose anyone invades Vietnam even the Vietnamese, its just the cool thing to do. What was that war even over, was it just China being a jerk or did Vietnam do something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

Ironically it was the Chinese being massive dicks in return for the Vietnamese being the good guys. They decided to take out those savage Khmer Rouge fanatics and the PRC invaded in response.

The bad thing (for the Chinese) was that this all took place just four years after the end of the Vietnam War, so they promptly got their asses handed to them by the seasoned Vietnamese Army.

buildup for what?

"Sic vis pacem, para bellum"

Besides, as you mentioned in your OP, the big fish in the pond has no interest in seeing an upstart take its place, or threaten its national fishy interests.

[lordoftheT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

Ironically it was the Chinese being massive dicks in return for the Vietnamese being the good guys. They decided to take out those savage Khmer Rouge fanatics and the PRC invaded in response.

The bad thing (for the Chinese) was that this all took place just four years after the end of the Vietnam War, so they promptly got their asses handed to them by the seasoned Vietnamese Army.

And it looks like they outnumbered the Vietnamese six to one. That must have been embarrassing.

"Sic vis pacem, para bellum"

I wish our politicians could come up with something half so eloquent. Anyway I don't think the US will stop being a major power in the Pacific any time soon.