Record number of U.S. Marines to train in Australia in symbolic challenge to China

By Colin Packham

 

FILE PHOTO - U.S. Marines aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard amphibious assault ship stand in formation during a ceremony marking the start of Talisman Saber 2017, a biennial joint military exercise between the United States and Australia aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard amphibious assault ship on the the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Sydney, Australia, June 29, 2017. REUTERS/Jason Reed/File Photo

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States will deploy a record number of Marines to train in Australia, the Australian defence minister said on Friday, as Washington seeks to counter what it describes as Chinese aggression in the region.

 

Payne said 1,587 U.S. Marines will spend six months training in Australia's remote north, an increase of nearly 27 percent on its 2017 rotation for the programme known as the Force Posture Initiatives.

 

"The U.S. military plays a vital role in underwriting security and stability across the Indo-Pacific, and the Force Posture Initiatives will be an essential component in preserving stability and security over the coming decades," Defence Minister Marise Payne said in a statement.

 

The deployment, first introduced in 2011 as part of a U.S. "pivot" to Asia, has emerged as a key indicator of Washington's commitment to the region under U.S. President Donald Trump and his willingness to counter Chinese influence in a region where tensions have spiked amid disputes over the South China Sea.

 

China claims most of the South China Sea, an important trade route that is also believed to contain large quantities of oil and natural gas, and has been building artificial islands on reefs, some with ports and air strips.

 

In a move likely to irk Beijing, the U.S. Marines will train with personnel from Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, several nations that also have claims in the South China Sea.

 

"China will monitor whatever the U.S. does and it would prefer that the United States not work with the Asian countries included in these exercises," said Euan Graham, director of the international security programme at Australian think tank the Lowy Institute.

 

"Beijing would like to deal one-on-one with Southeast Asia nations that have counter claims," he said.

 

The military deployment also threatens to further weaken Australia-Chinese relations.

 

Australia, a staunch U.S. ally with no claim to the South China Sea, has long maintained its neutrality in the dispute to protect its economic relationship with China.

 

But bilateral relations have soured in recent months after Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said China was improperly interfering in Canberra's affairs, an accusation that triggered a rare protest from Beijing.

 

(Reporting by Colin Packham; Editing by Paul Tait)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-03-23

1 hour ago, webfact said:

as Washington seeks to counter what it describes as Chinese aggression in the region.

America has some cheek saying that, with their track record of empire building

Just now, PremiumLane said:

America has some cheek saying that, with their track record of empire building

Fairly dismal since WW2

Most Australians are opposed to having US servicemen on our soil.  There is no threat from China and if there were then what difference would 1500 hillbilly marines make?

The marines wont like it in the remote North anyway. Very hot, crocodiles everywhere and hookers way too expensive.  They'll have to have  r&r in  Pattaya.

On 3/23/2018 at 10:01 AM, lanista said:

Most Australians are opposed to having US servicemen on our soil.  There is no threat from China and if there were then what difference would 1500 hillbilly marines make?

The marines wont like it in the remote North anyway. Very hot, crocodiles everywhere and hookers way too expensive.  They'll have to have  r&r in  Pattaya.

It is tokenistic but I think that most Australians are fairly agnostic about it all. 

 

the truth is that there are more Singaporean soldiers in Australia at anyone time, with the joint training arrangements. What the US does is purely for show, and Australia seems for the most part happy to be part of the charade.

 

But still, when the commander in chief of those guys is a fellow with an adversion to reading and facts, I can understand why some are worried

 

 

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Australia, a staunch U.S. ally with no claim to the South China Sea, has long maintained its neutrality in the dispute to protect its economic relationship with China.

That's the money talking again!! The Chinese have been huge investors within Australia buying up land hand over fist. Influencing government at all levels of power no wonder we are just sitting on the fence.

As a side note there are over 600,000 Chinese born and 80,000 US born living in Australia. 

5 minutes ago, pokerface1 said:

That's the money talking again!! The Chinese have been huge investors within Australia buying up land hand over fist. Influencing government at all levels of power no wonder we are just sitting on the fence.

As a side note there are over 600,000 Chinese born and 80,000 US born living in Australia. 

Many are from HK or refugees from Tiananmen. No great love for the central party there.

3 hours ago, HLover said:

Fairly dismal since WW2

It might be dismal, but intent counts. And Washington certainly has shown intent to build an empire.

3 hours ago, lanista said:

Most Australians are opposed to having US servicemen on our soil.  There is no threat from China and if there were then what difference would 1500 hillbilly marines make?

The marines wont like it in the remote North anyway. Very hot, crocodiles everywhere and hookers way too expensive.  They'll have to have  r&r in  Pattaya.

I would suggest that most Australians have not given it a one second thought (unless you have a survey you can direct me to of course).

