Talk:ANZUS/Archive 1

Correct pages
The information about the Australian Defence Force in the second-last paragraph should be transferred to the correct Australian Army, Navy, and Air Force pages. --Robert Merkel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.75.xxx (talk • contribs) 12:09, 4 December 2001‎ (UTC)

NZ involvement
Need someone to provide mention of NZ involvement in Korean War, Vietnam War, intellgence networks (yes, we are part of the notorious Echelon!), etc--NZ involvment in ANZUS only diminished after the 1980s. I'm not qualified to add it.--Edmund —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 16 February 2003 (UTC)

U.S. Nuclear testing in the Pacific ended in 1958. France tested in the Pacific through the nineties. It's unclear what nuclear testing of the U.S. that NZ would have objected to as late as the eighties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.123.15.250 (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2005‎ (UTC)

2 quick points;

1. I am concerned byth editing explained as "New Zealand takes no part in the allaince now". The alliance does still bind New Zealand and Australia to each other. Granted Aussies may question whether NZ's defence spending enables it to honour its obligations, but that doesn't change the obligations.

2. I am also concerned about the removal of the material related to the Rainbow Warrior. This incident is not irrelevant. The Rainbow Warrior bombing and the suspension of the ANZUS alliance stand together in history as linked consequences of the late David Lange's actions and it would be disingenous to make no mention of one in discussing the other. A devil's advocate could argue that, as a direct attack by a foriegn nation on one of the Allies, the treaty could have been invoked (note the US had not suspended it's obligations at the time). That of course was never contemplated, however the incident is very relevant to ANZUS. It would be extremely simplistic to think the attack was against just at Greenpeace, it was against New Zealand's antinuclear movement and at New Zeland itself - indeed I could suspect the act was designed to show New Zealand was defenceless. It shows the length some Western powers were prepared to go to stop the antinuclear movement New Zealand was part of. It also shows the loss of protection and influence New Zealand suffered internationally - this was hardly the first time NZ based protests had headed to French tests, but never before had France contemplated such an action, (one wonders what would have happened if the attack had occured 2 years earlier, and France was left scrabbling to appease the cantankerous Muldoon). Most importantly the bombing hardened New Zealands attitude against anything pro-nuclear, as the actions and bad judgement of the Mitterand administration were imputed - fairly or not - on America and the pro-nuclear lobby. Opinion polls prior to the bombing showed New Zealanders wanted to be part of the alliance, opinion polls after the bombing showed a clear majority did not want to be part of the alliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.83.21.221 (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2005‎ (UTC)

Chronological order
The edit to ANZUS called "chronological order" has to my mind disrupted the chain of reasoning in the article prior to that edit. Despite the title has also not put events in chronoloigical order - the NZ and Aust contribution to the war in Afghanistan and New Zealand engineers being sent to Iraq (November 2001- present) now comes before September 11 attacks (2001) which in turn comes before the East Timor intervention (1999).

Obviously this needs to be fixed up but a simple revert will loose many other edits. Any thoughts? -- &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winstonwolfe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 September 2005.
 * I won't disagree that it ended up a little ragged after I moved things around. But I disagreed that the previous version had "flow". It had a portmanteau section "The Alliance today" that was a mishmash of things dating back to 1985 -- no, actually, Korea. That doesn't seem very current. The Taiwan section was broken out for no apparent reason, when actual military engagement such as Afghanistan and Iraq was bundled into the "today" section. That just seemed like poor structure to me. I think what you're looking for is a summarizing "Overview" section that hits the main thought points, while a detailed history ought to be a lot closer to a timeline. When I find articles like this, and I do a lot, they've grown by fits and turns until you're jumping back and forth in time within the space of a single compound sentence. ;-) That's not helpful to the average reader, the way I see things. In any event I've been distracted by Hurricane Katrina and non-Wikipedia stuff the last several days, but I'll take another look at things here. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not saying you didn't improve it - thats why I didn't revert - just that it probably still needs a bit of work. Especially Malaya, Korea, and Vietnam section at the begining, which doesn't mention Malaya, and dismisses the other two conflicts in half a scentence, before spending a paragraph on recent events like Afghanistan... :-). WW.

"In February 1985, a port-visit request by the United States for the USS Buchanan was refused by New Zealand, as the Buchanan was capable of launching nuclear depth charges...". Really? I think that the key point was that the NZ law stated that any visiting ship must declare itself nuclear-free - and the US would not conform - citing their "niether confirm nor deny" policy. Snori 09:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, actually NZ law wasn't passed until 1987, when it was, onus was on Prime Minister to decide if a ship was "nuclear free" - a failed attempt to placate the USN's obsession with neither confirming or denying the presence of nuclear weapons. 130.216.191.183 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

September 11
The article currently reads: "...the ANZUS treaty's provisions for assistance when a member nation comes under threat were officially invoked for the first time by Australia after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."

Why would *Australia* invoke these provisions for assistance after the September 11 attacks, if Australia was not attacked? Should that read the United States instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aughtandzero (talk • contribs) 06:39, 25 February 2006‎ (UTC)

Very good question, given it was Australia that invoked ANZUS. My guess is petty trans-Tasman point scoring - NZ's rapid military response to Afghanistan, arguably intially size for size better than Australias - made the alliance appear pretty irrelevant, an angle Helen Clark played upon at the time, (US good will gained by the kiwis for prompt support in Afghanistan was promptly lost by the NZ government's loud reservations about intervening in Iraq). But that is only my guess. Important point is, yes, it was Australia that invoked ANZUS130.216.191.183 03:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody actually provide a source for where it was actually invoked... My recollection is that Australia offered to the US to have it invoked, the US never formally invoked it. Either way - sources would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.165.201 (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2007‎ (UTC)

Two small points
The "Origins" section makes it sound like the Korean War was already being fought at the end of WWI, not 5 years later. That could be clarified a bit.

The "Malaya, Korea, and Vietnam" section covers Afghanistan, perhaps the section should be renamed or the material moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.88.4 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2006‎ (UTC)

Misinterpreted quote
The final paragraph of the "The Alliance Today" section seems to be parotting the words of the report from the original news report rather critically examining Christopher Hill's actual words. It seems to me that Mr. Hill was attempting to distance the United States from its previous disagreements with New Zealand, rather trying to demean New Zealand's legislation as being out-of-date. Note that he says that the nuclear issue - meaning the dispute between the US and NZ - is "a bit of a relic", not New Zealand's laws or policies. I propose this new wording for the paragraph:

In May 2006, US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, Christopher Hill, described the New Zealand anti-nuclear issue as "a relic" and also signalled that the US wanted a closer defence relationship with New Zealand and praised New Zealand’s involvement in Afghanistan and reconstruction in Iraq. "Rather than trying to change each other's minds on the nuclear issue, which is a bit of a relic, I think we should focus on things we can make work" he told an Australian newspaper. 

Any objections? --RockRockOn 17:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Seem to recall that was what Mr Hill said he thought too. No objections 130.216.191.183 03:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made this change, with some very minor differences in wording. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that looked suspect. jhf 12:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the move?
It's universally known in Australia and New Zealand as "the ANZUS alliance." Why the move? Slac speak up! 11:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

East of Suez - histiography
The origin is serious lacking. The British withdrawal from SE Asia post-WW2 (ie. East of Suez) was a major rupture in the strategic environment. Htra0497 10:15 20 March 2007 (AET)

ANZUS is NOT the US-Australian Alliance
I went looking for the US-Australian Alliance and was redirected here. That redirect is wrong. Clearly ANZUS no longer exists in a formal way, since NZ has effectively removed itself. I see the US-Australian Alliance now as a more nebulous arrangement without formal ratification. It's something the Howard government used as an excuse for the Iraq invasion, now a very unpopular piece of Australia's history. ANZUS is dead. We now have the US-Australian Alliance. Let's sort this out. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What references support that position? Even if NZ is suspended from ANZUS, the treaty is still a going concern. Note also that there's a Australia – United States relations article. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

US liability
I made a small addition yesterday that has been removed, pity. The issue of United States liability was not widely discussed at the time, but did concern many New Zealanders, who otherwise would have supported port visits. The risk of an accident involving a US Navy ship in a NZ port is very small but the consequences for a small agricultural economy would be devastating, and the commercial insurance industry will not underwrite nuclear risks. US military personnel are subject only to US regulations , they are protected from any foreign court procedings and the US government will not admit any liability for the actions of its forces. If an accident were to occur in a NZ port the NZ government and taxpayers were expected to cover the cost regardless of fault. SM527RR (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I did that revert. It was simply because the material you added was unsourced. I suspect it's quite true, but Wikipedia needs references. Can you find a document, online or otherwise, where someone else talks of that concern? HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)