Nuclear power at least 15 years away, says regulator
Australia’s chief nuclear regulatory body has told a parliamentary inquiry how long it would take to legislate and build a nuclear power plant.
Anthony Anderson and Ellen Ransley 15 May 23, news.com.au
A senate inquiry examining whether Australia’s ban on nuclear energy should be lifted has been told it would take 10-15 years to have a power plant up and running if the moratorium was lifted right now.
The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee sat on Monday to discuss the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022.
The bill would see amendments made to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, effectively paving the way for nuclear power generation.
CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) Dr Gillian Hirth fronted the inquiry on Monday afternoon, where she was questioned about her organisation’s role in nuclear regulation.
Dr Hirth told the inquiry there would need to be a regulatory framework established for private nuclear generation, since ARPANSA only regulates Commonwealth projects.
“The time frames for implementation, if it were established today, you would be lucky to have it up and running in 15 years … 15 years would be the minimum,” said Dr Hirth.
“It can take three to five years to do a significant review of regulations in Australia … once they’re done, you’re looking at at least 10 years to develop facilities.”
The CSIRO also fronted the inquiry, with representatives grilled over data from 2018 showing nuclear would be prohibitively expensive for Australia.
The discussion focused on small modular reactors (SMRs), a technology of which CSIRO’s executive director for environment, energy, and resources, Dr Peter Mayfield, said there was limited information available……………………………………………………………..
The laws around nuclear technology will also need to be amended to enable Australia to take carriage of nuclear powered submarines, due to arrive in the early 2030s under the recently signed AUKUS agreement.
“(According to) our Act as it currently stands, we can’t regulate nuclear powered submarines,” said Dr Hirth.
“The proposed amendment, in the short term, seeks to give ARPANSA regulatory power until Defence can establish [their own body].”
Earlier, a number of executives in Australia’s leading nuclear industry associations and groups spruiked the benefits which nuclear energy could offer Australia……………………
The committee has twice been granted an extension to develop a report, which at the time of writing will be expected to be finalised on June 15. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/nuclear-power-at-least-15-years-away-says-regulator/news-story/6b8c4ec9c94cd4d05471783678abdb59
This week’s budget confirms the death of Labor’s nuclear disarmament diplomacy
All the new money is to support AUKUS.
Albo and the nukes – the demise of Labor’s disarmament policy, by Philip Dorling | May 12, 2023 https://michaelwest.com.au/albo-and-the-nukes-the-demise-of-labors-disarmament-policy/
A new nuclear arms race is accelerating, but Australia won’t be doing much about this threat to global survival. This week’s budget confirms the death of Labor’s nuclear disarmament diplomacy. Former diplomat Philip Dorling explains.
At his AUKUS submarine announcement on 14 March 2023, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese spoke of Australia’s “proud record of leadership” in nuclear non-proliferation. On 17 April Foreign Minister Penny Wong trumpeted Labor’s “proud history” of championing practical disarmament efforts”.
Labor does have a history of disarmament and non-proliferation leadership. In the 1990s Foreign Minister Gareth Evans was an outstanding diplomatic activist with Australia playing important roles in negotiation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Evans argued before the International Court of Justice that the use and threat of nuclear weapons is illegal. The Canberra Commission produced a landmark report charting steps to achieve the elimination of nuclear arsenals.
Dollars for diplomacy
Foreign Minister Wong is the latest custodian of Labor’s tradition of middle power disarmament diplomacy. But what are Labor’s priorities now? Well, at the end of the day, money talks and in Tuesday’s Federal Budget the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) picked up an extra $74.6m for nuclear diplomacy.
Of that, $52.7m is for DFAT to provide “international policy advice and diplomatic support for the nuclear-powered submarine program.” Another $21.9m will go to the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) to support the establishment of safeguard arrangements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the AUKUS project.
All the new money is to support AUKUS.
AUKUS safeguards
For the AUKUS project to proceed within the framework of Australia’s non-proliferation obligations, Australia must negotiate a special arrangement with the IAEA to allow the use of highly enriched uranium in submarine reactors. We already have a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) with the IAEA that covers civilian nuclear activities. Article 14 of the CSA allows for negotiation of an arrangement with the IAEA to oversee the use of nuclear material for non-explosive military purposes, i.e. nuclear naval propulsion.
It’s challenging to combine the safeguards transparency with the secret world of nuclear submarines; but the Australian Government and IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi appear confident an arrangement can be agreed to enable the IAEA to provide credible assurances that submarine fuel is not being used to manufacture nuclear weapons.
The Government has already affirmed that Australia will be provided with complete, sealed reactor units from which the removal of any nuclear material would be extremely difficult. The reactor fuel will “not be in a form that can be directly used in nuclear weapons without further chemical reprocessing, requiring facilities that Australia does not have and will not seek”. Australia’s wider non-proliferation obligations, including acceptance of IAEA inspections anywhere, anytime will remain in place.
A few days before the 14 March AUKUS announcement, Albanese and Wong wrote to Grossi to open formal negotiations. ASNO Director General Geoff Shaw also forwarded “preliminary design information” to the IAEA.
Diplomatic dogfight
However despite what DFAT describes as Australia’s “impeccable non-proliferation credentials”, the negotiations are already politically contentious with China claiming AUKUS “poses serious nuclear proliferation risks”. Beijing alleges Australia is “coercing the IAEA Secretariat into endorsement on the safeguards issue”. Chinese diplomats are demanding an “intergovernmental process” involving all IAEA members with any new arrangement “jointly discussed and decided by the international community”.
Australia’s government doesn’t want AUKUS derailed. We’re relying on advice from the IAEA in 1978 that states an Article 14 arrangement can be negotiated with the IAEA Secretariat before being provided to the IAEA Board of Governors for “appropriate action”. Australia would like Grossi to simply submit the negotiated arrangement to the Board as information. However the Board may insist on subjecting the arrangement to its approval. China and Russia will demand that, and they’ll likely vote against any arrangement regardless of its terms. IAEA Board approval is by no means assured. Even if the Board does approve, China won’t leave the matter there. A fractious dispute could drag on for years.
That’s why $74.6m has been committed to AUKUS diplomacy. This large and complex campaign will involve negotiation with the IAEA Secretariat and engagement with the 35 countries on the IAEA Board, indeed with all 176 members. Australia will be funding plenty of IAEA projects, seminars and workshops. In terms of diplomatic effort it’s equivalent to running for election to a seat on the United Nations Security Council, only more controversial and already actively opposed by China and Russia.
All this comes with big opportunity costs.
A new nuclear arms race
The international situation is deeply worrying. Tension between China and the United States over Taiwan continues to rise. There’s already a naval arms race of which AUKUS is a small part, but the bigger strategic shift is manifest with China’s expansion of its nuclear forces. Construction of hundreds of new silos for a greatly expanded strategic missile force raises the prospect that Beijing is seeking an arsenal much closer to parity with the US.
At the same time, Russia has suspended the New START nuclear arms treaty which will expire in 2026. Moscow’s development of new and potentially destabilising delivery systems makes the future strategic calculus more uncertain. In turn, the prospect of three way nuclear arms competition with China and Russia has led to calls in the US Congress for an expansion of US nuclear forces.
Australian diplomats express concern about “the opaque nuclear arsenal build up in our region”. Others are less coy about the nuclear danger. Veteran foreign policy analyst Professor Joseph Siracusa recently warned that “We are literally on the eve of destruction .
The demise of Labor’s disarmament diplomacy
Labor’s national platform commits the government to move to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a recent agreement produced under UN auspices to advance nuclear disarmament. Albanese championed Labor’s 2018 commitment to sign the TPNW. In June last year a large group of former Australian Ambassadors and High Commissioners urged the new government to follow through and join the TPNW as demonstration of “a principled foreign policy … that advances the global common good”.
The United States has no enthusiasm for the TPNW and DFAT worried that the new Labor Government would be receptive to something that could complicate AUKUS, especially ensuring bipartisan support in the US Congress.
They needn’t have been concerned. Labor’s pledge to join the TPNW was a dead letter the moment Labor’s leadership signed up to the nuclear submarine project. DFAT submissions released under FOI show Wong agrees that TPNW isn’t a priority. She massaged Labor rank and file concerns by sending Labor backbencher Susan Templeman as an observer to the first TPNW states parties meeting in Vienna in June 2022. But as DFAT noted, “our attendance as an observer did not represent a decision to join the TPNW.”
Questioned in March by independent MP Zoe Daniel about the backflip, Albanese again referenced Labor’s “proud history” of disarmament efforts, but wouldn’t commit to joining the TRNW.
Lost opportunity
Australia could be working with TPNW countries to put an international spotlight on the dangers of a new nuclear arms race. Realistic and practical measures that could be pursued include those proposed by former ASNO Director General John Carlson; pressing nuclear weapon states for “no first use” commitments, a cap on existing arsenals, no modernisation or new weapons and a draw down towards minimum deterrence capabilities.
However with AUKUS dominating the agenda, there isn’t any room for the middle power diplomacy once practiced by Gareth Evans. Instead, Australian diplomats are busy defending our nuclear submarine pact. At a recent meeting in Geneva on nuclear risks, Australian spent nearly as much time and effort rebutting Chinese allegations about AUKUS as what was devoted to substantive issues.
The Government’s budget allocation to DFAT shows they know they have a long diplomatic fight on their hands. It will suck the life out of Australian disarmament diplomacy. We’ll be talking ad nauseam about AUKUS while a nuclear arms build-up makes the world much less safe.
Labor’s disarmament activism is dead, cannibalised by AUKUS.
Philip Dorling
Philip Dorling has some thirty years of experience of high-level political, public policy and media work, much of that at the Australian Parliament.
He has worked in the Australian political environment from most angles, in both the national and state levels of government including as a senior executive; as a senior policy adviser for the Federal Labor Opposition and for cross bench Senators; and as an award-winning journalist in the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery.
Budget reveals cutbacks on funding for Australia’s military and navy, in order to pay $billions for nuclear submarines.
Budget reveals pressures on Defence for savings to fund nuclear-powered submarines, The Strategist, 10 May 2023|
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Spending is rising faster than inflation in each year, broadly following the profile set out in the 2020 Defence Strategic Update, but the two big changes over the past year—incorporating the switch from the French conventionally-powered submarine to the AUKUS SSNs, and the unexpected surge in inflation—are squeezing real spending relative to the budget planning ahead of last year’s election.
……………………..AUKUS is a long-term program and the budget forward estimate period, out to 2026-27, only contains the very beginning of spending on the submarines. However, the Defence Department’s portfolio budget statement shows that initial commitment is expected to reach $5.6 billion over the next four years. The statement shows an initial $515 million will be spent in 2023-24, which will include the establishment of the Australian Submarine Agency to manage the project.
The portfolio statements show a big payment of $3.7 billion on submarines in 2025-26, however they say the final allocation of spending will be decided ahead before the end of June.
Capital spending on new capabilities is taking a hit elsewhere. The downsizing of the Army’s planned purchases of infantry fighting vehicles will have an impact over the budget period, with capital outlays in 2024-25 and 2025-26 falling 7.6% from last year’s estimate to $8.5 billion. Capital spending in the Air Force is down 13.1% to $6.9 billion in the same period.
The Navy is also taking a hit on capital outlays. Defence has split out the naval shipbuilding and sustainment program from general acquisition of naval capabilities while the cancellation of the French program also makes direct comparison with last year’s portfolio budget statements difficult. However, Navy capital spending, excluding the shipbuilding and the nuclear submarine program show a 35% or $5.3 billion fall out to 2025-26. The naval shipbuilding program is only $891 million over that period.
……… The portfolio statement highlights the difficulty Defence has had in meeting its staffing targets with the total workforce of 75,464 people falling 3600 short of the goal set last year. The army has had the greatest problem, missing its target by 8.3%, reflecting a higher number of resignations. The Defence department public service met its recruitment target.
Assange and the Australian government’s persecution of alleged Afghan war crimes whistleblower
McBride will be the first person to face court over the war crimes of the Australian military in Afghanistan, i.e., for allegedly revealing them, not perpetrating them.
Ominously, Albanese stated: “A solution needs to be found… and Mr Assange needs to be a part of that of course.” The only way that Assange could be “part of a solution” to his case, is if he were to concede guilt as part of some sort of plea deal arrangement. If the US were to drop the charges, Assange’s “part” would simply be to walk out of prison a free man.
WSWS, Oscar Grenfell @Oscar_Grenfell, 10 May 2023
Over the past week, several prominent members of the Australian Labor government have feigned sympathy for WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. The most notable of these interventions was a statement made by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, while he was in Britain for the coronation of King Charles.
Albanese and other Labor representatives have reiterated the vague comment that “enough is enough” in relation to the Assange case, and it has “gone on for too long.” Assange has been detained in a British prison for more than four years, and faces extradition to the US where he could be jailed for 175 years for exposing American war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The essential position of Albanese is that he has made comments to the British and US governments along these lines and that is all he can do. As the WSWS has previously noted, this is the antithesis of an aggressive diplomatic and legal campaign aimed at securing the freedom of a persecuted Australian citizen.
The refusal to take any concrete measures to ensure Assange’s release is bound up with Labor’s complete commitment to the US alliance, including Washington’s escalating preparations for war with China.
But that is not the sole issue. A key component of this program of war, with Labor overseeing the country’s largest militarisation in 80 years, is the suppression of anti-war opposition. That is evident in the persecution of Assange, but it is also apparent in several draconian “national security” cases that the Labor government is directly presiding over in Australia.
The most significant is the prosecution of David McBride. A former army lawyer, he is accused of leaking information exposing Australian war crimes in Afghanistan and other violations of international law in that protracted neo-colonial occupation.
The documents that the state claims McBride leaked included details of the potentially unlawful killings of ten Afghan men and boys by Australian Special Forces soldiers.
In one instance, a man and his son were shot dead by Special Air Service Regiment in September, 2013. Official reports indicated that the man had pointed a weapon at the Australian personnel. The leaked documents said that the man and the boy were found shot dead in their beds, indicating that they may have been executed in their sleep.
Other cases also involved children. Some of the documents indicated that prisoners were being killed, execution style, and then posthumously being accused of attempting to seize a weapon.
Most explosively, the files indicated awareness in the military command of a “warrior culture” among special forces that had gotten out of control and threatened breaches of the laws of war.
The publication of details from the files, by the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), triggered a series of inquiries into the actions of the defence forces in Afghanistan. This culminated in the 2020 release of an official Brereton Report, confirming “credible information” that the Special Forces had murdered 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners.
In other words, whoever leaked the documents in the years earlier provided the public with true information about war crimes that were being hidden from the population.
In June, 2019, the Australian Federal Police carried out an unprecedented raid on the Sydney office of the ABC, over its publication of the Afghan files. It was later revealed that one of the journalists involved in the story, Dan Oakes, had been threatened with national security charges, in what would have been an exact parallel to the Assange case.
That prosecution did not eventuate. But last month, a hearing of the Australian Capital Territory’s Supreme Court confirmed that McBride will stand trial in November. He is charged with “national security” offenses, including unauthorised disclosure of information, theft of commonwealth property and breaching the Defence Act. McBride has pleaded not guilty.
Confirmation that the case will proceed means that McBride will be the first person to face court over the war crimes of the Australian military in Afghanistan, i.e., for allegedly revealing them, not perpetrating them.
Only one soldier has been charged over the documented killings of civilians. He allegedly shot an unarmed Afghan boy at point blank range. That killing occurred in 2012. Footage of it was broadcast in early 2020 on national television, but the soldier was only charged last month. He will not be tried until next year and is out on bail.
Because McBride is charged with federal offenses, the Labor government and specifically its Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus can order an end to the prosecution.
McBride is an alleged whistleblower, whereas Assange is a publisher. But the essence of the case against both is that they should be imprisoned for decades for exposing war crimes. Labor claims it cannot free Assange, because he is subject to British “legal processes,” and is facing extradition to the US. Australia is “not a party” to those proceedings, they assert.
The McBride case gives the lie to these assertions. Labor could drop this prosecution whenever it wanted to. But, like the Biden administration with its pursuit of Assange, the Albanese government is intent on setting new precedents for the suppression of anti-war sentiment, amid an explosion of militarism and war.
There are other cases that Labor is presiding over……………………………………….
Labor is deepening an anti-democratic offensive targeting the civil liberties of the population, of which the US prosecution of Assange is an international focal point.
That underscores the fraud of claims that Labor is conducting “quiet diplomacy” on Assange’s behalf.
In the latest stage of this charade, members of a cross-party federal parliamentary grouping visited US ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy to discuss the Assange case. There is no indication that they came away with anything…….
Labor backbencher Julian Hill wrote on Twitter: “I thanked the Ambassador for her willingness to engage. Aside from the issues at stake in Julian Assange’s case, the delay in resolving it is an unwelcome distraction from AUKUS & our work with the US to confront the strategic challenges we face.”
Describing the 12-year state persecution of a journalist, which has brought him to the brink of death, as an “unwelcome distraction” is obscene. The reference to AUKUS is notable. Hill was speaking of the trilateral pact between Britain, the US and Australia, directed against China. The “strategic challenge,” is a veiled reference to the US confrontation with China.
In other words, Hill is arguing that the prosecution of Assange, an anti-war publisher, is a distraction from the US preparations for a new war. In reality, the two go hand-in-hand. One could not conceive of a more right-wing, warmongering argument, nominally in Assange’s defence.
In an interview with the ABC yesterday, Albanese restated his line of “enough is enough” in relation to Assange. He refused to indicate if the Labor government is even asking the Biden administration to end its prosecution of Assange.
Ominously, Albanese stated: “A solution needs to be found… and Mr Assange needs to be a part of that of course.” The only way that Assange could be “part of a solution” to his case, is if he were to concede guilt as part of some sort of plea deal arrangement. If the US were to drop the charges, Assange’s “part” would simply be to walk out of prison a free man.
The statements of Albanese and other Labor leaders are a transparent attempt by a government that has done nothing for his freedom to blunt the widespread public support for Assange. Most immediately, Assange’s plight is viewed as a “distraction,” to use Hill’s words, from the Quadrilateral Dialogue summit, to be held in Sydney later this month. Biden, together with the Indian and Japanese leaders, and Albanese, will gather to discuss the next stage of their preparation for war with China.
Only the naive and the credulous would believe that this warmongering cabal is about to extend a benevolent hand to someone who exposed their past crimes when they are preparing even greater ones. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/05/11/zljo-m11.html
Nuclear waste is a $476m problem even before AUKUS
Justin Hendry 11 May 23, https://www.innovationaus.com/nuclear-waste-is-a-476m-problem-even-before-aukus/?fbclid=IwAR2jeLiHd5k32VIsMOXxhGnAaIfIyFJUvtLblzvt3mbMFPrGCSnOLL3d8UU
A long-planned nuclear waste facility to store and dispose of radioactive material that has built up over decades has secured significant funding after the former Coalition government settled on a site for the facility.
More than $160 million will be spent on preparatory work for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, including “technical, design, regulatory and governance activities, and community engagement”.
But there is no indication when the facility – which has been on the cards in one form or another for 40 years – might be ready, with the funding provided in Tuesday’s federal Budget intended to stretch until 2030.
The facility will become the single location for the disposal of Australia’s low level nuclear waste and a temporary storage location for intermediate level waste which until now has resulted from scientific research and industrial, agricultural and medical applications. [Ed. They don’t here mention the waste generated by the Opal nuclear reactor itself !]
That is set to change from early 2030, when Defence is expected to begin acquiring up to five Virginia-class nuclear powered submarines from the US for delivery, before building a new squadron of nuclear submarines based on a British design for delivery in early 2040.
Existing radioactive waste is currently kept at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s (ANSTO) Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney, with another 100-plus locations across Australia also being used for storage.
In November 2021, the former Coalition government acquired a site near the town of Kimbra on Eyre Peninsula in South Australia to build the facility, which is opposed by the local Barngarla people.
By May last year, parts of the facility’s design and planning had already been outsourced, despite an ongoing legal challenge from Traditional Owners set to begin next month.
South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas has reportedly already ruled out the facility handling spent fuel rods from AUKUS submarines, although is lobbying the federal government for the rods to be stored in the state’s Woomera Prohibited Zone.
The funding for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility is accompanied by further Budget measures to support the development of radioactive waste management, storage and disposal, including a $5.2 million project with Defence and the planned Australian Submarine Agency.
The Department of Industry, Science and Resources will also receive $9.7 million over the next five years to develop a “pathway” for the long-term disposal of intermediate-level radioactive waste generated from non-defence activities.
In total, the Industry department has been allocated $476.4 million, the bulk of which will be used by the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency to continue managing a national inventory of radioactive waste and coordinate its disposal and storage.
Elsewhere in the Budget, the ANSTO has been funded with at least $84.4 million over three years to provide nuclear medicines, with the full 10-year funding package not-for-publication due to “commercial sensitivities”.
More than half of the funding will be used by the agency to manage the shutdown of its OPAL nuclear reactor for maintenance in March 2024, requiring medicines that would ordinarily be produced onshore to be imported.
During the shutdown, the reactor’s unique cold neutron source, which has been used since 2007, will be replaced, promising “increased scientific performance” well into the next decade, according to ANSTO.
The remaining $39.9 million in known funding set aside for ANSTO over the next three years will be used to wind-up ANSTO Nuclear Medicine by June 2024, with its operations, assets and liabilities to be transferred to ANSTO.
An undisclosed amount of funding will be used by ANSTO to build a new nuclear medicine manufacturing building and maintain its current facility, as well as develop a business case for a new facility to “support Australia’s sovereign nuclear security science capability”.
The agency will also receive $16.3 million as part of a $4.5 billion nuclear-powered submarine support package to provide “radiological baselining and monitoring, and provide advice on the safe implementation of nuclear technology”.
As previously announced by the government, a new Australian Submarine Agency will be created within Defence to manage the submarine program, with $7.9 million from that allocation to be used to establish the Australia-Nuclear Powered Submarine Safety Regulator
Do you know more? Contact James Riley via Email.
Weakening of Australia’s nuclear prohibition laws – necessary to develop the submarines
Parliament takes first steps to nuclear submarines. Examiner, By Andrew Brown, May 10 2023
The first step to Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS security pact has been introduced to federal parliament.
Laws brought in to the House of Representatives on Wednesday will update rules banning civil nuclear power to allow for work to be done on the submarines……………….
Defence Minister Richard Marles said the bill would be the first of many associated with the vessels, but a civil nuclear energy industry would not be on the cards. https://www.examiner.com.au/story/8190260/parliament-takes-first-steps-to-nuclear-submarines/
—
Australian prime minister feigns concern for Assange but defends “national security” secrecy
Oscar Grenfell@Oscar_Grenfell 5 May 2023 https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/05/06/ixnm-m06.html?pk_campaign=assange-newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws
Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) this week, Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese gave his most extensive comments on the plight of Julian Assange since coming to office in May 2022. Albanese feigned concern for the WikiLeaks publisher, but defended the entire anti-democratic framework of “national security” secrecy under which he is being persecuted.
Albanese is in London for the coronation of King Charles. He is also holding discussions with the British government, centring on AUKUS, the aggressive militarist pact between the two countries and the US, aimed at preparing for war against China.
In the same city, Assange has been incarcerated in the maximum-security Belmarsh Prison for more than four years, most of that time on remand. The sole purpose of his detention is to facilitate a US extradition request. The American government is seeking to imprison Assange for up to 175 years for exposing its war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and its global diplomatic conspiracies.
Albanese’s comments have been presented widely as his “strongest” in defence of Assange. Throughout his prime ministership, Albanese has sought to avoid even mentioning the WikiLeaks publisher, even though Assange is an Australian citizen and the world’s most significant political prisoner.
Albanese’s long silence, which included his tenure as opposition leader, was clearly a product of political hostility to Assange and WikiLeaks. But as demands for the Labor government to defend Assange grew, Albanese and his colleagues changed tack. They could not speak openly about Assange, supposedly because that would compromise unspecified “quiet diplomacy” they were conducting on his behalf.
Documents obtained via freedom of information requests by lawyer Kellie Tranter have not turned up a single trace of this “quiet diplomacy.” That includes correspondence between the relevant Australian government bodies and its counterparts in the US and Britain.
In the ABC interview, Albanese repeated his refrain that “enough is enough” in relation to the Assange case and “this matter needs to be brought to a close.” These formulations are deliberately ambiguous. They do not even indicate how the case should be “brought to a close,” much less demand that the Biden administration drop the prosecution.
Albanese added: “It needs to be worked through, we’re working through diplomatic channels, we’re making very clear what our position is on Mr Assange’s case.” But again, it is not at all “clear” what the Labor government’s position actually is. Moreover, almost a year of purported “quiet diplomacy” has not altered the course of Assange’s persecution by one iota.
Asked about this, Albanese replied: “I know it’s frustrating. I share the frustration. I can’t do more than make very clear what my position is.” He claimed that the US government was “clear” on Labor’s position, but would not even commit to raising Assange when Biden visits Australia later this month.
