风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
约翰·兰德 John Lander
https://johnmenadue.com/author/john-lander/
约翰·兰德 (John Lander) 在1972年中华人民共和国获得承认之前以及20世纪70年代和1 980年代的其他几次工作中，在外交部中国部门工作。1974-76年，他担任驻北京副大使（包括数次担任临时代办）。 他积极参与了澳中关系早期发展的诸多方面的谈判，特别是学生/教师交流、空中交通协议和领事关系等。2000年至2019年期间，他多次访华。
John Lander
https://johnmenadue.com/author/john-lander/
John Lander worked in the China section of the Department of Foreign Affairs in the lead-up to the recognition of the People’s Republic of China in 1972 and several other occasions in the 1970s and 1980s. He was deputy ambassador in Beijing 1974-76 (including a couple of stints as Chargé d’Affaires). He was heavily involved in negotiation of many aspects in the early development of Australia-China relations, especially student/teacher exchange, air traffic agreement and consular relations. He has made numerous visits to China in the years 2000-2019.
https://johnmenadue.com/nato-western-colonial-shadow-looms-over-asia-again/
作者：约翰·兰德 2022 年 4 月 14 日
美国和北约将中国的目标视为其侵略的迹象。
让澳大利亚成为美国/北约的工具，以实现我们的近邻有意识地回避的目标，最终将损害澳大利亚的安全和繁荣。
2022 年 4 月 8 日，在北约及其盟国（包括澳大利亚、新西兰、韩国和日本）外交部长会议的背景下，北约秘书长斯托尔滕贝格在新闻发布会上宣布，北约国家元首和政府首脑将批准一项 新的战略构想，正式将北约的触角延伸至亚太地区，其明确目标是对抗“中国日益增长的影响力和胁迫性政策”。
除了加强网络、新技术和打击虚假信息方面的合作（尤其具有讽刺意味的是，西方国家不断炮轰有关俄罗斯和中国的虚假信息），北约及其亚太盟国将“在……海上安全方面更加密切地合作” ”。
这一声明直接与拜登总统3月18日向习近平主席保证美国“不寻求与中国进行新冷战”以及“重振其盟友关系不针对中国”的保证相矛盾。
这强化了习近平的抱怨，即“美方没有按照拜登总统的积极表态采取行动。 美方错误认知、误判了中国的战略意图”。
几乎在每一份外交政策声明中都重申了中国的意图，即在联合国系统内努力加强联合国系统，使其对发展中国家更加公平。 美国认为这破坏了美国及其盟友为美国及其盟友的利益而设计的“基于规则的秩序”。
澳大利亚就是这样的盟友之一，它认为自己的福祉与这一秩序密不可分，尤其是美国主导的全球金融控制体系，它通过实施制裁日益将其武器化。
美国和北约将中国的目标定性为“侵略”的标志，但他们无法举出中国当前或历史上军事侵略的任何实际例子，这与美国在亚洲、拉丁美洲和拉丁美洲发动的多场战争形成鲜明对比。 中东地区。
斯托尔滕贝格谴责中国拒绝站在西方一边谴责俄罗斯入侵乌克兰，这表明中国试图剥夺其他国家“选择自己道路”的权利。 这与澳大利亚试图阻止所罗门群岛在与中国的港口开发合作方面选择自己的道路形成鲜明对比。
他没有承认中国坚持维持中立和不干涉政策，中国表示这将使其能够在可能的和平谈判中成为公正的调解人。
他没有对印度做出类似的批评，印度在战争问题上坚定保持中立，同时继续与俄罗斯进行有利的经济、金融甚至军备合作。
印度通过签署《上海合作组织宪章》（俄罗斯也是该组织的签署国），承担了在不干涉和尊重领土完整和主权边界的背景下与中国开展安全合作的义务。
斯托尔滕贝格的声明不太可能在亚洲各国首都受到热烈欢迎，因为西方殖民统治的痛苦经历仍然存在于人们的记忆中。
除日本和新加坡外，亚洲国家（以及其他发展中国家）没有制裁俄罗斯，也避免表达对中国的敌意。 相反，他们选择与中国合作，特别是在“一带一路”倡议下的基础设施发展方面。
澳大利亚在北约向亚太地区投射力量方面的合作将进一步疏远其与其最近邻国的关系。 去年11月，东盟与中国续签全面战略伙伴关系，各成员国均重申与中国合作的意愿。
大多数东南亚国家对 AUKUS 破坏地区安全并引发潜在军备竞赛表示担忧。 北约将 AUKUS 定性为北约加强亚太参与的关键工具，这将加剧这些担忧，并增加他们对澳大利亚寻求利用外部力量增加其在该地区影响力的不信任。
早在 1971 年 7 月，外交政策规划文件 QP11/71 就指出，澳大利亚“现在比以往任何时候都更需要根据澳大利亚国家利益和我们近邻的利益制定独立的政策”。 让澳大利亚成为美国/北约的工具，以实现我们的近邻有意识地回避的目标，这将导致立即破坏安全和繁荣。
