[Sixstrings]

Joe is correct, we & kiwis were put on this earth to snark, but when push comes to shove we will do America's bidding. China has bought Australian businesses, real estate, farms, it can't buy our trust or supplant our joint military history with America. No amount of piss & moan from China is going to change this. Aussies, Kiwis will continue to be critical of everyone, that's what we do. We will join any US led major alliance, for the same reason.

Well, it's a team. We all speak the Queen's english, after all.

There's nothing wrong with doing business with China.. China is the USA's #2 trading partner, after Canada.

But in my opinion, they need stood up to a little bit, or they just keep pushing. Claiming an ocean, trying to pull a Tibet in the south china sea.. that's going a bit far. International law is important, and rules based global order. If it breaks down now, then it'll just be a bigger problem everywhere else, the arctic ocean too, etc. etc.

It appears that the issue Australia is debating right now is whether to sail with the US Navy, around those islands:

Australia faces anguished choice on the South China Sea

US President Dwight Eisenhower, US ambassador Percy Spender, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Australian PM Robert Menzies in the fateful year of 1956.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Suez Crisis. That dramatic episode represents an important pointer in the history of our foreign policy. It was the last time an Australian government strongly opposed Washington on a major international issue.

That crisis demonstrated not just the power at America's disposal, but its willingness to use that power ruthlessly if even its closest and most substantial allies – Britain and France – took a completely different a course of action.

The US, under Dwight Eisenhower, pulled the financial rug from Britain to compel Anthony Eden's government to halt the invasion of Egypt, which Robert Menzies had enthusiastically supported.

Suez forced the British to jettison the notion that they were still a genuine global power. The lesson Suez taught the French was to never again rely on the US.

Australia, a less important ally at the time, drew a different conclusion: we would not deviate significantly from the US position on any major global issue.

Sure, there have been disagreements. In the early 1960s, Canberra opposed Indonesia's annexation of West Papua whereas John F. Kennedy supported the ultra-radical, anti-Western Sukarno. Gough Whitlam, as the Sydney University historian James Curran sets out in Unholy Fury, clashed with Richard Nixon over the make-up of post-Vietnam Asia.

Nonetheless, Australia under both Labor and Coalition governments marched in lockstep with the Americans in Vietnam in the 1960s, then the Gulf War in 1990-91 and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq (again).

Security alliance

It is against this background that Joe Biden's major speech this week is best understood. Addressing a joint US Studies Centre-Lowy Institute event in Sydney on Wednesday, the Vice-President reaffirmed the importance of our security alliance as well as the long-standing US leadership role in the Asia-Pacific region.

The timing was significant. It's been a week since The Hague's ruling against Beijing's conduct in the South China Sea, and Biden used his speech to remind the world the US would "ensure the sea lanes are secure and the skies remain open". This was a pointed warning to Beijing that Washington would continue to conduct freedom-of-navigation exercises through the 12-nautical mile zone in the South China Sea.

What, then, will we do?

Will we follow the Americans with our own freedom-of-navigation patrols in response to China's assertive conduct in the South China Sea, as Labor's defence spokesman Stephen Conroy urges?

Or will we proceed cautiously and support the Americans from the sidelines but have no part in the operations?

This week, the Vice-President delivered a thinly veiled message: "It's not what we can do for Australia. It's what we can do with Australia." In other words, Canberra should join Washington in pushing back against China's territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Biden here is reflecting what senior US officials have been saying behind the scenes for the past year. According to the New York Times and other public and private sources, US diplomats have been talking to their counterparts in Canberra about carrying out freedom-of-navigation operations close to China's artificial islands. At least one senior US navy commander has even publicly called on the Government to carry out naval patrols.

Foreign policy outlook

Following Washington in the disputed waters of the South China Sea would reflect Australia's general foreign policy outlook since 1956 when we helped try to seize the Suez Canal back from the dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser.

It would also reflect strong majority support in the community. According to a Lowy Institute poll last month, three quarters of Australians think we should follow the US in the South China Sea.

But challenging Beijing's expanding military activity also carries risks. It might represent a high-stakes challenge to our largest trading partner. According to the same Lowy poll, China is our "best friend in Asia" and our relations with Beijing are as important as our alliance with Washington.

Our leaders could face a dilemma. Is our vision for China's role in the region compatible with our strong support for US strategic pre-eminence in the Asia-Pacific? How do we reconcile our expanding trade ties with Beijing and our deepening security alliance with Washington – and the expectations that come with it?

How do we maintain confidence in US leadership when, as recent US Studies Centre polling shows, so many people in the region raise real doubts about US staying power? How can we balance China's right to an enhanced regional profile with our own interests, commitments and history?

"May you live in interesting times" is one of the more subtle Chinese curses, and in the debate over how to respond to the South China Sea controversy Australian foreign policy could be passing through its most interesting times since the Suez crisis six decades ago.
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/world/australia-faces-anguished-choice-on-the-south-china-sea-20160721-gqaemt

I agree with Stephen Conroy:

https://youtu.be/SNdNgpatGIM

He says Australia should unilaterally sail and fly planes right over those man-made islands, within the 12 mile zone.

Now here's what's STRANGE though.. when pressed by the anchor about joining a US operation to do that, Conroy says NO.. he just wants it to be Australian only. Which makes no sense. Because Australia will have a hard time getting domestic support just to sail with the US. So how would they just go do this on their own?

I don't know if this is some kind of anti-american political thing or what it is, that he can't be seen to "be following the US?"

Just strategically, the smart thing to do would be to join a coalition operation, and coordinate with the US. This isn't something to go it alone about. The main issue is just that the US wants Australia to participate in this and help out, at least, but nobody would expect Australia to go on their own and have some kind of unilateral aggressive policy.

From other coverage I saw, Conroy was laughed at. The main point is.. the US gov is going to be very careful, and it's a serious thing about these islands, and Australia ought to just coordinate with the US and help out. Conroy's "we should go be cowboys" yet "but we won't join the US flotilla" position makes no sense.

Those islands are too much to take on, for Australia alone, UNLESS Oz has some beef with China and really wants to stir it up.. which they dont..

[SeaGypsy]

You are wrong about something in every post you make about Australia, at least once. Domestic support? Somebody tells you lack of it is why blah blah blah wrong. The whole thing for Australia is about money. Conroy is a member of our conservative Liberal Party, he can blather about lovely cream cheese available on the moon, until the decision is made behind closed doors in cabinet it makes no difference to what actually happens. There is definitely public support here for freedom of navigation exercises, against China's overreach. We are probably split 50/50 on the two major American bases here, but take them away & that would kill the two large towns in the Northern Territory, leaving our top end & outback dangling as a prize for the enthusiasts to our north. We can't really do without the US in these regions, a fact you will not see broadcast generally. Nor can we do without Chinese trade, obvious to blind Freddie. So we will do what we do, make deals, try to keep our two most important partners from shredding each other, keep playing diplomacy & wait for a dominant position to emerge.

Duterte is being as pathetic as Aquino, whining for help, doing nothing about physically reclaiming their reefs. If the Philippines had any brains, this is the perfect moment for a Ghandi attack, a few thousand unarmed civilians, lots of cameras & satellite coms to ensure any evil done gets publicised, occupy those flipping reefs. The general moron public there expect the US to go to war with China over something they occupy with a dozen guys perched on a shipwreck with rifles. The US should put the boot up their lazy asses & let them know they need to actually do something out there to substantiate their freshly validated claim.

[Sixstrings]

Duterte is being as pathetic as Aquino, whining for help, doing nothing about physically reclaiming their reefs. If the Philippines had any brains, this is the perfect moment for a Ghandi attack, a few thousand unarmed civilians, lots of cameras & satellite coms to ensure any evil done gets publicised, occupy those flipping reefs. The general moron public there expect the US to go to war with China over something they occupy with a dozen guys perched on a shipwreck with rifles.

