Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Wake up Australia! We need what Britain’s got – a NUCLEAR FREE LOCAL AUTHORITIES!

Read the article below, if you can dredge through it all. It’s about the complexities of placing a nuclear waste dump.

Note the words used – the willingness of the community to accept it – a public referendum.

Australia cannot afford to leave our future in the hands of incompetent twits like these AUSMIN fools.

People like Defence Minister Richard Marles have the nerve to sign up to “undisclosed political commitments” , that involve us getting nuclear fuel wastes from submarines. No public information, discussion, consent……….

Now the unfortunate Brits have already got their burden of this toxic stuff. We don’t. This absurd plan to buy obsolete nuclear submarines looks like a cover for introducing foreign radioactive trash to Australia .

 NFLA 13th Aug 2024

https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/nflas-welcome-developments-to-move-forward-to-an-early-poll-in-theddlethorpe/

NFLAs welcome developments to move forward to an early poll in Theddlethorpe

The NFLAs have welcomed recent developments to move towards an early Test of Public Support of the proposal to bring a Geological Disposal Facility to Theddlethorpe in East Lincolnshire.

Nuclear Waste Services, a division of the taxpayer-funded Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, is seeking to identify a potential site for the GDF in West Cumbria or in Lincolnshire. The GDF would be the final repository for Britain’s legacy and future high-level radioactive waste. Most of this is currently in storage at Sellafield. Any final decision on the location of the nuclear waste dump would be based on two key factors – the suitability of the geology and the willingness of the community to accept it.

In Theddlethorpe, the shock revelation that the former Conoco gas terminal was being considered as a surface site generated an immediate public response. An opposition group, the Guardians of the East Coast, was soon formed and members now work with supportive elected Councillors to oppose the plan.

Amongst the Labour, Green and independent members elected in May 2023 on a platform of opposing the GDF, Theddlethorpe Councillor Travis Hesketh and Sutton on Sea Councillor Robert Watson have been active in championing the need for an early ballot to determine public support for the plan. The two Leaders of East Lindsey District Council and Lincolnshire County Council have already agreed to hold a poll in 2025, but at the last meeting of East Lindsey District Council, the two Councillors brought a further motion to commit the authority to back a local ballot within twelve months or otherwise withdraw from the process.

Under the government’s established procedures for determining public support for a GDF, Lincolnshire County Council and East Lindsey District Council are deemed to be ‘Relevant Principal Local Authorities’ with the right to decide when a ‘Test of Public Support’ should be held. However, the Community Partnership, which provides limited oversight to the process, determines the boundaries of the ‘Potential Host Community’, the geographic area within which the residents are eligible to participate in any test, and determines the nature of the ‘Test of Public Support’, which does not have to be a public referendum.

At the East Lindsey District Council meeting, the motion was carried, but with an amendment proposed by the Council Leader. Councillor Colin Leyland said he had now come round to supporting an earlier poll in principle, but with certain caveats; namely that the boundary of the ‘Potential Host Community’ be first defined and subject to Nuclear Waste Services being given an additional twelve months to provide more information to residents impacted by the proposal. Councillor Leyland indicated that, if after a year, no poll had been held and NWS engagement efforts remained unsatisfactory, he would recommend to his Executive that Council withdraw from the process. This would be subject to a review by the Council’s Overview Board.

After this amended motion was carried, the NFLA Secretary wrote to David Fannin, the newly elected Chair of the Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership, urging him to consider as his ‘urgent workstreams’ defining the Potential Host Community and preparing to hold a local referendum as a Test of Public Support.

The NFLAs have now received Mr Fannin’s response; in it the Community Partnership Chair said: ‘The Community Partnership will continue to press NWS (Nuclear Waste Services) to make this (open and transparent dialogue) a priority and produce information for the local community and supports the local authorities’ ambition for an early Test of Public Support. I can assure you that activities that lead to determining the Potential Host Community and preparing for the Test of Public Support are the top priority for the Community Partnership.’

In a second interesting development, newly elected Louth and Horncastle MP, Victoria Atkins, has invited her constituents to complete an online survey in which they are asked whether and when they would like to see a referendum on the GDF and who they would like to see invited to participate in such a ballot. Ms Atkins circulated a letter just before the General Election in which she made a welcome affirmation that she had ‘always argued for a swift conclusion to this and will support local residents in their quest for a prompt referendum’. In the preamble to her survey, Ms Atkins stated that ‘I will back the call for a public vote within the next 12 months if this is the will of the majority of constituents in Theddlethorpe’. 

The NFLAs hope that as many Theddlethorpe residents will participate in the survey. We look forward to hearing the result and hope that it will reflect a local desire to hold a referendum within twelve months and limit participation to those local residents who are directly affected.

A letter was sent by the NFLA Secretary to Ms Atkins the day after the general election is which the MP was asked ‘to use (her) influence as the local MP to speak with your Conservative colleagues, the Leaders of East Lindsey District Council and Lincolnshire County Council, to urge the Leader of East Lindsey District Council to throw his support, and that of his Conservative Group, behind (the recent) motion and for the Leader of Lincolnshire County Council to indicate his support for its aspirations, either to hold a poll by 2025 or withdraw from the process’. The letter remains unanswered.

Ends://… For more information, contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email at richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk or by telephone on 07583 097793

August 14, 2024 Posted by | politics international, wastes | Leave a comment

Australian nuclear news headlines 13 -20 August.

Headlines as they come in:

August 14, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

AUKUS revamped: Australia to indemnify US and UK against ‘any liability’ from nuclear risks

Documents tabled in parliament on Monday have also revealed the United States or United Kingdom could walk away from the AUKUS deal with Australia with a year’s notice.

SBS News, 12 August 2024

Key Points
  • The US, UK and Australia signed a new AUKUS agreement in Washington last week.
  • Documents tabled in parliament on Monday revealed several key elements of the revamped agreement.
  • Australia will indemnify the US and UK from any ‘liability’ arising from nuclear risks related to the program.

The United States or the United Kingdom could exit the AUKUS agreement to provide nuclear-powered submarines with Australia with a year’s notice under a new arrangement.

The revamped agreement also requires Australia to legally protect both allies against costs or injuries arising from nuclear risks.

The arrangement was signed by all three partner countries in Washington in the US last week.

Advertisement

Documents tabled in parliament on Monday set out the agreed legal framework for transferring nuclear materials and equipment to Australia for the $368 billion acquisition of atomic-powered submarines announced in 2021.

The plan will bring eight nuclear-powered subs into service by the 2050s.

US and UK could walk away with a year’s notice

The agreement, which “shall remain in force until 31 December 2075”, says the AUKUS deal shouldn’t adversely affect the ability of the US and UK to “meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs”.

“Any party may terminate the agreement … by giving at least one year’s written notice to the other parties,” it reads.

Australia responsible for storage and disposal of waste

Nuclear material for the future submarines’ propulsion would be transferred from the US or UK in “complete, welded power units”, the agreement says.

But Australia would be responsible for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from the nuclear power units that are transferred under the deal.

Australia to cover other members for nuclear risks

The updated agreement also means Australia will indemnify the US and UK from any “liability, loss, costs, damage, or injury (including third party claims)” arising from nuclear risks related to the program.

But the legal protection won’t apply in relation to a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine that has been in service with the US Navy “until such time as it is transferred to Australia”…………………..

Greens attack revamped agreement

Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge criticised the new agreement for its “multiple escape hatches” which risked Australia being left high and dry.

“This is a $368 billion gamble with taxpayers’ money from the Albanese government,” he said…………………..more https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/aukus-revamped-australia-to-indemnify-us-and-uk-against-any-liability-from-nuclear-risks/rudp9zf10

August 14, 2024 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Resisting AUKUS: The Paul Keating Formula

The venomous icing on the cake – at least for AUKUS critics – comes in the form of an undisclosed “Understanding” that involves “additional related political commitments.” 

The contents of Biden’s letter irked Keating less than the spectacular show of servility shown by Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong on their visit to Annapolis for the latest AUSMIN talks. In what has become a pattern of increasing subordination of Australian interests to the US Imperium, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken played happy hosts and must have been delighted by what they heard.

August 13, 2024, : Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.com/resisting-aukus-the-paul-keating-formula/

From his own redoubt of critical inquiry, the former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating has made fighting the imperialising leprosy of the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the UK and the United States a matter of solemn duty.

In March 15, 2023, he excoriated a Canberra press gallery seduced and tantalised by the prospect of nuclear-powered submarines, calling the Albanese government’s complicit arrangements with the US and UK to acquire such a capability “the worst international decision by an Australian Labor government since the former Labor leader, Billy Hughes, sought to introduce conscription to augment Australian forces in World War one.

His latest spray was launched in the aftermath of a touched-up AUKUS, much of it discussed in a letter by US President Joe Biden to the US House Speaker and President of the Senate. The revised agreement between the three powers for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion is intended to supersede the November 22, 2021 agreement between the three powers on the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information (ENNPIA)

The new agreement permits “the continued communication and exchange of NNPI, including certain RD, and would also expand the cooperation between the governments by enabling the transfer of naval nuclear propulsion plants of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines, including component parts and spare parts thereof, and other related equipment.” The new arrangements will also permit the sale of special nuclear material in the welded power units, along with other relevant “material as needed for such naval propulsion plants.”

The contents of Biden’s letter irked Keating less than the spectacular show of servility shown by Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong on their visit to Annapolis for the latest AUSMIN talks. In what has become a pattern of increasing subordination of Australian interests to the US Imperium, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken played happy hosts and must have been delighted by what they heard.

The details that emerged from the conversations held between the four – details which rendered Keating passionately apoplectic – can only make those wishing for an independent Australian defence policy weep. Words such as “Enhanced Force Posture Cooperation” were used to describe the intrusion of the US armed forces into every sphere of Australian defence:the domains of land, maritime, air, and space.

Ongoing infrastructure investments at such Royal Australian Air Force Bases as Darwin and Tindal continue to take place, not to bolster Australian defence but fortify the country as a US forward defensive position. To these can be added, as the Pentagonfact sheet reveals, “site surveys for potential upgrades at RAAF Bases Curtin, Learmonth, and Scherger.”

The degree of subservience Canberra affords is guaranteed by increased numbers of US personnel to take place in rotational deployments. These will include “frequent rotations of bombers, fighter aircraft, and Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft.” Secret arrangements have also been made involving the disposal of nuclear propulsion plants that will feature in Australia’s nuclear powered submarine fleet, though it is unclear how broad that commitment is.

The venomous icing on the cake – at least for AUKUS critics – comes in the form of an undisclosed “Understanding” that involves “additional related political commitments.” The Australian Greens spokesperson on Defence, Senator David Shoebridge, rightly wonders “what has to be kept secret from the Australian public? There are real concerns the secret understanding includes commitments binding us to the US in the event they go to war with China in return for getting nuclear submarines.”

Marles has been stumblingly unforthcoming in that regard. When asked what such “additional political commitments” were, he coldly replied that the agreement was “as we’ve done it.” The rest was “misinformation” being spread by detractors of the alliance.

It is precisely the nature of these undertakings, and what was made public at Annapolis, that paved the way for Keating’s hefty salvo on ABC’s 7.30. The slavishness of the whole affair had made Keating “cringe”. “This government has sold out to the United States. They’ve fallen for the dinner on the White House lawn.”

He proved unsparing about Washington’s intentions. “What AUKUS is about in the American mind is turning [Australia into suckers], locking us up for 40 years with American bases all around … not Australian bases.” It meant, quite simply, “in American terms, the military control of Australia. I mean, what’s happened … is likely to turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States.”

Having the US as an ally was itself problematic, largely because of its belligerent intentions. “If we didn’t have an aggressive ally like the United States – aggressive to others in the region – there’d be nobody attacking Australia. We are better left alone than we are being ‘protected’ by an aggressive power like the United States.”

As for what Australian obligations to the US entailed, the former PM was in little doubt. “What this is all about is the Chinese laying claim to Taiwan, and the Americans are going to say ‘no, no, we’re going to keep these Taiwanese people protected’, even though they’re sitting on Chinese real estate.” Were Australia to intervene, the picture would rapidly change: an initial confrontation between Beijing and Washington over the island would eventually lead to the realisation that catastrophic loss would simply not be worth it, leaving Australia “the ones who have done all the offence.”

As for Australia’s own means of self-defence against any adversary or enemy, Keating uttered the fundamental heresy long stomped on by the country’s political and intelligence establishment: Canberra could, if needed, go it alone. “Australia is capable of defending itself. There’s no way another state can invade a country like Australia with an armada of ships without it all failing.” Australia did not “need to be basically a pair of shoes hanging out of Americans’ backside.” With Keating’s savage rhetoric, and the possibility that AUKUS may collapse before the implosions of US domestic politics, improbable peace may break out.

August 14, 2024 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Revamped AUKUS document reveals how US and UK can walk away from nuclear submarine deal

ABC News, By defence correspondent Andrew Greene 14 Aug 24

In short:

A revamped AUKUS agreement has been tabled in federal parliament revealing the submarine project can be cancelled with a year’s notice.

Under the deal, Australia has also agreed to indemnify the US and UK against any loss or injury connected to nuclear materials transferred here.

What’s next?

The deal will last until December 2075, provided the ANZUS alliance continues and the US and UK remain in NATO.

Australia would foot the bill for any loss or injury caused by sensitive technology and radioactive materials transferred by the United States and United Kingdom for nuclear submarines, under a revamped version of the AUKUS agreement.

An updated document for the trilateral partnership reveals Australia would indemnify the United States and the United Kingdom against such an outcome.

It also reveals the US or the UK could pull out of the submarine deal with just a year’s notice if either nation decides the deal weakens their own nuclear submarine programs

Details of the “understanding” signed by all three AUKUS partners last week in Washington have now been tabled in federal parliament with the agreement to “remain in force until 31 December 2075”.

Article I specifies that the US and UK can transfer “material and equipment relating to conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines to Australia” providing this does not constitute an “unreasonable risk” to their own defence and security.

“This is a $368 billion gamble with taxpayers’ money from the Albanese government,” Greens senator David Shoebridge said following the tabling of the document on Monday.

“Article I of the new AUKUS agreement says that if at any point the United States thinks supplying material under the AUKUS agreement to Australia prejudices their defence, they can effectively terminate the agreement and pull out.

“What this agreement makes clear in black and white: If the United States at any point thinks they don’t have enough submarines for themselves, they can pull out of AUKUS 2.0 — why isn’t the Albanese government being honest about the size of the gamble?”

According to the document, “Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants”.

The Albanese government has also agreed to indemnify the US and UK against “any liability, loss, costs, damage or injury (including third-party claims) arising out of, related to, or resulting from Nuclear Risks” connected with the project……………….

The head of the AUKUS submarine program has refused to say whether an almost $5 billion government payment to the United States would be refunded if no nuclear-powered boats were delivered to Australia.

The agreement for “cooperation for naval nuclear propulsion” is also contingent on Australia and the US remaining in the ANZUS alliance, along with the US and UK staying as NATO members.

Defence Minister Richard Marles said the agreement “expressly rules out enriching uranium or reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in Australia” and prevents AUKUS partners from any activity that would contravene international non-proliferation obligations.

“The Albanese government, alongside AUKUS partners, continues to re-affirm that Australia’s acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines will set the highest non-proliferation standards through the AUKUS partnership.

“The agreement is unequivocal that, as a non-nuclear weapons state, Australia does not seek to acquire nuclear weapons,” Mr Marles stressed.

Last week, President Joe Biden revealed the existence of a new agreement in a letter to Congress in which he said the non-legally binding “understanding” had provided “additional related political commitments”.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-12/revamped-aukus-document-reveals-how-us-and-uk-can-walk-away/104214398

August 14, 2024 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australia blasted for new Aukus deal over nuclear waste fears – ‘blow to sovereignty’

A part of the deal involves a transfer of nuclear material to Australia, which has sparked anger among some politicians and green activists

SCMP, Su-Lin Tan, in Singapore, 12 Aug 24

Australia has signed a new agreement with the US and the UK that would allow not just an exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information as part of Aukus, but also the transfer of nuclear material to Australia, a move that critics warn could lead to dumping of the radioactive material in the country.

Critics are also concerned over its secrecy and Australia cosying up to the US, particularly after a letter by US President Joe Biden to the US House of Representatives and the US Senate president last week revealed a further side agreement of “additional related political commitments” between the Aukus countries.

The additional commitments were not mentioned in the official agreement tabled in the Australian parliament on Monday, which replaced an earlier agreement allowing just the exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information.

The controversial Aukus deal, which involved the manufacture and supply of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, has long raised eyebrows since its surprise announcement in 2021 due to the proposed use of nuclear power in the region, the steep A$368 billion (US$242 billion) cost to Australian taxpayers and perceptions as a platform to counter China.

Last Friday, former Australian prime minister Paul Keating, said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that Aukus could sell Australia out as “the 51st state of the United States” after information about the new agreement started trickling in following the announcement from Washington.

“What Aukus is about in the American mind is locking us up for 40 years, with American bases all around Australia, not Australian bases. Aukus is really about – in American terms – the military control of Australia,” he said.

Unlike other nations which have American bases, Australia did not need to host them as it was a continent with borders with no other countries, Keating said.

“The only threat [to us] is because we have an aggressive ally because of Aukus,” he said, referring to the US……………………………………………………………….

When asked if Australia had made “additional commitments” to the US, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Australia was committed to the US alliance. In response to Keating’s claims, Albanese said Canberra did things differently now as the “world has changed”.

Keating, who famously called for Australia to boost security ties with Asia rather than with the US in the 1990s, said in a statement over the weekend that while international conditions had changed, the geography of Asia and Australia had not.

The Albanese government has instead turned to the “Anglosphere to garner Australia’s security”, Keating added.

Call for more transparency

The Australians for War Powers Reform has also called on Canberra to divulge to Australians the “additional commitments” made to the US.

“If the commitments made by the Australian government are ‘political’ and not based on national security, surely these should be made public,” said Alison Broinowski, the organisation’s spokeswoman and former diplomat.

“Is it possible that these secret ‘undisclosed political commitments’ relate to Australia’s involvement in a future overseas war?”

Leading activist group GetUp! has started a petition to stop “opening the floodgates for Australia going full-scale nuclear” and called for an explanation on how Australia would be storing radioactive waste from the Aukus submarines.

A parliamentary inquiry earlier this year sounded the alarm that Australia could be a nuclear waste dump under the current Aukus arrangement and called for a rewriting of laws to specifically rule out accepting nuclear waste from the US or the UK.

Separately, on Friday, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the Nobel Peace Prize-winning civil society coalition, pushed Canberra to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) “without further delay”.

Australia, like the US, has not signed or ratified the treaty, which was adopted in 2017 and has attracted 93 signatories.

The new Aukus agreement put Australia in danger of wasting taxpayer funds if the US or the UK were to walk away from the deal, the Australian Greens said.

It also indemnified the US and UK for any “liability, loss, costs, damage, or injury” associated with the use of nuclear submarines and allowed these two countries to determine the price of uranium it was selling to Australia, Greens senator David Shoebridge said.

“I have never seen such an irresponsible one-sided international agreement signed by an Australian government. Every aspect of this agreement is a blow to Australian sovereignty,” he said.  https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3274188/australia-blasted-new-aukus-deal-over-nuclear-waste-fears-blow-sovereignty

August 14, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Albo’s Trojan Horse | The West Report

Michael West 13 Aug 24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JVfESp-A3Q

August 13, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Defence Minister Richard Marles insists AUKUS milestone won’t force Australia to accept foreign nuclear waste

The Greens say legislation already before parliament would allow the UK and US to dump high-level nuclear waste in Australia from their nuclear submarines, an issue the Labor-led inquiry into the proposed laws recommended amending to prevent.

9 Aug 2024 #ABCNewsAustralia https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-0…

In short:

The defence minister says there is no circumstance where Australia would accept radioactive waste from foreign nations.

Critics of the AUKUS deal claimed Thursday’s milestone could oblige Australia to take waste from the US and UK.

What’s next?

The agreement will see secret nuclear information shared with Australia, and plans progressed to acquire second-hand nuclear submarines.

The defence minister insists Thursday’s milestone agreement on AUKUS does not oblige Australia to take nuclear waste from the United States or the United Kingdom.

Australia and the US made significant progress on Thursday towards acquiring nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS agreement, in a deal that included undisclosed “political commitments” to Australia’s partner nations, the US and the UK.

Critics of the nuclear submarine plan claimed that the deal would eventually oblige Australia to take high-level radioactive waste from the US and UK.

Defence Minister Richard Marles insisted on Friday morning that was not the case.

“Nuclear waste won’t end up in Australia, other than the waste that is generated by Australia,” Mr Marles said. 

“That is the agreement that we reached with the UK and the US back in March of last year, and so all this is doing is providing for the legal underpinning of that.”

Mr Marles said there would be “no circumstance” where Australia takes waste from any other country.

Instead, Thursday’s agreement would allow for the transfer of nuclear naval technology to Australia, including restricted data never shared outside the US and UK.

The agreement also progresses plans to transfer second-hand US Virginia-class submarines to Australia, while its own submarines are being built.

Nothing unusual in undisclosed ‘additional political commitments’ on AUKUS, says PM

The government however has been pressured to further explain the details of the deal formalised on Thursday.

US President Joe Biden’s letter to Congress on the agreement said it provided “additional related political commitments”, but did not detail what those were.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton challenged the government to explain the political commitments made to the US.

“It’s certainly an unusual statement, and I think the prime minister should provide an explanation as to what Australia has signed up to,” Mr Dutton said.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said there was nothing out of the ordinary in the agreements the federal government had made.

“We have agreed to have nuclear-powered submarines, that is what we have agreed to, and the transfer of technology that is related to that,” Mr Albanese said.

“There aren’t extra political commitments, I’m not sure what you mean.

“There will be no nuclear [waste] transfer from either the US or UK.” 

The Greens say legislation already before parliament would allow the UK and US to dump high-level nuclear waste in Australia from their nuclear submarines, an issue the Labor-led inquiry into the proposed laws recommended amending to prevent.

Mr Marles also defended himself after Labor luminary and vocal critic of the AUKUS deal Paul Keating repeated his criticisms of the program and the minister.

Mr Keating claimed that the Albanese government had sold out Labor values by adopting AUKUS from the former Morrison government, and said Mr Marles’s comments while in the US would make “any Labor person cringe”.

Mr Marles said that criticism was “not fair”, but said Mr Keating had a right to express his view.

In Taiwan, reaction from some corners was scathing.

Former US ambassador to Palau US John Hennessy-Niland, who was the first US ambassador to visit Taiwan since 1979, said Mr Keating was living in the past “and never changes”.

“Keating reveals his true colours when he talks about ‘party values’ should be paramount but what about Australia’s national interests?” Mr  Hennessey-Niland told the ABC. 

Wen-Ti Sung, from the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub, said partnerships like AUKUS were essential to preventing future conflict.

“Forward defence planning in concert with like-minded democratic partners is how countries have managed to deter and prevent major wars,” he said.

“Long-term partnership building with at least one superpower has been the cornerstone of Australian foreign policy ever since World War II, namely ANZUS. There is no clear reason why Australia should be abandoning its almost century-long partner.

“Facing an increasingly strategically uncertain world, Australia needs to develop more partners, not less.”

Director of international affairs for Taiwan’s opposition Kuomingtang Party, Alexander Huang, said the island’s first priority was preventing conflict through both deterrence and dialogue.

Mr Huang declined to comment on Mr Keating’s “disagreement with Prime Minister Albanese and his cabinet”.

August 13, 2024 Posted by | politics, wastes | Leave a comment

Radioactive AUKUS submarines risk community health

PETITION

 https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/climate-justice/240809-aukus-petition/radioactive-aukus-submarines-risk-community-health?t=E57bYcPzQ 11 Aug 24

Under the new AUKUS deal, Australia will import nuclear submarine technology from the US and UK.1

The revamped agreement would see naval nuclear material arrive on our shores – opening the flood gates for Australia going full-scale nuclear.

And there’s no plan for how the Albanese Government would store the radioactive waste – or which communities would have to accept risks to their health, land and water for generations.

First Nations communities have led the fight against nuclear across the continent for decades – and are not backing down. We need to back in Traditional Owners and build a movement big enough to stop this disastrous deal threatening our communities.

Nuclear would be a disaster for community health and our climate.

The AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement would cost $368 billion in public money – and is far from a done deal.2

The United States Congress has still not approved it. And the Albanese Government has a lot of work to do to create the legal, regulatory and social conditions to deal with radioactive nuclear waste.

Cuurently, there’s no plan for how the radioactive waste would be stored – or which communities would have to accept risks to their health, land and water for generations.

This gives our movement an opportunity to change the narrative, and win.

Together we can back in First Nations communities protecting Country from risky nuclear and advocate for alternative uses of this public money.

First Nations communities have led decades of resistance to radioactive waste and uranium mining, necessary for nuclear reactors.

Mirrar Traditional Owners in the Northern Territory led the national campaign to stop the Jabiluka uranium mine on their Country — successfully protecting cultural heritage, community health and their right to say no.3 And they’re still fending off dangerous uranium mine proposals on their land.4

Last year, Barngarla Traditional Owners in South Australia won an eight year fight against a radioactive nuclear waste dump that would have had disastrous consequences for community health, land and water.5

Together we can back in Traditional Owners and come together for a nuclear-free Australia to protect all of our communities.

 References

August 13, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Call to end nuclear power ban brings heated reaction in Australia

Ft.com, Nic Fildes in Sydney, 12 Aug 24

Opposition wants to change law and build new plants but critics say focus should remain on renewable energy

Liddell Power Station in Australia’s Hunter Valley burned through coal for five decades before closing last year. Opposition leader Peter Dutton now wants Liddell to be reborn as something banned in the country for a quarter of a century: a nuclear power plant. The site in New South Wales is one of seven operating or closed coal-fired plants that Dutton, leader of the centre-right Liberal party, has said could become nuclear power stations as part of a big shift in the way Australia generates its energy.

Nuclear energy is what Australia needs for its “three goals of cheaper, cleaner and consistent power”, he said earlier this year. Dutton’s pitch has pushed energy policy to the fore ahead of next year’s election, as Australia — rich in resources and a big exporter of energy in the form of coal, liquefied natural gas and uranium — grapples with how to decarbonise its economy

Anthony Albanese’s Labor government has put its focus on renewable energy, passing legislation that targets a 43 per cent cut in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. It hopes to rapidly phase out coal — which has accounted for almost two-thirds of power generation over the past year — and deliver 82 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2030. But the opposition Liberals and their allies, the rurally focused Nationals, have pledged to abandon the 2030 target and scrap large-scale wind farm projects. They say nuclear energy could deliver power from the middle of next decade………………………………..

Dutton’s plan would reverse decades of Australian policy and require changes to national and state-level laws in Australia that ban nuclear power. The ban dates from 1998, when John Howard’s conservative government offered it as a quid pro quo to minority parties for supporting the construction of a research reactor near Sydney. It remains the country’s only reactor, producing material for medical and industrial use………………………………………………………………..

Chris Bowen, Australia’s energy minister, has dubbed the opposition’s proposal “a nuclear scam” that is too expensive, too slow to build and too risky. A report in May by CSIRO, the government science agency, argued that generating nuclear energy — whether by building large-scale plants or small modular reactors — would be significantly more expensive than renewables and that building a plant would take at least 15 years. “Long development times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050,” the report concluded.

………………………………Marilyne Crestias, interim chief executive of the Clean Energy Investor Group, which represents investors in renewables, said conditions for putting money into projects had improved, but more was needed to improve confidence and clarity around policy. “We need more ambition on climate and energy, not less,” she said.

Jeff Forrest, a partner at LEK Consulting’s energy practice, said the nuclear idea was “a 2040s solution to an energy problem we’ve got today” and said there was frustration among investors and in boardrooms that long-term investment plans could be disrupted by the “left-field” nuclear debate. “Energy investment needs consistent and clear signals. That is really important for long-dated investments and no one wants the rug pulled out from under them,” he said. Around the Loy Yang coal-fired power plant in the Latrobe Valley in the state of Victoria, locals said the nuclear proposal would disrupt plans by its owners to make the region a renewable energy hub after the plant’s closure during the next decade.

Wendy Farmer, Gippsland organiser for Friends of the Earth and president of the Voices of the Valley community group, said the proposal would threaten A$50bn of planned renewable investment. “Are they telling investors to go away?” said Farmer. “Imposing nuclear on these communities without any consultation or discussion with the owners of the sites is an insult and a bullying tactic.”

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.comT&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/89c1ea46-29bc-4a7e-9943-a420b3f1512c

Tim Buckley, director of the Climate Energy Finance think-tank, said the opposition’s proposals would displace private capital with a “communist-style policy” requiring more than A$100bn of public funds. “It is not impossible, but it is financially illogical,” said Buckley, who questioned the move’s political motivations ahead of an election. “This is not nuclear versus renewables. This is about extending the climate wars.”  https://www.ft.com/content/89c1ea46-29bc-4a7e-9943-a420b3f1512c

August 13, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

This week’s nuclear news- miles too long- sorry!

above – Julian Assange – home with his familySome  bits of good news – People power changes lives – Six months of wins for human rights. Anti-corruption strategies in Nigeria are working.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are having a positive spillover effect.

TOP STORIES

The Impact of Nuclear Weapons on Children.79 Years After Hiroshima & Nagasaki: A Grim Reminder of Nuclear Annihilation. 

Mutually assured destruction is an outdated nuclear deterrence doctrine.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVunlJOyfB0

World-Ending Maneuvers? America’s Nuclear Weapons Quagmire. Inside the Nuclear-Weapons Lobby Today.

AUKUS Revamped: The Complete Militarisation of Australia. 

Why US nuclear waste policy got stalled. And what to do about it.

UK’s most dangerous nuclear site pleads guilty after endangering national security.
Germany may take another 50 years to find final repository for waste from shuttered nuclear power.

Climate. Extreme heat in South Korea kills 11 and decimates livestock. ‘It made me cry’: photos taken 15 years apart show melting Swiss glaciers.

Noel’s notes.  Relief – Hiroshima Day is over – now to our glorious $2 trillion nuclear weapons “modernization”!    6th August – a day of respectful remembrance, and a day of absurd nuclear hypocrisy   World “experts” are kicking the nuclear waste can down the road – to our great grandchildren.

*************************

AUSTRALIA. 

NUCLEAR NEWS ITEMS

ATROCITIES. Why We Must Oppose Israel’s Dangerous Gamble Before It’s Too Late. ‘Heinous’: Children Among 100 Killed by Israel Bombing of Gaza School Just Hours After US Weapons Approval. Nothing’s changed since 1948 – except now Israel’s excuses don’t work.CLIMATE EDF extends heat-related warning cuts at 3 nuclear plants. France Warns of Nuclear Power Cuts as Heat Triggers Water Curbs.
IAEA concerned about forest fires near occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
ECONOMICS. Lemon socialism? – Rolls Royce might like to gracefully get out of Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)? UK Government refuses to release Sizewell C’s predicted price tag.
Biden’s $1.5 Billion Deal To Resurrect A Nuclear Plant Is Facing Fresh Drama.		EMPLOYMENT. Over two hundred jobs may be lost if Haverigg jail is displaced by nuclear dump.
HEALTH. Red Cross Hospital in Japan continuing to treat nuclear bomb victims – the hibakushaHISTORY. US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remembered amid growing threat of nuclear war. Hiroshima marks 79 years since atomic bombing, as nuclear war fears rise.
PUBLIC OPINION. What do Americans really think about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Majority of Americans support more nuclear power, but future of large-scale nuclear is uncertain.

