http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html

Opinions.

When China goes over the brink and starts WWIII. I think our allies will help. Even the Aussies.

Aussies have always been helpful.

WW II
Korea
Vietnam
Desert Storm
Op Iraqi Freedom

They will help again! the US should be concerned of French government. They never help!

Very Brave fighters too, very tough. They usually are where the fighting is thickest (Desert Rats, British 8th Army), dont think I'd ever want to face them in battle (or anyone else for that matter...)

One issue among many does not unmake the Australians as allies. Particularly when as the Senator says in the web page you included, Rabs, that they are already supporting us to the point of being stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the US is just facing reality.

Originally Posted by Charge 7

One issue among many does not unmake the Australians as allies. Particularly when as the Senator says in the web page you included, Rabs, that they are already supporting us to the point of being stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the US is just facing reality.

I agree however there is one small issue:

Under the ANZUS treaty there has been an expectation that Australia would support the US in a conflict over Taiwan.

The ANZUS treaty is really only a treaty in name these days and I doubt either of the remaining parties believe it to be "binding" given that it only offers assistance in the event that one party is attacked thus an action in a country outside of the ANZUS treaty nations does not necessarily invoke the treaty.

That being said I would expect that in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan both Australia and New Zealand would assist in anyway they could.

Australia, probably would not get invovled directly. We have strong diplomatic relations with both the PRC and USA, and we don't want to damage those relations by taking sides.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I do beleive Australia still hasn't offically recognised Taiwan anyway.

Australia will definetly be invovled in a Conflict so intense and close to our backyard, but as I'm niether a stratigest nor a Diplomat, so I really don't know what that involvment will be.

Most likely in my opinion, Australia would act as a median between both nations. Of course our mates across the Tasman, will stand by us. We would most likely be incharge of pre-conflict and post-conflict negoitaions. We would clearly not want to fight in such an intense war, but if there is no other reasonable alternative we will.

That is not what is actually happening here.

There's been a lot of confusion about ANZUS - some people have misunderstood the ANZUS treaty and come to the conclusion that this treaty obliges Australia to participate in nearly all US wars (and for that matter, vice versa). Many people are under the misapprehension that Australians served in Vietnam and in both Gulf Wars as a result of the ANZUS treaty. This is not the case.

ANZUS is a very specific treaty set up with a very specific purpose. It relates only to attacks on the territory of the signatory nations, or on their maritime assets, and only in some circumstances.

It has not been at all helpful for some people to try and claim that this treaty addresses issues that it does not address - and that has happened so many times.

All that the US has acknowledged here is that Australia is not obliged to automatically support the US in a war with China over Taiwan. That acknowledgement has been necessary only because some ill informed people have consistently tried to claim that ANZUS does oblige Australia to do so.

Acknowledging that the ANZUS treaty does not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in such a war, is not the same as saying Australia would not become involved in such a war.

ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in Vietnam. ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in the Gulf War of 1991, ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in the Iraq War of 2003.

But in all those cases, Australia chose to become involved despite there being no automatic obligation to do so. By the same token, ANZUS did not oblige the US to become automatically involved in Australian operations in East Timor.

But again, despite there being no automatic obligation for the US to become involved in East Timor, nonetheless, the US did provide significant support to Australian lead operations.

Australia was however obliged to go to war in Afghanistan under ANZUS - as that war was directly related to an attack on the mainland of the United States - which is one of the triggers for ANZUS.

The point is that all the US has done here is acknowledge that the ANZUS Treaty says what the ANZUS Treaty says - it's written down in black and white. Australia would not be automatically obliged to participate in such a war.

The only reason the US has had to make that acknowledgement is because of the media trying to stir up trouble - the US government has certainly always been aware of what ANZUS actually says - it's made this acknowledgement just so hopefully the media will now become less likely to misrepresent it all the time.

That does not mean Australia would not participate in such a war - as it did in Vietnam and in both Gulf Wars without ANZUS playing any role at all. It's just that participation is not automatic.

Anyone know of a link to this treaty so we can read it for ourselves?

Very coherent and concise post Phoenix.

The full text of the ANZUS Treaty, read it for yourselves.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/fo...s-treaty.shtml


Another reference on the treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS