Japan needs to "go nuclear" to balance China.

How have relations been between India and Australia in the past? I haven't heard much about them.

What we're seeing in Asia now is not a diplomatic chess game. It's more like a game of GO.

Note from the article that the Australians are more ambivalent about China than the Americans. They sat on the fence over the EU weapons ban issue, for instance. So it's not an explicitly anti-China alliance - though sufficient provocation could quickly turn it into one.

As such, having these 3 powers working together will constrain China's options even if Australia's position is not hostile.

As American diplomacy intended, I'm sure.

Australia is likely to be rather more concerned with Indonesia turning into an explicitly pirate/terrorist state than it is with China. Given India's natural sphere of naval interest to the Straits of Malacca, there should be some commonality of interest there... and a position in Vietnam would neatly surround the problem.

Aussie readers, feel free to throw in your two bits.

John Howard will not casually participate in any alliance likely to be seen as anti-Chinese.

It's a main point of his foreign policy that we don't have to choose between our culture and our values, which point to America as our best ally (with the United Kingdom, and with Canada and New Zealand if they would get with the program), and our geography (which has been held to require that Australia define itself as Asian, with Asian allies and ultimately an Asian culture). He wants to show that we can maintain the key American alliance at full strength, and also enjoy pleasant diplomatic relations with China. In Howard's dreams, the heads of state of China and America would probably meet once a year in Canberra, and be photographed smiling and shaking hands with an Australian flag in the background. Chinese President Hu Jintao's 2003 visit to Australia was pretty close to that. To Hu and George W. Bush, these were perhaps not much more than flyovers, but not to John Howard and Australia.

Australia generally sends a small contingent each to every major American war and each Olympic games. (grin) This is a good idea, but you have to think of your future too.

Osama bin Laden and the Taliban had to be fought, and they were not supposed to be around forever. Osama is still around, but the result was close enough for government work.

There were strong reasons to fight Saddam Hussein, and he wasn't supposed to be around forever either. Again, that war has dragged on, entailing unwanted additional commitments, but the result is close enough for government work. We are looking at a win in Iraq. (As long as everybody stays the course, which we - and infinitely more importantly, the Americans - mean to do.) It's just a matter of waiting till we can call it done and un-commit ourselves.

Even the insane North Korean regime might become a short to medium term problem.

But China is going to be around forever under any circumstance, and it will always be far too big for Australia to forget. (It's China that can well afford to forget about Australia.) So ticking off China is not just a bigger problem, it's a radically different, potentially permanent problem.

This is why Australia finds human rights abuses in China invisible, and Australia does not support any arms embargo of China, and so on. If we ever have to make the unpleasant (and rather predictable) choice about whether we will back the Americans or not, it will be because of something that we can't play "three wise monkeys" over. (See no evil, hear no evil, speak [of] no evil.)

The frill-necked lizard does not nibble on the toes of the great dragon.

Joel: "How have relations been between India and Australia in the past? I haven't heard much about them."

John Howard is the first Australian Prime Minister to have an interest in India, but he has not been able to accomplish anything real.

Up to World War Two, both countries were heavily defined by British Imperial history. Then Australia moved to the American camp while India led the non-aligned movement, which was anti-American and pro-Soviet. After that, our great thinkers (rolls eyes) decided we had to join with the Asian tigers, not including India. On the other hand, India always has plenty of problems to think about, and never has any reason to care much what Australia thinks on any topic. So there hasn't been a lot to talk about.

Joe Katzman: "Australia is likely to be rather more concerned with Indonesia turning into an explicitly pirate/terrorist state than it is with China."

One of the main conventions of Australian diplomacy us that nobody must say what everybody knows.
A very small and very old joke:
Diplomat: "Australia has no enemies, and we foresee no potential enemies. Our greatest ... concern ... would be regional instability."
Q: "What's the capital of 'regional instability'?"
A: (reflexively) "Jakarta. ... Oops!"

Yeah, this is a huge, huge problem.

(And it's not just what the (one) Indonesian state might do; if Indonesia started to break up, there are potential refugee problems and long-term nightmares on offer.)

No sane Australian prime minister will want to go into history having ticked off the Indonesians in a major way (by supporting freedom for East Timor) and having risked a permanent deterioration in our diplomatic position by ticking off China as well, when there was an option not to take that risk.

David, when the Sovet bear was around, did not we in the USA turn the same blind eyes to the same for the same pragmatism ?

We even used Saddam's Iraq to counter Iran.

Now that the bear isnt as much of a problem, we have more latitude to work on the speading freedom and liberty thing.

But We dont want to tangle with China if we dont have to either, and North Korea has so many thousands of artillary tubes ranging Seoul ...

So we do what we can what political will and ability measures up to chance of success, (Iraq was low hanging fruit) and look for opertunities that come within range of the possible.

That dont leave a lot of room to fault Austriala

America seesm to have such warm feelings for the Aussies generally anyway, I just cant see you catching any flack from US.

Im still embarrased about Kerry's Sister comming down there and mucking with Aussie politics in an attempt to Turn your govt against us, but what else to expect from leftist creaps eh ?

Cheers

See South and middle America for how much the USA does for liberty and freedom. Or shouldn't i say that because it may open your eyes?

I dunno a., the folks in Middle America tend to vote for Republicans in U.S. elections... and seem pretty happy for the most part.

Now, the folks in Central and South America are finding themselves largely on their own these days. China is making overtures but not playing a big role, while Uncle Sam has found other fish to fry.

We'll see if they can begin to overcome many of the cultural problems that have been holding them back (with the exception of Chile, which looks solid), and get some solid regional institutions going to solve regional problems. I suspect the Bush Doctrine's encouragement for liberty will help some, but real aid and attention will be slim. I remain pessimistic about the region's prospects due to its eternally ossified class structures and flawed political cultures.

Then again, maybe this breather will prove to be just what they need. Maybe they just needed time to themselves, to sort it all out.

Or maybe we'll come back after the GWOT and find a huge mess on our hands.

In Latin America, either outcome is certainly possible.

(with the exception of Chile, which looks solid)

Thanks to Pinochet.

They need another Pinochet to take care of that Chavez creap, badly.

A slap in the face by reality can be harsh,
eh Mr A ?

Australia has a long term goal to cosy up with china - trade, massive immigration of Chinese. The governement even made house prices increase to drastic levels and white collar wages stagnate for the Chinese. It just wasn't Chinese -there was a lot of English?new Zealanders as well. But the long term goal is to turn Australia into a Eurasian land - as was demanded by our academic 25-30 years ago.