Australia is not Europe focused. It is Asian focused.
John Blaxland
...Political leaders, (click here) from Whitlam to Howard and beyond, have made their own assessments of what they perceived to be in the national interest. At times they've been contentious, to be sure, but the notion that Australia had no choice because of the US alliance stretches credulity. Similarly, the idea that an American clash in Asia would automatically trigger Australia's involvement, like it did in the two world wars of last century, simply does not reflect current constitutional reality. Australian political leaders have more options than that today. To think otherwise also neglects the vagaries of alliances and conflicts. The US, for instance, did not overtly back Britain over the Falklands in 1982 – but provided discreet intelligence support. All parties coped with the tensions this strange set of circumstances generated. Canada did not back the US in Iraq in 2003, but still had exchange officers in US formations and remained part of the ''five-eyes'' intelligence club. And the US did not back us over Confrontation in 1963, and had to be coaxed to assist in East Timor in 1999....
...Still, maintaining ties with the United States is not a zero-sum option. Developments over the search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 point to the merits of collaborating closely with China's armed forces, as we do with a range of regional security partners. Building bridges rather than breaking them is much more constructive and convenient....
Australia's vested interest in the Pacific and Asia my prove to be the best springboard to a lasting peace, while the USA's political dogma only creates uncertainty.
