Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Australia, Indonesia and Obama
Aussiegunneragain    5/26/2010 7:59:43 AM
In the unlikely event that our friends in Indonesia were again burdened with an autocratic government that took an aggressively expansionist line against Australian territories such as the Christmas and Cocos Islands, our maritime claims or our friends in East Timor, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei and/or PNG, do people think President Obama's Indonesian step-father and time spent in Indonesia influence US foriegn policy against our interests?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Volkodav       5/26/2010 9:11:26 AM
One of the reasons behind ADFs massive expansion in the early 60s is that we were very concerned that the US rated keeping on side with the worlds most populous Muslim country (and ensuring they remained non aligned) more highly than supporting an insignificant western out post south of southeast asia.
 
Nothing much has changed, Indonesia, whether we like it or not is more important strategically to the US than we are, or have been at any time since the end of WWII.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/26/2010 9:58:05 PM
Volkodav,
 
Most of what you say here surprises me. Do you have any links/info to back up the notion of your first paragraph? I have never heard/read anything that would suggest the US was particularly engaged with or disposed towards Indonesia during those times. They certainly didn't make a huge deal over the "Malayan Emergency" and much of the decade leading upto and encompassing the 60's wrt that part of SE Asia as far as I know.
 
As for your second para, whilst it is understandable that the USA wants security/stability in the region, I can't imagine they would fall on the side of the Indonesians if it did come to some  fully blown hypothetical stand-off between Oz and Indo. I am sure even if Obama had ties (as AG said), that many in Congress and the USA public citizenry in general, would probably be more inclined to support us (at least behind the scenes, a la Falklands).
 
Curious.
 
P.S. Gone are the days when we could "send a flight of Pigs downtown Jakarta to pavetack their arses!" http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmilep.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/27/2010 6:05:24 AM
Don't remember where I read it off hand but the concern was that the ANZUS treaty wasn't worth the paper it was written on in the light of the US's inaction over the Confrontation as well as the annexation of West Papua (Irian Jaya).  The behaviour of the US during the Suez Crisis was probably also of concern.  The material I read was along the line of the US playing Indonesia and Australia off against each other i.e. telling each of us "we would love to help but...."
 
There was no question the US would come if we were invaded, the issue was their stategic aims were not ours and they were not about to do anything that would help the UK , Netherlands or any other colonial power stay in the region while we were hoping to keep the UK involved and if possible get the US on board as well.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/27/2010 7:25:44 AM

Don't remember where I read it off hand but the concern was that the ANZUS treaty wasn't worth the paper it was written on in the light of the US's inaction over the Confrontation as well as the annexation of West Papua (Irian Jaya).  The behaviour of the US during the Suez Crisis was probably also of concern.  The material I read was along the line of the US playing Indonesia and Australia off against each other i.e. telling each of us "we would love to help but...."

 There was no question the US would come if we were invaded, the issue was their stategic aims were not ours and they were not about to do anything that would help the UK , Netherlands or any other colonial power stay in the region while we were hoping to keep the UK involved and if possible get the US on board as well.


I have read that Australia wanted to oppose the Indonesian occupation of West Papua but the US and the UK wanted to keep Surhato on side, so vetoed the idea. Probably a good strategic move frankly and it has probably worked out well for us, because it would just give us another ferked up Melenesian nation to baby sit if the Indonesians didn't have the place.
I don't know about US policy on Konfrontsi but I suspect that they left it to the British and us because it was a reletively small affair that they thought we could collectively handle.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/27/2010 8:10:45 AM
Don't remember where I read it off hand but the concern was that the ANZUS treaty wasn't worth the paper it was written on in the light of the US's inaction over the Confrontation as well as the annexation of West Papua (Irian Jaya).  The behaviour of the US during the Suez Crisis was probably also of concern.  The material I read was along the line of the US playing Indonesia and Australia off against each other i.e. telling each of us "we would love to help but...."
 
There was no question the US would come if we were invaded, the issue was their stategic aims were not ours and they were not about to do anything that would help the UK , Netherlands or any other colonial power stay in the region while we were hoping to keep the UK involved and if possible get the US on board as well.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/27/2010 8:41:36 AM

Don't remember where I read it off hand but the concern was that the ANZUS treaty wasn't worth the paper it was written on in the light of the US's inaction over the Confrontation as well as the annexation of West Papua (Irian Jaya).  The behaviour of the US during the Suez Crisis was probably also of concern.  The material I read was along the line of the US playing Indonesia and Australia off against each other i.e. telling each of us "we would love to help but...."

 There was no question the US would come if we were invaded, the issue was their stategic aims were not ours and they were not about to do anything that would help the UK , Netherlands or any other colonial power stay in the region while we were hoping to keep the UK involved and if possible get the US on board as well.


Ya already said that ;-)
 
Quote    Reply

Panther       6/1/2010 1:43:53 AM

 I am sure even if Obama had ties (as AG said), that many in Congress and the USA public citizenry in general, would probably be more inclined to support us (at least behind the scenes, a la Falklands).
 

Oh hell yes, and i would have no qualms about voicing my support for Australians!
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Panther   6/1/2010 8:04:10 AM



 I am sure even if Obama had ties (as AG said), that many in Congress and the USA public citizenry in general, would probably be more inclined to support us (at least behind the scenes, a la Falklands).


 


Oh hell yes, and i would have no qualms about voicing my support for Australians!

Thankyou Sir and I have to say that the loyalty of the American public was never in question to me. The problem would be though is if Obama ever chose to exercise his veto over any military action in our favour, in which case 2/3 of Congress would need to decide to support us. Are that many Democrats going to turn their back on their leader for Australia?
 
Quote    Reply

bigfella       6/2/2010 6:29:18 AM
Its also worth remembering that America's second most reliable ally in the region after us is Singapore. Additionally, neither Malaysia mor the Phillippines would be especially keen on an expansionist Indonesia. My bet is that if Indonesia did go rapidly down that path the US would work hard to keep the peace & then come down against Indonesia unless we did something monstrously stupid (like a pre-emptive strike on Indonesia or some such). If Indonesia continues down that path it will probably need Chinese help - which will get the northern neighbours (throw in Vietnam for good measure) further offside. 
We still host vital US facilities & send troops or toys to pretty much every war the US finds itself in. If things ever go badly with China Singapore will be vital. I don't think Bazza's onetime step-daddy or his schooling or even 200 million muslims is going to flush all that. 
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       6/2/2010 9:40:26 AM
 
While things were still in the diplomatic realm the Obama administration may stay neutral, however if push came to shove personal allegiances or not I have no doubt Obama, The American people and congress would support Australia (short of some apocalyptic scenario).
 
There is one primary reason I am confident in stating this, the negative foreign policy implications it would have for the US if they didn't. It would destroy international confidence in the US as a dependable allay if they turned there back on Australia, one of there staunchest allies, brothers in arms during majority of major conflicts and a member of the UKUSA alliance. Such an action would force US allies from all corners of the globe to question allegiances. American allies in Asia, North & South America, The Middle East and even NATO would think if they turned their back on the Aussies, what hope do we have. Such an action has the potential to redefine the global order.No American president in his right mind would risk an alliance mutiny of this nature. Surely!! http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmileo.gif" alt="" /> Particularly not in the age of Information Warfare.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics