Monday 8th of December 2025
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

somewhere in the pacific region....

Despite the end of the 50-year bipolar period known as the Cold War in the 1990s and the subsequent twenty-year unipolar world order, the world is currently splitting into two camps again. One of them is once again being led by the United States, and has roughly the same composition. The leader of the second camp is now China. 

The Indo-Pacific Game Intensifies

Vladimir Terehov


The meetings between leading states in the region in the second half of October on the sidelines of the ASEAN and APEC calendar events show that the Asia-Pacific region is growing increasingly complex.

 

However, history does not remain static. Although signs of bipolarity reappeared at the end of the 2000s, the political game in the Asia Pacific region is now clearly taking on a hybrid character. That is, members of a certain emerging camp are beginning to behave rather autonomously in relation to both their leader and the “camp strategy” formulated by him, though without completely ignoring it.

This applies, first and foremost, to the camp led by the United States, a trend facilitated by the radical policy innovations of that country’s 47th president. These innovations are driven less by his personal characteristics and more by the objective necessity to direct efforts towards addressing accumulated and intensifying domestic problems.

As for the main opponent, China, it is clearly neither prepared nor eager to assume the role of the uncompromising rival to the current global leader, something uncharacteristic of its centuries-long history. On the contrary, Beijing consistently emphasizes its readiness to build a mutually beneficial relationship with the US and others within the framework of its win-win strategy.

Meanwhile, new trends in the ongoing radical transformation of the world order are reflected in regular events of various well-established international platforms. Today, the role of these platforms is negligible. If anyone is capable of influencing this process, it is the most significant global players, who are sending certain signals to each other, e.g. on the sidelines of international events, as was the case during the latest ASEAN and APEC summits.

For assessing the situation in the Indo-Pacific region, the interactions between the four most significant players in the region, namely the US, China, Japan, and India, are the most revealing. Of these four, India warrants separate study.

USA-China-Japan 

As for relations within the US-China-Japan triangle, the very fact of the high-level and ministerial-level contacts taking place in this format in late October is notable. The meeting between the leaders of the two leading world powers received the most media attention.

This meeting came amid both countries intending to attend the APEC summit, which is to be hosted by South Korea. Donald Trump ignoring this event confirms that he visited South Korea for reasons unrelated to the APEC summit, namely, first and foremost, to meet with “Xi’s best friend” to conclude another “fantastic deal,” yet to no avail. In these troubled times, the fact that the leaders of the US and China once again stated their intention to continue working on resolving problems in all aspects of their bilateral relations can in and of itself be considered a positive development.

The political game in the Asia-Pacific region is now clearly taking on a hybrid character 

The US and Chinese ministers of defense expressed the same intentions while meeting at that exact moment in Malaysia on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit. Nonetheless, neither of the ministers missed the chance to yet again voice their traditional list of concerns, particularly in terms of Taiwan and Southeast Asia in general.

Naturally, before meeting the leader of his main geopolitical opponent, President Donald Trump decided to check on the state of relations with what is now his primary ally—Japan, where the government had changed just a week before his arrival. His meeting with the new Japanese Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, went as expected. That is, unless one counts the ongoing bilateral tug-of-war over the tariff and trade deal. Let us reiterate that it is Japan that is most interested in maintaining the US-Japan relations established in the post-war period, including the so-called American occupation.

The fact that Takaichi met with President Xi shows that Japan is sticking with the US camp and, at the same time, asserting its own interests in the region, creating a sort of hybrid. Both sides voiced a cautious optimism about the meeting and a previous phone call between the Chinese and Japanese foreign ministers. At the same time, serious issues in bilateral relations have yet to be solved. This is, for example, reflected in the Chinese foreign ministry’s protestof Takaichi meeting representatives of Taiwan—an APEC member—in South Korea.

In recent years, Japan has also paid more attention to Europe. This is particularly noticeable in Japan’s relations with the United Kingdom, whose alliance with Washington has always required considerable explanation.

It is also worth noting that the new Japanese government is sending more and more signals to Russia about its desire to restore bilateral relations to the level at which they were maintained for most of Shinzo Abe’s premiership. Japan’s new prime minister seeks to continue his foreign policy course.

US-Indian relations

The absence of Indian Prime Minister Modi from the recent ASEAN summit in Malaysia is rather telling for US-Indian relations. Commentators unanimously link this to the Indian leader’s reluctance to meet with Trump following his crude remarks targeting both Modi personally and, more importantly, India itself. This, of course, was a serious foreign policy blunder by the current U.S. administration. This mistake coincided with Washington’s attempts to restore relations with Pakistan to pull that country away from its de facto alliance with China. Let us note that this is inherently unattainable, although Islamabad has also been “flirting” with Washington.