Radioactive Waste Management – Public Attitudes Survey for Scotland.		SAFETY. IAEA: Cooling pond water levels decreasing at Ukraine nuclear plant. IAEA Director General Statement on Developments in the Russian Federation, (with Kursk Nuclear Power Plant under threat).
Nuclear disaster warning for two countries as Putin orders urgent mass evacuation. Will Ukraine’s attack on Russian territory lead to the seizure of the Kursk Nuclear Plant? Russia strengthens security at Kursk nuclear power plant amid Ukraine’s assault in region.
It must be no to nuclear – whether energy or weapons.

SECRETS and LIES.

SPINBUSTER. A DUBIOUS PROSPECT? Rolls-Royce looks to sell stake in small nuclear reactor business.

URANIUM. While Cumbrian MPs Blindly Agitate for More Uranium Mining to Feed More Nuclear New Build, Indigenous Australians are celebrating Halt to Poisoning of their Lands 

WASTES. Too short, ill-timed and clumsy: Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities critical of Trawsfynydd radioactive waste consultation. Lake District’s Coastal Nuclear Waste Dump Screw Tightens. Radiation monitoring keeps track of nuclear waste contamination. Anti-nuclear Group Criticizes Short Consultation over Trawsfynydd Lake Radioactive Contamination.

WAR AND CONFLICT.

Ukraine war briefing: Main fire at Russia-controlled nuclear plant in Ukraine extinguished. IAEA chief calls for restraint as fighting remains ongoing ‘in the vicinity’ of Russia’s Kursk Nuclear Power Plant.

 Israeli policy means ‘difficult to know’ how close world is to nuclear war, warns International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). Shin Bet said to prepare bunker for Netanyahu, senior leadership amid Iranian threat. Majority of Americans Oppose Using US Troops To Defend Israel .

Nuclear weapons can never bring peace or security – only mass death.

Modernizing Nuclear War’

WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.

August 13, 2024 Posted by | Christina reviews | Leave a comment

The AUKUS operations are stalled because Australia cannot meet the nuclear waste disposal requirements of the non-proliferation treaty regime

13 Aug 24
Despite the somewhat difficult or convoluted language in the Agreement it gives the power and agreed authority to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to demand a proper and safe means for the storage and disposal in accordance with the prescriptions of IAEA of all nuclear material including waste generated in or acquired by Australia by whatever means and for the continuing inspection and audit of that material by IAEA

This applies specifically to the nuclear waste generated by the rotational visits of the nuclear powered submarines of the United States and the United Kingdom with Australia being solely responsible for the management and disposal of that waste

Irrespective of the strength of AUKUS by the involvement of the United States and the United Kingdom the requirements of IAEA under the Agreement will be strongly demanded by the member states who are
signatories to the non-proliferation treaty regime

The international demands on this issue will be readily adopted since they go to the most basic principles of nuclear safety and both the United States and the United Kingdom are known to have serious problems with the management of their own nuclear waste

COMPREHENSIVE SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT

From the latest available information the Comprehensive Safeguards
Agreement as described below has still not been varied which means
that the AUKUS arrangements cannot be fully implemented for the
purposes of the non-proliferation treaty regime

The reason is that Australia cannot meet all the safety requirements of
IAEA by not having the proper means for the management and disposal
of all the nuclear waste generated by the AUKUS activities in
accordance with its prescriptions as outlined in the publication by IAEA
as to Disposal of Radioactive Waste No. SSR-5 and other
prescriptions.

There is the problem of the disposal of all the
nuclear waste generated initially by the rotational visits of nuclear submarines of the United States and the United Kingdom to Stirling in Western Australia.

Australia by its foreign minister has advised IAEA that it is seeking
appropriate sites on Defence land for a facility for the AUKUS
generated nuclear waste but this has been insufficient for the variation
of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and hence is delaying
the implementation of AUKUS

*********************************************

COMPREHENSIVE SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT
The problem for Australia is that without a variation with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the
Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement as it is commonly
called it will be difficult for Australia to implement the AUKUS
arrangements yet at the same time remain within the non –
proliferation treaty regime.

In order to achieve the variation Australia must show that it
has or is in the latter stages of planning a nuclear waste
facility for the permanent disposal of the nuclear waste to be
generated by the AUKUS operations.

COMPREHENSIVE SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT
PROVISIONS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC
ENERGY AGENCY FOR THE APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Opened for signature at London, Moscow and Washington on 1 July 1968
and which entered into force on 5 March 1970

NON-APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS TO NUCLEAR MATERIAL TO BE
USED IN NON-PEACEFUL ACTIVITIES

Article 14
If Australia intends to exercise its discretion to use nuclear material which is
required to be safeguarded under this Agreement in a nuclear activity which
does not require the application of safeguards under this Agreement, the
following procedures shall apply:

(a) Australia shall inform the Agency of the activity, making it clear:

(i) That the use of the nuclear material in a non-proscribed military
activity will not be in conflict with an undertaking Australia may
have given and in respect of which Agency safeguards apply, that the nuclear material will be used only in a peaceful nuclear activity;
and
(ii) That during the period of non-application of safeguards the
nuclear material will not be used for the production of nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

(b) Australia and the Agency shall make an arrangement so that, only while
the nuclear material is in such an activity, the safeguards provided for in this
Agreement will not be applied. The arrangement shall identify, to the extent
possible, the period or circumstances during which safeguards will not be
applied. In any event, the safeguards provided for in this Agreement shall
apply again as soon as the nuclear material is reintroduced into a peaceful
nuclear activity. The Agency shall be kept informed of the total quantity and
composition of such unsafeguarded nuclear material in Australia and of any
export of such nuclear material; and

(c) Each arrangement shall be made in agreement with the Agency. Such
agreement shall be given as promptly as possible and shall relate only to
such matters as, inter alia, temporal and procedural provisions and reporting arrangements, and shall not involve any approval or classified knowledge of
the military activity or relate to the use of the nuclear material therein.

APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS
Article 2
The Agency shall have the right and the obligation to ensure that safeguards
will be applied, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, on all source
or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the
territory of Australia, under its jurisdiction or carried out under its control
anywhere, for the exclusive purpose of verifying that such material is not
diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

±±The relevant provision of INFCIRC/153 is paragraph 14

Paragraph 14 provides for the “non- application” of “the safeguards
provided for in the Agreement”, but only while the nuclear material is in
the non-proscribed military use. 15 Feb 2022

August 12, 2024 Posted by | politics international, wastes, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australia indemnifies US and UK ‘against any liability’ from nuclear submarine risks

Guardian, Daniel Hurst Foreign affairs and defence correspondent, 12 Aug 24

New text reveals any party can terminate their collaboration on nuclear-powered boats with just one year’s notice

The United States, the United Kingdom or Australia could terminate their collaboration on nuclear-powered submarines with just one year’s notice, according to the terms of a new treaty designed to make the Aukus security pact a reality.

The Australian government published the text of the new agreement on Monday as it sought to dispel claims it was failing to tell the public about potentially significant political commitments to the US and the UK.

But opponents of the Aukus arrangement said the treaty contained “multiple get-out-of-jail-free cards for the US”, adding to pre-existing concerns a future president could back away from selling Virginia class submarines to Australia in the 2030s.

The concerns are based on US shipyard bottlenecks that are causing delays in the US meeting its own submarine production needs.

Under the Aukus plan announced in San Diego in 2023, Australia plans to buy at least three Virginia class submarines from the US in the 2030s.

Australia and the UK will then build a new class of nuclear-powered submarine to be known as SSN-Aukus.

The new agreement will allow for the transfer of nuclear material to Australia and it replaces a pre-existing treaty that allowed “for the exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information”.

……………………………………….. The document reveals Australia has agreed to take responsibility for any nuclear safety risks.

Australia will indemnify the US and the UK “against any liability, loss, costs, damage or injury” arising from nuclear risks “connected with the design, manufacture, assembly, transfer, or utilisation” of any of the material and equipment………………………………….

The Australian Greens’ spokesperson for defence, David Shoebridge, said he had “never seen such an irresponsible one-sided international agreement signed by an Australian government”.

“Every aspect of this agreement is a blow to Australian sovereignty,” Shoebridge said.

“This is the deal of the century for the US and UK who must be chuckling all the way to the bank having found the Albanese government and their billions in public dollars.”

Shoebridge and other critics of Aukus raised alarm last week when the US president, Joe Biden, revealed that the new treaty was accompanied by “a non-legally binding understanding” including “additional related political commitments”…………………..

The Australian defence minister, Richard Marles, said the treaty was “another significant Aukus milestone”………………….https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/12/aukus-deal-submarines-nuclear-termination-clause

August 12, 2024 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Australia, US, UK sign nuclear transfer deal for AUKUS subs – AUSTRALIA RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPENT FUEL WASTES

 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/aukus-nuclear-powered-submarines-weapons-transfer-deal-australia-uk-us-china-4541466

Australia would be responsible for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from the nuclear power units that are transferred under the deal.

SYDNEY: Australia said on Monday (Aug 12) it had signed a deal to allow the exchange of nuclear secrets and material with the United States and Britain, a key step toward equipping its navy with nuclear-powered submarines.

It binds the three countries to security arrangements for the transfer of sensitive US and UK nuclear material and know-how as part of the tripartite 2021 AUKUS security accord.

AUKUS, which envisages building an Australian nuclear-powered submarine fleet and jointly developing advanced warfighting capabilities, is seen as a strategic answer to Chinese military ambitions in the Pacific region.

“This agreement is an important step towards Australia’s acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy,” said Richard Marles, Australia’s defence minister and deputy prime minister.

Australia’s acquisition of a nuclear-powered submarine fleet would set the “highest non-proliferation standards”, he said, stressing that the country did not seek nuclear weapons.

The latest deal – signed in Washington last week and tabled in the Australian parliament on Monday – includes a provision for Australia to indemnify its partners against any liability for nuclear risks from material sent to the country.

Nuclear material for the future submarines’ propulsion would be transferred from the US or Britain in “complete, welded power units”, it says.

But Australia would be responsible for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from the nuclear power units that are transferred under the deal.

“Submarines are an essential part of Australia’s naval capability, providing a strategic advantage in terms of surveillance and protection of our maritime approaches,” the transfer deal says.

China’s foreign minister Wang Yi warned in a visit to Australia in April that AUKUS raised “serious nuclear proliferation risks”, claiming it ran counter to a South Pacific treaty banning nuclear weapons in the region.

August 12, 2024 Posted by | politics international, wastes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuked – The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty

The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty

The United States sank the French submarines deal and formed the AUKUS military pact, to smash a new Indo-Pacific strategic alliance of France, Australia and India that wanted friendship with China.

FRIENDS OR ALLIES DeClassified, by Andrew Fowler | 12 Aug, 2024

The United States’ push to cement itself as the dominant military power in the Indo-Pacific region, and the globe, saw it sabotage the French submarines deal with Australia, and establish the AUKUS military pact. It also sank the prospects for a Paris–Canberra–Delhi alliance that wanted a new Indo-Pacific geostrategic order developing harmonious relations with China.
These machinations are explained in this edited extract below from the new book, ‘Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty’, by Andrew Fowler, published in July by Melbourne University Press.

As Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull and the new French president Emmanuel Macron discussed world affairs under the ornate chandeliers of the Élysée Palace in July 2017, they both understood the political and strategic significance of the submarine deal. 

It just might shift the view of the other countries of the 27-member European Union that Australia would always have a closer relationship, both commercially and politically, with the United States than with Europe. Turnbull understood how important it was to prove to the French that they could have a strong ally in the South Pacific.

The following day, he headed off to Cherbourg to put the public seal on a project that had done so much to invigorate the relationship between the two countries. Cherbourg is home to Naval Group, one of the most successful submarine manufacturers in the world, with an order book bulging to €15 billion in 2019.

