Sovereignty Surrendered: Subordinating Australia’s Defence Industry
Bureaucratic red tape will be slashed – for the Australian Defence industry and the AUKUS partners.
the broader object here is unmistakably directed, less to Australian capabilities than privileged access and a relinquishing of control to the paymasters in Washington.
“Whenever it cooperates with the US Australia will surrender any sovereign capability it develops to the United States control and bureaucracy.”
November 30, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/sovereignty-surrendered-subordinating-australias-defence-industry/
One could earn a tidy sum the number of times the word “sovereignty” has been uttered or mentioned in public statements and briefings by the Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese.
But such sovereignty has shown itself to be counterfeit. The net of dependency and control is being increasingly tightened around Australia, be it in terms of Washington’s access to rare commodities (nickel, cobalt, lithium), the proposed and ultimately fatuous nuclear-propelled submarine fleet, and the broader militarisation and garrisoning of the country by US military personnel and assets. (The latter includes the stationing of such nuclear-capable assets as B-52 bombers in the Northern Territory.)
The next notch on the belt of US control has been affirmed by new proposals that will effectively make technological access to the Australian defence industry by AUKUS partners (the United States and the United Kingdom) an even easier affair than it already is. But in so doing, the intention is to restrict the supply of military and dual-use good technology from Australia to other foreign entities while privileging the concerns of the US and UK. In short, control is set to be wrested from Australia.
The issue of reforming US export controls, governed by the musty provisions of the US International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR), was always going to be a feature of any technology transfer, notably regarding nuclear-propulsion. But even before the minting of AUKUS, Canberra and Washington had pondered the issue of industrial integration and sharing technology via such instruments as the Defense Cooperation Treaty of 2012 and Australia’s addition to the National Technology and Industrial Base in 2017.
This fundamentally failed enterprise risks being complicated further by the latest export reforms, though you would not think so, reading the guff streaming from the Australian Defence Department. A media release from Defence Minister Richard Marles tries to justify the changes by stating that “billions of dollars in investment” will be released. Bureaucratic red tape will be slashed – for the Australian Defence industry and the AUKUS partners. “Under the legislation introduced today, Australia’s existing trade controls will be expanded to regulate the supply of controlled items and provision of services in the Defence and Strategic Goods List, ensuring our cutting-edge military technologies are protected.”
Central to the reforms is the introduction of a national exemption that will cover trade of defence goods and technologies with the US and UK, thereby “establishing a license-free environment for Australian industry, research and science.” But the broader object here is unmistakably directed, less to Australian capabilities than privileged access and a relinquishing of control to the paymasters in Washington. A closer read, and it’s all got to do with those wretched white elephants of the sea: the nuclear-powered submarine.
As the Minister for Defence Industry, Pat Conroy, states, “This legislation is an important step in the Albanese Government’s strategy for acquiring the state-of-the-art nuclear-powered submarines that will be key to protecting Australians and our nation’s interests.” In doing so, Conroy, Marles and company are offering Australia’s defence base to the State Department and the Pentagon.
With a mixture of hard sobriety and alarm, a number of expert voices have voiced concern regarding the implications of these new regulations. One is Bill Greenwalt, a figure much known in the field of US defence procurement, largely as a prominent drafter of its legal framework. He is unequivocal in his criticism of the US approach, and the keen willingness of Australian officials to capitulate. “After years of US State Department prodding, it appears that Australia signed up to the principles and specifics of the failed US export control system,” Greenwalt explained to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “Whenever it cooperates with the US it will surrender any sovereign capability it develops to the United States control and bureaucracy.”
The singular feature of these arrangements, Greenwalt continues to elaborate, is that Australia “got nothing except the hope that the US will remove process barriers that will allow the US to essentially steal and control Australian technology faster.”
In an email sent to Breaking Defense, Greenwalt was even more excoriating of the Australian effort. “It appears that the Australians adopted the US export control system lock, stock and barrel, and everything I wrote about in my USSC (US Studies Center) piece in the 8 deadly sins of ITAR section will now apply to Australian innovation. I think they just put themselves back 50 years.”
The paper in question, co-authored with Tom Corben, identifies those deadly sins that risk impairing the success of AUKUS: “an outdated mindset; universality and non-materiality; extraterritoriality; anti-discrimination; transactional process compliance; knowledge taint; non-reciprocity; and unwarranted predictability.”
When such vulgar middle-management speech is decoded, much can be put down to the fact that dealing with Washington and its military-industrial complex can be an imperilling exercise. The US imperium remains fixated, as Greenwalt and Corben write, with “an outdated superpower mindset” discouragingly inhibiting to its allies. What constitutes a “defence article” within such export controls is very much left to the discretion of the executive. The archaic application of extraterritoriality means that recipient countries of US technology must request permission from the State Department if re-exporting to another end-user is required for any designated defence article.
The failure to reform such strictures, and the insistence that Australia make its own specific adjustments, alarms Chennupati Jagadish, president of the Australian Academy of Science. The new regulations may encourage unfettered collaboration between the US and UK, “but I would require an approved permit prior to collaborating with other foreign nationals. Without it, my collaborations could see me jailed.” The bleak conclusion: “it expands Australia’s backyard to include the US and UK, but it raises the fence.” Or, more accurately, it incorporates, with a stern finality, Australia as a pliable satellite in an Anglo-American arrangement whose defence arrangements are controlled by Washington.
Bah Humbug! – to COP Climate Conference sponsored by Dubai, an oil & natural gas nation.
Only the quick, fast buck are what matter. Sustainability, “Bah, Humbug!”
paulrodenlearning 29 Nov 23
I sincerely doubt a positive outcome from this COP23 Conference. The fact that it takes place in Dubai, an oil & natural gas nation state, hosting & sponsoring this Conference is the first fact. The profit addicted, fossil fuel companies & nation states want to extract & burn every barrel of oil, cubic foot of natural gas and ton of coal on the planet before they deem “renewable energy” as ready to power the planet.
The very idea of the halting or even reduction in the exploration, extraction & burning of any fossil fuel is just uphorrent to them. They don’t give a damn about the planet or the impact of the continued extraction and burning of any fossil fuel. The “maximizing of profits,” or “return on equity to their investors,” and “stock options” for their CEO’s & Boards of Directors is all that matters to them.
The environment, the ecosytem of the planet be damned. Only the quick, fast buck are what matter. Sustainability, “Bah, Humbug!”
TODAY. Nuclear “sacrifice zones” and “sponges”- a new revelation
Only recently revealed: – “The silos are basically meant to divert and absorb the incoming nuclear missiles from important and critical areas in the country, like cities.”
OnFrom its beginning in the 1940s the global nuclear industry set up “sacrifice zones”- Nevada nuclear test sites, though the residents didn’t know this – a sort of “unconscious” one – where the outcomes of cancer and birth defects were not fully understood.
Twas the Russians who first put the concept clearly into practice – setting up City 40, Ozersk the birthplace of the Soviet nuclear weapons programme . City 40’s inhabitants were told they were “the nuclear shield and saviours of the world”. This was absolute nuclear sacrifice. The residents of this secret city knew that their role was to accept both the cancerous consequences of nuclear weapons-making and their status as a nuclear target – all for the supposed glory of making all of Russia “safe”.
The residents were compensated – financial stability, private apartments, plenty of food – including exotic delicacies such as bananas, condensed milk and caviar – good schools and healthcare, a plethora of entertainment and cultural activities.
In exchange, the residents were ordered to maintain secrets about their lives and work. For the first eight years, residents were forbidden from leaving the city, writing letters or making any contact with the outside world.
The Americans did it more subtly. They chose areas where the indigenous population would would have little awareness of the issues – a much cheaper system than the Russian one. The US military set up nuclear silos of InterContinental Ballistic Missile (ICBMs.) as “sponges” “The role of the ICBM is to force an adversary to use many nuclear weapons if they decided to attack the U.S. The silos are basically meant to divert and absorb the incoming nuclear missiles from important and critical areas in the country, like cities.”
Wherever there are nuclear weapons systems, there are these “sponges”, – places where the uninformed local community, preferably indigenous are put in danger. for the presumed safety of the more important city residents.
The very latest one is in the UK, in Suffolk, where the US is about to bring back nuclear weapons,
The women of Greenham Common previously got rid of American nuclear weapons bases.
UK needs a new Greenham Common to fight this new nuclear target, sponge, sacrifice zone.
COP28: Hopes of fossil fuel ‘phase out’ hit by revelations of Saudi plan to boost oil demand.
The scale of the challenge faced by diplomats pushing
for a new global agreement to ‘phase out’ unabated fossil fuels at the
upcoming UN Climate Summit in Dubai was underscored yesterday by reports
detailing how both the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia are
privately working to sustain long term demand for oil and gas.
Just hours after the BBC reported yesterday that COP28 hosts the UAE had used
bilateral meetings with governments ahead of the Summit to promote new oil
and gas investments, Channel 4 News and the Centre for Climate Reporting
revealed how Saudi Arabia is using its Oil Demand Sustainability Programme
(ODSP) to drive long term demand for oil from developing economies.
Business Green 28th Nov 2023
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 