Indo Pacific strategy

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think the importance of the Pacific region is finally sinking in with the newly elected government here in Oz appointing a “Minister for the Pacific” and the Opposition, who announced their Shadow Cabinet today, also appointing a Shadow Minister.
Further, the PM has spent today in the Solomons and will spend tonight in Honiara. This is his first overseas visit since his election and the first PM in 10 years to visit
This visit and the raft of other support programmes;Patrol Boats, air Surveillance, a new emphasis on Foreign Aid being given to our near neighbours, all bodes well for future relations.
As for Rugby, there is a further competition generating huge interest, Global Rapid Rugby with teams from Samoa, Fiji, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and West Australia with financial backing by WA mining magnate Twiggy Forrest.
PNG is Rugby League mad and a national team plays in a Queensland competition so sport is playing an important part.
Let’s hope this awakening provides enough impetus for the government to commit to the proposed “Pacific” ship so that a continuous presence can be maintained there.
 

Catalina

Member
HAS AMERICA ASSIGNED AUSTRALIA & NZ OUR OWN SECTIONS OF THE PACIFIC?

the newly elected government here in Oz appointing a “Minister for the Pacific” and the Opposition, who announced their Shadow Cabinet today, also appointing a Shadow Minister.
This is GREAT news.

Having lived 21 years overseas, with many of those in PNG, the Solomons, and Vanuatu I was always struck by how, at a defence, police, and government level, the US presence was so low key, and how high profile the Australian presence was.

New Zealand likewise has a naturally similar strong felt presence East of Australias Pacific Zone of Influence in Tonga, Samoa supporting the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokuleau

I have always been curious if this delineation is also part of a military strategy where America, in combination with the geostrategic positioning of OZ and NZ, has in effect assigned us our respective primary military zones - Australia - Melanesia and New Zealand - Polynesia.

Am very please that our Governments and Defence Forces are focusing on this area, for the death and damage that was brought to our shores by naval units of opposing powers in World War I and World War II is often forgotten and the stronger our ties to the South West Pacific, and the more forward we can base our naval and air units, the harder it will be for PLAN submarines or surface combatants to achieve what the Nazi's and Imperial Japanese did when our nation thought that distance and not military assets would protect us . . .

 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This weekend again demonstrated the Soft Power counter-balance that is NZ Pro Rugby in the Pacific with a packed out crowd and huge local TV audience when the Crusaders played the Chiefs at Fiji Stadium in Suva. Good luck to the PRC getting a crowd like that for a Ping Pong tournament. :) Having Super Rugby games played up their may cost the franchises but the results in a external relations sense are huge.
Not impressed with the result though. Think those cowbell ringers may have knobelled the ref or promised him an extravagant holiday somewhere. They're North Islanders so they must've cheated. :p
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
HAS AMERICA ASSIGNED AUSTRALIA & NZ OUR OWN SECTIONS OF THE PACIFIC?



This is GREAT news.

Having lived 21 years overseas, with many of those in PNG, the Solomons, and Vanuatu I was always struck by how, at a defence, police, and government level, the US presence was so low key, and how high profile the Australian presence was.

New Zealand likewise has a naturally similar strong felt presence East of Australias Pacific Zone of Influence in Tonga, Samoa supporting the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokuleau

I have always been curious if this delineation is also part of a military strategy where America, in combination with the geostrategic positioning of OZ and NZ, has in effect assigned us our respective primary military zones - Australia - Melanesia and New Zealand - Polynesia.

Am very please that our Governments and Defence Forces are focusing on this area, for the death and damage that was brought to our shores by naval units of opposing powers in World War I and World War II is often forgotten and the stronger our ties to the South West Pacific, and the more forward we can base our naval and air units, the harder it will be for PLAN submarines or surface combatants to achieve what the Nazi's and Imperial Japanese did when our nation thought that distance and not military assets would protect us . . .
"I have always been curious if this delineation is also part of a military strategy where America, in combination with the geostrategic positioning of OZ and NZ, has in effect assigned us our respective primary military zones - Australia - Melanesia and New Zealand - Polynesia."

I am not sure, but it could be a hangover from WW2 when in early 1942 the various US Command Areas were designated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon. In those days Gen MacArthur, ego and all, was ordered out of the Philippines to Australia, finally setting up shop in Melbourne. On 18/4/1942 April Gen MacArthur was appointed Supreme Commander Allied Forces South West Pacific. Adm Nimitz was made CINCPACFLT 31/12/1941 and was appointed CIC Pacific Ocean Areas. Adm Kimmel was CIC South Pacific Area. The JCS placed NZ under Adm Ghormley, so that's why the RNZAF ended up with carrier aircraft; F4G Corsairs, SBD Dauntlesses and TBF Avengers. The NZG had requested B-24 Liberators and B-25 Mitchells, but because these were Army aircraft we didn't get them. So I presume that is one of the reasons why such divisions exist today. The other reason is historical, because after WW1 both Australia and NZ were given former German colonies to administer by the League Of Nations.

This map is more informative that the one you used because your one is the SAR areas of responsibility. This one is the Pacific War Theatre Areas as designated by the JCS and the Combined Chiefs (UK & US).


Source.

Edited to correct error.
 
Last edited:

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Nor poor old H.E Kimmel NG. Kimmel was sacked after Pearl Harbour.

ADM Robert Ghormley then ADM William Halsey commanded the South Pacific area (SOPAC) which was based in Auckland.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Not sure of the appropriate thread for this

Intrigued as to the Malaysian Prime Ministers comment regarding the recent announcement that four people will be charged as to the downing of Malaysian Airways Flight MH17 .
Quote
"Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Thursday (Jun 20) that Russia is being made a scapegoat for the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 and questioned the objectivity of the investigations into the 2014 disaster."

I get that Mahathir has been around for a very ,very, long time in Malaysian politics, but are puzzled as to what he hopes to achieve from such a comment.
Such sentiment may appease some, but will certainly alienate many others both domestically and internationally.
Does he truly think on balance this is an appropriate comment given the wealth of evidence presented directly implicating Russia.
A significantly worrying sentiment for were it may lead.
Does it appear the region is breaking into different camps of allegiance?

Significant words-Mr Mahathir Mohamad


Regards S
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
The non-aligned movement was popular in the past that will return in fashion (in other ways). In May 2019, Singapore and China have reaffirmed their strong bilateral relations and the importance of maintaining a rules-based multilateral trading system, as Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat kicked off an eight-day visit to China. Mr Heng, the future PM of Singapore met and was hosted to dinner by Chinese Vice Premier Han Zheng at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing. "DPM Heng and Vice Premier Han reaffirmed the strong, multi-faceted and longstanding relations between our two countries," said Mr Heng's press secretary (Read more at Singapore and China reaffirm ties, importance of rules-based trading system). Singapore and Shanghai for example enjoy robust economic relations. In 2018, Singapore-Shanghai trade amounted to approximately US$13.5 billion, accounting for about 13.6% of Singapore’s trade with China. As of end 2018, Singapore had over 4800 projects in Shanghai, amounting to about US$15.2 billion worth of cumulative actual investments.

The Sino-American trade war hurts Singapore, as our companies and sovereign wealth funds are nett investors in China. The longer the trade war drags, the more we hurt. We are about to enter a recession in Singapore thanks to Trump’s disruptive policies. We may prefer American weapons but we need stability and economic growth to move forward as a country - while we understand that it is part of the American negotiating tactic - our local economy (that the US has a trade surplus with) is seriously hurting.

In contrast to a pro-biz China, Trump is a polarising and anti-Muslim figure and attracts significant anti-American sentiment in Muslim majority countries. The Trump baggage is an emotional issue and in contrast, China is seen by Dr M as a developmental partner to do deals with. If forced to take sides in the high-stakes geopolitical rivalry and trade war between the United States and China, Dr M would prefer the economic largesse of Beijing. He is already bought over by the Chinese and is a pro-China vote in ASEAN but two faced behaviour is typical of the Malaysian Government under Dr M.
Intrigued as to the Malaysian Prime Ministers comment....
"Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Thursday (Jun 20) that Russia is being made a scapegoat for the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 and questioned the objectivity of the investigations into the 2014 disaster."

I get that Mahathir has been around for a very ,very, long time in Malaysian politics, but are puzzled as to what he hopes to achieve from such a comment.
Such sentiment may appease some, but will certainly alienate many others both domestically and internationally.
Does he truly think on balance this is an appropriate comment given the wealth of evidence presented directly implicating Russia.
A significantly worrying sentiment for were it may lead.
Does it appear the region is breaking into different camps of allegiance?

Regards S
This statement is in character for Dr M. It’s a statement for domestic politics. Malaysia’s Dr M takes aim at international community over anti-palm oil narrative (Read more at Malaysia PM Mahathir takes aim at international community over anti-palm oil narrative). Being anti-European is in fashion again in Malaysia - no matter how many lies he needs to tell for his domestic audience. He wants the option to buy more Russian Weapons due to the palm oil issue with the Europeans and has paused or stopped the signing of a weapons contract from the Europeans.

After Dr M became Malaysia’s Prime Minister in 1981, he embarked upon bringing Islam into Malaysia’s government. He opened an Islamic university, started an Islamic banking sector, strengthened Islamic jurisprudence and centralized Federal Islamic affairs under the Prime Minister’s Department. Thirty-eight years later, that has created an unassailable Islamic bureaucracy that is independent of the executive branch, with their own sources of funds in addition to federal and state budget allocations. Elected governments, even under a new reformist Pakatan Harapan coalition that drove out the United Malays National Organization and the component parties of the Barisan Nasional, do not dare to cut down the size of the Islamic bureaucracy due to the potential political outcry.

Israeli sources are far more negative on Malaysia’s trajectory. Dr M is pro-Iran and pro-Hamas too — which is in essence anti-American. On the one hand, Malaysian Governmental policies encourage visa free travel from Gulf countries and Iran (making it a transit point for proxies of Iran and other supporters of terrorism), on the other hand their intelligence services cooperate with Western intelligence services. Like their in-bound travel policies, Malaysia’s:

(i) attempts to grow relations with Iran (with their Defence Minister Mohamad Sabu and Iran’s Defence and Armed Forces Logistics Minister Brigadier General Amir Hatami meeting in Iran from 26 April 2019 to 1 May 2019 to fine tune bilateral defense cooperation);

(ii) condemning of Israel, offering of scholarships to Palestinians in Malaysia with Khalid expressing his gratitude to Dr Mahathir at a press conference after the meeting for welcoming the Hamas delegation and standing with the Palestinians against the “Israeli occupation”; and

(iii) using of Islam for political purpose and making it a criteria for promotion in their civil service for the last 20 to 30 years - that creates a big pool of people believe and support Jihad against other ethnic groups,
will have unintended consequences. For example, the death of fireman Muhammad Adib has become a rallying call for some Malaysian Muslims, including those in opposition parties, who feel his death at the carpark of a Hindu temple has not been addressed by the government. Muhammad Adib was critically injured in the early morning of 27 Nov 2018, after he and his team members responded to an emergency call at the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in Subang Jaya, where a riot was taking place. Inspector-General of Police Abdul Hamid said the suspects - a Malaysian, two Rohingya and an Indonesian - were detained in a special operation by the Counter Terrorism Division (E8) in Terengganu and the Klang Valley between 5 to 7 May 2019.

