The language never reflects the actual conduct.  Deploying
weapons to a region in greater numbers is not seen as provocative, even
if placing such items in a theatre of operations is bound to get
neighbours nervous.  This is particularly the case about the US
“rebalance” in the Asia-Pacific.  “The ongoing deliberations,” notes
John J. Hamre of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies,
“are shaped more by the legacy of the past (for example arguing about
where to relocate particular facilities) than by the security
imperatives of the next thirty years.”

In the background, China lurks as both threat and opportunity – as
long as the appropriate moves are made on its part to accommodate the
wishes of Washington and its allies.  Grow and flourish, by all means
but do so within neatly demarcated parameters of power interests. 
Enemies can be refashioned and rebranded overnight, even if they do tend
to hold the credit strings.
This is the backdrop of the remarks made last week by David Shear,
the US Defence Department’s Assistant Secretary for Asian and Pacific
Security Affairs. Before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
Wednesday, Shear explained that Washington would “be placing additional
air force assets in Australia as well, including B-1 bombers and
surveillance aircraft.”[1] 
This was in addition to the further deployment of military and marine
units in the Western Pacific.  Were these the bugles of war sounding?

“We will have a very strong presence, very strong
continued posture throughout the region to back our commitments to our
allies, to protect and work with our partners and to continue ensuring
peace and stability in the region, as well as back our diplomacy
vis-à-vis China on the South China Sea.”

A few trembles could be felt at this announcement in Canberra,
despite the continuing fantasy on the part of officials down under that
the US presence in the region somehow acts as one of stability.  “I see
the greater presence of the US in our part of the world as a force of
stability,” insisted Prime Minister Tony Abbott.  “Australia’s alliance
with the US is a force for stability.”  Naturally, the alliance wasn’t
“aimed at anyone” in particular.
This is a point reiterated by the policy wonks and members of the
Obama administration while insisting that US power is fundamental.  As
Vice President Joe Biden observed in August 2011 to members of the 3rd Marine
Regiment at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, “We are a resident Pacific power
and we intend to stay that way.  We are not going away.”[2]
While the Abbott government, like other Australian ones before it,
happily endorse a form of bottom feeding lackey status, the presence of
strategic bombers may have been a step too far, at least for now.  The
reality remains that any country silly enough to host powerful,
strategic powers is bound to be inviting itself as a target, not of
stability, but concerted instability.
The US-Australian defence agreement countenances the presence of
American troops to operate in the Northern Territory on a rotational
basis. This is a form of semantics in action – the Australian defence
minister, Kevin Andrews, refuses to accept that the marines have bases
in Australia.  They are merely “based” for six-month periods.  A
spokesman for the minister even went so far as to claim that the
agreement “does not allow US bases to be established in Australia.” 
False autonomy and sovereignty is thereby maintained.
As far as the bombers were concerned, the Prime Minister made
inquiries.  “I’ve sought some information about the testimony provided
in Washington by an official.  I understand that the official misspoke
and that the US does not have any plans to base those aircraft in
Australia.”  A spokeswoman for the US embassy in Canberra followed up by
saying that there were “no plans to rotate B-1 bombers or surveillance
aircraft in Australia.”
This form of parrying and dismissal forms the staple of diplomatic
deception. It is very unlikely that Shear misspoke at all, expressing,
in a moment of utmost clarity, US ambitions and goals in the
Asia-Pacific area.  After all, the expansion of US interests was already
being considered in July by General Herbert Carlisle, chief of the US
Airforce in the Pacific.  In time, the US would send “fighters, tankers,
and at some point in the future maybe bombers, on a rotational basis”
to Australia.
What goes on in Washington tends to provide a better barometric
reading as to what happens in Canberra – notably when it comes to the
deployment of US marines and other military assets.  The Australian view
on the subject is nigh irrelevant.
The only issue, then, is what consequences issue forth from such
statements and consequent actions.  The 2012 CSIS report on the subject
of how the Pentagon’s posture in the Asia-Pacific region should be
directed found confusion and discontinuity, a patchwork of
inconsistencies.  “DoD needs to explain the purposes of force posture
adjustments in the light of the new security challenges in the Asia
Pacific region.”[3]
There may be nothing so vile as a manufactured consensus when it
comes to policy, but the pundits and planners continue to do so in those
capitals worried about the shift of power taking place in Asia.  The
latest, if seemingly inconsistent round of promised military deployments
are ominous, but those in Beijing will have anticipated them.  A
response is bound to come in due course.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes:
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/15/tony-abbott-says-us-defence-official-misspoke-on-b-1-bombers-in-australia
[2] http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65159
[3] http://csis.org/files/publication/120814_FINAL_PACOM_optimized.pdf

globalresearch.ca