The 2011 Ausmin meeting has recently concluded in San Francisco, marking the 60^th anniversary of the ANZUS Treaty, signed in the same city.  Details regarding basing rights are still being negotiated so the nature and extent of any future US deployment is uncertain, but it seems apparent that the US military will increase its footprint in Australia.

While the Australian side was keen to portray greater US access to Australian facilities as a continuation of the current situation, highlighting that US forces have enjoyed access for decades and that the strengthening of the relationship should pose no difficulties for China or any other Asia Pacific nation, US representatives were more forthright.  Leon Panetta, the US Defence Secretary, stated that a strengthened relationship would send a clear signal in the Asia Pacific region to “those who would threaten us”.

It goes without saying that this is directed at China.  The US is keen to spread its forces more widely across the region to make it harder for China to hit them in the opening stages of any conflict and reassure its allies of its continuing commitment and ability to defend them.  To this end, the US is taking steps such as upgrading its base on Guam, stationing littoral combat ships in Singapore, and, potentially, increasing its forces on the Australian mainland.

Nevertheless, the 2011 communiqué remains balanced, calling for partnership with China, emphasising common interests and calling for military to military communication in order to prevent misunderstanding. Despite this stated desire to build bridges with China, the communiqué makes some pointed remarks concerning the South China Sea, a region in which Chinese assertiveness has raised concerns among other claimants, particularly Vietnam and the Philippines.  Asserting both the US’ and Australia’s national interest in freedom of navigation through the South China Sea, they oppose any attempt by one party to coerce or force another to accept its claims.  ‘Oppose’ is a particularly strong word, certainly more forthright than another word that might have been used in its place, such as condemn or reject, and it seems unlikely that it was chosen lightly.

The communiqué also mentions other countries.  It outlines support for increased training and interoperability between US, Australian, South Korean and Japanese forces to combat the threat posed to all by North Korea.  India, too, is highlighted as a potential partner.  The communiqué calls upon the US, Australia and India to identify areas in which they can co-operate such as maritime security, disaster relief and regional architecture.  India’s reaction to this call will be interesting.  It has its own concerns regarding Chinese intentions in the Indian Ocean, but, despite the best efforts of the US, has been reluctant to align itself with the West, preferring to preserve what it calls its strategic independence.  In addition, Australia’s refusal to sell uranium to India is an enduring obstruction to improved co-operation between Canberra and New Delhi.

The meetings also considered appropriate responses to future online attacks, of which China is believed to be a major source. It has been agreed that a future cyber warfare attack will activate the ANZUS Treaty, reflecting previous US suggestions that an online attack may result in a very real-world military retaliation.

In conclusion, then, the outcome of the 2011 Ausmin meeting has been a continuation of current trends.  The US is keen to distribute its forces more widely across the Asia Pacific region and to reassure its allies of its continuing commitment to the region, while Australia is keen to encourage a strengthened US presence and commitment to the region as a hedge against China’s rise.  While the exact nature of the US military’s future presence in Australia has yet to be agreed, it seems likely that it will represent a strengthened American commitment to the Asia Pacific.