Antinuclear

Former defence chief urges rethink of Australia’s relationship with China

Rob Harris November 4, 2026, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/too-risky-too-costly-aukus-should-be-scrapped-finds-peter-garrett-led-inquiry-20261104-p61bbt.html

Australia must rethink its relationship with China rather than blindly follow the United States into a disastrous military confrontation, former defence force chief Chris Barrie has warned as part of a review demanding the federal government overhaul its signature security strategy.

The retired admiral delivered the warning at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday as he joined former Labor minister Peter Garrett to launch a scathing report calling for the immediate cancellation of the $368 billion AUKUS nuclear submarine pact, arguing it threatens Australian sovereignty and risks dragging the nation into a war with China.

The inquiry calls for the nuclear submarine program to be scrapped, a royal commission into AUKUS, the suspension of US submarine operations near Perth and a fundamental overhaul of Australia’s defence strategy and relationships with Washington and Beijing.

“Whatever way you want to look at the future in this region, by 2050, China will be the world’s largest power, the world’s greatest power,” Barrie said. “I don’t see any evidence of global aspirations and global dominance aspirations that we’ve seen out of the United States. And that’s why I worry about the contest between the United States and China.”

Barrie, who led the Australian Defence Force from 1998 to 2002, said Australia needed to better its relationship with Beijing and invest far more heavily in diplomacy rather than allowing its strategic priorities to be dictated by Washington.

Barrie, who recalled travelling through China with the head of the People’s Liberation Army during his time as defence chief, said Australia needed a more sophisticated understanding of Beijing’s strategic ambitions.

The retired admiral said Australia’s tendency to lecture Beijing publicly had damaged relations, and warned against viewing China’s rise solely through the prism of American strategic competition.

“I think we need to recalibrate the way we deal with China,” he said, suggesting Australia’s embassy in Beijing should become its second-largest diplomatic mission, if not the largest.

His intervention came as a union and community-backed public inquiry accused successive Coalition and Labor governments of committing generations of taxpayers to an extraordinarily expensive defence program without adequately examining its costs, feasibility or consequences for Australia’s independence.

The report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception, concluded the submarine acquisition program was unlikely to deliver on its promises and could leave the Australian Navy without an effective submarine fleet. It labelled the program the “worst, riskiest and most costly” defence decision made by an Australian government.

The inquiry’s findings challenge the bipartisan consensus behind AUKUS, which the Albanese government maintains is essential to Australia’s long-term defence capability and deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.

Garrett, the Midnight Oil frontman, lashed the absence of meaningful debate within his own party over AUKUS, saying the evidence presented to commissioners had reinforced his original concerns about the deal.

“My major objection to AUKUS in the first instance was that there was no debate,” Garrett said.

“Where was the vigorous debate in the caucus? Where was the vigorous debate in the cabinet? We don’t have any sense that there’s been a debate.”

Garrett said the enormous cost, the failure to account for the safe storage of radioactive waste and the terms of the agreement had convinced him the program was fundamentally flawed.

“Your conclusion after looking at it and hearing from expert advice is that it is a complete absolute crock.”

The report, which backs longstanding criticisms from former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, calls for a comprehensive national security strategy and accuses both major parties of surrendering critical defence decisions to foreign powers.

Among the 17 recommendations, the inquiry recommended urgently developing a cheaper alternative to replace the ageing Collins-class fleet, while reviewing the separate AUKUS agreement on advanced defence technologies. It also calls for an Australian National Audit Office investigation into its costs.

Work on the AUKUS submarine construction facilities at Adelaide’s Osborne naval precinct should halt, while Australian submariners should stop being seconded to American vessels, the report argues.

The report also warns that the US and Britain could walk away from the agreement without delivering the promised submarines while retaining billions of dollars for their shipbuilding industries.

It also questions whether the delivery timetable is achievable and warns that attempting to operate three different classes of submarines could place intolerable pressure on Defence personnel and resources. Australia is scheduled to receive its first US-built Virginia-class nuclear submarine in 2032, with a subsequent boat arriving every four years until the sovereign fleet is operational. The first Australian-built SSN-AUKUS vessel is slated to enter service in 2042.

The public inquiry, convened by the Australian Peace and Security Forum, received more than 1000 written submissions and heard evidence over 10 days across eight cities, with its organisers raising $220,000 to fund the exercise.

A government spokesperson brushed off the inquiry, noting AUKUS had already faced extensive parliamentary scrutiny and remained vital in tackling the nation’s toughest strategic challenges since World War II.

Defending the project’s multi-billion-dollar cost, the spokesperson said the partnership was designed to bolster the Australian Defence Force’s strike power.

“We need to support the development of an ADF with a much greater capacity to project so we can defend Australia and contribute to regional security and stability,” they said.

The government also said the pact would create roughly 20,000 direct jobs across industry, defence, and the public sector over the next three decades.

November 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Is Australia Becoming the Forward Base of the American Empire in the Asia-Pacific?

3 November 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Terry Dwyer

Will Australia become part of the American Empire’s strategic pivot to Asia – and, in doing so, place itself in the firing line of a potential conflict with China, our largest trading partner?

It is a question Australians should be asking before it is too late.

Through AUKUS, the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, the US Force Posture Agreement and an ever- expanding programme of joint military exercises, Australia is becoming increasingly integrated into America’s military and strategic operations in the Indo-Pacific. US Marines rotate through Darwin, American military aircraft and naval vessels have increasing access to Australian facilities, and plans are advancing for expanded submarine cooperation, military infrastructure, logistics and the pre-positioning of military supplies.

These arrangements have been presented as necessary for Australia’s defence, but they also raise a serious question: are we strengthening our own national security, or increasingly positioning Australia to serve as a forward operating platform for American strategic objectives in a region where tensions with China have been encouraged?

China is Australia’s largest trading partner. Our economies are deeply interconnected, our prosperity depends heavily on regional stability, and there is no compelling Australian national interest in becoming a battlefield in a war between two major powers. China has never attacked Australia in fact Estimates of total Chinese deaths during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945, or 1931–1945) generally range from 14 to 20 million with total casualties (killed and wounded) exceeding 35 million according to historical and official data.

Most Australians are probably unaware that China was one of Australia’s Allies during World War II. The Chinese people made an extraordinary sacrifice, enduring years of brutal Japanese aggression and tying down enormous numbers of Japanese troops. It is not unreasonable to argue that China’s resistance contributed significantly to Japan’s inability to expand its military ambitions further into the Pacific. Had Japan been able to commit more of its military resources southwards, Australia’s own fate might have been very different. Perhaps Australian historians might otherwise be writing about the Rape of Townsville alongside the Rape of Nanking – one of the most horrific and shamefully neglected atrocities of World War II.

Nor should we ignore the historical record of the country on which we increasingly depend for our security. The United States has a long history of military invasions, occupations, covert operations, coups and attempts to influence or overthrow foreign governments. The following timeline documents many of those interventions, from Hawaii in 1893 to the more recent conflicts and military operations of the twenty-first century.

This is not an argument that China should be beyond criticism, nor that Australia should abandon all its alliances. It is an argument that Australia’s foreign and defence policies must be determined by Australia’s interests, not automatically aligned with the ambitions of a more powerful ally. Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, once a strong supporter of the American alliance, came to a stark conclusion in his later years. In his 2014 essay America: Australia’s Dangerous Ally, he wrote:”The relationship with America, which has long been regarded as beneficial, has now become dangerous to Australia’s future.”

Fraser warned that Australia’s dependence on Washington could compromise our sovereignty and leave us exposed in a major Pacific conflict. His warning deserves renewed attention today.

The question Australians should have been asking for many years is, not whether America is our friend. It is whether we can remain friends and allies without surrendering our independent judgement, our sovereignty or our right to decide which wars Australia will fight? To this question many would argue Australia is sleep walking with a false sense of security around both sovereignty, control of foreign policy and our cultural identity.

The US needs reminding that Empires throughout history have believed their power was permanent. Yet even the mightiest eventually discover that their influence has limits, their wars have consequences and their time will come.

As Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote in Ozymandias: “Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

History has a habit of reminding even the most powerful empires that they, too, are not eternal.

US-backed coups, regime changes and interventions: 1893–2026

A historical timeline of American military intervention, covert operations, political interference and support for regime change.

The history of American intervention overseas is long and varied. It includes direct military invasions and occupations, CIA-backed coups, covert operations, financial and political support for opposition movements, and military assistance to governments involved in civil conflicts.

Not every event in this timeline involved the same degree or type of American involvement. In some cases, the United States directly organised or carried out military action. In others, it supported local forces, encouraged political change, or acted after a coup had already occurred. Some cases remain disputed by historians.

The Timeline (this article lists 51 American milittary interventions ………………………………………………………………………………………………

52. Iran, 2026

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched a major series of strikes against Iran, targeting military infrastructure, nuclear-related facilities, missile capabilities and senior political and military leadership. The attacks killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and triggered Iranian retaliatory strikes across the region. The conflict developed into a wider regional war, with ceasefire efforts and renewed hostilities during 2026.

The longer-term consequences may prove very different from those anticipated by Washington and Tel Aviv. A number of former American military officers and intelligence analysts have publicly questioned whether the campaign has achieved its intended strategic objectives.

Retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor described Iran as the clear winner of the conflict, saying “it was emerging as a great power.” Former CIA officer Larry Johnson argued that Iran now has an exceptionally strong and unified leadership, strengthened by the shared military experience of its senior figures. Retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis went further, writing in Stars and Stripes that America’s war against Iran had already been lost at the strategic level. Retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski also questioned the assumptions behind the intervention, arguing that American and Israeli leaders had underestimated the resilience and strength of the Iranian people.

These are significant criticisms from individuals with experience inside the American military and intelligence establishment. Their assessments raise a fundamental question: has the attempt to weaken Iran instead strengthened its resolve, consolidated its leadership and increased its regional influence?

There may also be consequences for America’s own position. Davis has warned that the continuing conflict could erode US military capacity and force an involuntary retreat from other regions. The possibility that this war could ultimately accelerate a substantial reduction in America’s military presence in the Middle East deserves serious consideration. Will the US be forced to leave the region permanently?

Empires throughout history have believed their power was permanent. Rome, Britain and countless others discovered that military might and political dominance do not guarantee immortality. Perhaps the most enduring warning comes from The great British historian Edward Gibbon, in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776), wrote:

“The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.”

History has a habit of reminding even the most powerful empires that their time, too, will come.

Resources.…………………………………………………………………………………………..https://theaimn.net/is-australia-becoming-the-forward-base-of-the-american-empire-in-the-asia-pacific/

November 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Australia’s “Antisemitism Envoy” Says The Pro-Palestine Left Are The Real Nazis

Caitlin Johnstone, Oct 30, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/australias-antisemitism-envoy-says?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=222727090&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Australia’s “antisemitism envoy” Jillian Segal has released a new report claiming that the primary threat to Jews in our country comes from left-wing pro-Palestine activists, which Segal hilariously labels “issue-motivated antisemitism”.

(Genocide. The “issue” is genocide.)

This, obviously, is an admission that Jillian Segal’s whole entire mission in Australia is to encourage government powers to stomp out pro-Palestine activism and protect the information interests of the apartheid state of Israel.

“Modern, progressive antisemitism is the most pervasive manifestation of antisemitism facing Australia today,” Segal’s report asserts. “It is often not a standalone hatred like the other sources. Rather, it serves to justify and legitimise antisemitism, providing it with intellectual and cultural credibility and, ultimately, making it fashionable. It does this by effectively laundering far-left antisemitism and Islamic extremism through a progressive lens, such as social justice and human rights, together with traditional antisemitic tropes, giving fundamentally extremist ideologies an apparently acceptable face.”

In a section titled “Far-left antisemitism or issue-motivated antisemitism,” Segal’s office complains that “Israel is portrayed as a colonial project that is inherently racist,” which she says “allows longstanding antisemitic motifs to be repackaged in the academic language of antiracism, decolonisation, human rights, social justice and intersectionality, often in service of a traditional Marxist revolutionary agenda.”

Here’s an excerpt:

“Over time, the language of human rights and its greatest crimes — apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc. — has increasingly been appropriated to portray Israel (and, relevantly, members of the Jewish community who support it) as morally evil, often to the point of being equated to Nazis.

“In contemporary Australia, elements of Australia’s historically fringe radical left have sought to appeal to well-meaning mainstream progressive Australians who may perceive the Palestinian cause as a matter of social justice. This ‘gateway’ issue, of sorts, has been used by far-left activists to magnify their appeal and prominence and to attempt to introduce traditionally moderate Australians to radical and anti-Jewish propaganda that would previously have been of little interest.”

Segal repeatedly warns that antisemites are guilty of the “conflation” of Jewish people with the state of Israel while also repeatedly going out of her way to lump Jews in with support for the Israeli state, complaining of the view that “anyone who identifies as a Zionist is themselves fundamentally wicked, notably including the overwhelming majority of Jewish Australians who, as an inextricable part of their Jewish identity, hold a belief in the right of Israel to exist.”

In reality, Israel lobbyists like Segal are the ones who are guilty of conflating all Jews with the actions of Israel. That is what you are doing when you claim that opposition to a genocidal apartheid state is hateful toward Jews.

To help curb the actions of the “issue-motivated” antisemites, Segal recommends the implementation of exclusion zones for protesters, a ban on face coverings for demonstrators, extra review measures for people who are in this country on visas, and extra oversight of public broadcasters the ABC and SBS to ensure fair and balanced coverage of Israeli atrocities.

Segal’s office also recommends incorporating the authoritarian, pro-Israel IHRA working definition of antisemitism into every level of the law, calling for “Facilitation by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and judicial education bodies of ongoing, appropriate and tailored education to their members regarding antisemitism, its contemporary expressions and the application of the IHRA definition.”

Segal also recommends forcing online platforms to adopt “the IHRA definition into community standards and policies for content moderation,” which would see people banned from social media for such self-evidently correct actions as comparing Israel to Nazi Germany or saying that Zionism is a racist endeavor.

As you might expect, the Australian press are dutifully regurgitating Segal’s left-punching propaganda with zero pushback. The Australian ran the story on the new report with the headline “‘Pervasive progressive hate’: antisemitism envoy’s new blueprint,” while The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald went with “New wave of Australian antisemitism comes from progressive social justice critics, says antisemitism envoy.”

I have said it before and I will say it again: anyone who talks about “left-wing antisemitism” like it’s a real problem which presents a real threat is a lying manipulator and should be treated as such. They are pretending to believe things that no one actually believes in order to promote the interests of a genocidal apartheid state.

At a recent Senate hearing, Jillian Segal was confronted by the leader of the Australian Greens, David Shoebridge, for her false Royal Commission testimony asserting that the Gaza death toll has been “grossly inflated” according to the United Nations. The spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General directly refuted this claim earlier this year, saying, “For us the Ministry of Health in Gaza is a source we, and many others, often cite. Independent validation of subsets of the data has found no significant discrepancies in their numbers.”

Jillian Segal is an immoral, manipulative white South African whose job is to deceive the public in order to facilitate genocide and apartheid. That is the light under which her recommendations should be viewed, and any government which espouses them should be viewed as supportive of the most extensively documented crimes against humanity in the history of the human species.

November 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment