Indeed, the creation of SPNFZ encouraged Senator Evans, the Labor foreign minister, to propose a Southern Hemisphere Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. Any such zone would presumably include the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, a British trust territory which hosts US installations vital for US strategy in the Gulf. SPNFZ also encouraged the ASEANs to promote their long-standing idea of a nuclear-weapons free zone in Southeast Asia. Designed to hobble China and India, this zone is more likely to constrict the US maritime mobility on which the security of Southeast Asia ultimately rests.
In 1994, an Australian defence white paper said that Australia would continue to rely on extended nuclear deterrence, but only as an interim measure until a total ban on nuclear weapons is achieved, accompanied by substantial verification provisions. Such faith in diplomatic process is naive. It ignores the fact that nothing could more weaken Australia's strategic security than if the United States were to abandon its nuclear arsenal. It's hard to see how Australia's security would be improved if Japan came to believe that it could no longer rely on US extended deterrence, and decided to go it alone. Those in Australia (and Japan) who pursue the goals of nuclear disarmament should be careful what they wish for.
'Regional Engagement' and 'independence'
Regional engagement' in Southeast Asia has also muddled strategic thinking. While hardly new and no bad thing in itself, 'regional engagement' for some in the Labor government (1983-96) was meant to substitute for the US alliance. The ASEAN Regional Forum was touted as a multilateral panacea for security problems. 7 Advocates of 'regional engagement' argued that Australia would be more 'respected' if it were more 'independent' of the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ASEANs value Australia as a security partner because it is a US ally, although they do not shout this from the rafters.
As for 'independence', ask the Filipinos. In achieved the 'independence' they sought by evicting the US navy from Subic Bay, they did much to let China into the South China Sea. Now they are 'free' to deal with China as best they can. Those in Australia who have advocated 'regional engagement' as a substitute for the US alliance have failed to grasp an essential fact of international security-that greater 'independence' is to be had within an alliance with a benign and distant power than having to accommodate to an unpalatable local hegemony. Nor do they comprehend the maritime basis of Australian security.