环球网 2022.04.18
北约秘书长斯托尔滕贝格日前宣布，北约国家元首和政府首脑将批准一项新的战略构想，正式将北约的触角延伸到亚太地区，其明确目的是对抗“中国日益增长的影响力和胁迫性政策”。
这一声明直接违背美国总统拜登3月18日在中美两国领导人通话中作出的保证，即美国“不寻求同中国打‘新冷战’”，以及“不寻求通过强化同盟关系反对中国”。这强化了中方的抱怨，“美方人士没有根据拜登总统的积极表态采取行动。美国误解和误判了中国的战略意图”。
中国在几乎所有外交政策声明中都表示，在联合国系统内部努力，使其对发展中国家更加公平。美国认为，这破坏了由美国及其盟友设计并为自身谋利的“基于规则的秩序”。澳大利亚就是这样一个盟友，它认为自己的福祉与这一秩序密不可分，特别是美国主导的全球金融控制体系，华盛顿通过实施制裁日益将这一体系武器化。
斯托尔滕贝格批评中国拒绝站在西方一边谴责俄罗斯在乌克兰的军事行动，认为这表明中国试图剥夺其他国家“选择自己道路”的权利。这与澳大利亚试图阻止所罗门群岛在与中国的港口开发合作中选择自己的道路形成鲜明对比。他没有提到中国坚持中立和不干涉政策，这将使中国能够在可能的和平谈判中成为一个公正的调解者。
他也没有对印度提出类似批评，印度在俄乌战争中坚定地保持中立，同时继续与俄罗斯进行有益的经济、金融甚至军备合作。
斯托尔滕贝格的声明不太可能受到亚洲各国的欢迎，因为西方殖民统治的痛苦经历仍历历在目。除了日本和新加坡，亚洲国家以及其他发展中国家都没有制裁俄罗斯，也没有表示对中国的敌意。相反，它们选择与中国合作，特别是在中国提出的“一带一路”倡议下进行基础设施建设。
澳大利亚在北约向亚太地区投射力量方面的合作将进一步使它疏远邻国。2021年11月，中国和东盟将其关系提升为全面战略伙伴关系，每个东盟成员都重申了与中国合作的意愿。大多数东南亚国家表达了对“奥库斯”（AUKUS）破坏地区安全，并可能引发潜在军备竞赛的担忧。北约将“奥库斯”描述为加强北约在亚太地区参与的重要工具，这将进一步强化上述担忧，并增加不少亚太国家对澳大利亚的不信任，认为澳大利亚通过寻求借助外部力量来增加自身在该地区的影响力。
早在1971年7月，澳外交政策规划文件QP11/71就指出，澳大利亚“现在比以往任何时候都更需要根据澳大利亚的国家利益和我们近邻的利益来制定独立的政策”。让澳大利亚成为美国和北约的工具，追求其近邻努力回避的目标，最终将损害澳大利亚自身的安全和繁荣。（作者是澳大利亚前外交官）
<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
美国正在准备澳大利亚对华战争
https://johnmenadue.com/committee-for-the-republic-salon-18-january-2023-anzus-leading-us-to-war-against-china/
作者：约翰·兰德 2023 年 2 月 1 日
美国不准备对中国发动战争。 美国正在准备澳大利亚对中国发动战争。
感谢您邀请我在沙龙上发言。 考虑到在我之前有一长串的杰出学者、分析家和作家，我感到非常荣幸，但又有些畏惧。
我不是一个“作家”，尽管我在三十年的外交生涯中写了很多东西，其中大部分与中国有关。 这些内容都没有出版，大部分都埋在政府档案中。 我所能提供的只是根据我过去的经验，我对当前美国和中国事态发展的个人解读。
你们之前的一位演讲者帕特里克·劳伦斯（Patrick Lawrence）主张将要点放在第一位。 所以这里是：
美国不准备对中国发动战争。
美国正在准备澳大利亚对中国发动战争。
澳新美条约
看看《澳新美条约》以及它随着时间的推移被操纵的方式就可以解释为什么我会得出这个结论。
《澳新美条约》最初在概念上是防御性的，从一开始就被澳大利亚视为“美国接受其在东南亚的责任”（珀西·斯彭德）的一种手段，以保护澳大利亚免受其所在地区的敌对势力的侵害。 然而，它已发展成为增强美国在全球发动战争能力的工具——之前是在伊拉克和阿富汗，目前是针对俄罗斯，可能还针对中国。
《澳新美条约》通常以虔诚的语气被称为“联盟”，已被提升为近乎宗教的信仰条款，任何反对该条约的异议都被视为异端，相当于背叛。 出于想让美国保护澳大利亚的焦虑，澳大利亚自二战以来几乎每一次军事冒险（或不幸的冒险）都以该联盟为理由。
与北约或与日本的防卫条约不同，澳新美条约实际上不提供保护保证，只是保证在澳大利亚受到攻击时就适当的支持手段进行磋商。
另一方面，该联盟促进了美国在澳大利亚存在的稳步增长，以至于渗透到澳大利亚政治、经济、金融、社会和文化生活的各个方面。 澳大利亚人担心中国“买下这个国家”，但美国的投资规模是中国的十倍。
他们没有意识到或不在乎，资源、食品、零售、大众媒体、娱乐、银行和金融领域的几乎所有澳大利亚大公司都拥有美国的多数股权。 目前，美国企业通过投资澳大利亚股票影响我们政治的能力超过了其他所有人。
（由 IPAN – ClintonFernandez 提供）
澳大利亚资产向美国转让的趋势有增无减：2021年下半年，时任财长乔什·弗莱登伯格(Josh Frydenberg)批准将1300亿美元的澳大利亚资产转让给外国私募股权基金，促成交易的高盛受益数百万美元。 乔什·弗莱登伯格 (Josh Frydenberg) 现受雇于高盛：
悉尼机场 – 由纽约投资银行家领导的麦格理银行
AusNet（电力基础设施）被纽约布鲁克菲尔德公司通过加拿大以 180 亿美元收购
Spark基础设施（电力）被美国利益集团以52亿美元收购
AfterPay金融交易系统390亿美元被收购
Healthscope，第二大私立医院集团（72 家医院），被 Brookfield 收购，目前控制在开曼群岛。
美国和英国占全部外国投资的近一半。 中国大陆加上香港占 4.2%。 四大“澳大利亚”银行依赖外国资本，这决定了当地银行的政策和运营。
澳大利亚的国防和军事武器制造业现在主要由美国武器公司所有——洛克希德·马丁公司、雷神公司、波音公司、泰雷兹公司、诺斯罗普格鲁曼公司。 澳大利亚国防工业和经济与美国军工联合体的深度融合极大地影响了澳大利亚的外交/国防政策。
再加上美国通过“五眼”网络和 ASPI（该委员会的委员会中有来自美国军火制造商的说客，由中央情报局培训的特工领导）掌握了澳大利亚的情报和政策机构，这意味着美国能够左右澳大利亚的政策 支持美国的几乎所有努力。
尽管该条约并没有包含美国保护澳大利亚的保证，但该条约及其主持下的进一步安排，例如2014年的《部队态势协议》和现在的《AUKUS》，极大地促进了美国在澳大利亚的战争准备。 这已经呈指数级加速
在过去的几年里。 美国现在将澳大利亚描述为美国在印太地区投射力量的最重要基地。
战备指标
* 2,500 名美国海军陆战队员驻扎在达尔文，与澳大利亚国防军进行作战训练，很快日本国防军也将加入其中
* 在达尔文建立美国印太司令部地区总部
* 延长北领地皇家空军飞机跑道，费用由我们承担，为美国战斗机和轰炸机提供服务
* 提议在北领地廷达尔皇家空军基地部署 6 架具有核武器能力的 B52 轰炸机
* 在北领地达尔文为美国飞机建造大型燃料和维护设施
* 拟斥资1700亿美元采购8艘核动力潜艇，用于台湾海峡的猎杀行动
* 耗资100亿美元在澳大利亚东海岸建造一个深水港，供美国和英国核动力潜艇和核导弹携带潜艇使用
* 澳大利亚中部历史悠久的卫星通信站 Pine Gap 最近正在进行扩建和升级。 它是美军在印太地区（甚至远至乌克兰）指挥和控制的关键
政府和右翼反华分析家和评论员的观点在主流媒体中占主导地位，他们接受国防部长的论点，即这种军事化通过加强澳大利亚高端作战能力的范围和杀伤力来增强澳大利亚的主权，从而提供可信的威慑力 给潜在的侵略者。
包括我在内的执政精英之外的许多分析家和评论员认为，这些安排实际上将澳大利亚主权让给了美国。 这尤其是因为在 ANZUS 的主持下签订的 2014 年《部队态势协议》的规定。
据我所知，委员会已经分发了一份文件，阐述了《自由贸易协定》的细节，所以总而言之，它给予美国人员、飞机、船只和车辆不受阻碍地进入、排他性控制和使用商定的设施和区域，并给予澳大利亚绝对的权利。 根本没有说明如何、何时何地以及为何使用它们。
所有澳大利亚分析人士，无论同情还是反感中国，都同意一点。 也就是说，如果美国因台湾地位或任何其他争议问题对中国发动战争，澳大利亚将不可避免地卷入其中。
威胁
所有这些准备工作都是基于中国构成军事威胁的错误前提。 中国没有侵略过任何地方。 它从未提议对其他国家使用武力。 它在宪法中规定了“三不”——不结军事联盟； 没有军事基地； 不使用或威胁使用军事力量。 然而，中国保留使用武力阻止台湾分裂的权利。
最近，为了应对可怕的美国海军存在和在其海岸线附近的作战演习，它迅速增强了防御能力。 它的国防预算是美国的三分之一，而它在南海建设的基地与美国在中国各地分布的数百个基地相比简直是小巫见大巫。
那么，如果中国不是军事威胁，为什么它被指定为以美国为首的西方集体的主要系统性威胁呢？ 答案就在于“系统”二字。 中国表示决心改革全球金融体系，使其对发展中国家更加公平。 基辛格曾说过：“如果你控制了金钱，你就控制了世界”。 美国目前控制着世界金融，而中国（与俄罗斯）正准备改变这一现状。
在二战后机构建立中发挥主导作用的美国已成为主要的修正主义者，放弃联合国而转而寻求“自愿联盟”。 美国拒绝加入海洋法和气候等重要公约。 它拒绝接受国际法院和国际刑事法院的管辖，并免除《种族灭绝公约》的管辖。 它对其他国家实施贸易限制，同时不同意世贸组织上诉法庭的新任命，从而阻碍了该机构的运作，从而在削弱世贸组织方面发挥了主导作用。
中国是世界第二大经济体（或者根据某些计算，是最大的）经济体。 它是100多个国家的主要贸易伙伴，主要是南半球国家，但也包括澳大利亚和其他一些西方国家。 因此，中国有能力破坏西方为了利益而建立的“基于国际规则的秩序”。
中国已经建立了英美国际金融交易体系的替代方案：跨境银行间支付系统CIPS（讽刺的是，许多西方银行都是该系统的股东）。 在科拉
与俄罗斯以及金砖五国（巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非）的合作 中国正在创造一种替代万能美元的货币，作为贸易和国家储备的首选货币。
美国似乎已经得出结论，既然无法在经济上制约中国，那就只能让中国陷入一场持久战，从而阻碍其经济增长，阻碍其与其他国家的基础设施建设合作。 2021 年 3 月 25 日，拜登总统发誓要阻止中国超越美国成为世界上最强大的国家——他说，“在我的任期内”。
然而，战略与国际研究中心的最新计算机模型与兰德公司之前的模型一样，表明所有参与中美战争的国家都将失败。
代理战
所有这些分析都忽略了一个重要的一点。 美国奉行沃尔福威茨主义，即阻止任何可能挑战美国全球霸主地位的国家（俄罗斯、欧洲或中国）崛起的决心并没有减弱，而是演变成一种通过代理与对手作战的战略。
乌克兰战争已经清楚地证明了这一点。 2022 年 1 月 25 日，在俄罗斯干预之前，白宫举行新闻发布会表示，“美国与其欧洲伙伴合作，将削弱俄罗斯，使其无法在国际舞台上发挥任何影响力”。