 

35 minutes ago, samran said:

Many are from HK or refugees from Tiananmen. No great love for the central party there.

I just check and found that there are additional approx 100,000 from Hong Kong

59 minutes ago, pokerface1 said:

That's the money talking again!! The Chinese have been huge investors within Australia buying up land hand over fist. Influencing government at all levels of power no wonder we are just sitting on the fence.

As a side note there are over 600,000 Chinese born and 80,000 US born living in Australia. 

Foreign investors are crucial to Australia's economic future. Chinese investors own about 3% of Australian agricultural land. Australia has a balancing act to play with China in challenging times. However, the Turnbull government has pushed back against Chinese  influencing efforts.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/09/china-says-turnbulls-remarks-have-poisoned-the-atmosphere-of-relations

5 hours ago, lanista said:

Most Australians are opposed to having US servicemen on our soil.  There is no threat from China and if there were then what difference would 1500 hillbilly marines make?

I guess that you think China wouldn't be a threat to Australia if they didn't have a treaty whereby the US with all it's nukes will come to it's aid if China attacks it.

I see that you disrespect the military. You'd better hope you never need them.

 

Being a partner in a treaty takes more than a bit of paper. Chamberlain thought a piece of paper guaranteed Hitler was not a threat to Britain. How did that work out?

2 hours ago, pokerface1 said:

That's the money talking again!! The Chinese have been huge investors within Australia buying up land hand over fist. Influencing government at all levels of power no wonder we are just sitting on the fence.

As a side note there are over 600,000 Chinese born and 80,000 US born living in Australia. 

Doesn't matter how much land they buy. When it all goes wrong, they can't take it with them.

America, you have already caused enough wars and suffering... stop trying to make another war!!!!

 

 

1 hour ago, car720 said:

The crocs will love these guys.

Remember WW2.  Over sexed.  Over paid and over here.

We don't want them.

Jeez,  our pollies are getting more subservient by the day.

What was the name of that makeshift French government?

Your slogan originated in the UK. Unlikely as it may be, if it came to a Pacific War, Australia would be unable to defend itself without US assets. US is an essential component for force projection protecting Australia.

I am American and I have no problem criticising America when it is deserved but I resent anyone indicating that the majority of  Americans are sick and violent.  You might want to visit some bars around Thailand and see who is there drunk night after night and looking for a fight.  I can  asure most of the Americans are not there but attending to their business and families.

5 hours ago, DoctorG said:

I would suggest that most Australians have not given it a one second thought

I don't know about what thought is given to the presence of a small contingent of US servicemen in Australia for training. But a poll taken in 2015 might lend some insight from Australians' viewpoint of US involvement over the South China Sea conflict.

"The poll, commissioned by the Australia-China Relations Institute (ACRI), found 71% thought Australia should remain neutral in any armed conflict over disputed islands and maritime territory in the East China Sea, and 68% thought Australia should still say no if the president rang the prime minister asking for assistance."  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/05/australians-opposed-taking-sides-china-japan

 

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Your slogan originated in the UK. Unlikely as it may be, if it came to a Pacific War, Australia would be unable to defend itself without US assets. US is an essential component for force projection protecting Australia.

If were to be a war that  was not of immediate avantage to the  US  then  why assume  US assets  would  be  made available? Perhaps as was in WW2  the US   may  take  advantage at  a latter stage only?

Perhaps  more people  should consider the  fact  that the  US has achieved an economic status  via  militancy and  thus sustaining   the  same  militant  status  by embroiling   "allies" in it's  false orchestrated wars  and are adamant in  maintaining  that  position.

Any  significant  challenge to that position leads  to  accustions of danger.

Any defence  against  not  just the  accusations but the uninvite  military  incursions even against  approval  by the UN are  touted  as evidences  that  the US  has assumed some  greater  rights.

Using  the  UN  to  shout  down  objections only  increases  the  level of  reaction.

The USA assumes or tries  to impress  the perception it is  the  only nation  who has  allowable autonomy by  virtue  of military superiority, not international equity !

And  it  backs  that  claim having "used" it's  allies  in wars it has  never  single  handedly  won if at all.

If a  nation  such a  China or  Russia  ( despite the  collapse on the  USSR) can achieve any significant  influence then why  should  it be automatically  be described  as a  threat to the World? Why  not   let it be  honestly  described as a threat to  the sanctuary of the USA that an elite few would like preserved?

In  the lives  of  people  globally  who  are led to the  myth of  democratic  representation via  elected  governance it is likely  that only those  who  suffer under  recognised dictatorships who actually  have a real perception of   how  life is.

The  rest  are the true slaves because  of  the  deception.

