Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ild who wrote (8679)	7/6/2004 12:53:54 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

Cracks visible in U.S.-Australia alliance By ROBYN LIM Special to The Japan Times Could Australia's long-standing alliance with the United States rupture? It's not likely, but not unthinkable either. An Australian election looms, with security policy as a major issue. The Labor Party, out of power since 1996, is desperate for a win. The polls portend a close race. The new Labor leader, Mark Latham, was a critic of Australia's participation in the Iraq war, and often swapped invective with the U.S. ambassador to Australia. Latham says, if elected, he will withdraw the remaining 800 or so Australian forces from Iraq. That statement drew a strong response from U.S. President George W. Bush, with visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard at his side. Few in Washington have forgotten how the Spanish electorate in March recoiled at the Madrid bombings perpetrated by al-Qaeda affiliates: It elected a Socialist government that promptly withdrew Spanish forces from Iraq. Now Latham has painted himself into a corner. The Labor premier of Australia's largest state, New South Wales (Latham's home state) has warned Latham that he must exercise "utmost diplomacy" about withdrawing troops from Iraq. Naturally, that less-than-ringing endorsement is giving the wily prime minister the chance to drive a wedge through Labor's ranks. Bush is not popular in Australia. Australia's commitment of 2,000 combat forces (mostly special forces) to Iraq was highly controversial, especially because of the lack of a specific U.N. Security Council resolution. But there have been no casualties. Moreover, recently the Security Council unanimously endorsed transitional arrangements in Iraq, including this week's handover of sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government. Elections are to follow early next year. With Iraq's prime minister calling on Iraqis and foreign governments to help fight insurgents and terrorists, the situation is beginning to look rather different. So what is likely to happen if Latham is elected and Bush is re-elected? In the short term, probably nothing much. Each will know he has to work with the other. The same would apply, of course, if Sen. John Kerry became U.S. president. But over the longer term, it may not be plain sailing. The U.S. alliance, which provides Australia with nuclear and long-range maritime security, has been transformed in ways that Latham may not realize. One reason for that is the end of the Cold War. The U.S. has more strategic latitude than when it was tied down by Soviet power. America is also developing military technology that helps to shrink distance and makes the U.S. less reliant on allies that might defect in a crisis. At present, Australia is close to free-riding on the alliance. It is spending less than 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, and maintains an army of only six battalions. In the recent Iraq war, the Howard government (as did the Hawke Labor government before it) relied on its skill in getting in early so that it didn't have to do much. But the price of the alliance is going up. The willingness to share risk is the "glue" of alliances, and feckless or free-riding allies risk being left to fend for themselves. Thus the Howard government, comprehending that Australia is best defended at a distance and in the company of more powerful allies, is changing its force structure so that it will be able to meet U.S. expectations for more than "niche contributions" in future conflicts. For many in the Labor party, that harks back to the "bad old days" when, they say, Australia was too willing to send "expeditionary forces" to fight "other peoples' wars." Those sentiments have their roots in the appalling casualties of World War I in which 60,000 Australians were killed out of a total population of only 7 million. Australians who wish to avoid entanglement in distant conflicts prefer to concentrate on continental defense. Thus a crunch in the U.S.-Australia alliance could come in the Taiwan Strait. If America became involved in a conflict with China, it would expect Australian support; the Bush administration has made that quite clear. But with China's rapid economic growth fueling a boom in Australia's resources industry, a Labor government might not view any interests in the distant Taiwan Strait as justifying the risk of becoming embroiled in war with nuclear-armed China. In such circumstances, a rupture in the alliance might be hard to avert, especially if an unskilled prime minister were at the helm. After all, New Zealand -- a long-standing U.S. ally -- defected from its alliance in the mid-1980s when a Labor government refused to continue to accept nuclear-capable U.S. warships in its ports. A few years earlier, few would have thought that outcome as likely. japantimes.co.jp