The Australian contract was just the latest in a series of wins for the company, but at the same time it produced a novel challenge for Naval Group. The French were going to take their Barracuda-class nuclear-powered submarine, remove the reactor that powered it, and insert a diesel-electric engine. ……………………

Thirteen days earlier Tony Abbott had been on Sydney radio station 2GB casting doubt on the entire project. He said that given the submarine acquisition process was long and involved, it was important that Australia had a ‘Plan B’. There was worse to come. The following day Abbott called for Australia to change course and consider buying submarines powered by nuclear reactors.

Prime Minister Turnbull had deliberately written into the French contract that Australia could switch back to nuclear submarines after two, three or four non-nuclear subs, without a penalty.

If Abbott’s comments had rankled Turnbull, this apparently didn’t show. Turnbull knew the non-nuclear subs could always be reverted to nuclear submarines if necessary. He’d deliberately written into the contract that Australia could switch after two, three or four non-nuclear subs, without a penalty. With a 500-strong highly educated and flexible workforce, the changes would not be that hard to achieve. There was another advantage: France was the only country in the world that made both nuclear and non-nuclear submarines………………………………………

The submarine deal was at the core of a new strategic partnership between Australia and France and, according to one French diplomat, ‘changed the view we had in France of Australia’. It shifted from that of a country not necessarily considered as a ‘priority connecting with us’, to a really essential partner. It was, he said, ‘a sea change’.

President Macron was persuaded that it was in the best interests of France for him to travel to Australia, not just because France had signed on to the biggest single defence project in its history, but because the Indo-Pacific was developing into a hugely important economic powerhouse and a potential flashpoint in the great rivalry between the United States and China. France had a large territorial stake in the region, and the more friends it had there, the better.

President Macron talked of the Indo-Pacific axis as a geostrategic new order — ‘the Paris–Canberra–Delhi axis’ — signalling a more independent group in the Indo-Pacific.………………………………………………………..

The emergence of this more independent thinking involving Australia, which until then had been a large purchaser of US military hardware, caused consternation in Washington, where then-president Donald Trump was busy launching a trade war against Beijing, accusing it of stealing American jobs.

Macron’s vision was a direct affront to American power in the Indo-Pacific. He told the politicians and military leadership who had gathered to hear him speak that France shared the strategic view of the Turnbull government about how to cope with the expanded power of China in the region. 

……………………… multilateralism—not control dictated by any one nation—was a precondition of Chinese development in the region. China was fully aware of the difference between supremacy, stability and hegemony, he said.

Macron also confronted the China ‘hawks’ who oppose Beijing’s famed Belt and Road Initiative, a new ‘Silk Road’, building industrial and commercial links between Beijing, Europe, Africa and Asia. He gave veiled encouragement to Australia to be brave in the face of opposition from the United States. 

For Macron, the question was not ‘to oppose this initiative, but, much more significatively, to build a dialogue with our allies’. In other words, France was not going to slavishly follow the United States in suppressing the rise of China as an economic power. This was not the kind of view that went down well in Washington, where China was to be not only contained but prevented from becoming a global power.

……………………………………………………………………….. Australia now had a significant counterweight to the United States in its foreign relations and defence strategy. Though France and the United States are members of the Group of Seven industrialised nations (G7) and permanent members of the UN Security Council, they do not always vote the same way on major issues of global importance. Australia would now be less beholden to the United States. The French connection would provide Canberra with a greater degree of sovereign choice in both defence and foreign policy.

he right of the Liberal Party reacted furiously. Under attack, Malcolm Turnbull appointed right-winger Peter Dutton to head up a new Home Affairs Department—a super-ministry controlling immigration, border protection and domestic security agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Federal Police. But giving the right more power only emboldened them—and their supporters. 

Amid a number of leaks from the security services, the media reported in feverish detail that China was spying on Australian industries and targeting politicians. 

The Trump administration was also whipping up a frenzy against China.

Andrew Shearer, a vehemently pro-American China hawk and former national security adviser to Howard and Abbott, had moved out when Abbott lost the prime minister job. He was now back with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a highly partisan right-wing think tank in Washington fixated on confronting China and warning a war was inevitable. 

Shearer co-authored an article that mirrored the Americans’ anxieties and called for a ‘rotational presence’ of US warships at the HMAS Stirling naval base in Western Australia, and the possibility of ‘investing in the nuclear support infrastructure necessary for basing of attack submarines’.

It was the first sign of what was to come………………………………………………………………………

………….In August 2018, when Dutton unsuccessfully challenged Turnbull for the leadership, he opened the door for the ‘compromise candidate’, Scott Morrison, to be elected Liberal Party leader and then to become Australia’s thirtieth prime minister. 

Within weeks Morrison moved Shearer from deputy head of the Office of National Intelligence (ONI) to an even more powerful position: Cabinet secretary. 

…………..From the moment Shearer re-entered government, the tempo of the argument about which submarine to buy shifted from the best for defending Australia to the best for attacking China. In December 2018, the Morrison government announced that the first new submarine would be named HMAS Attack.

……………………………………….The Liberal–National coalition government could see no difference between what was best for Australia’s security, and what was best for the United States.

…………………..By March 2020, Morrison had appointed Peter Dutton, a blunt enforcer, as his defence minister—but Dutton’s job was to attack, not defend. Morrison had outsourced to a political headkicker the job of creating a Chinese ‘Red Scare’ and terrifying the population. He would need a compliant media to manufacture the level of consent that was required to carry out his grand plans, and all the help he could get from the right-wing think tanks now scattered across the nation.

In May 2020, Morrison had ordered a feasibility study to examine how Australia could acquire nuclear submarines without having an Australian nuclear industry to support them.

Morrison was secretly laying the groundwork for what the right wing in the Liberal Party had long wanted: the introduction of nuclear power into Australia and a closer relationship with the United States. The question of Australian sovereignty seemed to be of little or no account. 

So the huge shift in Australia’s foreign policy alignment was hatched by a Christian fundamentalist former tourism marketing manager with no training in strategic or foreign affairs, but a great gift for secrecy and deception.

What came next:

What followed was months of media manipulation, political manouverings, and secret dealings to plot the dumping of Australia’s French submarine deal, for US-UK nuclear submarines. Along with these nuclear submarines, a broader AUKUS military pact to acquire hi-tech offensive weaponry, and to expand the US bases and military presence in Australia, was announced in October 2021. 

All the details of these events, and more, are recorded in Andrew Fowler’s new book ‘Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty‘ published in July by Melbourne University Press. https://declassifiedaus.org/2024/08/12/friends-or-allies

August 12, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »