Should Australia and New Zealand be invited to and join NATO

[Farnan]

Despite not being in the North Atlantic they have major ties with NATO being part of ANZUS and the Commonwealth. Joining NATO will add to their security and combined they will add some well trained forces, about 4 brigades worth army side, some air forces and a supporting frigate force along with key strategic positioning.

Australia and New Zealand are very commonly involved in NATO operations (see ISAF) and are in many ways de facto members. Shouldn't they be given the full benefits of being full members?

[EmperorBatman999]

The Aussies aren't part of NATO? What about Vietnam then?

[hellheaven1987]

I have read before that it is Australia and New Zealand's own decision not joining NATO.

[Visna]

The Aussies aren't part of NATO? What about Vietnam then?

Vietnam had nothing to do with NATO.

[EmperorBatman999]

Vietnam had nothing to do with NATO.

Then why were they helpng out the Americans in Vietnam, then?

[Azog 150]

Then why were they helpng out the Americans in Vietnam, then?

The same reason as the US. They feared the spread of Communism and so tried to act to stop it. As Australia considers South East Asia its area of influence they went in.

Its a similar reason as to why they got involved in the Malaya Emergency although obviously that turned out to be a bit more successful. In fact, Australia initially only planned to get involved in Vietnam in a support and advisory role in order to pass on their experiences gained from Malaysia.

[Visna]

Then why were they helpng out the Americans in Vietnam, then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

The idea was not restricted to the US, it was feared that if one country became communist the surrounding ones would follow in a domino effect, hence the name. Therefore countries like Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, all of which had some major communist inspired insurgencies, became frontline states in a global struggle against Communism.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The Aussies aren't part of NATO? What about Vietnam then?

Wasn't a NATO operation.

I don't think Australia and New Zealand will be invited to join NATO because that will likely provoke China.

[Viking Prince]

The Aussies aren't part of NATO? What about Vietnam then?

That was a response to treaty obligations within SEATO (founded in mid 1950's).

As to the actual topic in the first post:

ANZUS was the result of the USA not wanting a NATO styled mutual defense pact in the Pacific as well. The history of USA treaty policy in the Pacific was a series of bilateral defense pacts rather than a larger mutual defense pact. The idea was that any need for intervention in the Pacific would involve the USA in any case, but that the differing national interests and military capabilities of America's allies would make a mutual defense pact of doubtful value. The significant interests in the Pacific include not just ANZUS, but also South Korea, Japan, the Philipines, Thailand, Pakistan, and India. Many of these are included in SEATO, but SEATO just barely survived the end of the Vietnam conflict. There simply is not enough mutual interest to maintian the treaty organization. I suspect that NATO may be approaching that same point in the future. If Australia and New Zealand were to join, I do believe that would accelerate the coming end to NATO.

[Babur]

Despite not being in the North Atlantic they have major ties with NATO being part of ANZUS and the Commonwealth. Joining NATO will add to their security and combined they will add some well trained forces, about 4 brigades worth army side, some air forces and a supporting frigate force along with key strategic positioning.

Australia and New Zealand are very commonly involved in NATO operations (see ISAF) and are in many ways de facto members. Shouldn't they be given the full benefits of being full members?

They're not on the North Atlantic though

[hellheaven1987]

They're not on the North Atlantic though

Same as Turkey and Italy, and not to mention some landlocked countries such as Czech Republic which has nothing to do with North Atlantic Ocean.

[Babur]

Same as Turkey and Italy, and not to mention some landlocked countries such as Czech Republic which has nothing to do with North Atlantic Ocean.

true

well the Mediterranean is connected to the North Atlantic though, according to wikipedia it is part of the Atlantic.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

well the Mediterranean is connected to the North Atlantic though, according to wikipedi it is part of the Atlantic.

Then again, the Medditerranean is also linked to the Indian ocean via the Suez Canal, and the Pacific Ocean also touches the South Atlantic et cetera. With that logic all the oceans should just be one great sea-Pangea!

[Jom]

Despite not being in the North Atlantic they have major ties with NATO being part of ANZUS and the Commonwealth. Joining NATO will add to their security and combined they will add some well trained forces, about 4 brigades worth army side, some air forces and a supporting frigate force along with key strategic positioning.

Australia and New Zealand are very commonly involved in NATO operations (see ISAF) and are in many ways de facto members. Shouldn't they be given the full benefits of being full members?

