Australia won't host U.S. missiles, prime minister says

[snoop1130]

Australia won't host U.S. missiles, prime minister says

 

FILE PHOTO: Prime Minister Scott Morrison speaks to the media during a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, March 20, 2019. AAP Image/Andrew Taylor/via REUTERS

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - U.S. intermediate-range missiles will not be deployed in Australia, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday, after the United States revealed ambitions to site missiles in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

Officials from both governments held talks in Sydney over the weekend that ended with a joint statement in which the two allies pledged to strengthen opposition to Chinese activities in Asia-Pacific, as both sides have become increasingly concerned about China’s spreading influence.

 

During the talks, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper spoke of hopes to deploy missiles in the Asia-Pacific region in coming months following Washington’s withdrawal from a landmark arms control treaty last week.

 

Esper’s comments prompted speculation that Australia had been asked to host the missiles, but Morrison denied that any request had been made and said Australia would decline if it was asked in the future.

 

“It’s not been asked to us, not being considered, not been put to us. I think I the rule a line under that,” Morrison told reporters in Brisbane, the state capital of Queensland.

 

A recent increase in tensions between Washington and Beijing, both over trade and rights of navigation in both the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, has put Australia in an awkward spot, as the United States is its biggest ally, while China is its biggest export market.

 

Beijing last week described Australian efforts to improve the bilateral relationship as “unsatisfactory”.

 

Australia worries China is using foreign aid to secure greater influence over small Pacific countries which control vast swathes of resource-rich ocean.

 

Australia, traditionally the major power in the South Pacific, has promised up to A$3 billion ($2.03 billion) in grants and cheap loans to counter what Washington describes as China’s “payday loan diplomacy”.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-08-05

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[pokerface1]

What the hell!! This is a national security issue it's not for the public to be concerned about or even know about. Australian government will keep both sides happy as always and accept missiles from both the USA and China. This of course will be kept secret from all concerned due to national security. 

[Thechook]

Guess China wouldn't give the ok. China holds a lot of power in Australia and owns a fair chunk of the country. 

[OtinPattaya]

Is there still a country called Australia? I thought it was Sihanoukville #2. Sihanoukville Down Under. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by OtinPattaya

[pegman]

These war mongers should be rejected by all Asian countries. See how they like it if the Chinese place nuke warheads in Cuba.

[legend49]

3 hours ago, Thechook said:

Guess China wouldn't give the ok. China holds a lot of power in Australia and owns a fair chunk of the country. 

Including a 99 year lease on Darwins port. same place yanks want to position missiles. <deleted>?

[Jack Mountain]

Say No, do Yes ... Could be Holland.

[Thaidream]

I just can't imagine any country in Asia accepting placement of US Missles. This would cause  real instability in the Asian area.  If the missles are placed anywhere- I would guess Poland, Hungary or Bulgatia.

 

It makes more sense for the US, China and Russia to sit down and formulate a treaty to elomonate all missles but it won't happen due to China's quest for control over Asia.

[HLover]

13 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I just can't imagine any country in Asia accepting placement of US Missles. This would cause  real instability in the Asian area.  If the missles are placed anywhere- I would guess Poland, Hungary or Bulgatia.

 

It makes more sense for the US, China and Russia to sit down and formulate a treaty to elomonate all missles but it won't happen due to China's quest for control over Asia.

...and areas well beyond.

[bristolboy]

8 hours ago, Thechook said:

Guess China wouldn't give the ok. China holds a lot of power in Australia and owns a fair chunk of the country. 

Billionaire Chinese owner of Australian radiology group forced to sell shares

https://www.afr.com/business/health/hospitals-and-gps/billionaire-chinese-owner-of-australian-radiology-group-forced-to-sell-shares-20181120-h1846p

 

Chinese company forced to sell stake in Australian cotton farm

https://www.ft.com/content/bbbbba96-b4ec-11e9-8cb2-799a3a8cf37b

 

There's plenty more like this if you care to do a search.

[jany123]

9 hours ago, Thechook said:

Guess China wouldn't give the ok. China holds a lot of power in Australia and owns a fair chunk of the country. 

Yes... about 2%,... mostly regional high land per cow ratio stuff.... but I don’t think that gives them voting rights, or much actual power.

 

However, Being it’s largest trading partner, on the other hand, gives it economic power... as the OP suggests

 

i often wonder what people who raise this 2% ownership thing believe will happen... airlift a few thousand acres of outback to dump in the Chinese interior perhaps. Foreign ownership and investment is a two way street... look at what the US is capable of doing to assets of regimes or people’s it’s in conflict with.

[watcharacters]

6 hours ago, legend49 said:

Including a 99 year lease on Darwins port. same place yanks want to position missiles. <deleted>?

 

The Chinese will take good care of it.

 

Will anyone be around in 99 years, anyway?

[jany123]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

I just can't imagine any country in Asia accepting placement of US Missles. This would cause  real instability in the Asian area.  If the missles are placed anywhere- I would guess Poland, Hungary or Bulgatia.

 

I imagine you mean any more countries in Asia.... but i agree that the US idea to do so, would cause more regional instability.

 

if the missiles are placed anywhere, initially I would guess that it would be via an increased naval capability.

 

and... having read some of the new Indio-pacific deal that Washington is now pushing to allegedly counter chinas belts and roads initiative, secondarily, any potential partners to that little arrangement, would be expected to upgrade its military capacity.

[car720]

This is all fine for those who are naive enough to believe that their leaders have their interests at heart.

Greed is good, don't you know?

[jany123]

10 hours ago, pegman said:

These war mongers should be rejected by all Asian countries. See how they like it if the Chinese place nuke warheads in Cuba.

Taiwan could well become Asia’s “Cuba” equivalent.

[jany123]

19 hours ago, pokerface1 said:

What the hell!! This is a national security issue it's not for the public to be concerned about or even know about. Australian government will keep both sides happy as always and accept missiles from both the USA and China. This of course will be kept secret from all concerned due to national security. 

Your kidding right?

 

Your advocating that the Australian people’s should be kept ignorant of national policy.... much like the way people’s in authoritarian regimes are kept ignorant.

 

this is not a national security issue, it’s a national policy issue.... every Australian has the right to full disclosure of its national policies, especially when those policies might become national security issues

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by jany123

[Gene1960]

Taiwan could well become Asia’s “Cuba” equivalent.

For what purpose? To commit suicide?

[natway09]

It might be an opening for the Thai Government ???

[Srikcir]

22 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

During the talks, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper spoke of hopes to deploy missiles in the Asia-Pacific region in coming months following Washington’s withdrawal from a landmark arms control treaty last week.

This has been the typical foreign policy fault of the Trump administration - blow up existing security treaties, then try to repair the (predictable) catastrophic results with flawed and thoughtless solutions without even getting any kind of consensus from traditional U.S. allies or other security partners.  

 

Trump hearkens back to the age of "gunboat" diplomacy typified in the 1980's "through the use of military force (or the direct threat thereof) to maintain hegemony over a sphere of influence, usually associated with the age of imperialism and colonialism."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy

It might be summed up by the position that, "If you do not obey me, I will flex my muscles first. Then, if you do not behave better, I will teach you a lesson with my fists." And this comes from the Chinese!

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-08/13/content_11151483.htm  Classic bully.

But isn't that reflected by Trump's Fire & Fury statements against North Korea, Trump's "smack" talk  against Iran and wiping Afghanistan off the face of the Earth if he wanted to win the war in Afghanistan?

 

[IAMHERE]

14 hours ago, pegman said:

These war mongers should be rejected by all Asian countries. See how they like it if the Chinese place nuke warheads in Cuba.

"The air travel (bird fly) shortest distance between Australia and China is 7,448 km= 4,628 miles."  Cuba is less than 100 miles from America.  Not really the same.

[steven100]

Australian's are so stupid when it comes to security issues such as this. They don't have a common sense approach to anything anymore.

Border security should be #1 priority … and as such turn any people smuggler boats around.

If I were the PM, I would welcome a US missile launch base in the NT. 

How quickly the Aussies forget, Darwin wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the US and we could very well all be speaking Japanese, or today's generation probably don't even know because they just see what's on television and think it must be true.

Don't listen to the haters or the do-gooders, I would just do it.

It's got nothing to do with being pals with the US or taking sides …..  it's simple a deterrent.  

As mentioned before …. this is priority concern which affects national security, so have the US based at the top is just a precautionary measure and may possibly deter any thoughts of an attack.