It’s only a matter of time before the US embassy, Australian Consulate or a night spot (frequented by expats) in Malaysia is subject to a significant terror related event. Increasing polarisation has occurred in Malaysia and they have a brain drain from their ethnic Chinese community. So not a good look, due to their domestic politics.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The non-aligned movement was popular in the past that will return in fashion (in other ways). In May 2019, Singapore and China have reaffirmed their strong bilateral relations and the importance of maintaining a rules-based multilateral trading system, as Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat kicked off an eight-day visit to China. Mr Heng, the future PM of Singapore met and was hosted to dinner by Chinese Vice Premier Han Zheng at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing. "DPM Heng and Vice Premier Han reaffirmed the strong, multi-faceted and longstanding relations between our two countries," said Mr Heng's press secretary (Read more at Singapore and China reaffirm ties, importance of rules-based trading system). Singapore and Shanghai for example enjoy robust economic relations. In 2018, Singapore-Shanghai trade amounted to approximately US$13.5 billion, accounting for about 13.6% of Singapore’s trade with China. As of end 2018, Singapore had over 4800 projects in Shanghai, amounting to about US$15.2 billion worth of cumulative actual investments.

The Sino-American trade war hurts Singapore, as our companies and sovereign wealth funds are nett investors in China. The longer the trade war drags, the more we hurt. We are about to enter a recession in Singapore thanks to Trump’s disruptive policies. We may prefer American weapons but we need stability and economic growth to move forward as a country - while we understand that it is part of the American negotiating tactic - our local economy (that the US has a trade surplus with) is seriously hurting.

In contrast to a pro-biz China, Trump is a polarising and anti-Muslim figure and attracts significant anti-American sentiment in Muslim majority countries. The Trump baggage is an emotional issue and in contrast, China is seen by Dr M as a developmental partner to do deals with. If forced to take sides in the high-stakes geopolitical rivalry and trade war between the United States and China, Dr M would prefer the economic largesse of Beijing. He is already bought over by the Chinese and is a pro-China vote in ASEAN but two faced behaviour is typical of the Malaysian Government under Dr M.

This statement is in character for Dr M. It’s a statement for domestic politics. Malaysia’s Dr M takes aim at international community over anti-palm oil narrative (Read more at Malaysia PM Mahathir takes aim at international community over anti-palm oil narrative). Being anti-European is in fashion again in Malaysia - no matter how many lies he needs to tell for his domestic audience. He wants the option to buy more Russian Weapons due to the palm oil issue with the Europeans and has paused or stopped the signing of a weapons contract from the Europeans.

After Dr M became Malaysia’s Prime Minister in 1981, he embarked upon bringing Islam into Malaysia’s government. He opened an Islamic university, started an Islamic banking sector, strengthened Islamic jurisprudence and centralized Federal Islamic affairs under the Prime Minister’s Department. Thirty-eight years later, that has created an unassailable Islamic bureaucracy that is independent of the executive branch, with their own sources of funds in addition to federal and state budget allocations. Elected governments, even under a new reformist Pakatan Harapan coalition that drove out the United Malays National Organization and the component parties of the Barisan Nasional, do not dare to cut down the size of the Islamic bureaucracy due to the potential political outcry.

Israeli sources are far more negative on Malaysia’s trajectory. Dr M is pro-Iran and pro-Hamas too — which is in essence anti-American. On the one hand, Malaysian Governmental policies encourage visa free travel from Gulf countries and Iran (making it a transit point for proxies of Iran and other supporters of terrorism), on the other hand their intelligence services cooperate with Western intelligence services. Like their in-bound travel policies, Malaysia’s:

(i) attempts to grow relations with Iran (with their Defence Minister Mohamad Sabu and Iran’s Defence and Armed Forces Logistics Minister Brigadier General Amir Hatami meeting in Iran from 26 April 2019 to 1 May 2019 to fine tune bilateral defense cooperation);

(ii) condemning of Israel, offering of scholarships to Palestinians in Malaysia with Khalid expressing his gratitude to Dr Mahathir at a press conference after the meeting for welcoming the Hamas delegation and standing with the Palestinians against the “Israeli occupation”; and

(iii) using of Islam for political purpose and making it a criteria for promotion in their civil service for the last 20 to 30 years - that creates a big pool of people believe and support Jihad against other ethnic groups,
will have unintended consequences. For example, the death of fireman Muhammad Adib has become a rallying call for some Malaysian Muslims, including those in opposition parties, who feel his death at the carpark of a Hindu temple has not been addressed by the government. Muhammad Adib was critically injured in the early morning of 27 Nov 2018, after he and his team members responded to an emergency call at the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in Subang Jaya, where a riot was taking place. Inspector-General of Police Abdul Hamid said the suspects - a Malaysian, two Rohingya and an Indonesian - were detained in a special operation by the Counter Terrorism Division (E8) in Terengganu and the Klang Valley between 5 to 7 May 2019.

It’s only a matter of time before the US embassy, Australian Consulate or a night spot (frequented by expats) in Malaysia is subject to a significant terror related event. Increasing polarisation has occurred in Malaysia and they have a brain drain from their ethnic Chinese community. So not a good look, due to their domestic politics.
Thanks for the detailed post.

I recall many years ago a clip of Dr Mahathir doing a silly Kangaroo / Australia skit much to the amusement of the domestic audience. Not really the sort of national leader stuff one would generally expect of such a position and while deliberately insulting, it came across really as some what embarrassing behaviour.
If the camera's are off have some fun if you have the need, but this was a conscious insult and I'm sure if the same behaviour was reciprocated there would of been riots in the Malaysian streets.
Credit to Dr M, he has lived a long life, but time is not on his side, so I wonder will his replacement be more or less like this " great " man of Malaysian politic's

We wait to see.

Regards S
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
In light of the five month long 2017 Battle of Marawi in the Philippines, any Indo-Pacific strategy must include an element of counter-terrorism and counter-terrorism planning has seen a sea of change, since 9-11, the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings, the 2003, 2004 and 2009 Jakarta Hotel/Embassy Bombings, the London 7/7 bomb attacks in 2005, the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, the incident in Bangkok on 14 February 2012, the 2013 Lahad Datu standoff in Sabah, the Martin Place Hostage incident in Sydney on 15 December 2014, the November 2015 Paris attacks, the lone wolf shootings in Christ Church on 15 March 2019; and the Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka on 21 April 2019. There is now a blurring of traditional notions of external and internal defence. These new range of threats now require a greater degree of intelligence and operational integration, that is able to sustain a level of higher alertness and operational responsiveness in moments of peace.

Let me share some background on countering JI and it’s implication on Malaysia-Singapore relations. Jemaah Islamiyah or JI, was formed in Malaysia by exiled members of a radical Islamic organisation that fled from Indonesia to Malaysia in the 1980s to avoid arrest. Under the leadership of JI founders, Abdullah Sungkar and Abu Bakar Bashir. Abdullah and Abu Bakar expanded their network of followers through recruitment in Singapore and Malaysia, and in 1993 they formally founded JI. In October 2001, JI planned bomb attack on specific targets in Singapore. The bombings were scheduled for execution in either December 2001/January 2002 or April/May 2002, and the targets included the United States (US) and Israeli embassies as well as the Australian and British high commissions. Singapore’s Internal Security Department (ISD) thwarted the plan when it arrested 13 JI members and two others in December 2001.
Credit to Dr M, he has lived a long life, but time is not on his side, so I wonder will his replacement be more or less like this " great " man of Malaysian politic's