Albanese expressed “concern” for Assange’s health, but did not indicate he would do anything about it. It is over three years since hundreds of doctors first warned that the deterioration of Assange’s medical condition could result in his death behind bars, and demanded he be released from Belmarsh Prison.
In the comments that some Assange supporters have presented as most hopeful, Albanese stated: “I think that when Australians look at the circumstances, look at the fact that the person who released the information [Chelsea Manning] is walking freely now, having served some time in incarceration but is now released for a long period of time, then they’ll see that there is a disconnect there.”
Again, this is miles away from a demand that the Biden administration end its prosecution, or a defence of a persecuted Australian journalist. It is more in the manner of, “it is unfortunate that this is occurring, but what can one do?”
That was, in fact, the entire thrust of Albanese’s remarks. Labor had raised the issue, he claimed, made its “position clear” and Assange’s fate was in the hands of Britain and the US. That is diametrically opposed to the repeated aggressive diplomatic and legal interventions Australian governments have previously mounted to free citizens imprisoned abroad.
The fraudulent character of Albanese’s purported defence of Assange was underscored by the fact that his comments were immediately endorsed by opposition Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton. Dutton, a former policeman, is an extreme right-wing figure, who speaks most openly for the repressive state forces that are seeking Assange’s destruction.
Above all, Albanese’s remarks were aimed at placating the growing public support for the WikiLeaks founder and subordinating it to a “quiet diplomacy” that could not be any quieter. Among some prominent Assange supporters, Albanese’s remarks have had their desired effect. They have proclaimed that the Labor government has now demonstrated its commitment to Assange’s freedom, presenting this as a fact to be celebrated.
Such positions, it must be stated, are a self-deluding fantasy that obstructs a genuine fight for Assange’s freedom, lets those involved in his persecution off the hook and creates favourable conditions for a US extradition. Unfortunately, it is not hard to envisage such individuals proclaiming one “victory” after another, right up until Assange is dispatched to his US persecutors.
Several questions must be posed: If Albanese were waging a determined struggle for Assange’s freedom, would he be fawning over King Charles and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the figures who hold the key to Assange’s cell? Would he be preparing to roll out the red carpet for Biden when the US president visits Australia in several weeks? Would he not make demands of the British and US governments, as Australian administrations have when defending other persecuted citizens?
Those who promote the illusion that Assange’s freedom will be granted by one or another benevolent faction of the establishment, without any genuine political struggle, invariably detach the attempted US extradition from its broader political context.
As the WSWS has explained, the US is pursuing Assange, not only as an act of retribution. It is seeking to establish a precedent for the suppression of social and political opposition, especially opposition to war. This forms part of a broader turn to authoritarianism by governments around the world, amid the deepest crisis of the capitalist system since the 1930s.
The imperialist powers are preparing for another catastrophic world war. That is the significance of the US-NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, along with Washington’s confrontation with China, which is viewed as the chief threat to American imperialist hegemony.
Australia, under Albanese, is on the frontlines of these war preparations. Last month, Labor endorsed a Defence Strategic Review, calling for Australia’s largest military build-up since World War II. The review is explicit that this is in preparation for a US-led war against China.
As in the last century, war is incompatible with democratic rights. It requires the suppression of anti-war opposition, because governments are aware that workers and young people are hostile to militarism, and that the program of war will intensify a resurgence of the class struggle that is already well underway.
This basic point was essentially made by Albanese himself.
Continue readingAustralian Radioactive Waste Agency a “zombie measure”- no funding left by Morrison government
Why a staggering $5BILLION will need to be found to keep the vital MyGov app running, store Australia’s radioactive waste and even monitor high-risk terrorists: ‘Australians were tricked’
By BRITTANY CHAIN, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA, 8 May 2023
…………….. According to Finance Minister Katy Gallagher, these funding shortfalls or ‘booby traps’ were left by ex-PM Scott Morrison in the hope they would blow up on the incoming Albanese Government……….
‘For example, there was no money in the budget for the agency responsible for safely storing and disposing of Australia’s radioactive waste,………………………..
Australian Radioactive Waste Agency
The agency is one of the ‘zombie measures’ in which funding was not taken into account beyond this year, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said.
Senator Gallagher said there was actually no money at all in the budget for the agency, despite its responsibility to safely store and dispose of Australia’s radioactive waste……………………………. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12032345/Budget-2023-Underfunding-MyGov-app-public-dental-mental-health-revealed-Federal-Budget.html?fbclid=IwAR2I1-FswPxwSyqGUbBetcBPCOtUHyuAqAv_TNk-oBlhGy7b0KW0z7vdZv8
The nuclear lobby to get what it really wants?- a high level nuclear waste dump in Australia
07/05/2023 by Brian Hartiganhttps://www.contactairlandandsea.com/2023/05/07/new-agency-and-new-regulator-to-deliver-nuclear-submarine-program/
In leading the delivery of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines, the ASA will be responsible for cradle-to-grave management, including:
Disposal
New agency and new regulator to deliver nuclear submarine program
The government will establish a new agency and a new regulator as part of its commitment to delivering Australia’s conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines.
The Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) will be established by Executive Order and be responsible and accountable for the management and oversight of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine program.
Work to deliver the pathway is already underway and remains a key priority for the government, in line with the recommendations of the Defence Strategic Review.
In leading the delivery of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines, the ASA will be responsible for cradle-to-grave management, including:
- acquisition
- delivery
- construction
- technical governance
- sustainment, and
- disposal
ASA will also enable the necessary policy, legal, non-proliferation, workforce, security and safety arrangements.
Royal Australian Navy, led by the Chief of Navy, will continue to be responsible for training submariners and operating Australia’s submarines.
The Nuclear-Powered Submarine Taskforce, which currently operates as part of Defence, will transition to the ASA on 1 July 2023.
t will be headed by a Director General, the appointment of whom will be announced by the government at the appropriate time.
The government will also establish a new independent statutory regulator, the Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety Regulator.
The new regulator will have the functions and powers necessary to regulate the unique circumstances associated with nuclear safety and radiological protection across the lifecycle of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine enterprise.
This includes associated infrastructure and facilities.
The regulator will be independent of the Australian Defence Force’s chain of command and directions from the Department of Defence.
This will be a fundamental part of a system of regulation, which will work with existing Australian regulators to support the safety of our submariners, Australian and international communities, and the environment.
Both the ASA and the Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety Regulator will be non-corporate Commonwealth entities within the Defence portfolio and report directly to the Minister for Defence.
Minister for Defence Richard Marles said the government was delivering on its commitment to the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, which is the single biggest investment in our defence capability in our history.
“The establishment of the Australian Submarine Agency and the Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety Regulator are critical elements of delivering this game-changing capability and will ensure the safe and successful implementation of the pathway for Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines,” Mr Marles said.
“The ASA will be responsible and accountable for delivering the ambitious program to acquire Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines.
“A specialised and dedicated regulator – which will be independent of Defence and the Australian Defence Force – will ensure we have the highest standards of nuclear safety and radiological protection across the lifecycle of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines.”
Port Kembla May Day march rejects AUKUS nuclear submarine base plan
Peter Boyle, Pip Hinman, Port Kembla, May 6, 2023
Thousands of trade unionists (including many members of the Australian Labor Party) and anti-war activists marched through Port Kembla on May 6 to reject the plan to site the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine base in that town.
The Wollongong May Day march was held in Port Kembla as a symbolic launch of a mass campaign of “feet in the streets” to stop this nuclear military madness, South Coast Labour Council secretary Arthur Rorris told the marchers.
Hypocritical Commemorations: World Press Freedom Day
It gave US Secretary of State Antony Blinken an opportunity to do the usual cartwheel. “Far too many governments use repression to silence free expression, including through reprisals against journalists for simply doing their jobs,” goes his May 3 press statement. “We again call on Russian authorities to immediately release Wall Street reporter Gershkovich and all other journalists held for exercising freedom of expression.” What, then, of the Australian publisher and founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange?
Australian Independent Media, May 6, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark
Selected days for commemoration serve one fundamental purpose. Centrally, they acknowledge the forgotten or neglected, while proposing to do nothing about it. It’s the priest’s confession, the chance for absolution before the next round of soiling.
These occasions are often money-making exercises for canny businesses: the days put aside to remember mothers and fathers, for instance. But there is no money to be made in saving writers, publishers, whistleblowers, and journalists from the avenging police state.
World Press Freedom Day, having limped on for three decades, is particularly fraught in this regard. It remains particularly loathsome, not least for giving politicians an opportunity to leave flimsy offerings at its shrine. These often come from the powerful, the very same figures responsible for demeaning and attacking those brave scribblers who do, every so often, show how the game is played.
Every year, we see reactions often uneven, and almost always hypocritical. The treatment of US journalist Evan Gershkovich is the stellar example for 2023. Here was the caged victim-hero scribbler, held in the remorseless clutches of the Russian Bear.
It gave US Secretary of State Antony Blinken an opportunity to do the usual cartwheel. “Far too many governments use repression to silence free expression, including through reprisals against journalists for simply doing their jobs,” goes his May 3 press statement. “We again call on Russian authorities to immediately release Wall Street reporter Gershkovich and all other journalists held for exercising freedom of expression.” What, then, of the Australian publisher and founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange?
With unintended, bleak irony, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) also thought it fitting to rope in the Secretary at a World Press Freedom Day event organised in conjunction with the Washington Post. Talking to his interlocutor, the Post’s David Ignatius, Blinken spoke of efforts to “fight back and push back around the world to help journalists, who – in one way or another, are facing intimidation, coercion, persecution, prosecution, surveillance.” This seemed grimly comical, given that the United States, through its agencies, has engaged in intimidation, coercion, persecution, prosecution and surveillance against Assange, whose scalp they continue to seek with salivating expectation.
In the course of the event, Ignatius and Blinken encountered Code Pink activists Medea Benjamin and Tinghe Barry. Both were keen to test the Secretary’s lofty assessments about Washington’s stance on free expression and journalistic practice. “Excuse me, we can’t use this day without calling for the freedom of Julian Assange,” exclaimed Benjamin, storming the stage where the two men were engaged in bland conversation. A bemused Ignatius duly approved of Benjamin’s eviction by three burly minders, seeing it all as part of “free expression”.
Barry’s own assessment of the whole show summed matters up. “Two hours and not one word about journalist Shireen Abu-Akleh, who was murdered by Israeli occupation forces in Palestine, not one word about Julian Assange.”
Others from the US State Department were also found wanting. A department press briefing from Vedant Patel, principal deputy spokesperson, opened with comments about World Press Freedom Day. He echoed the belief in “the importance of a free press. It’s a – we believe a bedrock of democracy.”
Then came a question from Matt Lee of Associated Press: Did the State Department regard Assange “as a journalist who is – who should be covered by the ideas embodied in World Press Freedom Day?”
Patel’s response did not deviate from the views of his superiors. “The State Department thinks that Mr Assange has been charged with serious criminal conduct in the United States, in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in our nation’s history.”
With dutiful adherence to a narrative worn and extensively disproved in Assange’s extradition trial proceedings, Patel spoke of actions that “risked serious harm to US national security to the benefit of our adversaries” (there was none) and subjected “human sources to grave and imminent risk of serious physical harm and arbitrary detention” (no evidence has ever been adduced by the Department of Justice on this point)…………………………………………………………….. more https://theaimn.com/hypocritical-commemorations-world-press-freedom-day/
AUKUS high-level nuclear waste dump must be subject to Indigenous veto
there is no question Defence would require the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous people before a high-level nuclear waste facility could proceed on their land. …. in those circumstances the government must provide a veto right, because the project would eliminate future access to traditional Indigenous land.
If Plibersek knew about the radioactive waste facility and its intended siting in remote Australia at the time AUKUS was announced she has kept quiet about it.
A far more substantial inequality of power now exists between the Indigenous groups to be consulted about the site of the radioactive waste facility and the Defence Department. The facility has solid bipartisan support. In addition, it is essential to the AUKUS submarine deal, meaning Defence embodies the combined wishes of the Australian, British and United States governments.
Bipartisan secrecy and Defence’s poor record with Indigenous groups at Woomera are red flags for the consultation over AUKUS high-level nuclear waste facility.
Undue Influence MICHELLE FAHY, MAY 6, 2023
This is part one of a two-part series
The federal government had no public mandate for any of the AUKUS decisions: no mandate to enter the agreement, none to acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines for up to $368 billion, and none to establish a high-level radioactive waste facility. On this last, in fact, it had long term evidence to suggest Australians would likely oppose the proposition.
Perhaps this is why both major political parties concealed for 18 months, a period including the federal election, their shared knowledge that AUKUS requires a high-level radioactive waste facility to be built.
The AUKUS agreement was revealed on 15 September 2021. On 14 March 2023, deputy prime minister and defence minister, Richard Marles, announced the nuclear waste facility. Next day, opposition leader Peter Dutton said: ‘The Labor Party signed up to AUKUS knowing they would have to deal with the waste, and now that they’re in government they know that’s a part of the deal.’ The government has not denied Dutton’s claim.
Meanwhile, the Albanese government continues its work to establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Just nine days after the prime minister was in San Diego announcing the AUKUS submarine deal and his deputy Marles came clean about the radioactive waste facility, Anthony Albanese released the proposed Voice wording. The prime minister noted in his speech the importance of consultation, ‘it’s common courtesy and decency to ask people before you take a decision that will have an impact on them’.
Governments have been trying for decades to put a radioactive waste dump in outback Australia. They have been rebuffed time and time again. Yet the Albanese government is trying once more.
Legal experts have pointed out the international legal requirement to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before making significant decisions that affect them. This process includes giving Indigenous peoples full information about a development in advance and respecting their choice to give or withhold consent.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Australia has pledged to support ‘in both word and deed’, says: ‘[No] storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.’
As to whether the government can claim ‘national security’ as a reason to avoid these obligations and dictate a radioactive waste site, international human rights law expert John Podgorelec says: ‘States may not derogate from their responsibilities on the basis of national security unless a “state of emergency” has been formally invoked.’
He adds, ‘A lesson to come out of the Iraq calamity is that manufactured or undisclosed national security intelligence cannot be used to subvert democracy.’
Unfortunately, the Defence Department’s fact sheet on nuclear stewardship and waste is light on detail. It does not mention free, prior and informed consent. Defence commits only to ‘consultation and engagement’ – a lesser standard – and adds that it will also consider ‘wider social license and economic implications’. Globally, the ‘economic implications’ of significant projects habitually undermine human rights, particularly those of Indigenous peoples.
Furthermore, Defence has a poor track record of engagement with Indigenous people in one of its key locations, South Australia’s Woomera Prohibited Area (explored further in part two).
Woomera is used by Australian and foreign military forces, in close partnership with multinational weapons corporations, for extensive weapons testing and military training activities.
‘When militaries around the world need a place to test their weapons and fly their new fighter jets, there’s nowhere better than the rugged expanses of South Australia,’ enthused US weapons giant Raytheon in 2016, talking up ‘a further expansion of US-Australian cooperation’.
The Woomera weapons testing range covers one-eighth of South Australia, occupying more than 122,000km2. Before Defence took over, less than a century ago, Indigenous people had inhabited the region for tens of thousands of years.
Despite the international outcry at the destruction of Juukan Gorge, the Defence Department has not changed its behaviour. For example, it continues to use a registered Indigenous heritage site in Woomera as a target zone for high explosive weapons tests. (I visited this and other sites inside Woomera last year at the invitation of Andrew and Bob Starkey, senior Kokatha lawmen and traditional owners.)
Defence is aware of the site’s significance, just as Rio Tinto was aware of the significance of Juukan Gorge. Defence’s heritage management plan, relevant sections of which I have seen, says the site has a ‘high level of Aboriginal heritage value’ and is a place of ‘sensitive cultural significance that can be easily impacted’. The public might wonder how Defence can know this yet still decide it’s acceptable to direct high explosive munitions onto the site.
‘The Commonwealth cannot give with one hand and take with the other,’ says Podgorelec, who acts for the Starkeys, on the tensions between federal commitments to Indigenous heritage protection and to AUKUS. He says there is no question Defence would require the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous people before a high-level nuclear waste facility could proceed on their land. He also says in those circumstances the government must provide a veto right, because the project would eliminate future access to traditional Indigenous land.
Australia is not alone in being unable to find a radioactive waste solution. The UK has failed for decades to make meaningful progress on dismantling decommissioned nuclear submarines – it currently has 21 of them floating in dockyards awaiting disposal, mirroring its wider failure to resolve its nuclear waste problems. The US has also failed in this regard: spent fuel from its nuclear submarines remains in temporary storage. Griffith University’s Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe has written that the nuclear waste from US military and civilian reactors ‘is just piling up with no long-term solution in sight’.
Defence does not mention this pertinent information in its brief positive account of US and UK nuclear stewardship.
The federal government gave its response to the Juukan Gorge inquiry report in November 2022. Minister Tanya Plibersek, whose Environment portfolio encompasses Indigenous heritage protection, said:
[T]hese are thorough and considerate reports… the recommendations speak to the principles and priorities that will shape our [heritage protection] legislation. Free, prior, and informed consent.
If Plibersek knew about the radioactive waste facility and its intended siting in remote Australia at the time AUKUS was announced she has kept quiet about it.
Free, prior and informed consent requires that intimidation and coercion be avoided. Plibersek is well aware of the possibility of abuses of power in high stakes developments. In her speech, she noted partnership agreements were signed under ‘gross inequalities of power’ between the traditional owners of Juukan Gorge and Rio Tinto.
A far more substantial inequality of power now exists between the Indigenous groups to be consulted about the site of the radioactive waste facility and the Defence Department. The facility has solid bipartisan support. In addition, it is essential to the AUKUS submarine deal, meaning Defence embodies the combined wishes of the Australian, British and United States governments.
Podgorelec is adamant. ‘Australia cannot enact domestic laws that undermine its international legal obligations. If a project will take away Indigenous cultural connection to land forever – as a high-level nuclear waste facility will do – then the government is obliged to give a right of veto.’
Note: The legal basis for free, prior and informed consent was explained by John Podgorelec as lead author of Adelaide University’s submission to the 2015 SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. Unfortunately, having been available until recently, the Royal Commission’s website is presently inaccessible. Email us if you would like a copy of the submission: undueinfluence@protonmail.com
Enough is enough: Australian PM expresses frustration at US effort to extradite Julian Assange
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expressed frustration at the United States’s continuing efforts to extradite WikiLeaks founder and Australian citizen Julian Assange, saying: “There is nothing to be served by his ongoing incarceration.”
Multiple US Officials Confronted About US Assange Hypocrisy On World Press Freedom Day
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, MAY 4, 2023
Wednesday was World Press Freedom Day, and it saw US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and Deputy State Department Spokesman Vedant Patel confronted about the glaring hypocrisy of the Biden administration’s persecution of Julian Assange for the crime of good journalism.
