Armed Neutrality For Australia – Is It A Common Sense Goal?

by Dr. Jim Saleam


It is fair to say Australia’s history is one of lost potential. Not that our country could have become a ‘great power’, but it could definitely have become an assertive and independent power. It sits upon a Continent located in the Southern Hemisphere, a veritable ‘balance’ to the powers of the North, a wealthy and well positioned place to exert a positive influence, not just in the South Pacific, but elsewhere.

Sadly and most of us ‘Aussies’ know it at heart, Australia has historically been a part of alliance systems which have co-opted us into alien service, indeed where subservience to these systems has actually been styled as patriotism. One might say that the so-called patriots represented the ‘haves’ who considered the country and its alliances made them content and safe, while the others were those who had grievances against the system itself and thought the country could do much better. This division is central to Australia’s history as an ex colonial country.

For many Australians in decades past, the (former) British Empire, which settled the country and led our people into several wars, did so supposedly for freedom defined as parliaments and laws and rights and honourable agreements, very nineteenth century things. It was considered then – and still by many now as their heritage – that dying for this abstraction of ‘freedom’ was always worth the appalling sacrifice in blood and treasure. For others later, their big-brother ‘ally’ which supposedly saved us from Imperial Japan in 1942, must be followed always to war, or into various foreign policy arrangements even today – and into the distant future. This ally must always be satisfied of our loyalty, such that he will render protection. Loyalties have often been divided over whether Australia could truly look after itself and care for itself before others. To say the words ‘Australia first’ has sometimes been considered by the foreign-connected to be a veritable treason, or a madness, or just plain impossible. Yet, this heretical view (at least ‘heretical’ to those who essentially own and govern Australia) has over time, gathered in strength.

1942: we once saved ourselves


History is inexorable and conditions change. We live in a world of crisis. Certainty is no longer any part of the global outlook. The world is more complex than the Cold War model of ‘two sides’ and a few extra would-be independent players. There are now more contenders for power and influence.

It reasonably the case that there are today three superpowers: the USA, China and Russia. Although the latter maintains many of the weapons systems and other apparatus of the USSR, some argue it is the weaker of the three superpowers, yet too great a power not to be one and essentially stand the test. I will not argue against this proposition, but merely state it to make a point. As the former two jostle for world power and reach in very different ways, Russia pursues a policy that secures its borders, develops its own resources and maintains its international profile by protecting its true friends. In many conflicts too, Russia has appeared a peacemaker and a power dedicated to fight terrorism (as in Syria). However, because it has sought to be independent of the organs of globalist economic and political authority, Russia has been a target of the so-called ‘West’, to the point where recently Russia’s Foreign Minister suggested the ‘West’ is a partner in nothing. Russia’s stand is in its true national and popular interests, something many Australians comment upon favourably because they can observe it. From our immediate point of view as Australians, Russia does not maintain bases here, nor control our intelligence apparatus, nor buy up our farms and resources and bind us to globalist economic institutions. It does not appear that Russia has any such ambition. So then, in what way is Russia an enemy of the people’s Australia?

It is easy to say that ordinary Australians have a different view of contemporary Russia than they did towards the oligarchs’ Russia of twenty five years ago – or towards the old Soviet Union. But they surely do. The new Russia, despite the barrage directed against it by our local media and politicians, the endless propaganda about those cyber attacks, or the ‘bullying’ of Ukraine, or the murder of dissidents with poisonous drinks and door handles, or that bad interference in the Middle East, is just not seen by the majority of Australians as any sort of ‘enemy’. The propaganda from well-heeled ‘experts’ or politicians who attend the Australian American Leadership Dialogue (AALD) gatherings, convinces those with influence here to be ‘loyal’, but it does not persuade the mass of people to want to follow the ‘loyal’ into a confrontation of any sort with Russia. They may not wish to join with Russia in any enterprise, but they do not wish to oppose Russia either.

Australians do see threats to their identity, sovereignty and freedom. But it hails from other quarters than Russia. Australians have concerns at the influence China has built here in recent times, yet many are sceptical with the sudden change of heart of many political and economic leaders to follow the US lead in ‘talking tough’ to China. It was, after all, the USA which built up modern China in the first instance as a means to challenge the then USSR. Prime Minister Fraser in the 1970s was the greatest supporter of a China alliance. Further, this recent sudden shift involves ‘defending’ the rights of Hong Kong and Taiwan against China, when ironically enough, China’s claims to the former is undeniable and to the latter with at least a little historical merit. Australians would hardly wish to fight China over matters that are essentially the foreign policy ends of the USA over territory that is regarded as within the Chinese sphere. Australians rightly suspect that in this clash of superpowers, Australia faces a difficult future. And ultimately too, there is the nightmare of nightmares: what if in some mad scenario in some dystopian future, these two superpowers re-divided Australia as a means to secure peace between themselves? Perhaps it would be far more logical to exit the system before its perverted logic extinguishes us? Australia’s interests run counter to these two superpowers, but it should neither antagonise over non issues, nor side with one against the other.

The safety of the Australian nation is complicated further by other challenges, from regional crises and problems to matters of ecology, and overpopulation nearby lands and special pressures that may entail. It is obvious that these difficulties are somewhat outside of the scope of the supposed ‘protection’ offered to us by the US superpower and to a large extent we are on our own anyway. That may be a good start to independent thinking.

Generally speaking, an Australia that maintained its own defence industry, which created a naval and air defence to keep an enemy off the Continent and far away from it, which planned for an ‘asymmetrical defence’ and which raised its level of defence preparedness to a high level – would practise the principle of Armed Neutrality. Could that be quite enough?


Girt by sea – real base-line protection

But there is a sting in the tail. To be a neutral state implies dismantling the old system. That means an end to Five Eyes (sic) intelligence-sharing, of removing foreign military bases from our soil, of not participating in the military exercises of present ‘allies’ and so forth. It means telling our regional neighbours that a new Australia has no intention of being a bad one, but we would seek to be left alone, trade for advantage and mind our own business. It’s a little like paying off a bank debt: a takes a lot of effort to get back to ‘zero debt’. For us, it would be Year Zero in a new way of facing the world. It would not be isolationism, just practicality. Friendship to all, reasoned engagement with many, enmity to none, unless a fight is courted by someone else. Of course, to the entrenched regime here, neutralism would register as ‘anti American’. In a world with three superpowers (and other power blocs besides), it would be bound to be denounced as ‘pro Russian’! Yet what else would it really be, but ‘Australia first’.

An armed neutral Australia frightens those who say they believe that only with ‘protection’ paid for by endless military and other service from time to time is the best course for our country. There is a growing band of Australian nationalists who believe that Armed Neutrality is a common sense goal in a world we cannot control nor greatly influence. It is being practical. In the end, it might also be a great moment in Australian history when this small power – takes independence – as many nations have before it.

Billy Hughes, On Russia (1945)


Introduction by Kevin McCauley:

When the Soviet Union began the process of disintegration in the late 1980s and through the early 1990s, US President Ronald Reagan gave Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev an assurance – that the West would not take advantage of the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Eastern Europe to expand NATO’s zone of influence into Eastern Europe. This assurance was a lie and all of Eastern Europe has since joined the NATO alliance, including the Baltic states (which are only a few hundred kilometres from St. Petersburg, Russia’s second largest city).

The extremist anti Russia government in Ukraine has now stated that Ukraine wishes to join the NATO alliance. Some of the more extreme forces in Ukraine wish to acquire nuclear weapons and some even dream of dropping a nuclear bomb on Moscow.

It has come to light that the CIA has tried to overthrow the government of Belarus and even planned the assassination of its president who refused to go along with insane COVID lockdowns and who remains friendly to Russia.

NATO is and always has been an anti Russia alliance. It doesn’t matter what type of government Russia has, be it communist, liberal-democratic, or conservative, NATO will always regard Russia as its number one enemy. There are dark reasons for that which lie in the belly of the New World Order system.

However, just for now, let’s look at what one of Australia’s great statesmen had to say about Russia.

Billy Hughes was the Labor PM during the Great War and he left the Labor Party over the misplaced conscription plan at that time. Hughes went on to be the PM of a conservative government until 1923. He held various posts in government in the 1920s to the 1940s; he was a fierce anti communist and died in 1952. However, he did see the need for Russia to have security for its own people behind secure borders. He said in the Commonwealth Parliament, February 28 1945:

“The position of Poland is one which appeals to us all. It is, however, one that is common to all the conquered countries of Europe. Poland, as well as every other country in Europe that has been overrun, is concerned about its frontiers. The Atlantic Charter commits us to a policy which will ensure a country against such aggrandisement by another country as would confine its people within narrower limits than were theirs at the outbreak of the war. I know something of the circumstances of Poland, because I was one of those who were actively engaged in delimiting the boundaries of that country after the First World War. Poland is entitled to justice. It is entitled to security, but it is not more entitled to justice or security than is any other nation. Justice is not be metered out only to small nations, but to all nations, great and small, and the security of small nations is not to be ensured at the expense of great ones. There can be no profitable discussion in this parliament about the boundaries of Poland, for it is inevitable that any such discussion must reflect upon another of our allies to which Poland owes whatever freedom from Nazi oppression it enjoys today. Who are we to sit in judgement on Russia? To that country D-day and all that followed from it, is due. Without Russia, there could never have been a D-Day, or any massing of American and British forces on the Western Front. Had not Russia contained at least 200 enemy divisions on the Eastern Front, D-day would have been an impractical venture. It is not for me to champion the cause of Russia, but I stand here to do it even handed justice. Russia is as much entitled to security and justice as is any other nation, and that security can be ensured only be such frontiers as will give the people of Russia and an assurance that what happened to them in this war will never happen again.”

Is this argument still valid?