Talk:Australia–United States relations

Links needed

This page needs to link to:

Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement

Association of Southeast Asian Nations - Australia's push to join following East Asia Summit, US not so happy

Other considerations:

PETA & Australia's de-tailing of sheep

Wheat market competition, links with FTA

Mutual fire service help. Personel & equipment.

Historically:

All the way with LBJ - Harold Holt

Also as a source for military: http://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/editions/20051101/groups/strategy.htm Other considerations: Australia's fear of Indonesias growing militarisim, needs strong backing. --everbloom 11:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Now do you think this is fair?. I know there may be cases when Australia may be justified in deportation, but even the clerics preaching death to westerners in Sydney etc dont get sent home why do Kiwis that are down on their luck?. We have been side by side in wars but when push comes to shove, no benefit mate go home. This applies to families that may have brought their kids up here paying taxes for the past 10 years or more too.

Does anyone care?.

For example a mouslim family lands from Afghanistan and claims refugee status (proved or not). They will get up to $900.00pw, a home and a fuel card through welfare in Australia.

A Kiwi family whom may have been working here for many years suddenly find themselves through no fault of their own, unemployed. They get deported back to NZ.

Australia hands out Billions in aid and donations to several countries each year. One example is $500m to Indonesia for housing after the Tsunami struck regions last year and this.

Kiwis pay the same TAX rate as everyone else but do not have a right to Welfare should they ever require it.

After 2001 Australia made it a rule that Kiwis cannot get Welfare after changing the rules on obtaining it using the residency visa as an avenue to eliminate them.

It appears nobody gives a damn, as it is never mentioned in the media on any level.

If people did care they would say or do something about it. It appears the only voice that is heard is for the refugees arriving by plane and boat, but so long as they are not from NZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.7.86 (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Space

NASA has a considerable history in Australia. See Canbera Deep Space Communication Complex. Why isn't it in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.38.156 (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo

Thanks for the help in updating this, guys. Sharkface217 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

culture and history

The current version of the Culture and history section appears to me to be a bunch of unreferenced trivia, some of it verging on xenophobic or racist, mostly identifying claimed similarities of the two countries rather than describing any relationship between them. I think it needs trimming and citing whose opinions they are, but I'm not sure what form it should take instead. Anyone else find it needs significant work, or am I out on my own? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's opinionated tripe. I'd be tempted to remove it entirely.--cj | talk 14:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there is value in a section with that title, but it should say something like "Australians watch a lot of US-produced television, and Americans like Crocodile Dundee and Steve Irwin." Perhaps it's reasonable for the history to talk about the Kyoto Protocol, if our reasons for not signing are related (I don't know), and could talk about gold rushes and whaling as 19th century "culture exchanges". --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Muslim issue

It is not alarmist to talk of the shared stance agasint Muslim extremism taken by both countries, as it certainly shapes thier relationship and will continue to do so long term. My initial contribution mentioned the fact; someone then added a whole lot of bigoted stuff; the whole lot was then removed. I hope the current edit reflects the state of the play reasonably well. El Bab

Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for our own opinions. There may be a place for this in the article, but it should be cited from reliable sources, not presented as our own opinions. At the moment, this article is extremely short on references for its length. Most references relate specifically to the facts of presidential and prime ministerial visits, not to culture and trade relationships. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty marginal issue and I really don't see how it shapes Australian-US relations. The current actions of the Australian government are driven by a desire to preserve the Alliance, which is covered elsewhere. It also seems strange to claim that "Again, this shared enemy has firmed the US and Australia alliance culturally and militarily." given the low level of public support in Australia for US operations since Afghanistan. --Nick Dowling 07:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

PM visits

I received an email from the PM's office giving some scant details of US visits. It's copied to Talk:United States-Australia relations/email. —Moondyne 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sports

Does anyone think sports is notable enough to talk about in this article? There are some prominent Australian NBA players: Andrew Bogut (number one NBA draft pick) and Luc Longley (multiple NBA championship rings). Also there have been notable MLB players that are from Australia (all-star Dave Nilsson). Australia fieled a team in the World Baseball Classic. Several Australian Football League players have found a second career as NFL punters (Darren Bennett, Ben Graham).

From the other perspective, Australian Rules Football is a growing sport in the US, with a 25-30 team club league, USAFL.

I'm not sure if these issues are notable enough for mention. The only big things that come to mind at the moment are the America's Cup (Australia was the first country other than the US to win it) and the rivalry between the two countries in the pool at the Olympics - and I'm not sure if even these are worth mentioning here. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 14:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

near end of intreduction

In the next to last sentence in the introduction, the link acts like Australia is part of NATO. Australia is certainly not part of NATO. Contralya 12:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Culture and history section (again)

This section has been tagged as being unreferenced for a year now. I removed it a week ago as it is a rambling and unsourced comparison of semi-random aspects of Australian and United States history and doesn't have much to do with the topic of the article. However, User:Sharkface217 has re-added it without providing a reason for doing so. Does anybody want to discuss whether this section should be included or how it could be reformed? --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in it's current state it should be greatly pruned, but not scrapped completely. For example, the article on Anglo-American relations has a culture section. This is appropriate, as the respective cultures of both countries have influenced each other to a great extent. I would argue that this could also be argued regarding the United States and Australia, as both countries have exported and imported various cultural staples (I understand that American cinema is well liked in Australia, while the United States has a history of enjoying Australian pop music). --Sharkface217 00:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a worthwhile topic for the article to cover. However, I think that the section is current such a disaster that it should be removed and be re-added by someone who has some sources to cite - the section has been tagged as being unreferenced for a full year now and no-one has improved it, so I don't think that the current text is worth saving. What sources do you think would be suitable to use to improve this section? --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we take some of the references from here?--Sharkface217 01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not: that article only has 8 references and, from a quick read, none of them compare Australia with the US. I don't think that replacing uncited text with other uncited text is a satisfactory solution... --Nick Dowling (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I did some research on Google Scholar and came up with some possible leads, including this, this, and this. I think that there is something here we can work with. --Sharkface217 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal

I have removed "It is said that the relationship between the United States of America and Australia is similar to that of the United States and Canada. " as i could find no reference to this at all, if someone provides me with a good ref. then i will put it back, but the only refernce to that fact was similar rates in food poisoning and diarrhoea. Taifarious1 04:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is something.... --Sharkface217 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, i suppose it is Taifarious1 04:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

More Removal

i removed the sentance 'Moreover, american culture has had a considerable impact on austrailian culture' since it has no citation, and if the USA went into a relationship with every country that watched television then.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.72.106 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Australia - Commonwealth alignment

This article and two other related articles(Foreign relations of the United States and Foreign relations of Australia) make three separate statements about Australia's alignment to the Commonwealth of Nations. This article states: Australia is also [in addition to the United States of America] aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations.. The Foreign relations of the United States article states: Australia used to be aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations. The Foreign relations of Australia article states: ...Australia has traditionally been aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations... A subject should not be interpreted in three conflicting ways in different articles. Australia is a member of the Commonwealth, therefore, how can Australia not be aligned with the Commonwealth? If it is possible for a country to be aligned to the Commonwealth than surely a member of the Commonwealth must be naturally aligned to the Commonwealth. Though, personally, I would refute that a country can be aligned to the Commonwealth as members of the Commonwealth have and are free to pursue completely separate foreign policies. I shall, however, edit statements in these three article relating to alignment between Australia and the Commonwealth to agree; utilising the statement made in the Foreign relations of Australia article as it presents the middle ground. 60.226.81.81 (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghanistan – United States relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

New American bases

Solid enough to add yet?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/314239

Hcobb (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really - especially as the formal announcement will be made on Thursday according to today's newspapers. Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oz to replace Shangri-La as American bomber base

I think the title of

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/08/08/af-to-add-fighter-bomber-rotations-to-australia.html

indicates that bombers will be stationed down under. (When will a B-2 be lost when a flying monkey is sucked into the engines?) Hcobb (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read the story, which says no such thing (key para: "Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle said in a meeting with reporters on July 29 that the Air Force plans to rotate fighter and tanker aircraft through Australia. He also said the service is open to discussing the possibility of establishing a long term bomber rotation as well."). USAF bombers have exercised in northern Australia for decades, with the runway at RAAF Base Darwin being specifically designed to take B-52s. Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between showing up for an exercise and being stationed as part of a rotational deployment. Hcobb (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but such detachments of bombers aren't on the cards at present. The Australian Government might also not be very keen on them: hosting short-ranged tactical fighters in northern Australia is uncontroversial as it's not a feasible forward base for them. On the other hand, Darwin and Tindal are reasonably well placed to serve as active intercontinential bomber bases for prospective operations against southern China or the South China Sea... Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear Deterrence / US Bases controversy

I understand ( eg. Prof Tilman Ruff ) that there's an endorsement in Australian foreign policy of the US Nuclear deterrent, though I don't expect many Australians would endorse that linkage. Also, there's controversy around bases like Pine Gap. I would have thought this would be worth including - there is an article on Pine Gap.JohnAugust (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Australia–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216020301/http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/new_zealand/anzus.pdf to http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/new_zealand/anzus.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/342133/australians-happy-hosting-us-troops
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005084303/http://www.dpmc.gov.au/annual_reports/2000-01/report.pdf to http://www.dpmc.gov.au/annual_reports/2000-01/report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003184928/http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/2000/media_release408.htm to http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/2000/media_release408.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830173732/http://www.dpmc.gov.au/annual_reports/2005-06/pdf/annual_report0506.pdf to http://www.dpmc.gov.au/annual_reports/2005-06/pdf/annual_report0506.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002210328/http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/aust.pdf to http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/aust.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222174922/http://www.dfat.gov.au:80/aib/history.html to http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206105953/http://www.australia.gov.au:80/about-australia-1continent to http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia-1continent
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://0-www.countrywatch.com.library.edu/cw_topic.aspx?type=text&country=9&topic=POFOR.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023101730/http://dfat.gov.au/fta/ausfta/outcomes/01_overview.html to http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/ausfta/outcomes/01_overview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Australia–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/timeline/results.aspx?type=pm&pm=Gough%20Whitlam
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211184401/http://www.dpmc.gov.au/annual_reports/2002-03/pdf/annual_report0203.pdf to http://www.dpmc.gov.au/annual_reports/2002-03/pdf/annual_report0203.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/history.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia-1continent

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australia–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209231252/http://www.dpmc.gov.au/annual_reports/docs/1999-2000.pdf to http://www.dpmc.gov.au/annual_reports/docs/1999-2000.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210132802/http://www.dpmc.gov.au/annual_reports/2001-02/pdf/pmc_annual_report2001-02.pdf to http://www.dpmc.gov.au/annual_reports/2001-02/pdf/pmc_annual_report2001-02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Small removal in the introduction.

I removed everything after the comma in this sentence in the introduction: "Both countries had native peoples who were at times dispossessed of their land by the process of colonization, as have all countries at some point in history." As it's untrue, or at the very least is misleading by referencing a completely different thing than the form of colonialism that the first part is referring to.

I had said something like that in the edit summary; but looking back through some the edit history it looks like it was added by someone who previously removed the mention of colonization a few times. It definitely read as intentionally misleading, but I think that confirms it. I figured that I'd mention it in the talk page because it's been up since June. Austin94rose (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)