Anthony Albanese insists that Australia will control AUKUS nuclear submarines, but others doubt this
Australia will control nuclear submarines in any conflict with Aukus partners, Albanese says
Guardian, Katharine Murphy and Daniel Hurst, 22 Feb 23
The PM insists Australia will maintain its sovereignty in the event of a disagreement with the US or UK on military strategy
“………………………………….Albanese said the deployment of military assets in the event of any conflict was “a decision for Australia as a sovereign nation, just as the United States will maintain its sovereignty and the United Kingdom will maintain its”.
The prime minister used a speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday to foreshadow increased defence spending as a consequence of the looming government response to the Defence Strategic Review, while characterising the Aukus security arrangement between Australia, the US and the UK as “the future”.
There is persistent speculation the next steps in the Aukus pact will be outlined by the three alliance partners in the US in March.
Paul Keating has previously raised concerns about the potential for Aukus to erode Australian sovereignty. Keating has contended Aukus will see Australia’s strategic sovereignty “outsourced to another state, a North Atlantic state, the United States” which is dangerous, given the US had “no idea what to do with itself in Asia”.
Keating’s concerns about sovereignty are shared by another former prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull has been calling on the government to answer whether nuclear submarines could be “operated, sustained and maintained by Australia without the support or supervision of the US navy”, and whether that effectively meant “sovereignty would be shared with the US”.
Concerns about a diminution of Australian sovereignty were heightened back in 2021 when Biden’s top Indo-Pacific adviser, Kurt Campbell, observed that Aukus would lead to “a deeper interconnection and almost a melding in many respects of our services and working together on common purpose that we couldn’t have dreamed about five or 10 years ago”.
Campbell later clarified his remarks. “I fully understand how important sovereignty and independence is for Australia. So I don’t want to leave any sense that somehow that would be lost,” he said during an Australian webinar ahead of the 2022 election.
The sustained controversy has prompted the defence minister, Richard Marles, to declare in a speech to parliament that acquiring nuclear-powered submarines would “dramatically enhance” Australia’s sovereignty, rather than undermine it.
The head of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine taskforce says Australia will retain full operational control over the submarines, while potentially having US or British engineers on board to provide technical advice.
During Wednesday’s speech at the National Press Club, Albanese hinted that Australia needed to expand its nuclear research as part of Aukus, saying the arrangement would lead to “greater exchanges as well and greater knowledge buildup”…………..
The prime minister also strongly backed the Asio chief, Mike Burgess, who has stepped up his warnings about espionage and foreign interference…………………. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/22/australia-will-control-nuclear-submarines-in-any-conflict-with-aukus-partners-albanese-says
NSW Ports boss backs offshore wind farm plant ahead of nuclear base
ABC Illawarra / By Jessica Clifford, Melinda James, and Tim Fernandez 22 Feb 23
NSW Ports chief executive Marika Calfas has called for the state’s trade needs to be prioritised ahead of a nuclear base, while unveiling plans for an offshore wind farm facility at Port Kembla.
Key points:
- The facility at Port Kembla would support windfarms on the NSW coast
- Port Kembla is adjacent to the federal government’s proposed Illawarra offshore wind development zone
- The project would need significant government investment to proceed.
……………………………. The ABC understands Port Kembla has been identified as the Department of Defence’s preferred site for a nuclear submarine base.
Ms Calfas said she was not aware of the deparment’s plans but said the state’s trade needs should come first.
“We would like to think everyone recognises the importance of ports,” she said.
“Particularly over the last three years with the issues which have occurred globally in terms of supply chains and how important it is that our ports can support the needs of our island nation moving forward.
The Defence Strategic Review was delivered to the government earlier this month with a report expected to be published in March.
Labor Member for Cunningham, Alison Byrnes, recently returned from a tour of a US Submarine base in Connecticut and said the location of the base will not be revealed until after community consultation.
“This process was started by the former government, so they put the three proposed sites on the table,” Ms Byrnes said.
“I have said to our Defence Minister that there needs to be, shortly after the release of the defence strategic review, a community leaders’ consultation to start talking about the way forward … to choose a site for the submarine location.”
Billion-dollar boost to economy
Offshore wind farms have been proposed for parts of the NSW coastline, including the Central Coast, Illawarra and South Coast, but do not yet have final approval.
BlueFloat is among the companies interested in establishing a wind farm off the coast of the Illawarra.
Technical project director David Delamore said the company was looking at establishing two farms about 14 kilometres offshore.
“The project we are looking at is over 100 turbines, this is a huge project it is a billion-dollar project and it needs a large work force as well,” he said.
“We need trained personnel, so we definitely need to be tapping into the local business communities and looking to establish training facilities to address any skills gaps.”
The federal government will begin consultations over the proposed offshore wind farm zones later this year.
Ms Calfas said the lack of certainty for the region makes it difficult for businesses to plan for the future.
“I think the need for clarity and the need for certainty is really important,” she said.
“The sooner we can get that, the sooner everyone can progress with their planning, the sooner everyone can progress with their investment plans and the sooner we can all start delivering on those benefits of jobs and investments.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-22/windfarm-future-demands-port-kembla-facilities-planned/102003542
Strict new security rules for Adelaide nuclear submarine-building facility in bid to protect military secrets
Operators of Osborne naval shipyard ordered to guard against ‘deliberate or accidental manipulation’ of critical components.
Daniel Hurst, Guardian, 23 Feb 23,
The Australian government has imposed strict new security rules at the Adelaide site where nuclear-powered submarines will be built, moving to reassure allies that sensitive military secrets will be protected.
The new rules require four operators at the Osborne naval shipyard, including those building the Hunter-class frigates and offshore patrol vessels, to guard against espionage and foreign interference.
These operators have been ordered to prepare for risks such as “deliberate or accidental manipulation” of critical components and the transfer of “sensitive operational information outside Australia”.
According to the new rules, information that must be protected includes layout diagrams, schematics, geospatial information and operational constraints.
The operators must carry out background and suitability checks before people are allowed unescorted access to the shipyard. They must record the date, time and duration of access by every person, whether escorted or unescorted.
The home affairs minister, Clare O’Neil, quietly rolled out the measures last week under the country’s critical infrastructure laws and confirmed the moves when approached by Guardian Australia.
“Our critical infrastructure assets are targets for foreign interference, cybercriminals and other malicious actors who wish to do Australia harm,” O’Neil said in a written response to questions.
“By declaring the Osborne naval shipyard a critical infrastructure asset we can implement security measures and build resilience in the facility and its workforce against these threats.”
The government has said nuclear-powered submarines will be built at Osborne – the first project under the Aukus partnership with the US and the UK – but it remains unclear how soon domestic construction can begin.
The US has previously only shared its naval nuclear propulsion secrets with the UK – in the late 1950s – and US officials are determined to ensure Australia can protect those secrets against foreign spies.
With just weeks to go until the three countries announce the Aukus plans in more detail, the new rules designate the naval shipbuilding and sustainment assets at Osborne as critical infrastructure assets.
The instrument covers areas overseen by four operators – including the government-owned Australian Naval Infrastructure and ASC.
It also applies to the entity trading as BAE Systems Maritime Australia, which will build the Hunter-class frigates, and Luerssen Australia, which has a contract for offshore patrol vessels…………………………….
O’Neil said the country faced “evolving threats” and the Australian government would “continue to use our national security laws to protect the critical infrastructure assets that all Australians should be able to rely on every day”.
In a human rights assessment attached to the new rules, O’Neil acknowledged collecting personal information about employees and contractors had an impact on their right to privacy……………..
The head of Asio, Mike Burgess, warned this week that the online targeting of Australian defence industry insiders had increased since the Aukus announcement a year and a half ago.
Declaring that his agency was taking a “more aggressive counterespionage posture”, Burgess conceded that Australia’s allies and partners were looking for assurances that their military secrets would be protected.
Burgess said one of the reasons he was disclosing the successful operation to expel a “hive of spies” from Australia was because “as we progress Aukus, it’s critical that our allies know we can keep our secrets and keep their secrets”.
He did not disclose the country responsible for the “hive” but said the spies were working undercover – some for years – with sophisticated tradecraft and wanted to steal sensitive information.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/23/strict-new-security-rules-for-adelaide-nuclear-submarine-building-facility-in-bid-to-protect-military-secrets
Submissions to Senate Committee on move to remove Australia’s bans on the nuclear industry – now published
Submissions to Committee examining Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
The table below looks bizarre. Sorry – Luddite me.