Regards S
This Dec 2018 video shows Malaysia’s escalation via the unilateral deployment of non-military vessels off Tuas. This is provocative, as it is an attempt to new facts on the ground and do not set the right tone for Singapore-Malaysia relations, going forward. Talking about Dr M from his domestic politics angle, is like watching the evil Cersei Lannister in the Game of Thrones, without special effects. Not sure if he is a political opportunist (or just a plain Anti-Semite), and much less a ‘great man’ of Malaysian politics even from a Malaysian perspective - where even Malaysians have admitted that they tire of his antics.
  • In a media conference in May 2019, Anwar Ibrahim the Prime Minister in waiting said he disagreed with ‘reformasi’ elements calling for a timeline for leadership change in Malaysia. A careful Anwar said the transition from Dr M was already decided before the May 2018 general elections.
  • “It was signed and agreed upon by all Pakatan Haparan parties that I will take over from Dr Mahathir. That was in January 2018 well before my release from jail and well before the May elections,” said Anwar.
Compulsory national service in Singapore was introduced in August 1967 to deter hostile neighbours. About 70 tanks were bought in 1969 and when these AMX-13 tanks rolled out for National Day Parade, the region took notice. This year, we invited Dr M to attend our 2019 National Day to showcase the Hunter armoured fighting vehicle that is to be paired with the Leopard 2SG, for a Thunder Run, should the need arise. The urgency to build up its own armed forces stemmed from an acute sense of the island's vulnerability. The decades following 1969 have seen several brinkmanship episodes teetering on the brink of armed confrontations. Both country’s armed forces been placed on alert several times over the decades which largely stayed out of the limelight. Unfortunately for three such years the threats was so tangible it became public in 1988, 1991, 2001, and 2018/2019 over several issues. Since 2001, several more of such episodes never made daylight. Hence, the April 2019 thaw in Singapore-Malaysia relations (following Lee Hsien Loong’s meeting with Dr M in Putrajaya during the leaders’ retreat on 9 April 2019) has surprised many. This change in tune by the Malaysians comes at a difficult time for the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government. In any strategy for defending Singapore - we need to engage Malaysia and yet deter Malaysia as a difficult partner at the same time. A sophisticated understanding of security strategy needs to deal with the idea of realpolitik. In realpolitik, the key consideration is given to present circumstances and local factors, rather than moral or ethical premises.

Thankfully, Singapore's strategy of improving our military capabilities to respond across the spectrum have raised the stakes for any potential aggressor. In 2018 Singapore’s defence budget of SGD14.76 billion (US$11.2 billion) is almost double that of the Malaysian defense budget of US$5.68 billion, which is why they will seek to escalate via the grey zone. In light of Malaysian hostility dating back to 1968 and the 2001 JI plot, it is hard to understand why Dr M in 2010 would say something so irresponsible and to the effect that he denies 9-11 even happened and says it is a Western plot to attack Muslims. Dr M said that there is strong evidence that the Sept 11 attacks on the United States that killed nearly 3,000 could have been “staged” as an excuse to mount attacks on the Muslim world (Read more at Mahathir: 9/11 was staged - Nation | The Star Online).

In Oct 2018, Dr M said although Malaysia is a member of the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA), with the five countries deciding to work together, it does not mean that Malaysia has to follow their policies. "We can have our own (defence) policies," he said. The FPDA, signed in 1971, brings together Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United Kingdom. Dr Mahathir also said that he would not like to have foreign countries having a military base in Malaysia. "We want to be free from any involvement of other countries," he said (Read more at Dr M: Malaysia wants to be independent, does not want military alliances - Nation | The Star Online). Malaysian internal domestic issues and their indirect support for organisations designated as ‘terrorist groups’ by the US State Department, creates tension with their neighbours, namely, Thailand and Singapore. Further, in June 2006, Dr M said in a speech:

"...(the) MIGs are given, are sold to us without any condition, if you feel like bombing Singapore, for example, the Russians are not going to object.

Any Singaporeans here? Or ex-Singaporeans?"

