The Philippines-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and the Australia New Zealand United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) were signed two days apart in 1951 on opposite sides of the US. The MDT was signed on 30 August in San Francisco and ANZUS on 1 September in Washington. Both were part of a suite of treaty alliances that the US concluded as the Cold War divided the world.
The commitments in the two treaties are virtually identical. Both affirm the fundamental principle that an armed attack on one represents a threat to peace and security and the parties will act to meet the common danger. But “act” is not defined prompting debate about whether this obligation is a guarantee of military support in the unlikely event of an armed attack.
The answer can partially be found in Article III of both ANZUS and the MDT which states that the parties will “consult” whenever the territorial integrity, political independence or security of either is threatened. Some argue that the obligation to consult falls short of the NATO commitment whereby an armed attack on one is considered an armed attack on all and the Parties will assist each other, including by the use of armed force. Others say this is just semantics.
ANZUS has only ever been invoked once and that was in September 2001 immediately after 9/11 by then Australian Prime Minister Howard, who happened to be in Washington at the time of the attacks. He said:
If that treaty means anything, if our debt as a nation to the people of the United States in the darkest days of World War II means anything, if the comradeship, the friendship and the common bonds of democracy and a belief in liberty, fraternity and justice mean anything, it means that the ANZUS Treaty applies and that the ANZUS Treaty is properly invoked.
As the events of 9/11 demonstrated, it is impossible to predict all of the circumstances in which a defence alliance may be invoked and what actions, military or otherwise, might follow.
But for Australia, ANZUS forms the basis of a modern strategic partnership that enables us to deal with a range of challenges and opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region. It also supports the long-term engagement of the United States in our region - something that is core to Australia’s national interest.
Our alliance with the US does not hinder our robust bilateral relationship with China. We concluded an historic Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with China in 2014 and our leaders meet annually. China is our largest trading partner and we have concluded a Free Trade Agreement which entered into force in December 2015. We have strengthened our defence relationship through senior-level dialogue, educational exchanges, reciprocal naval ship visits, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercises.
Prime Minister Turnbull said at the recent East Asia Summit:
“I know it’s fashionable to say that you’ve got to choose between China and the United States but the reality is that these are both enormously important powers in every respect. And all of the countries in this region ... are committed to dealing with both because our commitment is to maintaining peace and harmony in this part of the world.”
Security treaties are worth a lot more than the paper they are written on. I once took the original ANZUS treaty to show to a group of international law students in Tasmania. ANZUS is widely considered the cornerstone of Australia’s foreign policy and it is extraordinary that I was allowed to travel with the original document. The students were impressed but, realising the treaty’s intrinsic value, I was terrified of losing it.
International relations are not a series of binary choices and Australia, like the Philippines, does not have to choose between its alliance with the US and a strong relationship with China.
(Follow Amanda Gorely on Twitter @AusAmbPH)
Amanda Gorely is the Australian Ambassador to the Philippines