風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
約翰·蘭德 John Lander
https://johnmenadue.com/author/john-lander/
約翰·蘭德 (John Lander) 在1972年中華人民共和國獲得承認之前以及20世紀70年代和1 980年代的其他幾次工作中，在外交部中國部門工作。1974-76年，他擔任駐北京副大使（包括數次擔任臨時代辦）。 他積極參與了澳中關係早期發展的諸多方麵的談判，特別是學生/教師交流、空中交通協議和領事關係等。2000年至2019年期間，他多次訪華。
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：約翰·蘭德 2022 年 4 月 14 日
美國和北約將中國的目標視為其侵略的跡象。
讓澳大利亞成為美國/北約的工具，以實現我們的近鄰有意識地回避的目標，最終將損害澳大利亞的安全和繁榮。
2022 年 4 月 8 日，在北約及其盟國（包括澳大利亞、新西蘭、韓國和日本）外交部長會議的背景下，北約秘書長斯托爾滕貝格在新聞發布會上宣布，北約國家元首和政府首腦將批準一項 新的戰略構想，正式將北約的觸角延伸至亞太地區，其明確目標是對抗“中國日益增長的影響力和脅迫性政策”。
除了加強網絡、新技術和打擊虛假信息方麵的合作（尤其具有諷刺意味的是，西方國家不斷炮轟有關俄羅斯和中國的虛假信息），北約及其亞太盟國將“在……海上安全方麵更加密切地合作” ”。
這一聲明直接與拜登總統3月18日向習近平主席保證美國“不尋求與中國進行新冷戰”以及“重振其盟友關係不針對中國”的保證相矛盾。
這強化了習近平的抱怨，即“美方沒有按照拜登總統的積極表態采取行動。 美方錯誤認知、誤判了中國的戰略意圖”。
幾乎在每一份外交政策聲明中都重申了中國的意圖，即在聯合國係統內努力加強聯合國係統，使其對發展中國家更加公平。 美國認為這破壞了美國及其盟友為美國及其盟友的利益而設計的“基於規則的秩序”。
澳大利亞就是這樣的盟友之一，它認為自己的福祉與這一秩序密不可分，尤其是美國主導的全球金融控製體係，它通過實施製裁日益將其武器化。
美國和北約將中國的目標定性為“侵略”的標誌，但他們無法舉出中國當前或曆史上軍事侵略的任何實際例子，這與美國在亞洲、拉丁美洲和拉丁美洲發動的多場戰爭形成鮮明對比。 中東地區。
斯托爾滕貝格譴責中國拒絕站在西方一邊譴責俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭，這表明中國試圖剝奪其他國家“選擇自己道路”的權利。 這與澳大利亞試圖阻止所羅門群島在與中國的港口開發合作方麵選擇自己的道路形成鮮明對比。
他沒有承認中國堅持維持中立和不幹涉政策，中國表示這將使其能夠在可能的和平談判中成為公正的調解人。
他沒有對印度做出類似的批評，印度在戰爭問題上堅定保持中立，同時繼續與俄羅斯進行有利的經濟、金融甚至軍備合作。
印度通過簽署《上海合作組織憲章》（俄羅斯也是該組織的簽署國），承擔了在不幹涉和尊重領土完整和主權邊界的背景下與中國開展安全合作的義務。
斯托爾滕貝格的聲明不太可能在亞洲各國首都受到熱烈歡迎，因為西方殖民統治的痛苦經曆仍然存在於人們的記憶中。
除日本和新加坡外，亞洲國家（以及其他發展中國家）沒有製裁俄羅斯，也避免表達對中國的敵意。 相反，他們選擇與中國合作，特別是在“一帶一路”倡議下的基礎設施發展方麵。