Until very recently , only 38 submissions had been published – the vast majority being straight from the nuclear lobby., Now suddenly, that’s jumped to 144. I plan to examine them all. But in the meantime – so many submissions from individuals have appeared. So – for now, I’v had to put them in the “Neutral” box . Until I have tim eto plough through them all.
Until very recently , only 38 submissions had been published – the vast majority being straight from the nuclear lobby., Now suddenly, that’s jumped to 144. I plan to examine them all. But in the meantime – so many submissions from individuals have appeared. So – for now, I’v had to put them in the “Neutral” box . Until I have tim eto plough through them all.
Pro- nuclear ——————–Anti Nuclear————-Neutral or I don’t know
| 1 Terrestrial Energy Inc (PDF 203 KB) 2 RePlanet Australia (PDF 8399 KB) 4 Australian Nuclear Association (PDF 186 KB) 5 entX Limited (PDF 98 KB) 6 Women in Nuclear Australia (PDF 113 KB) 7 Ultra Safe Nuclear Australia Pty Ltd (PDF 2606 KB) 8 StarCore Nuclear (PDF 184 KB) 10 JDC Electrical and Communication (PDF 5212 KB) 11 Nuclear For Climate Australia (PDF 1362 KB) 18 SMR Nuclear Technology PTY LTD (PDF 319 KB) 19 Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (PDF 201 KB) 20 Fusion Party (PDF 224 KB) 24 Minerals Council of Australia (PDF 632 KB) Attachment 1 (PDF 3158 KB) 25 Australian Workers’ Union (PDF 334 KB) 26 Institute of Public Affairs (PDF 1579 KB) 27 Silex Systems Limited (PDF 9259 KB) 30 Australian Resources Development Pty Ltd (PDF 79 KB) (PDF 632 KB) 32 Adj. Prof. Stephen Wilson (PDF 442 KB) 33 Innovative Process Upgrade Technologies (PDF 162 KB) 34 Dr James Taylor, Mr Bill Bourke, Mr Craig Brooking, Mr Rafe Champion, Mr Howard Dewhirst, Mr Paul Goard, Mr Peter J F Harris, Mr John McBratney, Dr Paul McFadyen, Dr John McLean, Dr Alan Moran, Dr John L Nicol, Emeritus Professor Cliff Ollier and Dr Peter Ridd (PDF 158 KB) Attachment 1 (PDF 3022 KB) Attachment 2 (PDF 803 KB) 37 Dr Adrian Paterson (PDF 620 KB) 38 South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy (PDF 136 KB) | 3 Electrical Trades Union (PDF 501 KB) 9 Friends of the Earth Adelaide (PDF 196 KB) 12 Environment House (PDF 37 KB) 14 Friends of the Earth Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Wilderness Society, Conservation Council of WA, Conservation SA, Nature Conservation Council (NSW), Environment Victoria, Queensland Conservation Council, Environment Centre NT and Environs Kimberley (PDF 1470 KB) 17Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (PDF 469 KB) 21 Marrickville Peace Group (PDF 181 KB) 23 Voice for Walcha (PDF 140 KB) 28 Medical Association for Prevention of War (PDF 1011 KB) 31 Top End Peace Alliance (PDF 108 KB) 102 Ms Noel Wauchope (PDF 123 KB) | 13 The Australian Academy of Science (PDF 143 KB) 16 Ms Helen Cook, GNE Advisory (PDF 110 KB) 22 Dr Sundance Bilson-Thompson (PDF 50 KB) 29 Australian Citizens Party (PDF 406 KB 35 Mr Alan Lawrenson (PDF 650 KB) ) 36 Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (PDF 2565 KB) 39 Responsible Energy Development for New England (PDF 54 KB) 41 Ms Mary Szental (PDF 34 KB) 