I'm interested in what way you thinking joining NATO will add to Australia and New Zealand's security. Who exactly are they threatened by and what how will being a part of NATO remove/reduce this threat?

[Azog 150]

I don't see how they would benefit to be honest. They are under no immediate threat from anyone really. It would just mean they are obliged to follow NATO into more costly wars such as Afghanistan in the future (True, the Aussies already followed the US into Afghanistan but they were not under any obligation to)

Saying all this, I would support further military ties (From a British point of view at least seeing as the US already has close military ties) with Australia and New Zealand. All three are already members of the Five Powers Defence Arrangements (Along with Malaysia and Singapore)

[Farnan]

I don't see how they would benefit to be honest. They are under no immediate threat from anyone really. It would just mean they are obliged to follow NATO into more costly wars such as Afghanistan in the future (True, the Aussies already followed the US into Afghanistan but they were not under any obligation to)

Actually they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzus

And its not like they'd be dragged into any war they wouldn't otherwise be a part of. They've been in every US War since Vietnam that has lasted longer than a week.

They were not a member of KFOR, but were a member of SFOR.


Not what are any threats? Well none immediate, but both Australia and New Zealand are Island or Island Continent nations, and both have small navies compared to their size. Though there is no immediate threat joining NATO will mean that they will not have to increase the size of their navies if there is a threat in the future. Finally, NATO is very much a non-binding treaty except in the case of a member being attacked, in which case it doesn't demand large forces, larger than they would likely send anyway.

Basically NATO is a way to pull your defense budgets together so you can have a smaller military with the same amount of security. Its why Estonia can get away with having a hostile neighbor and only an 6,000 man military and only 1.8% GDP spending on defense.

[Yoda Twin]

Actually they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzus

And its not like they'd be dragged into any war they wouldn't otherwise be a part of. They've been in every US War since Vietnam that has lasted longer than a week.

They were not a member of KFOR, but were a member of SFOR.


Not what are any threats? Well none immediate, but both Australia and New Zealand are Island or Island Continent nations, and both have small navies compared to their size. Though there is no immediate threat joining NATO will mean that they will not have to increase the size of their navies if there is a threat in the future. Finally, NATO is very much a non-binding treaty except in the case of a member being attacked, in which case it doesn't demand large forces, larger than they would likely send anyway.

Basically NATO is a way to pull your defense budgets together so you can have a smaller military with the same amount of security. Its why Estonia can get away with having a hostile neighbor and only an 6,000 man military and only 1.8% GDP spending on defense.

Wouldn't you say ANZUS kind of makes NATO obsolete to us anyway?

[Azog 150]

Not what are any threats? Well none immediate, but both Australia and New Zealand are Island or Island Continent nations, and both have small navies compared to their size. Though there is no immediate threat joining NATO will mean that they will not have to increase the size of their navies if there is a threat in the future. Finally, NATO is very much a non-binding treaty except in the case of a member being attacked, in which case it doesn't demand large forces, larger than they would likely send anyway.

Basically NATO is a way to pull your defense budgets together so you can have a smaller military with the same amount of security. Its why Estonia can get away with having a hostile neighbor and only an 6,000 man military and only 1.8% GDP spending on defense.

True. But even then, the only NATO nations with the capability of independently assisting Australia or New Zealand in the case of attack are the US, UK and France. Obviously the US can help with logistics for other NATO nations like it does in Afghanistan, but it raises the question what is the point? The US is already obliged to help Australia/New Zealand thanks to ANZUS and it doesn't really need anyone else to help out. Why have Estonian or Italian or Greek troops there who are entirely dependent on the US to supply them, and are nothing more then a token force? The US is more then capable of helping out Australia by itself.

And on the other hand, why would Estonia/Italy/Greece etc want to help out a nation on the other side of the earth which it has absolutely no ties to?

[Capt. Fozdike]

I don't think it would make much of a difference except in terms of NATO's membership numbers. We have pretty good relations with everybody in NATO anyway. And we're considered Contact Countries anyway.

Then why were they helpng out the Americans in Vietnam, then?

Because we decided we didn't want Communism to spread more and more so we sent our troops to help the Americans. Just because we aren't a part of NATO doesn't mean we can't help in their wars.

[Theseus1234]

Well, it wouldn't be the North Atlantic Treaty if they were involved, now would it? You would have to change it to "World Treaty Organization" and there's already a WTO...soooo no can do! Sorry!