THE DANGEROUS IDEA OF NATO FOR ASIA

Who is suggesting creating a US-led, NATO-style defence treaty for the Indo-Pacific?

 

By Sidney Hey

When did we become the errand boy for US plans in the Indo-Pacific? I wondered after the news that Washington DC is pushing for the Trump-Vance administration to approve the construction of a NATO-like military architecture in this part of the world. Actually I know the answer but what I don't understand is how the Australian government still can't say ‘no’.

It seems that this idea would have been the brainchild of Zionist political scientist Ely Rather who, in an article on one of those portals for readers of his ilk, suggests that the US should ‘defend’ Australia, Japan, the Philippines and other Indo-Pacific riverine states by investing in the construction of a military organisation similar to the Atlanticist one. What would be interesting to know is, do these actors want to be defended by the US?

It is clear that Rather knows how to sell his work and convince politicians to buy it without considering its usefulness - after all, it is their taxpayers' taxes that pay for this nonsense - but what would US citizens think of this new arms craze?

As the European boys do with Starmer, Macron, Kallas and Von Der Leyen to whip up mistrust and a constant state of rearmament with the justification of Russia, it seems Rather's elaborations (which is what the neo-conservatives are looking for) would seek from Albanese in Australia and the rest of the colleagues in the region an absolute alignment to Washington under the excuse of an ‘alleged Chinese threat’.

Rather and others like him are among those instigators and creators of calamitous scenarios for the arms industry Corporations to develop and test their products. The governments in the White House provide the political excuses of convenience to justify themselves and make other countries and regions (Gaza-Ukraine-Yemen) their testing grounds for that industry.

Indo-Pacific governments should know that Rather is to some extent a military developer, peddling alarmist assumptions and hypotheses based on exaggeration and in many other instances arguments based on lies and falsehoods. With no disrespect to insurance workers, these kinds of guys like Ely Rather are like the insurance broker who, in order to sell you insurance, lays out a series of bad assumptions (which you may well never suffer from) and convinces you to buy the policy for which you must protect yourself.

But in addition to seeking to place weapons and expensive systems from industries like Raytheon, Lockheed or any of the other majors, Rather politically proselytises for a father who will defend them from the bad guys in the neighbourhood, making fools of the region's governments who cannot take responsibility for their own security by building their own defence systems.

Similar examples have been seen throughout contemporary history and today, there are some that surpass the ridiculous. Argentina is undoubtedly the most prominent in the southern hemisphere and, as it goes, is a candidate for becoming totally dependent on security and defence under US direction and control.

But in the case of Australia, the capabilities of our armed forces and especially the navy are by no means negligible, nor should they envy those of other Commonwealth forces such as the British Royal Navy. In this respect we are already sufficiently dependent on British products and we have already committed ourselves for the coming decade to buying submarines from them and the possible joint construction of some indigenous ones to the specifications of the naval manufacturer in London.

As for what the average Australian citizen believes about China's fictitious threats to the national security of the big island, there is none of the scaremongering we see in the preachings of the likes of Rather and the ominous birds of ill omen nesting in Washington DC and London. On the contrary, if the Australian government took the trouble to report the movements of the Americans and their British colleagues in the region any Aussie would realise that those who are hanging a noose around their necks are not the Chinese, but our friendly relatives.

The Australians or the Filipinos don't care if the US wants to increase its military spending under these strategic mirages. What they should be concerned about is the US going into each of these countries and building an expensive new war infrastructure that will commit them to any potential hemispheric war, and all for what.... to feed the businesses of a bunch of guys who live off death?

If mainland China is a potential military threat, it should be up to the governments of each of the Asia-Pacific members, each in its own right and using its own resources, to decide whether it really is and what their plans are for dealing with it. The cooperation already being provided by countries such as Australia with the AUKUS and QUAD naval operations are already enough to satisfy ‘American fears’.

Rather's story that the US should invest more money to build a weapons juggernaut on the grounds of ‘defence of the US and its partners in the Indo-Pacific’ is only meant to collect generous fees for his fear-mongering services. It is these charlatans with the vocation of unscrupulous agitators who truly bring insecurity and sow mistrust that will eventually lead to war. At the same time, Canberra should take it upon itself to put on its trousers and stand up politically to tell Donald Trump and Keir Starmer ‘Thank you, we can defend ourselves’