42 Mr John Lewis (PDF 35 KB) 43 Mr Darryl Nelson (PDF 19 KB 44 Mr Barrie Hill (PDF 253 KB) 45 Ms Marie-Louise Drew (PDF 54 KB) 46 Mr Benjamin Cronshaw (PDF 99 KB) 47 Mr Neville Rutter (PDF 41 KB) 48 Mr Andrew Williams (PDF 58 KB) 49 Dr Craig Cooper (PDF 161 KB) 50 Mr Raymond Ongley (PDF 20 KB) 51Mr Jim Bain (PDF 60 KB) 52 Mr Randall Starling (PDF 2132 KB) 53 Ms Susanne Godden (PDF 80 KB) 54 Mrs Janet Pukallus (PDF 87 KB) 55 Name Withheld (PDF 38 KB) 56 Ms Deborah Pergolotti (PDF 45 KB) 57 Name Withheld (PDF 17 KB) 58 Name Withheld (PDF 57 KB) 59 Mr William Morrison (PDF 34 KB) 60 Mr Peter Johnson (PDF 33 KB) 62 Mr Michael Mardel (PDF 22 KB) 63 Mr John Wood (PDF 3246 KB) 64 Mr Graeme Batterbury (PDF 94 KB) 65 Ms Jessica Wysser (PDF 87 KB) 69 Mr Walter A Starck (PDF 72 KB) 70 Ms Judy Schneider (PDF 67 KB) 73 Mr Quentin Dresser (PDF 36 KB) 77 Mr Barry Murphy (PDF 54 KB) 78 Jean M. Christie (PDF 40 KB) 79 Mr Keith Derek Kerr (PDF 115 KB) 80 Ms Michele Kwok (PDF 72 KB) 81 Mr Don Higson (PDF 95 KB) 82 Mr Kenneth Martin (PDF 34 KB) 83 Name Withheld (PDF 154 KB) 84 Mr Thomas W. Adams (PDF 28 KB) 85 Mr John Zink (PDF 81 KB) 86 Mr Gregory O’Brien (PDF 27 KB) 87 Mr Peter Briggs (PDF 27 KB) 88 Mr Murray Morris (PDF 30 KB) 89 Mr Adam Medica (PDF 31 KB) 90 Mr John Jenkins (PDF 60 KB) 93 Ms Suzann Vasanji (PDF 48 KB) 94 Ms Jan Wu (PDF 38 KB) 95 Mr Patrick Geeves (PDF 56 KB) 96 Mr George Papadopoulos (PDF 55 KB) 97 Mr Wayne Crawford (PDF 96 KB) 98 Mr Hugh Drum (PDF 37 KB) 99 Virgil Smith (PDF 37 KB) 101 Mr Peter Lane (PDF 80 KB) 103 Ms Helen Bradbury (PDF 27 KB) 104 Mr Robert Heron (PDF 77 KB) 104.1 Supplementary to submission 104 (PDF 77 KB) 105 Ms Beth White (PDF 235 KB) 107 Mr John Newlands (PDF 43 KB) 108 Mr Alexander Joseph Walsh (PDF 48 KB) 110 Mr Robert Pritchard (PDF 43 KB) 111 Mrs Kay Christensen (PDF 40 KB) 112 Mr Peter Hickson (PDF 41 KB) 113 Name Withheld (PDF 47 KB) 114 Mr Justin Tutty (PDF 59 KB) 115 Name Withheld (PDF 43 KB) 116 Name Withheld (PDF 13 KB) 117 Mr Dennis Pukallus (PDF 58 KB) 118 Name Withheld (PDF 17 KB) 119 Dr Christopher Kaalund (PDF 21 KB) 120 Mr Matthew Tomblin (PDF 45 KB) 121 Name Withheld (PDF 30 KB) 122 Mr Timothy Clifford (PDF 35 KB) 123 Mr Louis Rozman (PDF 196 KB) 124 Mr Ian Levy (PDF 202 KB) 125 Name Withheld (PDF 27 KB) 126 Professor Chilla Bulbeck (PDF 56 KB) 127 Professor George Burns (PDF 93 KB) 128 Professor James Doery (PDF 37 KB) 129 Ms Robyn Sullivan (PDF 68 KB) 130 Ms Donna Brooker (PDF 59 KB) 131 Mr Nunzio Grimaldi (PDF 40 KB) 132 Mr Paul Chamberlain (PDF 50 KB) 133 Mr Logan Smith (PDF 43 KB) 134 Ms Monica Leggett (PDF 38 KB) 135 Name Withheld (PDF 140 KB) 136 Ms Grusha Leeman (PDF 57 KB) 137 Hazel Kleinau (PDF 133 KB) 138 Mr Desmond Whyte (PDF 47 KB) 140 Mr Steven Eley (PDF 77 KB) 141 Mr Timothy Nott (PDF 72 KB) 142 Name Withheld (PDF 96 KB) 143 Mr Marc Centner (PDF 92 KB) 144 Name Withheld (PDF 1736 KB) |
Nuclear weapons uncertainty must be resolved
This masthead has previously expressed reservations about the lack of debate around the AUKUS pact, which will eventually lead to us operating US-built nuclear submarines, and was essentially sprung on us by the Morrison government.