Dr M continues in the later part of the June 2006 speech:

...but this great aircraft called F-18, which we bought from America, after buying it, after several months, I got to know that this aircraft cannot be used for any attacks against any country, even if this is not Singapore.
Beyond his normal anti-American rhetoric for his domestic audience, Malaysia’s active support of Palestine and Iran under his leadership, along with the desire of the Palestinian and Iranian proxies to attack Israeli targets in third countries will cause fiction with Singapore and Thailand, especially when the preparation work to make bombs is staged in Malaysia. This is an ongoing tension with an increasingly Islamic Malaysia, that most Westerners in Europe or America don’t understand.

(i) Two Iranian men have been convicted by a Thai court for their role in a bomb plot in 2012 that Thai officials believe was an attempt to assassinate Israeli diplomats in Bangkok. The 14 February 2012 incident, injured five people. Thai authorities said that the bombings were a botched attempt by Iranian nationals to assassinate Israeli diplomats.

(ii) The November 1986 visit by the Israeli President, Chaim Herzog resulted in violent anti-Singapore demonstrations in Malaysia for five weeks. Malaysian government protested by temporarily withdrawing the Malaysian high commissioner in Singapore to Kuala Lumpur. There were also two bomb attacks directed at the Israeli Embassy that coincided with the Malaysian protests about Chaim Herzog's visit to Singapore. On 17 March 1985 and 21 December 1986, bombs went off at Faber House, in Singapore. It is believed that the bombs were targeted at the Israeli embassy. As no one claimed responsibility and the case remained unsolved until 1991, when a Palestinian guerrilla named Fuad Hassin al-Shara confessed, after he was captured by the Israeli army, that he was behind the explosion and that his target had been the Israeli embassy.
 

Catalina

Member
The Radford-Collins Agreement of March 1951



I have always been curious if this delineation is also part of a military strategy where America, in combination with the geostrategic positioning of OZ and NZ, has in effect assigned us our respective primary military zones - Australia - Melanesia and New Zealand - Polynesia.
Further research into what appears to be a division of responsibility in the South Pacific has uncovered that such an agreement has actually existed since March 1951 as an unofficial agreement between the USN signed on by Admiral Radford and the RAN, the RNZN and the RN signed on behalf by Rear Admiral Collins.

The Radford-Collins established the geostrategic area we see today with
(1) a working level agreement between the signatories navies
(2) it was not an official public treaty (indeed it has only recently been declassified)
(3) the agreement covers responsibilites over most of the Indian Ocean and all of the Pacific Ocean
(4) the agreement provided the foundation for a series of specific command post exercises including RIPCORD, ROLLER COASTER, ROLL CALL, EXPANDED SEA and BELL BUOY.
(5) Trade protection is granted under what is now known as PACIOSWG administered previously through the Naval Control of Shipping (NCS) which is now known as Naval Cooperation and Guidance for Shipping (NCAGS)

The Radford-Collins agreement thus predates ANZUS and its continued existence is obvious to any sailors or pilots active in the South West Pacific islands curious about the stark division of naval responsibility encountered.

Yours Faithfully
Catalina
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Radford-Collins Agreement of March 1951





Further research into what appears to be a division of responsibility in the South Pacific has uncovered that such an agreement has actually existed since March 1951 as an unofficial agreement between the USN signed on by Admiral Radford and the RAN, the RNZN and the RN signed on behalf by Rear Admiral Collins.

The Radford-Collins established the geostrategic area we see today with
(1) a working level agreement between the signatories navies
(2) it was not an official public treaty (indeed it has only recently been declassified)
(3) the agreement covers responsibilites over most of the Indian Ocean and all of the Pacific Ocean
(4) the agreement provided the foundation for a series of specific command post exercises including RIPCORD, ROLLER COASTER, ROLL CALL, EXPANDED SEA and BELL BUOY.
(5) Trade protection is granted under what is now known as PACIOSWG administered previously through the Naval Control of Shipping (NCS) which is now known as Naval Cooperation and Guidance for Shipping (NCAGS)

The Radford-Collins agreement thus predates ANZUS and its continued existence is obvious to any sailors or pilots active in the South West Pacific islands curious about the stark division of naval responsibility encountered.

