http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/30/us-china-usa-australia-idUSTRE7AT0PZ20111130http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204397704577069840514035280.html?mod=googlenews_wsjhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/china-military-criticizes-strengthened-us-australia-military-pact-blames-cold-war-thinking/2011/11/30/gIQA6IL0BO_story.htmlThe above links are all reporting on the Chinese position to the permanent posting of 2500 US Marines to the northern city of Darwin in Australia's Northern Territory. You may formulate your own opinions but here I state some alternative opinionated views.
One might consider that economically & strategically, there are many potential negatives and potential benefits for both the US & Australian governments in the proposed deal. On the negative, there are few doubts that as a colonized Commonwealth state, Australia has little control over sovereign alliances and in fact is subservient to the aims of the Anglo-US alliance. Australia has no right to reject a strategic motion put forward by the Anglo-US alliance; in the same manner that Australia has no right to refuse the 'order' of the crown to send troops into battle. If Australia's governance refuses an order of the Commonwealth, under constitutional monarchy, Australia's governing majority can be sacked and the Crown's representative - the Governor General - assumes office & appoints military rule if required.
On that suppositional precedence, I personally would like to see Australia enter into sovereign rule by becoming a republic, by seceding from the Commonwealth, & by abolishing the 'land title claims' of the Crown. This is a move that has been staunchly opposed by the Murdoch media empire, which incidentally was commissioned by the Crown to establish & maintain sentiments loyal to the Crown. One must understand that Crown Land is controlled by private ownership of the political state of the City of London; therefore, mining rights and 'native title' acts are confluently guarded to preserve Crown wealth through a private capitalist entity - the Crown's company. The City of London, which like the 'Holy See' - the Vatican state in Italy - is an individual political state under its' own sovereign rule. In the case of the Vatican state, it is still protected by mercenary guards from foreign lands & has been since the 1500s. Rome was sacked from sovereign dominion over the Holy See around the same period; consequently, Catholic 'Church' governance is not subject to the laws of any land.
When it comes to the Chinese position on 'independent political states with private agendas, the governance of the apostate 'church' creates conflicts with the Chinese, who prefer to govern their own 'churched' state. Likewise, the US conglomeration & build-up in the region is ruffling some feathers & creating conflicts in the Chinese camp. The political influence of these small but powerful states, the Crown & the Holy See, are highly questionable in their ethics, so to some extent I support the Chinese view. The Chinese are sovereign rulers, likewise, it should be the sovereign right of Australia to choose what happens within its' own territorial borders without interventionist intimidation by another state or authority. Australia is somewhat a pawn on the international stage & needs desperately to become a republic.
Although President Hu has reportedly
"made clear that he wants to avoid repeating the rifts that soured ties with Washington in the first half of 2011" the military chiefs are more vocal on their views of the strengthening of Anglo-US-Austro ties. One might consider that, as the leading trading partner, China is strategically positioned to find 'most favourable status' in future planning of Australia's politisphere. However, I strongly doubt the Chinese military fully comprehend the relational bonds & sovereign issues Australia's governance faces with its' ties to the imperialist Crown. Although the Chinese administration has the policy to not interfere in the sovereign rights of another state, at times it appears that the military does not hold the same view. It is reported through Chinese news agencies that differences of opinion sometimes cause internal pressures between civil servants in governance and the Chinese military leaders.
My personal opinion is that both parties - the US alliance and the Chinese alliance - are equally important to Australia's future but economically, China is fast becoming the most important consideration in Australia's sustainable future. Overall, I find the immaturity of nation states and military leaders to promote understanding and peace in the region as being somewhat distasteful. One might consider maturity would come from the worlds' 'policed enforcer' the US but in fact, seldom do we see the Secretary of State - Ms Clinton - engage in what I would determine to be a mature response. The Secretary of State does not press to deal with issues in her own jurisdiction, before openly critisizing other sovereign jurisdictions. Add to that, as a Nobel Peace laureate, Obama, and the administration Obama presides over, has blown more money on military efforts than his predecessor George Bush Jnr. Additionally, Obama has reportedly made statements declaring that he is the 'President of the Pacific' and China has made statements equally concerning that it is the 'sovereign of the South China Sea.' This kind of sovereign rhetoric, on both counts, neither promotes regional peace nor trust in an age where global issues over territorial rights are becoming increasingly heightened.
In my mind, one of the greatest acts of democratic diplomacy in recent times was performed by Vladimir Putin, former Russian president, when the ownership of the disputed island chain between Russia and Japan was being debated as to legal sovereignty. Putin made a peace offering to divide islands closest to Russia as Russian sovereignty and likewise the islands in the chain closest to Japan as Japanese sovereignty and the islands in the middle of the chain as worthy of joint development. In the light of that diplomatic and just view, Putin is a true statesman who should be admired for promoting regional peace. I strongly urge international parties with claims in disputed territories to follow suit and act in similar accord. Following the denial of Japan to adhere to a fair deal, they suffered a tsunami of epic proportions.
It is also my view that although Darwin will benefit economically from US based Marines, the Australian taxpayer will be funding some of the operations of the US Marines in the region. The US military strategy is sadly lacking funding with future budget allocations & military spending under a cloud of doubt. Proposed budgetary measures - caused by the failure of the 'super committee' in the US - will cut US defense spending by a good portion. Therefore, allied states like Australia are perhaps ordered to be indebted to the Anglo-US imperial strategy. In other words, I think Australians will be footing the bill in a desperately conceived, yet fore-planned manner. I suspect the recently legislated 'carbon tax' will flow through to support an allied military presence in the region as about 80% of the said tax is rumoured to be heading offshore. Instead of being a 'cash cow' the marines could be a 'cash beneficiary.' Add to that, if they interfere in Chinese domestic policies, Australia as an ally, might find themselves 'in the wilderness' as a preferred 'supplier state' to the Chinese economic drive.
I have long held the view that the US would be making such a move to Australian territories based on a 1950s New World Order plan that has the US military patrolling, in fact controlling, Australian territory. Now before one condemns such planning, they should understand that, the same 1950s plan promotes the proposed 'One China' policy with China as the sovereign territorian of Chinese Taipei, aka Taiwan. As we well know, the UN rejected any move by the Taiwanese territorial province to be recognized as a sovereign state. One might then wonder, what the position is of the UN based NWO conglomerate in regards to the US base in Darwin. Is this move also the working out of a 1950s NWO objective? I wholeheartedly support the One China policy but it is a very interesting point that a plan was printed and mapped out in the 1950s showing just who would have dominion of what in the future. It could well be that the US move into Australia is an indirect measure of that interdominionist plan.
That my friends is worthy of further investigation.
Hefei Expat - China
Author