any suggestion that US bombers eventually based here could potentially be used to deliver nuclear weapons, even a hint of which could make Australia a first-strike target, must be thoroughly interrogated.
EDITORIAL The Age 16 Feb, 23 https://www.theage.com.au/national/nuclear-weapons-uncertainty-must-be-resolved-20230216-p5cl6d.html
Have nuclear weapons been creeping onto Australian shores? That was the impression you may have well reached watching a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday, when Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty indicated that American planes and ships could – in theory, at least – come here with a nuclear payload without breaching international protocols.
The South Pacific Nuclear Zone treaty, also known as the Treaty of Raratonga, expressly prohibits the “stationing” of nuclear weapons on Australian soil. But it has little to say about how we are supposed to deal with nuclear-equipped foreign planes and vessels that pass through.
Said Moriarty, “There is no impediment under this treaty … to the visit of foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace, including in the context of our training and exercise programs and Australia’s force posture co-operation program with the United States.”
As for the potential that those planes are carrying nuclear weapons, he explained, we typically choose to make it none of our business. Abiding by a US policy called “warhead ambiguity”, apparently we don’t ask, they don’t tell, and the Australian public is none the wiser. Foreign Minister Penny Wong put it another way: “The responsible way of handling this is to recognise that the US has a ‘neither confirm nor deny position’ which we understand and respect.”
We have been able to sustain this likely fiction since B-52 bombers first began visiting Australian airfields in the 1980s. But the revelations late last year that the US now plans to build dedicated facilities to house six of its strategic bombers at Tindal air base, outside Darwin, raises the stakes, including for our co-signatories in the Treaty of Raratonga and neighbours and potential geopolitical rivals across the Pacific region.
Hearing of the plan in November, Beijing accused Australia and the United States of “triggering an arms race in the region”: hardly unexpected but not a complaint that was entirely without substance.
None of the B-52s officially stationed here would be able to carry nuclear weapons without breaching the treaty: “stockpiling, storage, installation and deployment” of any nuclear explosive device is prohibited. But there would surely be little to prevent companion aircraft passing through with payloads unknown: who would be checking? Nor would China and Indonesia necessarily care to recognise the difference. As for the treaty, when would “visiting” cross the line into “stationed”?
This masthead has previously expressed reservations about the lack of debate around the AUKUS pact, which will eventually lead to us operating US-built nuclear submarines, and was essentially sprung on us by the Morrison government. China, again, criticised that development, labelling our transition from diesel to nuclear as an “extremely irresponsible” threat to regional stability.
Indonesia, too, expressed its concerns. Writes military strategist Mick Ryan, “As a non-aligned country, it is very sensitive to the deployment of combat power from external nations into their area of interest.” Also expressing concerns are those who argue fuelling the boats with weapons-grade uranium could breach the international non-proliferation treaty.
Not so long ago, the merest hint that Australia was dabbling in nuclear anything with our American allies – power, submarines, weapons – would have provoked citywide protests. These days, apparently, not so much, especially if what is actually happening is hard to make out, hidden under a cloak of deniability or diplomatic technicalities. Even domestic nuclear power has re-emerged as an acceptable topic for discussion, if not necessarily enthusiastic adoption, after decades of staunch opposition. Yet we must not be lulled into ambivalence: any suggestion that US bombers eventually based here could potentially be used to deliver nuclear weapons, even a hint of which could make Australia a first-strike target, must be thoroughly interrogated.
ANSTO Chief blowing hot air on radioactive waste
17 February 2023
The chief executive of Australia’s Nuclear Science Technology Organisation (Ansto), Shaun Jenkinson, admitted yesterday there was no evidence to support his claim last year that the production of nuclear medicine would stop if the proposed radioactive waste dump in South Australia did not go ahead.
Under questioning by South Australian Greens Senator Barbara Pocock, at a Senate Estimates hearing, Mr Jenkinson said there was “no specific analysis about at what point production of nuclear medicine would stop.”
Jenkinson claimed in November last year that Ansto would not be able to keep producing nuclear medicine once the waste management facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney reached capacity.
Pressed on the issue at the Estimates hearing yesterday, the Ansto head said, “If there was to be a delay in (building the new waste dump) we would be seeking approval for additional on-site storage until such time as a national waste management facility was ready and so we’re doing that.
“Its an iterative process we do that every year,” he said.
Commenting outside the hearing Senator Pocock said it was “disingenuous for Mr Jenkins to make alarming claims that could cause distress to people who rely on nuclear medicines, such as cancer patients, simply to support the Government’s case for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.”
Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney, accused Jenkinson of causing unnecessary concern to vulnerable people in order to support the case for a radioactive waste dump in South Australia, when he made the statement.
Senator Pocock earlier quizzed the Australian Radioactive Waste Authority (ARWA)about how much the Federal Government was spending fighting a court case brought by Aboriginal Traditional Owners of the proposed site saying that “in the midst of a campaign to give First Nations Australians a voice in matters that concern them, the Government surely should be listening to the Barngarla Native Title holders on this issue.”
ARWA also confirmed that the option for safe storage of intermediate level waste, including new waste, exists for years into the future at the current radioactive waste management faciltiy at Lucas Heights and that there are no obstacles to further upgrades to increase capacity there.
—
Irresponsible Politics: Australia’s B-52 Nuclear Weapons Problem, and weasel words from Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
an irritated Wong deferred the issue in its entirety to Washington’s judgment, accepting the principle of “warhead ambiguity”.
This stubbornly irresponsible approach by the Australian government and its public servants means that the Australian public, at no point, can know whether US aircraft or delivery systems will have nuclear weapons, even if they transit through airspace or are based, for however long, on Australian soil. As Australian Greens Senator and Foreign Affairs spokesperson Jordon Steele John described it, “Australians have resisted the nuclearization of our military for decades and now the Albanese government is letting the Americans do it for us.”
February 17, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/irresponsible-politics-australias-b-52-nuclear-weapons-problem/
It is not farfetched to make the point that delivery systems capable of deploying nuclear weapons will lead to them carrying those very same weapons. Whatever the promises made by governments that such delivery systems will not carry such loads, stifling secrecy over such arrangements can only stir doubt.
That is the problem facing the AUKUS alliance which makes Australia a central point of reference for Washington and its broader ambitions in curbing China. The alliance is increasingly being characterised by a nuclear tone. First came the promise to furnish Australia with nuclear powered submarines, absent nuclear weapons. Then came the announcement to deploy six B-52 bombers to the Northern Territory’s Tindal airbase, south of Darwin.
Australia, in being turned into a US garrison state, is very likely going to be a site where nuclear weapons are hosted, though pedants and legal quibblers will dispute what, exactly, constitutes such hosting. Whether this is done so transiently, or whether this will be an ongoing understanding, is impossible to say. Any such arrangement is bound to make a nonsense of the South Pacific Nuclear-free Zone Treaty, otherwise known as the Treaty of Rarotonga, to which Australia is a party
The Albanese government is doing little to clarify the matter, and, in so doing, drawing even more attention to itself. In Senate estimates hearings held on February 15, the Greens pressed for clarification on the issue of nuclear weapons on Australian soil. Senator David Shoebridge asked whether Canberra was complying with the Treaty of Rarotonga, and whether visiting B-52s could carry nuclear weapons.
The latter question was almost a moot point, given that all B-52Hs are nuclear capable. The only issue is the type of nuclear enabled weapon they might carry. The nuclear gravity bomb days of the aircraft are over, but they are more than capable of being armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
In his response, Department of Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty manufactured a state of compliance with international obligations. The circle could thereby be squared. “I think more generally, it is clear stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South pacific nuclear free zone treaty, to which Australia is fully committed.”
The same, however, could not be said about visiting “foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace, including in the context of our training and exercise programs, and the Australia and the Australian force posture cooperation with the United States.”
Disconcertingly, Moriarty went on to acknowledge that the practice of carrying nuclear weapons on US aircraft, if it had been going on, was entirely consistent with Australia’s own commitments to both the Treaty of Rarotonga and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. “US bomber aircraft have been visiting Australia since the early 1980s and have conducted training in Australia since 2005. Successive Australian governments have understood and respected the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms.”
Moriarty went on to acknowledge that, “Australia will continue to fully comply with our international obligations, and the United States understands and fully respects Australia’s international obligations with respect to nuclear weapons.”
Shoebridge, less than content with the secretary’s response, shot back with another question: “So, Mr. Moriarty, do I understand from that answer that defence does not believe that there is a restraint under Australia’s current treaty obligations [permitting] nuclear armed B-52 bombers to be present in Australia, provided it’s not a permanent presence?”
Moriarty never got a chance to respond. Left with an opportunity to correct the outlandishly servile, not to mention opaque nature of US-Australian security relations, Foreign Minister Penny Wong became stroppy. The tradition of Master Washington and Servant Canberra would not be bucked. “I’m the minister, and I’m responding.”
In responding, thereby channelling the self-interested voice of the US imperium, an irritated Wong deferred the issue in its entirety to Washington’s judgment, accepting the principle of “warhead ambiguity”. “It is part of ensuring we maintain that interoperability that goes to us making Australia safe. We have tried to be helpful in indicating our commitment to the South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty. We are fully committed to that. And we’ve given you the answer that the secretary has given you.”
It was, the Senator continued to elaborate, beneath the minister to “engage in any more hypotheticals” – what Shoebridge was wishing to do, she accused, was “drum up concern, and I don’t think it’s responsible.” What, then, was the appropriate response in the world according to Wong? “The responsible way of handling this is to recognise that the US has a ‘neither confirm nor deny position’ which we understand and respect.”
This stubbornly irresponsible approach by the Australian government and its public servants means that the Australian public, at no point, can know whether US aircraft or delivery systems will have nuclear weapons, even if they transit through airspace or are based, for however long, on Australian soil. As Australian Greens Senator and Foreign Affairs spokesperson Jordon Steele John described it, “Australians have resisted the nuclearization of our military for decades and now the Albanese government is letting the Americans do it for us.”
This ingloriously subservient status to Washington has been laid bare yet again, and along with that, the increasingly likely prospect of being targeted in any future conflict that involves the United States. Hardly a responsible state of affairs, and one on the verge of being treasonous.
Murdoch Propaganda Pushes Australia To Double Its Military Budget For War With China – The time to start resisting is now.
And at 45:50 we finally get to the real purpose of this Sky News special: the need to “dramatically increase” the Australian military budget, and the need to manufacture consent for that increase.
I always get people complaining that I focus too much on the US war machine when I live in Australia, but anyone who’s paying attention knows the behavior of the US war machine is as relevant to Australians as it is to Americans. They are beating the drums for a future war of unfathomable horror all to please a dark god known as unipolarism, and it threatens to destroy us all.
The time to start resisting is now.
Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 16 2023,
In the latest escalation in Australia’s increasingly forceful campaign to manufacture consent for war with China, the Murdoch-owned Sky News Australia has aired a jaw-droppingly propagandistic hour-long special which advocates a dramatic increase in the nation’s military spending.
Australians are uniquely vulnerable to propaganda because our nation has the most concentrated media ownership in the western world, the lion’s share of it by Rupert Murdoch, who has well-documented ties to US government agencies going back decades. The propaganda campaign against China has gotten so aggressive here in recent years that I’ve repeatedly had complete strangers start babbling at me about the Chinese threat in casual conversation, completely out of the blue, within minutes of our first meeting each other.
The Sky News special is one of the most brazenly propagandistic things I have ever witnessed in any news media, with its opening minutes featuring footage of bayonet-wielding Chinese troops marching while ominous cinematic Bad Guy music plays loudly over the sound of the marching. In its promotional clip for the special, Sky News Australia tinged all footage pertaining to China in red to show how dangerous and communist they are. These are not decisions that are made with the intention of informing the public, these are decisions that are made with the intention of administering war propaganda.