澳大利亞在北約向亞太地區投射力量方麵的合作將進一步疏遠其與其最近鄰國的關係。 去年11月，東盟與中國續簽全麵戰略夥伴關係，各成員國均重申與中國合作的意願。
大多數東南亞國家對 AUKUS 破壞地區安全並引發潛在軍備競賽表示擔憂。 北約將 AUKUS 定性為北約加強亞太參與的關鍵工具，這將加劇這些擔憂，並增加他們對澳大利亞尋求利用外部力量增加其在該地區影響力的不信任。
早在 1971 年 7 月，外交政策規劃文件 QP11/71 就指出，澳大利亞“現在比以往任何時候都更需要根據澳大利亞國家利益和我們近鄰的利益製定獨立的政策”。 讓澳大利亞成為美國/北約的工具，以實現我們的近鄰有意識地回避的目標，這將導致立即破壞安全和繁榮。
環球網 2022.04.18
北約秘書長斯托爾滕貝格日前宣布，北約國家元首和政府首腦將批準一項新的戰略構想，正式將北約的觸角延伸到亞太地區，其明確目的是對抗“中國日益增長的影響力和脅迫性政策”。
這一聲明直接違背美國總統拜登3月18日在中美兩國領導人通話中作出的保證，即美國“不尋求同中國打‘新冷戰’”，以及“不尋求通過強化同盟關係反對中國”。這強化了中方的抱怨，“美方人士沒有根據拜登總統的積極表態采取行動。美國誤解和誤判了中國的戰略意圖”。
中國在幾乎所有外交政策聲明中都表示，在聯合國係統內部努力，使其對發展中國家更加公平。美國認為，這破壞了由美國及其盟友設計並為自身謀利的“基於規則的秩序”。澳大利亞就是這樣一個盟友，它認為自己的福祉與這一秩序密不可分，特別是美國主導的全球金融控製體係，華盛頓通過實施製裁日益將這一體係武器化。
斯托爾滕貝格批評中國拒絕站在西方一邊譴責俄羅斯在烏克蘭的軍事行動，認為這表明中國試圖剝奪其他國家“選擇自己道路”的權利。這與澳大利亞試圖阻止所羅門群島在與中國的港口開發合作中選擇自己的道路形成鮮明對比。他沒有提到中國堅持中立和不幹涉政策，這將使中國能夠在可能的和平談判中成為一個公正的調解者。
他也沒有對印度提出類似批評，印度在俄烏戰爭中堅定地保持中立，同時繼續與俄羅斯進行有益的經濟、金融甚至軍備合作。
斯托爾滕貝格的聲明不太可能受到亞洲各國的歡迎，因為西方殖民統治的痛苦經曆仍曆曆在目。除了日本和新加坡，亞洲國家以及其他發展中國家都沒有製裁俄羅斯，也沒有表示對中國的敵意。相反，它們選擇與中國合作，特別是在中國提出的“一帶一路”倡議下進行基礎設施建設。
澳大利亞在北約向亞太地區投射力量方麵的合作將進一步使它疏遠鄰國。2021年11月，中國和東盟將其關係提升為全麵戰略夥伴關係，每個東盟成員都重申了與中國合作的意願。大多數東南亞國家表達了對“奧庫斯”（AUKUS）破壞地區安全，並可能引發潛在軍備競賽的擔憂。北約將“奧庫斯”描述為加強北約在亞太地區參與的重要工具，這將進一步強化上述擔憂，並增加不少亞太國家對澳大利亞的不信任，認為澳大利亞通過尋求借助外部力量來增加自身在該地區的影響力。
早在1971年7月，澳外交政策規劃文件QP11/71就指出，澳大利亞“現在比以往任何時候都更需要根據澳大利亞的國家利益和我們近鄰的利益來製定獨立的政策”。讓澳大利亞成為美國和北約的工具，追求其近鄰努力回避的目標，最終將損害澳大利亞自身的安全和繁榮。（作者是澳大利亞前外交官）
<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
美國正在準備澳大利亞對華戰爭
https://johnmenadue.com/committee-for-the-republic-salon-18-january-2023-anzus-leading-us-to-war-against-china/
作者：約翰·蘭德 2023 年 2 月 1 日
美國不準備對中國發動戰爭。 美國正在準備澳大利亞對中國發動戰爭。
感謝您邀請我在沙龍上發言。 考慮到在我之前有一長串的傑出學者、分析家和作家，我感到非常榮幸，但又有些畏懼。
我不是一個“作家”，盡管我在三十年的外交生涯中寫了很多東西，其中大部分與中國有關。 這些內容都沒有出版，大部分都埋在政府檔案中。 我所能提供的隻是根據我過去的經驗，我對當前美國和中國事態發展的個人解讀。
你們之前的一位演講者帕特裏克·勞倫斯（Patrick Lawrence）主張將要點放在第一位。 所以這裏是：
美國不準備對中國發動戰爭。
美國正在準備澳大利亞對中國發動戰爭。
澳新美條約
看看《澳新美條約》以及它隨著時間的推移被操縱的方式就可以解釋為什麽我會得出這個結論。
《澳新美條約》最初在概念上是防禦性的，從一開始就被澳大利亞視為“美國接受其在東南亞的責任”（珀西·斯彭德）的一種手段，以保護澳大利亞免受其所在地區的敵對勢力的侵害。 然而，它已發展成為增強美國在全球發動戰爭能力的工具——之前是在伊拉克和阿富汗，目前是針對俄羅斯，可能還針對中國。
《澳新美條約》通常以虔誠的語氣被稱為“聯盟”，已被提升為近乎宗教的信仰條款，任何反對該條約的異議都被視為異端，相當於背叛。 出於想讓美國保護澳大利亞的焦慮，澳大利亞自二戰以來幾乎每一次軍事冒險（或不幸的冒險）都以該聯盟為理由。
與北約或與日本的防衛條約不同，澳新美條約實際上不提供保護保證，隻是保證在澳大利亞受到攻擊時就適當的支持手段進行磋商。
另一方麵，該聯盟促進了美國在澳大利亞存在的穩步增長，以至於滲透到澳大利亞政治、經濟、金融、社會和文化生活的各個方麵。 澳大利亞人擔心中國“買下這個國家”，但美國的投資規模是中國的十倍。
他們沒有意識到或不在乎，資源、食品、零售、大眾媒體、娛樂、銀行和金融領域的幾乎所有澳大利亞大公司都擁有美國的多數股權。 目前，美國企業通過投資澳大利亞股票影響我們政治的能力超過了其他所有人。
（由 IPAN – ClintonFernandez 提供）
澳大利亞資產向美國轉讓的趨勢有增無減：2021年下半年，時任財長喬什·弗萊登伯格(Josh Frydenberg)批準將1300億美元的澳大利亞資產轉讓給外國私募股權基金，促成交易的高盛受益數百萬美元。 喬什·弗萊登伯格 (Josh Frydenberg) 現受雇於高盛：
悉尼機場 – 由紐約投資銀行家領導的麥格理銀行
AusNet（電力基礎設施）被紐約布魯克菲爾德公司通過加拿大以 180 億美元收購
Spark基礎設施（電力）被美國利益集團以52億美元收購
AfterPay金融交易係統390億美元被收購
Healthscope，第二大私立醫院集團（72 家醫院），被 Brookfield 收購，目前控製在開曼群島。
美國和英國占全部外國投資的近一半。 中國大陸加上香港占 4.2%。 四大“澳大利亞”銀行依賴外國資本，這決定了當地銀行的政策和運營。
澳大利亞的國防和軍事武器製造業現在主要由美國武器公司所有——洛克希德·馬丁公司、雷神公司、波音公司、泰雷茲公司、諾斯羅普格魯曼公司。 澳大利亞國防工業和經濟與美國軍工聯合體的深度融合極大地影響了澳大利亞的外交/國防政策。