During an appearance at a World Press Freedom event hosted by The Washington Post’s David Ignatius on Wednesday morning, Blinken was confronted by Code Pink activists Medea Benjamin and Tighe Barry demanding justice for Assange before being swiftly dragged off stage.
“Excuse us, we can’t use this day without calling for the freedom of Julian Assange,” said Benjamin, holding a sign saying “FREE JULIAN ASSANGE”.
The two were immediately rushed by many security staffers, and the audio from the stage was temporarily cut.
“Stop the extradition request of Julian Assange,” Benjamin can be heard saying.
“Two hours and not one word about journalist Shireen Abu-Akleh, who was murdered by the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine, not one word about Julian Assange,” said Barry.
“We’re here to celebrate freedom of expression, and we just experienced it,” said Ignatius without a trace of irony once the dissent had been silenced. He then returned to the subject of how bad and awful the Russian government is for imprisoning American journalist Evan Gershkovich.
Then during a White House press briefing on Wednesday afternoon, Karine Jean-Pierre was asked a question by CBS News’ Steven Portnoy that was so inconvenient the press secretary flat-out said she wouldn’t answer it.
“Advocates on Twitter today have been talking a great deal about how the United States has engaged in hypocrisy by talking about how Evan Gershkovich is held in Russia on espionage charges but the United States has Espionage Act charges pending against Julian Assange. Can you respond to that criticism?” asked Portnoy.
“What is the criticism?” asked Jean-Pierre.
“Well, the criticism is that — the argument is that Julian Assange is a journalist who engaged in the publication of government documents,” Portnoy replied. “The United States is accusing him of a crime under the Espionage Act, and that, therefore, the United States is losing the moral high ground when it comes to the question of whether a reporter engages in espionage as a function of his work. So can you respond to that?”
“Look, I’m not going to speak to Julian Assange and that case from here,” said Jean-Pierre.
And then she didn’t. She just dismissed Portnoy’s question without explanation, then babbled for a while about things Biden has said that are supportive of press freedoms, then again said “I’m not going to weigh in on comments about Julian Assange.”
This type of “I’m not answering that, screw you” dodge is a rare move for a White House press secretary. They don’t normally just come right out and say they refuse to answer the highly relevant and easily answerable question a reporter just asked; typically when the question is too inconvenient they’ll either word-salad a bewildering non-response, say the answer is the jurisdiction of another department, or say they’ll get back to them when they have more information. It’s not the norm for them to just wave away the question without even pretending to provide a reason for doing so.
But really, what choice did she have? As Wall Street Journal White House correspondent Sabrina Siddiqi recently acknowledged on MSNBC, the job of the White House press secretary is not to tell the truth, but to “stay on message and control the narrative.” There is nothing about the Assange case that is on-message with the White House narrative; just the other day Biden said at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner that “journalism is not a crime,” yet his persecution of Assange is deliberately designed to criminalize journalism.
There’s simply no way to reconcile the US government’s story about itself with its efforts to normalize the extradition and persecution of journalists around the world under the Espionage Act. If your job is to make the White House look good, the only way to respond to questions of US hypocrisy regarding the Assange case is not to respond at all.
Later in the press conference, Jean-Pierre responded to another reporter’s questions about press freedoms in China with an assurance that the Biden administration will “hold accountable the autocrats and their enablers who continue to repress a free, independent media.”
Also on Wednesday afternoon, AP’s Matt Lee cited the aforementioned Code Pink protest earlier that day to question Deputy State Department Spokesman Vedant Patel about Assange, and was met with a similar amount of evasiveness.
“So then can I ask you, as was raised perhaps a bit abruptly at the very beginning of his comments this morning, whether or not the State Department regards Julian Assange as a journalist who would be covered by the ideas embodied in World Press Freedom Day?” asked Lee.
“The State Department thinks that Mr. Assange has been charged with serious criminal conduct in the United States, in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in our nation’s history,” Patel replied. “His actions risked serious harm to US national security to the benefit of our adversaries. It put named human sources to grave and imminent risk and risk of serious physical harm and arbitrary detention. So, it does not matter how we categorize any person, but this is – we view this as a – as something he’s been charged with serious criminal conduct.”
“Well, but it does matter actually, and that’s my question. Do you believe that he is a journalist or not?” asked Lee.
“Our view on Mr. Assange is that he’s been charged with serious criminal conduct in the United States,” said Patel………………………………………………..
Okay. So, basically, the bottom line is that you don’t have an answer. You won’t say whether you think he is a journalist or not,” Lee replied.
Again, Patel was left with no safe answers to Lee’s questions, because of course Assange is indisputably a journalist. Publishing information and reporting that is in the public interest is precisely the thing that journalism is; that’s why Assange has won so many awards for journalism. Trying to contend that Assange is not a journalist is an unwinnable argument.
Later in that same press conference Patel was challenged on his claim that Assange damaged US national security by journalist Sam Husseini.
“You refer to WikiLeaks allegedly damaging US national security,” said Husseini. “People might remember that WikiLeaks came to prominence because they released the Collateral Murder video. And what that showed was US military mowing down Reuters reporters – workers in Iraq. Reuters repeatedly asked the US Government to disclose such information about those killings, and the US government repeatedly refused to do so. Only then did we know what happened, that the US helicopter gunship mowed down these Reuters workers, through the Collateral Murder video? Are you saying that disclosure of such criminality by the US government impinges US national security?”
“I’m not going to parse or get into specifics,” Patel said, before again repeating his line that Assange stands accused of serious crimes in a way that harmed US national security.
Journalist Max Blumenthal tweeted about Patel’s remarks, “According to this State Dept flack, Julian Assange’s jailing is justified because he ‘harmed US national security.’ But Assange is not an American citizen. By this logic, the US can kidnap and indefinitely detain any foreign journalist who offends the US national security state.”
It is good that activists and journalists have been doing so much to highlight the US empire’s hypocrisy as it crows self-righteously about its love of press freedoms while persecuting the world’s most famous journalist for doing great journalism. Highlighting this hypocrisy shows that the US empire does not in fact care about press freedoms at all, save only to the extent that it can pretend to care about them to wag its finger at governments it doesn’t like.
Assange exposed many things about our rulers during his work with WikiLeaks, but none of those revelations have been as significant as what he’s forced them to reveal about themselves in the lengths that they will go to to silence a journalist who tells inconvenient truths. https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/multiple-us-officials-confronted?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=119185041&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
—
1 This month
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 