Australians  should  be  very  cautious of  becoming a sacrifice to an ideollogy too many would subscribe  to !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The USA building an empire in the wilds of Australia; what are they thinking?  More likely fulfilling a promise to spend American tax dollars in Australian to help prop up their economy. 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Being a partner in a treaty takes more than a bit of paper. Chamberlain thought a piece of paper guaranteed Hitler was not a threat to Britain. How did that work out?

Yes.. well... perhaps one would feel more comfortable if trump hadn’t come to power and starting ripping up treaties.... as in bits of paper guaranteeing things.

 

but that said.... military co operation has been a cornerstone of US Australian relationship for decades, and should not be spurned or demeaned in any way

 

sticking soldiers in the remote NW, with 17 million Roos, thousands of razorbacks and a squillen crocs should be great for team building and training in what Australia once deemed as sacrificial land if invaded.

 

meanwhile, in nicer areas, Australia is going to be concentrating on soy bean agriculture, to open new trade opportunities with China.... just in case, due to the trump factor 

 

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Your slogan originated in the UK. Unlikely as it may be, if it came to a Pacific War, Australia would be unable to defend itself without US assets. US is an essential component for force projection protecting Australia.

Or... the US would be unable to prosecute its agenda in most of the Southern Hemisphere, without Australian assets.

 

we are allies, because both sides have something to bring to the table... not because the US is some kind of benevolent entity

3 hours ago, Thaidream said:

I am American and I have no problem criticising America when it is deserved but I resent anyone indicating that the majority of  Americans are sick and violent.  You might want to visit some bars around Thailand and see who is there drunk night after night and looking for a fight.  I can  asure most of the Americans are not there but attending to their business and families.

We're not attacking American people, most of us know Americans in Thailand, and we know that Americans are about the same as anybody else.

What we are against is the US government, we are against Washington. Washington has, through the media, convinced lots of Americans that it is nice and friendly institution. A classic example would be that invasion of Iraq, back in 2003.

Washington has to pretend that it is trying to spread freedom and democracy to the rest of the world. By pretending this, well, it's managed to get lots of Americans to back and support it's foreign policy. Most Americans would certainly not back their government's foreign policy, if they knew what the real goal is.
   

7 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Or... the US would be unable to prosecute its agenda in most of the Southern Hemisphere, without Australian assets.

 

we are allies, because both sides have something to bring to the table... not because the US is some kind of benevolent entity

And unfortunately, the US government has managed to convince lots of people, Americans and people outside of America, that it is a benevolent entity.

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And unfortunately, the US government has managed to convince lots of people, Americans and people outside of America, that it is a benevolent entity.

I don't know who the US has convinced that it is a benevolent entity, could you site some examples.   I do know that China has convinced no one that it is a benevolent entity.   

 

If Australia doesn't want the troops there, then they can say no.

5 hours ago, farcanell said:

<snip>. not because the US is some kind of benevolent entity

Please don't put words in my mouth, 

5 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

If were to be a war that  was not of immediate avantage to the  US  then  why assume  US assets  would  be  made available?

Read my post again, never made the assumption

Ni, I  do not think the US  is a benevolent entity but it is certainly not evil nor are Americans generally violet and evil either. Each country does what it thinks is in it's own national interests.

 

Ameerica and Australia have a longstanding relationship-each helping the other during times of stress dating back to WWII when my father and probably our father/grandfather fought together to stop Japan and Germany from Worldwide domination.

 

Now, we both face another type of potential domination- China.  the Chinese are predators, attempting to control resources to keep their people docile so the Communist Party can remain in power.  The sheer numbers of Chinese Should make the World uncomfortable and their potential economic power is a clear and present danger.

 

I hardly think a few thousand US Marines training in Australia are any danger to anyone but show Australia and the Chinese that America can project power. America has no intention of invading anyone (except possibly N Korea).  China is invading everyone everywhere but not through military might but though using its huge foreign reserves to buy up industries; land and other natural resources. This must be stopped- not through military means but by building alliances and using our combined economic strength to stop the purchase of vital industries and resources

 

Some of you may not like us as a country but you will like the Chinese a lot less when they attempt to control everything Australian .

I dont know how you can say we dont want them, you are one person and I for one welcome them.!!

8 hours ago, Credo said:

I don't know who the US has convinced that it is a benevolent entity, could you site some examples.   I do know that China has convinced no one that it is a benevolent entity.   

 

If Australia doesn't want the troops there, then they can say no.

Correct. If Australia wants the U.S. Marines to leave, all they have to do is say so. They will be gone in a flash...... 

19 hours ago, DoctorG said:

I would suggest that most Australians have not given it a one second thought (unless you have a survey you can direct me to of course).

 

Surveys are a waste of time because they give a result that is determined by the way you ask the questions either in a positive or negative spin.  Youre right, Australians give nothing a second thought because they're too lazy ,spoilt and apathetic  but ive never heard anyone say they want yankee soldiers  bonking around in OZ.