再加上美國通過“五眼”網絡和 ASPI（該委員會的委員會中有來自美國軍火製造商的說客，由中央情報局培訓的特工領導）掌握了澳大利亞的情報和政策機構，這意味著美國能夠左右澳大利亞的政策 支持美國的幾乎所有努力。
盡管該條約並沒有包含美國保護澳大利亞的保證，但該條約及其主持下的進一步安排，例如2014年的《部隊態勢協議》和現在的《AUKUS》，極大地促進了美國在澳大利亞的戰爭準備。 這已經呈指數級加速
在過去的幾年裏。 美國現在將澳大利亞描述為美國在印太地區投射力量的最重要基地。
戰備指標
* 2,500 名美國海軍陸戰隊員駐紮在達爾文，與澳大利亞國防軍進行作戰訓練，很快日本國防軍也將加入其中
* 在達爾文建立美國印太司令部地區總部
* 延長北領地皇家空軍飛機跑道，費用由我們承擔，為美國戰鬥機和轟炸機提供服務
* 提議在北領地廷達爾皇家空軍基地部署 6 架具有核武器能力的 B52 轟炸機
* 在北領地達爾文為美國飛機建造大型燃料和維護設施
* 擬斥資1700億美元采購8艘核動力潛艇，用於台灣海峽的獵殺行動
* 耗資100億美元在澳大利亞東海岸建造一個深水港，供美國和英國核動力潛艇和核導彈攜帶潛艇使用
* 澳大利亞中部曆史悠久的衛星通信站 Pine Gap 最近正在進行擴建和升級。 它是美軍在印太地區（甚至遠至烏克蘭）指揮和控製的關鍵
政府和右翼反華分析家和評論員的觀點在主流媒體中占主導地位，他們接受國防部長的論點，即這種軍事化通過加強澳大利亞高端作戰能力的範圍和殺傷力來增強澳大利亞的主權，從而提供可信的威懾力 給潛在的侵略者。
包括我在內的執政精英之外的許多分析家和評論員認為，這些安排實際上將澳大利亞主權讓給了美國。 這尤其是因為在 ANZUS 的主持下簽訂的 2014 年《部隊態勢協議》的規定。
據我所知，委員會已經分發了一份文件，闡述了《自由貿易協定》的細節，所以總而言之，它給予美國人員、飛機、船隻和車輛不受阻礙地進入、排他性控製和使用商定的設施和區域，並給予澳大利亞絕對的權利。 根本沒有說明如何、何時何地以及為何使用它們。
所有澳大利亞分析人士，無論同情還是反感中國，都同意一點。 也就是說，如果美國因台灣地位或任何其他爭議問題對中國發動戰爭，澳大利亞將不可避免地卷入其中。
威脅
所有這些準備工作都是基於中國構成軍事威脅的錯誤前提。 中國沒有侵略過任何地方。 它從未提議對其他國家使用武力。 它在憲法中規定了“三不”——不結軍事聯盟； 沒有軍事基地； 不使用或威脅使用軍事力量。 然而，中國保留使用武力阻止台灣分裂的權利。
最近，為了應對可怕的美國海軍存在和在其海岸線附近的作戰演習，它迅速增強了防禦能力。 它的國防預算是美國的三分之一，而它在南海建設的基地與美國在中國各地分布的數百個基地相比簡直是小巫見大巫。
那麽，如果中國不是軍事威脅，為什麽它被指定為以美國為首的西方集體的主要係統性威脅呢？ 答案就在於“係統”二字。 中國表示決心改革全球金融體係，使其對發展中國家更加公平。 基辛格曾說過：“如果你控製了金錢，你就控製了世界”。 美國目前控製著世界金融，而中國（與俄羅斯）正準備改變這一現狀。
在二戰後機構建立中發揮主導作用的美國已成為主要的修正主義者，放棄聯合國而轉而尋求“自願聯盟”。 美國拒絕加入海洋法和氣候等重要公約。 它拒絕接受國際法院和國際刑事法院的管轄，並免除《種族滅絕公約》的管轄。 它對其他國家實施貿易限製，同時不同意世貿組織上訴法庭的新任命，從而阻礙了該機構的運作，從而在削弱世貿組織方麵發揮了主導作用。
中國是世界第二大經濟體（或者根據某些計算，是最大的）經濟體。 它是100多個國家的主要貿易夥伴，主要是南半球國家，但也包括澳大利亞和其他一些西方國家。 因此，中國有能力破壞西方為了利益而建立的“基於國際規則的秩序”。
中國已經建立了英美國際金融交易體係的替代方案：跨境銀行間支付係統CIPS（諷刺的是，許多西方銀行都是該係統的股東）。 在科拉
與俄羅斯以及金磚五國（巴西、俄羅斯、印度、中國和南非）的合作 中國正在創造一種替代萬能美元的貨幣，作為貿易和國家儲備的首選貨幣。
美國似乎已經得出結論，既然無法在經濟上製約中國，那就隻能讓中國陷入一場持久戰，從而阻礙其經濟增長，阻礙其與其他國家的基礎設施建設合作。 2021 年 3 月 25 日，拜登總統發誓要阻止中國超越美國成為世界上最強大的國家——他說，“在我的任期內”。
然而，戰略與國際研究中心的最新計算機模型與蘭德公司之前的模型一樣，表明所有參與中美戰爭的國家都將失敗。
代理戰
所有這些分析都忽略了一個重要的一點。 美國奉行沃爾福威茨主義，即阻止任何可能挑戰美國全球霸主地位的國家（俄羅斯、歐洲或中國）崛起的決心並沒有減弱，而是演變成一種通過代理與對手作戰的戰略。
烏克蘭戰爭已經清楚地證明了這一點。 2022 年 1 月 25 日，在俄羅斯幹預之前，白宮舉行新聞發布會表示，“美國與其歐洲夥伴合作，將削弱俄羅斯，使其無法在國際舞台上發揮任何影響力”。
從拜登到佩洛西，再到國會議員，政治領導人都告訴烏克蘭，“你們的戰爭就是我們的戰爭，我們會一直參與其中”。 國會議員亞當·希夫直言不諱地說，“我們支持烏克蘭……在那裏與俄羅斯作戰，這樣我們就不必在這裏作戰”。
就中國而言，國家安全戰略將中國定義為美國的主要威脅，而選擇的代理人顯然是台灣。 該戰略設想：
• 將中國描繪成侵略者的全球媒體宣傳活動（已持續數年）；
• 慫恿中國采取軍事行動阻止台灣分裂；
• 讓台灣自行防禦，並不斷從美國補給武器和裝備，為軍工聯合體帶來巨大利潤；
• 充分支持台灣，讓中國“陷入困境”，從而阻礙其經濟發展和與其他國家的基礎設施合作；
• 避免直接軍事接觸，以保持美國軍隊的全部能力，而中國的軍隊將大大減少； 盡管拜登公開重申堅持“一個中國”原則，但美國卻不斷對中國進行刺激；
• 將其大部分海軍力量駐紮在中國沿海；
• 南海和台灣海峽的“航行自由”和作戰演習；
• 美國高級官員使用美國軍用飛機進行訪問；
• 建立一個延伸到大陸領土上空的假定“防空識別區”（ADIZ），然後指控中國侵犯它；
• 秘密提供軍事訓練人員（同時否認）；
• 將台灣納入民主峰會（2021 年 12 月 9 日至 10 日），這意味著它是一個獨立的國家；
許多澳大利亞政界人士（盡管不是現任政府）也加入了刺激中國的行列，鼓勵台灣考慮宣布獨立的可能性，這將引發中國的軍事行動。
如果澳大利亞兌現“拯救台灣”的承諾，那將是毀滅性的：
• 鑒於中國和澳大利亞的兵力差距，澳大利亞海軍將被消滅；
*澳大利亞的指揮/控製中心（可能還有城市）可能會被中國導彈摧毀。 澳大利亞沒有反導防禦係統；
• 為了保護自己的資產並防止陷入核衝突，美國不會直接參與澳大利亞的防禦；
• 美國的“支持”將通過大規模軍售來彌補我們的損失——就像在烏克蘭一樣——從而為美國軍事/工業聯合體帶來進一步的利潤；
• 東盟不太可能支持澳大利亞。 與中國的全麵戰略夥伴關係得到更新和升級。 每個成員國都有中國“一帶一路”倡議下的基礎設施項目，他們不想讓這些項目陷入一場“雙贏的戰爭”；
• 印度不太可能提供支持，盡管它是四方會談的成員 — — 四方會談隻不過是一種協商對話。 印度在上海合作組織下對中國做出了安全承諾，並從俄羅斯獲得武器，而俄羅斯與中國有著“比條約更好”的關係。
• 澳大利亞的許多日常必需品嚴重依賴中國。 在戰爭中，來自中國的運輸將受到嚴重幹擾。
澳大利亞人普遍對與中國的貿易關係帶來的物質利益感到非常高興，中國占澳大利亞出口收入的三分之一以上。 但是，中國任何試圖提高澳大利亞人對中國曆史、社會、文化和科學成就的了解，更不用說其政治製度或外交政策的嚐試，都會立即引起人們的擔憂。
滲透澳大利亞政治並破壞“澳大利亞生活方式”的邪惡企圖。
中國的經濟（以及軍事）實力不斷增強，澳大利亞為中國貢獻了重要資源並從中獲得了巨大利益，但中國卻被描述為對澳大利亞安全的威脅。 這讓澳大利亞陷入了準備對華開戰以保護澳大利亞對華貿易的荒謬政策悖論。
台灣近期的事態發展，特別是導致蔡英文辭去台獨領導職務的縣市選舉，表明台灣寧願維持現狀，不願成為美國的代理人。 與北京的戰爭。
澳大利亞因此成為潛在的代理人。
以聯盟的名義，美國軍人（現役和退役）現在已融入澳大利亞國防政策製定機構以及澳大利亞國防軍的指揮和控製職位。 根據該聯盟和 AUKUS 協議在澳大利亞部署的所有美國軍事資產現在都可以與澳大利亞國防軍“互換”，從而可以將它們用作假定的澳大利亞軍隊來對抗中國，而美國則袖手旁觀並保持同樣的假裝。 “不參與”，就像在烏克蘭所做的那樣。
這就是為什麽我一開始就說美國準備派澳大利亞對中國開戰。
如果美國挑起對華戰爭，這些都是澳新美聯盟給澳大利亞帶來的危險，但美國也麵臨著風險。
1. 巨大的開支將進一步加劇美國的貧富差距和相關的國內政治崩潰。 提供與中國的代理人戰爭所需的武器和其他一切對美國預算的消耗將比烏克蘭衝突更大。 這些支出將回流到軍工綜合體，構成財富從普通納稅人向富豪億萬富翁的進一步大規模轉移。 它將耗盡本已不可持續的國家債務，要麽減少基本服務和基礎設施的支出，要麽如果印鈔，將進一步抑製通貨膨脹。 美國因實際經濟衰退和貧富差距擴大而已經遭受的政治和社會崩潰隻會加劇到崩潰的邊緣。
2. 陷入直接戰爭可能是不可避免的。 策劃代理人戰爭作為一項學術活動固然很好，但在戰鬥開始時堅持這些計劃將非常困難。 美國已經有一些瘋狂的政客和“專家”認為美國可以贏得一場直接戰爭，所以當中國開始轟炸澳大利亞，澳大利亞的老“夥伴”大量死亡時，美國那些主張直接戰爭的聲音 參與度將被放大。 再加上美國政治已經極端兩極分化，隻有戰爭才是兩黨合作的，極端分子將美國帶入直接衝突以及與中國進行核攤牌的風險非常嚴重。
3. 日本加入AUKUS安排將增加日本有義務在與中國的任何軍事衝突中協助澳大利亞的風險。 由於與日本簽訂的防衛條約，美國將被迫加入戰鬥，從而使其避免直接軍事接觸的計劃失效。
一個曆史諷刺點：
最後我會講一些我個人參與過的曆史諷刺：
上世紀70年代初，我們對基辛格秘密訪華一無所知，直到尼克鬆訪華計劃公布。 由於美國對華政策發生重大變化，我們感到措手不及，因此於 1971 年 7 月 21 日製定了政策規劃文件 QP11/71。
它認識到……“美國實施全球政策的方式造成了政治劣勢”，並認為這意味著這一點。 “在不斷變化的力量平衡中，美國聯盟對我們的意義將不如過去。”
事情接著說：
“如果說有什麽不同的話，那就是美國最近的行動以及美國未能就對澳大利亞至關重要的問題征求我們的意見，從而強化了這一論點。 因此，我們現在比以往任何時候都更需要根據澳大利亞國家利益和我們近鄰的利益製定獨立的政策……”
與 20 世紀 70 年代相比，今天更是如此。 例如，盡管我們在這場不明智的衝突中扮演了美國“忠實”支持者的角色，但美國從阿富汗倉促撤軍時並未征求澳大利亞的意見。 我們的憤怒抗議遭到了拜登“美國隻為了自己的利益行事”的聲明的回應。
我們目前的困境主要是由於澳大利亞曆屆政府未能認真對待這一分析並采取行動。 具有諷刺意味的是，接替惠特拉姆的弗雷澤總理在他生命的最後階段也得出了非常相似的觀點，他在
他的書《危險的盟友》，但為時已晚。 他指出了一個悖論：澳大利亞需要美國的防禦，但又因為美國而需要防禦。
一些相關的引言，首先來自已故的吉姆·莫蘭：
“我們的部隊並不是為了產生任何重大的獨立戰略影響而設計的。 它們純粹是為了為更大的美國任務提供利基組件而設計的。”
在他看來，我們正在放棄我們自己的防禦並培養對美國人的完全依賴。
克裏斯·赫奇斯：
“最後，那些帶領美國陷入阿富汗、伊拉克和現在的烏克蘭等一係列災難的新保守派，給美國造成了數萬億美元的損失，甚至更多的名譽資本遭到破壞，他們將聲稱自己享有習慣上的豁免權，免受任何責任。” 為他們的野蠻失敗而高興地繼續他們的下一場災難。 我們需要警惕他們的下一個策略，即掠奪國庫並將自己的私人利益置於國家利益之上。 一定會來的。”
我從中抽取的一些評論員的（不完整）列表：
John Menadue – PM&C 前秘書
理查德·坦特 (Richard Tanter) – 鸚鵡螺基金會軍事分析師
Brian Toohey – 作者（政治和曆史分析）
邁克·斯克拉夫頓 (Mike Scrafton) 是一名高級國防部長，也是國防部長的部長級顧問
保羅·基廷 (Paul Keating) 於 1991 年至 1996 年擔任澳大利亞總理。
芮捷銳 (Geoff Raby AO) 曾任澳大利亞駐中國大使 (2007-11)； 他因對澳中關係和國際貿易的貢獻而被授予澳大利亞勳章。
格雷戈裏·克拉克 (Gregory Clark) 曾在香港和莫斯科任職，開始了他的外交生涯。 他是東京多摩大學的名譽校長和開創性的秋田國際大學的副校長。
邁克·吉利根博士在國防政策和評估軍事發展建議方麵工作了 20 年，其中包括在五角大樓研究亞洲軍事平衡問題。
Jocelyn Chey AM 是悉尼大學客座教授以及西悉尼大學和悉尼科技大學的兼職教授。 她曾在中國和香港擔任外交職務。 她是澳大利亞國際事務研究所的研究員。
約瑟夫·卡米萊裏 (Joseph Camilleri) 是墨爾本拉籌伯大學名譽教授、澳大利亞社會科學院院士、十字路口對話主席
David S G Goodman 是悉尼大學中國研究中心主任、澳大利亞中國研究協會會長。
傑夫·米勒 (Geoff Miller) 曾任國家評估辦公室主任、外交部副部長、駐日本和韓國大使以及駐新西蘭高級專員。
卡萬·霍格 (Cavan Hogue) 曾任駐蘇聯和俄羅斯大使。 他還曾在澳大利亞國立大學和麥考瑞大學工作。
2023 年 1 月 18 日在共和國委員會沙龍上發表的演講的編輯記錄。
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.