Yours Faithfully
Catalina
@Catalina Can you please provide a link / source.
 

toryu

Member
@Catalina Can you please provide a link / source.
I believe he has simply summarised what he read here:

The History of the Radford-Collins Agreement | Royal Australian Navy

But to take it further, the above articles last and main reference was from "Papers in Australian Maritime Affairs: Australian Maritime Issues 2006: SPC-A Annual" Available here:

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/PIAMA19.pdf


The section of interest is the declassified 1959 and 1967 versions of the Radford-Collins Agreement which are on pages 47-67.

Quite an interesting read. Very much, 'to the point'.

 

Catalina

Member
three being with Australia, NZ and South Korea.
Thank you for the information.

What are the details of the security arrangement signed between Europe and New Zealand thank you?

One would hope that given the sacrifices of the youth of two generations to free the old lands they are likewise willing to reciprocate to keep the newlands free should things ever heat up in the Pacific...
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Don’t know about reciprocation from the EU. Germany won’t even send a ship to the ME for SLOC protection! Other EU members either have fiscal problems or readiness issues. Then there is decision making in Brussels .......
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
US basing long range missiles in Darwin?
Does the US want to base missiles in Darwin?
'Unbreakable': US wants missiles in Darwin

Not sure if it will happen. But certainly a way to applying some pressure. There is likely to be some shifting, as Turkey (and others) slides out of the US alliance and threats and technology changes making a re posturing a good idea. This is being jumped on locally by one or two senators.

Maybe just some long range strike missiles for Australia as a compromise.

"The United States is a Pacific nation. We care deeply about what happens here and we are here to stay," he said.
"I want Australians to know, they can always rely on the United States of America."
I guess he is responding to some of the more recent local commentary regarding US commitment to the region and Australia. So I would assume the $300m NT upgrades is likely to go through, as are some of the other symbolic demonstrations of the alliance.
 

FoxtrotRomeo999

Active Member
On a sort of related issue, there seems to be some noise about buying back (nationalising) the port of Darwin.
From the ABC article,
  • Nick Champion, a Labor backbencher who is also deputy chair of Federal Parliament's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, believes that the Commonwealth should now consider buying Darwin Port back. "It's a very important port because we have significant defence facilities in the Northern Territory and that's the part of the world I guess we have to pay a great deal of attention to," he said.
  • The ABC revealed in June that secret talks had begun on a new port facility just outside Darwin, which could eventually help US Marines operate more readily in the Indo-Pacific, but the Defence Department has consistently denied involvement in any such proposal.
Interesting that a Labor MP is first raising this. It seems a reasonable idea but not sure how much it might cost and if it really would offer any great benefits (I am assuming that whether the port is owned by us or China, Chinese would still have the ability top see comings and goings, and our security would limit access by Chinese to the Naval Bases regardless of ownership of the port).
 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
US basing long range missiles in Darwin?
Does the US want to base missiles in Darwin?
'Unbreakable': US wants missiles in Darwin

Not sure if it will happen. But certainly a way to applying some pressure. There is likely to be some shifting, as Turkey (and others) slides out of the US alliance and threats and technology changes making a re posturing a good idea. This is being jumped on locally by one or two senators.

Maybe just some long range strike missiles for Australia as a compromise.



I guess he is responding to some of the more recent local commentary regarding US commitment to the region and Australia. So I would assume the $300m NT upgrades is likely to go through, as are some of the other symbolic demonstrations of the alliance.
The PM has categorically stated that missiles will not be based in Darwin and further that the US has not asked them to be based in Darwin.
Peter Jennings was interviewed on Speers today and suggested that the most likely places will be Japan or S.Korea. This would be in answer to Chinese and N. Korean deployments of intermediate range missiles which have not been part of the defunct treaty (ignored by Russia).
 
Top