从拜登到佩洛西，再到国会议员，政治领导人都告诉乌克兰，“你们的战争就是我们的战争，我们会一直参与其中”。 国会议员亚当·希夫直言不讳地说，“我们支持乌克兰……在那里与俄罗斯作战，这样我们就不必在这里作战”。
就中国而言，国家安全战略将中国定义为美国的主要威胁，而选择的代理人显然是台湾。 该战略设想：
• 将中国描绘成侵略者的全球媒体宣传活动（已持续数年）；
• 怂恿中国采取军事行动阻止台湾分裂；
• 让台湾自行防御，并不断从美国补给武器和装备，为军工联合体带来巨大利润；
• 充分支持台湾，让中国“陷入困境”，从而阻碍其经济发展和与其他国家的基础设施合作；
• 避免直接军事接触，以保持美国军队的全部能力，而中国的军队将大大减少； 尽管拜登公开重申坚持“一个中国”原则，但美国却不断对中国进行刺激；
• 将其大部分海军力量驻扎在中国沿海；
• 南海和台湾海峡的“航行自由”和作战演习；
• 美国高级官员使用美国军用飞机进行访问；
• 建立一个延伸到大陆领土上空的假定“防空识别区”（ADIZ），然后指控中国侵犯它；
• 秘密提供军事训练人员（同时否认）；
• 将台湾纳入民主峰会（2021 年 12 月 9 日至 10 日），这意味着它是一个独立的国家；
许多澳大利亚政界人士（尽管不是现任政府）也加入了刺激中国的行列，鼓励台湾考虑宣布独立的可能性，这将引发中国的军事行动。
如果澳大利亚兑现“拯救台湾”的承诺，那将是毁灭性的：
• 鉴于中国和澳大利亚的兵力差距，澳大利亚海军将被消灭；
*澳大利亚的指挥/控制中心（可能还有城市）可能会被中国导弹摧毁。 澳大利亚没有反导防御系统；
• 为了保护自己的资产并防止陷入核冲突，美国不会直接参与澳大利亚的防御；
• 美国的“支持”将通过大规模军售来弥补我们的损失——就像在乌克兰一样——从而为美国军事/工业联合体带来进一步的利润；
• 东盟不太可能支持澳大利亚。 与中国的全面战略伙伴关系得到更新和升级。 每个成员国都有中国“一带一路”倡议下的基础设施项目，他们不想让这些项目陷入一场“双赢的战争”；
• 印度不太可能提供支持，尽管它是四方会谈的成员 — — 四方会谈只不过是一种协商对话。 印度在上海合作组织下对中国做出了安全承诺，并从俄罗斯获得武器，而俄罗斯与中国有着“比条约更好”的关系。
• 澳大利亚的许多日常必需品严重依赖中国。 在战争中，来自中国的运输将受到严重干扰。
澳大利亚人普遍对与中国的贸易关系带来的物质利益感到非常高兴，中国占澳大利亚出口收入的三分之一以上。 但是，中国任何试图提高澳大利亚人对中国历史、社会、文化和科学成就的了解，更不用说其政治制度或外交政策的尝试，都会立即引起人们的担忧。
渗透澳大利亚政治并破坏“澳大利亚生活方式”的邪恶企图。
中国的经济（以及军事）实力不断增强，澳大利亚为中国贡献了重要资源并从中获得了巨大利益，但中国却被描述为对澳大利亚安全的威胁。 这让澳大利亚陷入了准备对华开战以保护澳大利亚对华贸易的荒谬政策悖论。
台湾近期的事态发展，特别是导致蔡英文辞去台独领导职务的县市选举，表明台湾宁愿维持现状，不愿成为美国的代理人。 与北京的战争。
澳大利亚因此成为潜在的代理人。
以联盟的名义，美国军人（现役和退役）现在已融入澳大利亚国防政策制定机构以及澳大利亚国防军的指挥和控制职位。 根据该联盟和 AUKUS 协议在澳大利亚部署的所有美国军事资产现在都可以与澳大利亚国防军“互换”，从而可以将它们用作假定的澳大利亚军队来对抗中国，而美国则袖手旁观并保持同样的假装。 “不参与”，就像在乌克兰所做的那样。
这就是为什么我一开始就说美国准备派澳大利亚对中国开战。
如果美国挑起对华战争，这些都是澳新美联盟给澳大利亚带来的危险，但美国也面临着风险。
1. 巨大的开支将进一步加剧美国的贫富差距和相关的国内政治崩溃。 提供与中国的代理人战争所需的武器和其他一切对美国预算的消耗将比乌克兰冲突更大。 这些支出将回流到军工综合体，构成财富从普通纳税人向富豪亿万富翁的进一步大规模转移。 它将耗尽本已不可持续的国家债务，要么减少基本服务和基础设施的支出，要么如果印钞，将进一步抑制通货膨胀。 美国因实际经济衰退和贫富差距扩大而已经遭受的政治和社会崩溃只会加剧到崩溃的边缘。
2. 陷入直接战争可能是不可避免的。 策划代理人战争作为一项学术活动固然很好，但在战斗开始时坚持这些计划将非常困难。 美国已经有一些疯狂的政客和“专家”认为美国可以赢得一场直接战争，所以当中国开始轰炸澳大利亚，澳大利亚的老“伙伴”大量死亡时，美国那些主张直接战争的声音 参与度将被放大。 再加上美国政治已经极端两极分化，只有战争才是两党合作的，极端分子将美国带入直接冲突以及与中国进行核摊牌的风险非常严重。
3. 日本加入AUKUS安排将增加日本有义务在与中国的任何军事冲突中协助澳大利亚的风险。 由于与日本签订的防卫条约，美国将被迫加入战斗，从而使其避免直接军事接触的计划失效。
一个历史讽刺点：
最后我会讲一些我个人参与过的历史讽刺：
上世纪70年代初，我们对基辛格秘密访华一无所知，直到尼克松访华计划公布。 由于美国对华政策发生重大变化，我们感到措手不及，因此于 1971 年 7 月 21 日制定了政策规划文件 QP11/71。
它认识到……“美国实施全球政策的方式造成了政治劣势”，并认为这意味着这一点。 “在不断变化的力量平衡中，美国联盟对我们的意义将不如过去。”
事情接着说：
“如果说有什么不同的话，那就是美国最近的行动以及美国未能就对澳大利亚至关重要的问题征求我们的意见，从而强化了这一论点。 因此，我们现在比以往任何时候都更需要根据澳大利亚国家利益和我们近邻的利益制定独立的政策……”
与 20 世纪 70 年代相比，今天更是如此。 例如，尽管我们在这场不明智的冲突中扮演了美国“忠实”支持者的角色，但美国从阿富汗仓促撤军时并未征求澳大利亚的意见。 我们的愤怒抗议遭到了拜登“美国只为了自己的利益行事”的声明的回应。
我们目前的困境主要是由于澳大利亚历届政府未能认真对待这一分析并采取行动。 具有讽刺意味的是，接替惠特拉姆的弗雷泽总理在他生命的最后阶段也得出了非常相似的观点，他在
他的书《危险的盟友》，但为时已晚。 他指出了一个悖论：澳大利亚需要美国的防御，但又因为美国而需要防御。
一些相关的引言，首先来自已故的吉姆·莫兰：
“我们的部队并不是为了产生任何重大的独立战略影响而设计的。 它们纯粹是为了为更大的美国任务提供利基组件而设计的。”
在他看来，我们正在放弃我们自己的防御并培养对美国人的完全依赖。
克里斯·赫奇斯：
“最后，那些带领美国陷入阿富汗、伊拉克和现在的乌克兰等一系列灾难的新保守派，给美国造成了数万亿美元的损失，甚至更多的名誉资本遭到破坏，他们将声称自己享有习惯上的豁免权，免受任何责任。” 为他们的野蛮失败而高兴地继续他们的下一场灾难。 我们需要警惕他们的下一个策略，即掠夺国库并将自己的私人利益置于国家利益之上。 一定会来的。”
我从中抽取的一些评论员的（不完整）列表：
John Menadue – PM&C 前秘书
理查德·坦特 (Richard Tanter) – 鹦鹉螺基金会军事分析师
Brian Toohey – 作者（政治和历史分析）
迈克·斯克拉夫顿 (Mike Scrafton) 是一名高级国防部长，也是国防部长的部长级顾问
保罗·基廷 (Paul Keating) 于 1991 年至 1996 年担任澳大利亚总理。
芮捷锐 (Geoff Raby AO) 曾任澳大利亚驻中国大使 (2007-11)； 他因对澳中关系和国际贸易的贡献而被授予澳大利亚勋章。
格雷戈里·克拉克 (Gregory Clark) 曾在香港和莫斯科任职，开始了他的外交生涯。 他是东京多摩大学的名誉校长和开创性的秋田国际大学的副校长。
迈克·吉利根博士在国防政策和评估军事发展建议方面工作了 20 年，其中包括在五角大楼研究亚洲军事平衡问题。
Jocelyn Chey AM 是悉尼大学客座教授以及西悉尼大学和悉尼科技大学的兼职教授。 她曾在中国和香港担任外交职务。 她是澳大利亚国际事务研究所的研究员。
约瑟夫·卡米莱里 (Joseph Camilleri) 是墨尔本拉筹伯大学名誉教授、澳大利亚社会科学院院士、十字路口对话主席
David S G Goodman 是悉尼大学中国研究中心主任、澳大利亚中国研究协会会长。
杰夫·米勒 (Geoff Miller) 曾任国家评估办公室主任、外交部副部长、驻日本和韩国大使以及驻新西兰高级专员。
卡万·霍格 (Cavan Hogue) 曾任驻苏联和俄罗斯大使。 他还曾在澳大利亚国立大学和麦考瑞大学工作。
2023 年 1 月 18 日在共和国委员会沙龙上发表的演讲的编辑记录。
The US is preparing Australia to fight its war against China
https://johnmenadue.com/committee-for-the-republic-salon-18-january-2023-anzus-leading-us-to-war-against-china/
The United States is not preparing to go to war against China. The United States is preparing Australia to go to war against China.
Thank you for inviting me to address the Salon. I am greatly honoured and somewhat daunted, given the long list of eminent scholars, analysts and writers who have preceded me.
I am not a “writer”, although I have written a lot during my thirty-year diplomatic career, much of it in relation to China. None of it published and most of it buried in government archives. All I can bring to the table is my personal interpretation of current developments regarding US and China, in the light of my past experience.
One of your previous speakers, Patrick Lawrence, advocated putting the main point first. So here goes:
The United States is not preparing to go to war against China.
The United States is preparing Australia to go to war against China.
The ANZUS Treaty
A look at the ANZUS Treaty and the way it has been manipulated over time will explain why I have come to this conclusion.
Originally defensive in concept, the ANZUS Treaty was seen by Australia from its very beginning as a means to “achieve the acceptance by the USA of responsibility in SE Asia” (Percy Spender) to shield Australia from perceived antagonistic forces in its region. It has, however, developed into an instrument for the furtherance of US ability to prosecute war globally – previously in Iraq and Afghanistan, currently against Russia and potentially against China.
The ANZUS Treaty, usually referred to in reverential tones as “The Alliance”, has been elevated to an almost religious article of faith, against which any demur is treated as heresy amounting to treachery. Out of anxiety to cement the US into protection of Australia, the Alliance has been invoked as justification for Australia’s participation in almost every American military adventure – or misadventure – since WW II.
Unlike NATO or the Defence Treaty with Japan, the ANZUS treaty actually provides no guarantee of protection, merely assurances to consult on appropriated means of support in the event that Australia should come under attack.
On the other hand, the Alliance has facilitated the steady growth of American presence in Australia, to the point that it pervades every aspect of Australian political, economic, financial, social and cultural life. Australians fret about China “buying up the country”, but American investment is ten times the size.
They are unaware or uncaring that almost every major Australian company across the resources, food, retail, mass media, entertainment, banking and finance sectors has majority American ownership. Right now US corporations eclipse everyone else in their ability to influence our politics through their investment in Australian stocks.
The transfer of Australian assets to American ownership has continued unabated: In the second half of 2021 then Treasurer Josh Frydenberg approved the transfer of $130 billion of Australian assets to foreign private equity funds, benefiting Goldman Sachs who facilitated the transactions, by multimillions of dollars. Josh Frydenberg now is employed by Goldman Sachs:
- Sydney Airport – Macquarie Bank led by a NY investment banker
- AusNet (electricity infrastructure) $18 billion takeover by Brookfield – NY via Canada
- SparkInfrastructure (electricity) $5.2 billion takeover by American interests
- AfterPay financial transaction system $39 billion takeover
- Healthscope, second-biggest private hospitals group (72 Hospitals) taken over by Brookfield and now controlled in the Cayman Islands.
The USA and the UK between them represent nearly half of all foreign investment. China plus Hong Kong represents 4.2%. The 4 big “Aussie” banks are dependent on foreign capital which dictate local banks’ policies and operations.
Defence and military weapons manufacturing industries in Australia are now largely owned by US weapons corporations – Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Thales, NorthropGrumman. The deep integration of Australia’s defence industries and economy into the US military-industrial complex greatly influences Australia’s foreign/defence policies.
That, plus US capture of Australia’s intelligence and policy apparatus through the “Five Eyes” network and ASPI (which has lobbyists from American arms manufacturers on a Board headed by an operative trained by the CIA) means that the US is able to swing Australian policy to support America in almost all its endeavours.
Despite the fact that it contains no guarantee of US protection of Australia, the Treaty and further arrangements under its auspices, such as the 2014 Force Posture Agreement and now AUKUS, have greatly facilitated US war preparation in Australia. This has accelerated exponentially in the past few years. The US now describes Australia as the most important base for the projection of US power in the Indo-Pacific.
Indicators of war preparations
* 2,500 US marines stationed in Darwin practicing for war with the Australian Defence Forces, soon to include the Japanese Defence Forces
* Establishment of a regional HQ for the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command in Darwin
* Lengthening the RAAF aircraft runways in Northern Territory at our expense for servicing US fighters and bombers
* Proposed stationing of 6 nuclear weapons-capable B52 Bombers at RAAF Tindal in NT
* Construction of massive fuel and maintenance facilities in Darwin NT for US aircraft
* Proposed acquisition of eight nuclear-propelled submarines at the cost of $170 billion for hunter-killer operations in the Taiwan Strait
* Construction, at the cost of $10 billion, of a deep water port on Australia’s east coast for US and UK nuclear powered and nuclear missile-carrying submarines
* The long-established satellite communications station known as Pine Gap in central Australia has recently, and is still being, expanded and upgraded. It is key to the command and control of US forces in the Indo-Pacific (and even as far afield as Ukraine)
The Government and right wing anti-China analysts and commentators, whose opinions dominate main stream media, accept the Defence Minister’s contention that this militarisation enhances Australia’s sovereignty by strengthening the range and lethality of Australia’s high-end war-fighting capability to provide a credible deterrent to a potential aggressor.
Many analysts and commentators outside the governing elite, including myself, argue that these arrangements effectively cede Australian sovereignty to America. This is especially because of the provisions of the Force Posture Agreement of 2014, entered into under the auspices of ANZUS.
I understand that a paper has been circulated to the Committee, expounding the details of the FPA, so in summary, it gives unimpeded access, exclusive control and use of agreed facilities and areas to US personnel, aircraft, ships and vehicles and gives Australia absolutely no say at all in how, when where and why they are to be used.
All Australian analysts, whether sympathetic or antipathetic to China, agree on one point. That is, that if the US goes to war against China over the status of Taiwan, or any other issue of contention, Australia will inevitably be involved.
The Threat
All these preparations are justified by the false premise that China presents a military threat. China has not invaded anywhere. It has never proposed use of force against other countries. It has enshrined in its Constitution the ‘Three No’s – No military alliances; No military bases; No use, or threat to use, military force. China has, however, reserved the right to use force to prevent secession by Taiwan.
It has recently rapidly increased its defence capability in response to the fearsome US naval presence and war-fighting exercises just off its coastline. Its defence budget is one third that of the US and the bases that it has constructed in the South China Sea pale into insignificance compared to the hundreds of bases that the US has ranged all around China.
So, if China is not a military threat, why is it designated as the primary systemic threat of the collective West, led by the US? The answer lies in the word “systemic”. China has expressed a determination to revamp the global financial system to make it fairer for developing countries. Kissinger is reputed to have said: “If you control money, you control the world”. The US currently controls world finance and China (with Russia) is out to change that.
The US, which played the leading part in the establishment of the post-World War II institutions, has become a leading revisionist, abandoning the UN for “coalitions of the willing”. The US has declined to join important Conventions like those on the Law of the Sea and on Climate. It has refused to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and has exempted itself from the Genocide Convention. It has played a leading part in the weakening of the World Trade Organisation by imposing trade restrictions on other countries, while not agreeing to new appointments to the WTO’s appellate tribunal, so preventing that body from functioning.
China is the second-largest (or by some calculations, the largest) economy in the world. It is the major trading partner of over 100 countries, mainly in the global south, but including Australia and a number of other Western countries. Hence China has the clout to undermine the “international rules-based order” set up by, and for the benefit of, the West.
China has already established an alternative to the Anglo-American international financial transaction system: – the Cross-border Interbank Payments System CIPS, (in which, ironically a number of Western banks are shareholders). In collaboration with Russia and within the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa) China is creating an alternative to the almighty dollar as the preferred currency for trade and for national reserve holdings.
It seems that the US has concluded that, since it can’t constrain China economically, it will have to get it bogged down in a long-drawn-out war to hinder its economic growth and hamper its infrastructure development cooperation with other countries. On 25 March 2021 President Biden vowed to prevent China from overtaking the US as the most powerful country in the world – “not on my watch” he said.
Nevertheless, the latest CSIS computer modelling, like previous modelling by the Rand Corporation, indicates that all involved in a Sino-US war would lose.
Proxy War
All of these analyses overlook one significant point. US determination to pursue the Wolfowitz doctrine of preventing the rise of any power that could challenge US global supremacy (neither Russia, nor Europe, nor China) has not diminished, but has morphed into a strategy of fighting its adversaries by proxy.
This has been clearly demonstrated by the war in Ukraine. A White House press briefing on 25 January 2022, before the Russian intervention, stated that “the US, in concert with its European partners, will weaken Russia to the point where it can exercise no influence on the international stage”.
Political leaders from Biden, through Pelosi and on to Members of Congress have told Ukraine that “your war is our war and we are in it for as long as it takes”. Congressman Adam Schiff put it bluntly that “we support Ukraine… to fight Russia over there, so that we don’t have to fight it over here”.
In the case of China, defined in the NDS as the principal threat to the US, the proxy of choice is clearly Taiwan. The strategy envisages:
• a world-wide media campaign (going on for several years already) to portray China as the aggressor;
• goading China into taking military action to prevent Taiwan’s secession;
• leaving Taiwan to conduct its own defence, with constant resupply of arms and equipment from the US, at great profit to the military/industrial complex;
• sustaining Taiwan sufficiently to keep China ‘bogged down’, thus hampering its economic development and its infrastructure cooperation with other countries;
• avoiding direct military engagement, in order to maintain the full capacity of US forces, while China’s would be significantly depleted; Although Biden has publicly re-affirmed adherence to the ‘One China’ principle, the US has been goading China by;
• stationing the bulk its naval power off the coast of China;
• ‘freedom of navigation’ and combat exercises in the South China Sea and Taiwan Straits;
• visits by senior US officials using US military aircraft;
• creation of a putative ‘Air Defence Identification Zone’ (ADIZ) extending well over mainland territory and then alleging Chinese violation of it;
• secretly providing military training personnel (whilst denying it);
• including Taiwan in the Summit for Democracy (9-10 December 2021), implying it is a separate country;
Many Australian politicians, (although not the present government), joined in goading China, by encouraging Taiwan to consider the possibility of declaring independence, which would trigger military action by China.
If Australia were to make good on its promise to ‘save Taiwan’, it would be devastated:
• The Australian navy would be obliterated, given the disparity between China’s and Australia’s forces;
* command/control centres (and possibly cities) in Australia could be wiped out by Chinese missiles. Australia has no anti-missile defence;
• To preserve its own assets, and to forestall the descent into nuclear conflict, the US would not engage directly in defence of Australia;
• US ‘support’ would be through massive arms sales to replace our losses – just as in Ukraine – at further profit to the US military/industrial complex;
• ASEAN is unlikely to support Australia. It has renewed and up-graded its Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with China. Each member country has infrastructure projects under China’s BRI, which they would not want to jeopardise in a ‘no-win war’;
• Support from India is unlikely, despite its membership of the Quad – which is nothing more than a consultative dialogue. India has security commitments to China under the SCO and gets its arms from Russia, which has a “better than treaty” relationship with China.
• Australia relies heavily on China for many daily necessities. In a war, deliveries from China would be severely disrupted.
Australians generally are more than happy for the material benefits of a trading relationship with China, which constitutes more than one third of Australia’s export earnings. But, any attempt by China to improve Australians’ understanding of China’s historical, social, cultural and scientific achievements, let alone its political systems or foreign policy, are instantly feared as nefarious attempts to infiltrate Australian politics and undermine the ‘Australian way of life’.
The increasing size of China’s economic (and, by extension military) strength, to which Australia contributes important resources and from which it derives so much benefit, is portrayed as a threat to Australia’s security. This has Australia trapped in the absurd policy paradox of preparing to go to war against China to protect Australia’s trade with China.
Recent developments in Taiwan, particularly the county and municipal elections, which caused the President, Tsai Ingwen, to resign her leadership of the pro-Independence Party, suggest that Taiwan prefers the status quo and is unwilling to be the proxy of the US in a war with Beijing.
Australia thus becomes the potential proxy.
In the name of the Alliance, American service personnel (active and retired) are now embedded in Australian defence policy making institutions and in command and control positions within the ADF. All of the American military assets installed in Australia under the Alliance and the AUKUS deal, are now “interchangeable” with the ADF, making it possible to use them as putative Australian forces against China, while the US stands aside and maintains the same pretence of “no engagement”, as it is doing in Ukraine.
This is why I said at the beginning that the US is preparing to send Australia to war against China.
Whilst these are the dangers that the ANZUS Alliance poses for Australia if the US instigates a war against China, there are risks for the US also.
1. There would be crippling expense that further exacerbates the US wealth divide and related domestic political breakdown. Supplying the weaponry and everything else required for a proxy war with China would be a bigger drain on the US budget than the Ukraine conflict. The expenditure would flow back to the military industrial complex, constituting a further massive transfer of wealth from the ordinary taxpayer to the plutocrat billionaires. It would blow out the already unsustainable national debt, and either take away from expenditure on essential services and infrastructure, or, if they print money, further blow out inflation. The political and social breakdown that the US is already suffering as a consequence of its real economic decline and widening wealth gap could only intensify to breaking point.
2. The slide into a direct war would probably be inevitable. Planning a proxy war is all very well as an academic exercise, but sticking with those plans when the fighting starts will be very difficult. There are already lunatic politicians and “experts” in the US who think American can win a direct war, so when China starts bombing Australia, and good old Aussie “mates” are dying in massive numbers, the voices of those in the US advocating direct engagement will be amplified. Combined with the already extreme polarisation of US politics in which ONLY war is bipartisan, the risk that extremists will take the US into direct conflict, and a nuclear showdown with China, is very serious.
3. The folding in of Japan into the AUKUS arrangements will increase the risk that Japan would be obliged to assist Australia in any military conflict with China. The US, because of its Defence Treaty with Japan, would then be obliged to join in the fighting, vitiating its plan to avoid direct military engagement.
A point of historical irony:
I’ll wind up with a bit of historical irony, in which I was personally involved:
In the early 70’s, we had been kept completely in the dark about the secret Kissinger visits to China, until the plan for Nixon to visit was announced. Feeling blindsided by a momentous change in US policy towards China, we produced Policy Planning Paper QP11/71 of 21 July 1971.
It recognised.. “political disadvantage resulting from the manner in which the United States conducts its global policies” and argued that this would mean that. “The American alliance, in a changing power balance, will mean less to us than it has in the past.”
It went on:
“If anything, this argument has been strengthened by recent United States actions and America’s failure to consult us on issues of primary importance to Australia. Accordingly, we shall need, now more than ever, to formulate independent policies, based on Australian national interests and those of our near neighbours…”
This is even more true today than it was in the 1970’s. For example, Australia was not consulted in the precipitate US withdrawal from Afghanistan, despite our role as ‘loyal’ supporter of the US in that ill-advised conflict. Our indignant protestations were met with Biden’s statement that “America acts only in its own interests”.
Our present predicament is due largely to the failure of a succession of Australian Governments to take this analysis to heart and act upon it. Prime Minister Fraser, who replaced Whitlam, ironically came to a very similar view towards the end of his life, which he set forth in detail in his book ‘Dangerous Allies’, but too late to do anything about it. He identified the paradox that Australia needs the US for its defence, but it only needs defending because of the US.
A couple of pertinent quotes, first from the late Jim Molan:
“Our forces were not designed to have any significant independent strategic impact. They were purely designed to provide niche components of larger American missions.”
We were, in his view, abdicating our own defence and cultivating complete dependence on the Americans.
And from Chris Hedges:
“Finally, the neo-cons who have led the U.S. into the serial debacles of Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Ukraine, costing the country tens of trillions of dollars and even greater amounts of destroyed reputational capital, will claim their customary immunity from any accountability for their savage failures and cheerily move on to their next calamity. We need to be on the lookout for their next gambit to pillage the treasury and advance their own private interests above those of the nation. It will surely come.”
An (incomplete) list of some of the commentators from whom I have drawn:
John Menadue – former secretary PM&C
Richard Tanter – military analyst, Nautilus Foundation
Brian Toohey – author (political and historical analysis)
Mike Scrafton was a senior Defence executive, and ministerial adviser to the minister for defence
Paul Keating was the prime minister of Australia from 1991 to 1996.
Geoff Raby AO was Australia’s ambassador to China (2007–11); He was awarded the Order of Australia for services to Australia–China relations and to international trade.
Gregory Clark began his diplomatic career with postings to Hong Kong and Moscow. He is emeritus president of Tama University in Tokyo and vice-president of the pioneering Akita International University.
Dr Mike Gilligan worked for 20 years in defence policy and evaluating military proposals for development, including time in the Pentagon on military balances in Asia.
Jocelyn Chey AM is Visiting Professor at the University of Sydney and Adjunct Professor at Western Sydney University and UTS. She formerly held diplomatic posts in China and Hong Kong. She is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of International Affairs.
Joseph Camilleri is Emeritus Professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences, and President of Conversation at the Crossroads
David S G Goodman is the Director, China Studies Centre, University of Sydney and President of the Chinese Studies Association of Australia.
Geoff Miller was Director-General, Office of National Assessments, deputy secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador to Japan and the Republic of Korea, and High Commissioner to New Zealand.
Cavan Hogue was Ambassador to USSR and Russia. He also worked at ANU and Macquarie universities.
Edited transcript of a speech to the Committee for the Republic, Salon, 18 January 2023.
