ANZUS

The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS or ANZUS Treaty) is the military alliance which binds Australia and the United States, and separately Australia and New Zealand to cooperate on defence matters in the Pacific Ocean area, though today the treaty is understood to relate to attacks in any area.

Treaty structure

The treaty was previously a full three-way defence pact, but following a dispute between New Zealand and the United States in 1984 over visiting rights for nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered ships of the U.S. Navy in New Zealand ports, the treaty no longer applies between the United States and New Zealand, but is still in force between either country and Australia, separately.

The US-Australia alliance under the ANZUS Treaty remains in full force. Heads of defence of one or both nations often have joined the annual ministerial meetings, which are supplemented by consultations between the U.S. Commander in Chief Pacific and the Australian Chief of Defence Force. There also are regular civilian and military consultations between the two governments at lower levels. Annual meetings to discuss ANZUS defence matters take place between the United States Secretary of State and the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs (AUSMIN), the 16th AUSMIN meeting took place in Washington, D.C. in July 2004.

Unlike NATO, ANZUS has no integrated defence structure or dedicated forces. However, in fulfillment of ANZUS obligations, Australia and the United States conduct a variety of joint activities. These include military exercises ranging from naval and landing exercises at the task-group level to battalion-level special forces training, assigning officers to each other's armed services, and standardizing equipment and operational doctrine. The two countries also operate several joint defence facilities in Australia, mainly ground stations for early warning satellites, and signals intelligence gathering in South-East Asia and East Asia as part of the ECHELON network.

History of ANZUS

The treaty came about following the close cooperation of the United States, Australia and New Zealand during World War II, during which time Australia had come perilously close to invasion by Japan. Following the end of World War II, the United States was eager to normalize relations with Japan, particularly as the Korean War was still raging a short distance from Japan. With the involvement of China and possibly the Soviet Union in Korea, the Cold War was threatening to become a full-scale war. However, Australia and New Zealand in particular were extremely reluctant to finalize a peace treaty with Japan which would allow for Japanese rearmament. Both countries relented only when an Australian and New Zealand proposal for a three-way security treaty was accepted by the United States.

The resulting treaty was concluded at San Francisco on September 1, 1951, and entered into force on April 29, 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It committed them to consult in the event of a threat and, in the event of attack, to meet the common danger in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.

It is interesting to note the treaty itself was not a source of debate for 30 years, though in this period New Zealand and Australia commited forces to the Malayan Emergency and subsequently the ANZUS nations fought together in the Vietnam War.

New Zealand bans nuclear ships

In 1985, the nature of the ANZUS alliance changed significantly. Tensions had long been present between Australia, New Zealand and the declared nuclear powers the United States and France which had conducted nuclear tests on South Pacific islands. Following the victory of the New Zealand Labour Party in elections in 1984, Prime Minister David Lange enacted laws which barred nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships from using New Zealand ports, citing the dangers of nuclear weapons, continued nuclear testing in the South Pacific, and opposition to US President Ronald Reagan's policy of confronting the Soviet Union. Given that the United States Navy refused to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard ships, these laws in effect refused access to New Zealand ports for all ships of the United States Navy. 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.

New Zealand's weakness without ANZUS was exposed by the French DGSE's bombing of the Greenpeace protest vessel, Rainbow Warrior in Auckland, on 10 July 1985. This event strengthened the nation's resolution to oppose nuclear powers.

Australian reservations about the MX

Previously in 1983, the United States had approached Australia with proposals for testing the new generation of American intercontinental ballistic missiles, the MX missile. American test ranges in the Pacific were insufficient for testing the new long-range missiles and the United States military wished to use the Tasman Sea as a target area. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party had agreed to provide monitoring sites near Sydney for this purpose. However in 1985 the new Prime Minister Bob Hawke of the Labor Party withdrew the offer of assistance after protests from within the Left faction of the Labor Party.

The United States suspends ANZUS obligations to New Zealand

After consultations with Australia and after negotations with New Zealand broke down, the United States announced that it was suspending its treaty obligations to New Zealand until United States Navy ships were re-admitted to New Zealand ports, citing that New Zealand was "a friend, but not an ally". The crisis made front-page headlines for weeks in many American newspapers, while many American cabinet members were quoted as expressing a deep sense of "betrayal". It is still often incorrectly stated that David Lange withdrew New Zealand from ANZUS — he did no such thing; his government's policy may well have led to the US's decision to suspend its treaty obligations to New Zealand, but that was still a decision of the US government, not the New Zealand government.

While the crisis with navy visits was prominent, the United States proved to be more forgiving of Australia's refusal to assist with the Peacekeeper missile. Fearing the total collapse of the ANZUS treaty, the US government decided to accomodate Australian domestic politics, particularly after NATO countries and other allies such as Japan showed little interest in taking a similar stance against nuclear weapons such as the Pershing missile.

The alliance today

Annual bilateral meetings between the US Secretary of State and the Australian Foreign Minister replaced annual meetings of the ANZUS Council of Foreign Ministers. The first bilateral meeting was held in Canberra in 1985. At the second, in San Francisco in 1986, the United States and Australia announced that the United States was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access. Subsequent bilateral Australia-US Ministerial (AUSMIN) meetings have alternated between Australia and the United States. The 16th AUSMIN meeting took place in Washington, D.C. in July 2004.

Whilst Australia has fought alongside the United States since the treaty signing including the Korean War, Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and elsewhere, 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. Australia is also a contributor to the National Missile Defense system. [1] [2]

New Zealand also fought alongside the United States in the Korea and Vietnam, and sent Transport aircraft, maritime patrol and Frigates to the Gulf, as well as a very small number of soldiers, SAS soldiers, medical and assorted and peace-keeping forces in Afghanistan — and despite Prime Minister Helen Clark being openly critical of American justifications for the war, New Zealand did send engineers and troops to protect them to Iraq. An opinion poll in New Zealand in 2001 [3] showed 54% of those sampled preferred to let the treaty lapse rather than accept visits again by nuclear-armed/powered vessels. It seems from the United States point of view there is no need to rely upon ANZUS to obtain New Zealand military support.

Between 1999–2003 the armed forces of Australia and New Zealand deployed together in a large scale operation in East Timor, to prevent pro-Indonesian Militia over turning a vote for independence and conducting ethnic cleansing on the island. The United States provided only limited logistical support. The operation was taken over by the United Nations.

The alliance engenders some political controversy in Australia. Particularly after Australian involvement in the 2003 war on Iraq, some quarters of Australian society have called for a re-evaluation of the relationship between the two nations. Nonetheless the alliance enjoyed broad support during the Cold War [4] and continues to enjoy broad support in Australia. [5] [6] One commentator in Australia has argued that the treaty should be re-negotiated in the context of terrorism, the modern role of the United Nations and as a purely US-Australian alliance. [7]

ANZUS and Taiwan

One topic that became prominent in the early 2000's are its implications in the case of a hypothetical attack by the People's Republic of China against Taiwan with the ROC receiving American support. While Australia has strong cultural and economic ties with the United States, it also has an increasingly important trade relationship with mainland China.

In August 2004, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer implied in Beijing that the treaty would likely not apply to that situation, but he was quickly corrected by Prime Minister John Howard. In March 2005, after an official of the People's Republic of China stated that it may be necessary for Australia to reassess the treaty and after the PRC passed an Anti-Secession Law regarding the ROC, Downer stated that in case of a PRC attack on the ROC, the treaty would come into force, but that the treaty would require only consultations with the United States and not necessarily commit Australia to war.

Treaty Text

SECURITY TREATY BETWEEN AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE PARTIES TO THIS TREATY,

REAFFIRMING their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments, and desiring to strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific Area,

NOTING that the United States already has arrangements pursuant to which its armed forces are stationed in the Philippines, and has armed forces and administrative responsibilities in the Ryukyus, and upon the coming into force of the Japanese Peace Treaty may also station armed forces in and about Japan to assist in the preservation of peace and security in the Japan Area,

RECOGNIZING that Australia and New Zealand as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations have military obligations outside as well as within the Pacific Area,

DESIRING to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that any of them stand alone in the Pacific Area, and

DESIRING further to coordinate their efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific Area,

THEREFORE DECLARE AND AGREE as follows:

Article I The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article II In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article III The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific.

Article IV Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article V For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

Article VI This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article VII The Parties hereby establish a Council, consisting of their Foreign Ministers or their Deputies, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council should be so organized as to be able to meet at any time.

Article VIII Pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific Area and the development by the United Nations of more effective means to maintain international peace and security, the Council, established by Article VII, is authorized to maintain a consultative relationship with States, Regional Organizations, Associations of States or other authorities in the Pacific Area in a position to further the purposes of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of that Area.

Article IX This Treaty shall be ratified by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of Australia, which will notify each of the other signatories of such deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force as soon as the ratifications of the signatories have been deposited.[1]

Article X This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Any Party may cease to be a member of the Council established by Article VII one year after notice has been given to the Government of Australia, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of such notice.

Article XI This Treaty in the English language shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of Australia. Duly certified copies thereof will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of each of the other signatories.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.

DONE at the city of San Francisco this first day of September, 1951.

FOR AUSTRALIA: [Signed:] Percy C Spender

FOR NEW ZEALAND: [Signed:] Carl A Berendsen

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: [Signed:] Dean Acheson John Foster Dulles Alexander Wiley John Sparkman

External links