follow us like us subscribe contact us
Adbar

U.S. Strengthening Old Alliances in Asia Pacific to Contain the influence of China

By Diplomatic Courier | Tue, 30 November 2010 14:29 | 9

While U.S. President Barack Obama was making a high-profile visit to Asia, U.S. Secretary of State; Hillary Clinton was rebuilding long lost friendships in the South Pacific by extending hands of friendship and military cooperation to Australia and New Zealand.

New Zealand is very much within the U.S. “Sphere of Influence” and Clinton just confirmed it by signing the high-profile Wellington Declaration. This is the first step in the right direction towards annual security talks of the type that take place between Australia and the U.S. and which underpin the decades-old Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) alliance of which New Zealand was a member until the break-up in the mid-1980s.

In fact, Clinton was not only given a traditional New Zealand Maori’s welcome called  Powhiri, the greatest gift that she could bring back to Washington was the release of the New Zealand Defense White Paper 2010 two days before her arrival. The White Paper envisaged greater Wellington’s presence in the South Pacific and strengthening the alliance with Washington and Canberra.

The ANZUS treaty—a military alliance which binds Australia and New Zealand and, separately Australia and the U.S. to cooperate on defense matters in the Pacific Ocean area—was previously a three-way defense pact. Following a dispute between New Zealand and the United States in 1984 over visiting rights for nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered ships of the U.S. Navy to New Zealand ports, the treaty lapsed between the United States and New Zealand, although it remains separately in force between Australia and New Zealand and between U.S and Australia.

Now the big question is what’s the reason for this paradigm shift? The answer lies in the drama played out in Suva, Fiji this year and during the course of the annual Pacific Islands Forum in Vanuatu (a small pacific island) this year. The revisionists’ attitude of Fiji’s Colonel Bainimarama and his eccentric positioning in the South Pacific with assured blessings of Beijing are not going well with Wellington and Canberra. The high point of Fiji’s courtship with Beijing was the presence of a high-level Chinese delegation on the eve of Fiji’s 40th Independence Day on October 10. There was no prize for guessing that the Fiji flag that was hoisted on the Independence Day was made in China. New Zealand and Australia would not like to have a “China Town” in Fiji with nuclear tipped submarines pointing towards it. They both need Washington to counter this new strategic threat.

Surprisingly, the Wellington Declaration has got a bi-partisan support with the New Zealand Labour Party (NZLP) clearly supporting it. There are three reasons for this. First, the NZLP is trying to move “center”.  Second, it has political ties with Fiji’s Labour Party, which spearheads the movement against Fiji’s military dictator. Third, the NZLP get its patronage from Australia’s Labour Party and the latter has recently ejected Chinese speaking Kevin Rudd with more Anglophone oriented Jullia Gillard as Premier. Though Kevin Rudd is the Foreign Minister, he lost to Gillard on important policy matters, including on whether Australia needs to move right towards Washington or left towards Beijing.

Though in recent times Australia has been a stable ally, New Zealand has withered away from its traditional path.

Australia is a stable ally to Washington as it has to play a more pro-active role in the South Pacific and it needs the backing of Washington, including its veto in the UN Security Council as leverage against countries such as Fiji

Australia and Fiji were caught in a diplomatic entanglement in July this year when Fiji’s military dictator and present Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama expelled Australian High Commissioner Sarah Roberts on charges of interfering in the internal affairs of Fiji. Fiji’s increased aggressive posture coupled with a revisionist attitude has to do with the backing that it gets from Beijing. Fiji’s attraction towards Beijing is understandable as unlike Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. China doesn’t look at Fiji’s democratic credentials as a prerequisite to give it aid. Also, China can veto any resolution against Fiji brought by the United States and Great Britain. There is also a chance that China could use any of Fiji’s islands a military or naval base much to the irritation of the United States and nearby Australia. This has brought the alliance between the U.S. and Australia even closer.

New Zealand, on the other hand, has no such compulsion geo-politically. It was happy to play the role of younger brother to Australia in its affairs with Fiji. New Zealand was one of the strongest anti-nuclear weapons state and opposed to any nuclear tests being conducted by the U.S., France, and Britain in the South Pacific. The anti-nuclear posture increased when the New Zealand Labour Party came to power. This is was the reason why New Zealand severed defense ties with the U.S. in the mid 1980’s with an anti-nuclear legislation banning all nuclear armed ships near its water shores.

New Zealand had a compulsion to ban all nuclear submarine ships near its shores after the incident of the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior took place in New Zealand's Auckland Harbour on July 10, 1985. It was an attack carried out by French General Directorate for External Security Agents aimed at sinking the flagship craft of Greenpeace, an environmental organization stationed in Auckland, port city of New Zealand.  Members of Greenpeace were trying to stop a nuclear test by the French Government at Mururoa Atoll in the South Pacific. New Zealand considered this an act of aggression and the NZLP banned all ships carrying nuclear weapons near its shore including American ones.

Another key reason why Wellington and Washington differed in their paths in the 1980’s was because of the two different world views that then leaders of the two nations held. The U.S. had a Republican President, Ronald Reagan and New Zealand was headed by left-center Labour Party’s Prime Minister David Lange. Now, times have changed with New Zealand having a right-center government headed by John Key and the U.S. having Obama’s center-left administration.

The Obama administration has understood the need to contain the influence of China in Asia Pacific. The administration’s paradigm shift occurred this year when China decided to behave in a more aggressive way in South China Sea and East Asia. The South Pacific is no exception as China is courting Fiji’s military dictator for the same reason; to gain a foothold in the region. As a result, the U.S. is strengthening old alliances in New Zealand and Australia by revisiting the ANZUS treaty. Could this be the start of a “Cold War” in the South Pacific between the U.S. and China? Only time will tell.

By. Balaji Chandramohan

Copyright 2006-2010 The Diplomatic Courier™. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Leave a comment

  • Anonymous on November 30 2010 said:
    A cold war between the U.S. and China. I wonder where this kind of silliness comes from, and if Obama is dumb enough to play along. Of course, perhaps it doesn't make any differnce. He'll be back on the South Side of Chicago in about two years, and maybe cold wars with China and the foolishness in Afghanistan will start winding down.
  • Anonymous on November 30 2010 said:
    There has been an off and on cold war between China and the US since the armistice of the Korean war in July of 1953. Obama could not stop it if he so desired with all his heart.New Zealand is a beautiful, but small, country. Its people are generally likable and affable, and tend to mind their own business overall. The 1980s prohibition against US nuclear powered ships was seen in NZ as a case of self-determination. Kiwis did not want to become nuclear targets should war break out, and they did not want a nuclear reactor accident in their waters.The government of NZ -- as opposed to its people -- is intermittently insane, however, which causes the gov. to try to fight above its weight class in some disputes. I would like to say that Australia is always the more responsible, but alas, it isn't true.
  • Anonymous on December 01 2010 said:
    There is no cold war between the US and China. China is on its way to becoming a very rich country, and unlike the US they realize that reaching their goal is going to take a lot of productive work. If the US government was as smart as the Chinese government, they would take a good look at the crazy tangent they have gone off on, and concentrate on doing something about it. As for Obama, he he is a very very very smart man who unfortunately - like the rest of us - is also dumb in certain ways. In fact the problem is that he is too dumb to be president of the United States, although of course he is not dumber than George W. or Bill Clinton.Incidentally Mr Alfonso, I know Australia well, having worked in 5 or 6 universities there. When it comes to self-preservation, which you might remember is the first law of nature, Australians know how to look out for Number One.
  • Anonymous on December 01 2010 said:
    Monsieur Banks, you may tell yourself that there is no cold war between the US and China as much as you like. Perhaps doing so many, many times will make it seem true, to you. :-*
  • Anonymous on December 02 2010 said:
    Signor Alfonso, I was around when what you think is a cold war was a hot war, and I lost my best friends in it.The war between the US and China is some kind of commercial war that China may very well end up winning. As an American citizen I prefer something different, and something different is definitely possible, but not if the decision making is left up to people who cannot interpret the past - people like you to be explicit.Your attitude about wars is very familiar to me. I grew up in a part of Chicago filled with street gangs, and there was always talk about 'rumbles' or gang fights. It was the talk of people who didn't have anything constructive to do. I could understand them, because occasionally I tried to be like them, but I can't understand educated people like yourself.
  • Anonymous on December 03 2010 said:
    The difference between 'Cold Wars' and commercial wars is that 'Cold Wars' can become hot very suddenly with catastrophic consequences for all sides, while commercial wars are about money and resources and manipulation and generally remain peaceful unless some idiot decides to grab rather than negociate. The US-China 'situation' is about money, resourves, information, and some miitary posturting around the edges. It is definitly not a cold war. However, it is not unthinkable that China may go for Taiwan at some point, for instance, but this would seem unlikely soon. the Chinese are a very patient and manipulative people. they will act in any situation only when their opponent has little or no room left for manoeuvre; a combination of chess and the martial arts (SunTzu). I should imagine they are quite enjoying playing Obama...
  • Anonymous on December 04 2010 said:
    Your confident assertions notwithstanding, gentlement, both of you are quite wrong about the ongoing relationship of China and the US. Visit the planning rooms in the Pentagon and the PLA, to become better informed on the true situation.Readers of Oil.price are naturally oriented toward an investment point of view -- particularly toward energy. But the world is a much larger place than most academics and other persons of confined outlook can imagine.Not that the two of you would fit into that category, of course.
  • Anonymous on December 04 2010 said:
    I noticed that Mr O. was in Afghanistan to do a show. I hope that it's a good one, because he'll be going there on SAS in a few years instead of AF1.But look, don't get him started on a possible China-Taiwan clash, or he'll be jetting off to there too.
  • Anonymous on December 06 2010 said:
    The planning room in the Pentagon. Do you really think that I would fit in there either as a guest or a regular? I don't visit planning rooms anywhere because I would become too depressed. If planning rooms are anything like some of the conferences/meetings that I have been to during this year, it means that the triumph of ignorance is only a matter of a short time.

Leave a comment


Commodity Prices

    PRICE CHG CHG%
Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart

Click on chart icon for detailed price charts.