It seems they have realized their blunder regarding India, an important country for the US and with which relations have been built up over decades. Therefore, efforts are being made to mitigate negative consequences. Certain signals are being sent to Modi personally; for instance, a meeting of the two countries’ defense ministers took place on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Malaysia. Washington will delay for six months the imposition of sanctions on the Iranian port of Chabahar, which is extremely important for India.

However, it may confidently be predicted that restoring India’s relations with the US will not come at the expense of a deterioration in its relations with Russia. India is too serious and self-respecting a player to yield to crude pressure, even from an important partner.

Finally, all of the above confirms the growing complexity of the game unfolding in the Indo-Pacific region, where one might draw parallels with the bipolar Cold War period.

https://journal-neo.su/2025/11/16/the-indo-pacific-game-intensifies/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

 

aussiecracy.....

 

Stewart Sweeney

From Whitlam to AUKUS: Sovereignty silenced

 

When governor-general Sir John Kerr dismissed Gough Whitlam on 11 November 1975, Australia lost more than a government. It lost a measure of its independence a loss that still shadows our politics half a century later.

A government that dared to act independently

The Whitlam Government (1972-75) did what reformist governments are supposed to do: legislate boldly and re-imagine Australia’s place in the world. It ended conscription, withdrew troops from Vietnam, recognised the People’s Republic of China and drafted the first national Aboriginal land-rights policy. It opposed nuclear testing and spoke of a non-aligned foreign policy.

Whitlam believed no foreign power should dictate Australia’s economic or security decisions. He questioned the secrecy surrounding the US intelligence base at Pine Gap, demanded to know the names of CIA operatives in Australia and insisted that his own staff not be vetted by ASIO. For Washington, then deep in Cold-War paranoia, such independence bordered on insubordination.

The foreign hand

The involvement of the US in Whitlam’s downfall is no longer speculation. In 1977, president Jimmy Carter sent his envoy Warren Christopher to apologise to Whitlam. Recorded in Hansard, Christopher conveyed that the US “would never again interfere in the domestic political processes in Australia".

The apology came too late. By then, the damage was done to Whitlam, and to Australian sovereignty.

During the early 1970s, Whitlam’s ministers had publicly condemned US bombing in Vietnam. The CIA was furious. Former CIA officer Victor Marchetti later told journalist John Pilger that Whitlam’s threat to challenge Pine Gap’s operations caused “apoplexy in the White House … and a kind of Chilean-style coup was set in motion".

Kerr, meanwhile, had a history of association with CIA-front organisations such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom and LawAsia. American intelligence contractor Christopher Boyce claimed the CIA referred to him as “our man Kerr". In the final days before the Dismissal, defence officials warned Kerr that Whitlam posed “the greatest risk to the nation’s security there has ever been". On 11 November 1975, hours before Whitlam was to expose CIA activity in Parliament, Kerr invoked the Crown’s “reserve powers” and ended an elected government.

The long chill

Whitlam’s removal was meant as a lesson and it worked. Labor leaders ever since have kept their distance from true foreign-policy independence. From Bob Hawke’s revival of the ANZUS orthodoxy to Albanese’s embrace of AUKUS, Labor has lived under an unspoken constraint: don’t challenge the alliance.

The cost has been quiet but cumulative. Pine Gap has grown into one of the world’s most sophisticated eavesdropping posts, integral to US drone warfare and global surveillance. Northern Australia hosts a string of American military facilities and rotational forces. The AUKUS submarine and missile programs lock us into decades of dependency, both financial and strategic, with little public scrutiny and even less parliamentary oversight.

What Whitlam tried to do — place Australia’s interests first within an alliance of equals — has become almost unimaginable in Canberra’s current political culture.

The question that still hangs

Eleven days before his dismissal, at the Australian National University, Whitlam offered a warning that reads today as prophecy:

“The question is whether any duly elected reformist government will be allowed to govern in the future. What is at stake is whether the people who seek change and reform are ever again to have confidence that it can be achieved through the normal parliamentary processes.”

Fifty years on, that question still hangs in the air. Could any Australian leader today call for full disclosure of Pine Gap’s operations, or demand limits on US troop rotations, and survive politically? We have internalised the limits of dissent.

Why this history matters

Revisiting 1975 is not nostalgia. It is a reminder that democracy without sovereignty is hollow. A foreign power’s ability to shape or terminate a government’s tenure, whether through direct interference or embedded dependency, remains a constitutional and moral wound.

The Dismissal marked the point at which Australia’s national security state fused with that of the US. Half a century later, under AUKUS, the process is nearly complete. Submarines, surveillance and secrecy have replaced the language of independence that once animated our politics.

The Whitlam experiment ended abruptly, but its vision endures: that a middle power could stand on its own feet, speak with its own voice and act according to its own conscience. Recovering that confidence — intellectual, moral, political and economic — is the unfinished work of Australian democracy.

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/11/from-whitlam-to-aukus-sovereignty-silenced/

 

SEE ALSO:

did we forget to mention the intimate (or inmate) return of BB (big brother)?....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.