Some latest news, the US is giving Philippines another Hamilton class coast guard cutter:

US Gives Philippines Warship After South China Sea Ruling
Washington is finally transferring another Hamilton-class cutter to Manila.

The United States has already transferred two Hamilton-class cutters to its Southeast Asian ally over the past few years, with Manila acquiring the BRP Gregorio Del Pilar in 2011 and the BRP Ramon Alcaraz in 2013. Both warships have since been armed and deployed for patrols, including in the South China Sea. ...

According to a Coast Guard statement, the transfer ceremony will feature an official party with the two signatories being Rear Adm. Joseph M. Vojvodich, the Coast Guard’s assistant commandant for acquisition and chief acquisition officer, and Rear. Adm. Bayani Gaerlan, who is the commander of the Philippine fleet.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/us-gives-philippines-warship-after-south-china-sea-ruling/

So, Philippines got a free surplus US coast guard cutter. That's three total now, that they have.

A good US policy would actually be to start building up a coast guard for the Philippines. And then let THEM go sail around Scarborough Shoal, and escort their fishermen etc.

And then, US Navy (and I think Australian Navy should join it) would be doing its freedom of nav ops in the spratlys, etc.

[Smurfs1976]

As an Australian I do think we, and the rest of the Western world, is better off staying united and in practice that means being allied with the US.

There will be differences of opinion naturally but it's a case of "united we stand, divided we fall" I think. We're better off sticking together in the long term.

That said, as someone who has only been to the US once as a tourist and never lived there, I really don't understand some aspects of US politics and political thinking and I think it's fair to say that applies to most Australians.

Australian politics tends to focus on matters such as healthcare, education, taxation, economics and the natural environment. It doesn't focus on defence other than in the context of illegal immigrants turning up in leaky boats and the economic aspects of domestic production of defence hardware (most notably submarines). Matters of defence and the military seem to play a much more significant role in the US.

I really don't think too many are sure what we should be doing about the situation with China and that explains the silence.

[SeaGypsy]

It's not silence. The topics are often discussed, perhaps not to the extent that sufficient pro American noise is crossing the Pacific from our direction for the likes of panic stricken 6 strings.

[Sixstrings]

Some recent news on this, US-Australia-Japan made a joint statement:

U.S., Japan, Australia slam China over South China Sea after weak ASEAN ruling

The United States, Japan and Australia have urged China not to construct military outposts and reclaim land in the disputed South China Sea, in a strong show of support for Southeast Asian nations that have territorial disputes with Beijing in the resource-rich area.

A joint statement by the three allies, issued late Monday, ironically fills the vacuum created by Southeast Asia’s main grouping, which during its meeting of foreign ministers on Sunday failed to take a stand against China because of disunity among themselves. ...

In a clear broadside at China, the statement urged all parties to refrain from “unilateral actions that cause permanent physical change to the marine environment . . . and from such actions as large-scale land reclamation, and the construction of outposts as well as the use of those outposts for military purposes.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/26/us-japan-australia-slam-china-over-south-china-sea-after-weak-asean-ruling.html

STEPPING IN FOR WEAK ASEAN, JAPAN, AUSTRALIA, US CHIDE CHINA

But ASEAN became divided because of China’s divide-and-rule diplomacy by winning support from Cambodia, and to some extent Laos, which resulted in the grouping issuing a joint statement on South China Sea that did not mention China by name or the arbitration ruling.

Instead, it fell upon ASEAN’s allies to rush to their support.

In their joint statement, the ministers of Japan, Australia and the United States also expressed “strong support” for the rule of law and called on China and the Philippines to abide by the arbitration panel’s award, “which is final and legally binding on both parties.”

“The ministers stressed that this is a crucial opportunity for the region to uphold the existing rules-based international order and to show respect for international law,” they said in one of the strongest and most detailed post-arbitration warnings by the allies against China.
http://www.indian24news.com/world/stepping-in-for-weak-asean-japan-australia-us-chide-china/134408-news