The first expert Sky News brings on to tell viewers about the Chinese menace is Mick Ryan, an Adjunct Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is funded by military-industrial complex entities like Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, and is also directly funded by the US government and its client states, including Australia and Taiwan. Sky News of course makes no mention of this immense conflict of interest while manufacturing consent for increased military spending, calling Ryan simply a “former major general.” This is on the same level of journalistic malpractice as running an article by Colonel Sanders on the health benefits of fried chicken but calling him “Harland David Sanders, former fry cook.”
The next expert Sky News presents us with is Australian former major general Jim “The Butcher of Fallujah” Molan, who oh-so-sadly passed away last month. I’ve written about Molan previously specifically because the Australian media love citing him in their propaganda campaign against China, last time when he was pushing the ridiculous claim that China is poised to launch an invasion of Australia.
The other experts Sky News brings in are former CIA Director and US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu, Taiwan’s Director of Chinese Affairs Dr Lai Chung, Japan’s ambassador to Australia Yamagami Shingo, Australian Shadow Defense Minister Andrew Hastie, and John Coyne of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a virulent propaganda firm which is once again funded by US-aligned governments and military-industrial complex war profiteers.
So it’s about as balanced and impartial a punditry lineup as you’d expect.
At the 8:15 mark of the special, Sky News repeats the unevidenced propaganda claim that former Chinese president Hu Jintao was politically purged during the 20th Communist Party Congress last year.
At 19:15 Jim Molan talks about the need to fight and die with our allies the Americans while patriotic cello music plays in the background.
At 21:30 we are shown images of Australia being bombed alongside the Chinese flag (very subtle, guys).
At 24:25 Sky News accidentally does a version of the “look how close they put their country to our military bases” meme with a graphic display of all the US war machinery that surrounds China. The US would never tolerate being encircled by the Chinese military like that and would immediately wage war if China tried; it’s clear that the US is the aggressor in this conflict and China is reacting defensively.
“The United States plays a major strategic role in the Indo-Pacific,” says Sky News anchor Peter Stefanovic as the screen lights up with graphics showing the military presence surrounding China. “With 375,000 personnel, there’s a vast network of operations that extend from Hawaii all the way to India.”
At 26:30 we are shown a digital representation of China’s satellite systems in space, with the Chinese satellites colored red to help us all appreciate how evil and communist they are.
At 27:45 we are shown illustrations of how much smaller Australia’s military is than China’s or America’s to help us understand how important it is to increase the size of our nation’s war machine, ignoring the fact that Australia’s total population is a tiny fraction of either of those countries.
At 32:45 we are told that the AUKUS pact will “beef up America’s military presence in the north of Australia,” and that “America has long used Australia as a key strategic outpost,” showing images of Pine Gap and other parts of the US war machine which dot this continent. “Now, there’s more to come,” says Stefanovic, with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin describing the surge in US military presence we’re to expect in Australia.
At 34:10 the Australian Strategic Policy Institute guy explains why the US is so keen to use Australia in its planned confrontation with China, saying the continent’s geography puts it in “the Goldilocks location” of being close enough to China to be meaningful but far enough away that its war machinery can’t be easily struck.
At 35:15 Stefanovic warns that “our nation could quite literally be brought to its knees” if a war to the north sees shipping lanes cut off since Australia is so heavily dependent of imports. You would think this is an argument about the importance of maintaining a peaceful relationship with China, but instead it’s used to foment fear of China and argue for the need to be able to defeat it in a war.
And at 45:50 we finally get to the real purpose of this Sky News special: the need to “dramatically increase” the Australian military budget, and the need to manufacture consent for that increase. Australia currently has a military budget of $48.7 billion, a little less than two percent of the nation’s GDP. The late Butcher of Fallujah tells Sky News that “we need to at least double our defense expenditure” to four percent, and the special’s pundits openly discuss the need for Australians to be persuaded to accept this using narrative management…………………….
To be clear, this is not just a call to increase military spending, this is a call to propagandize Australians into consenting to more military spending. It’s not very often that the propaganda comes right out and explains to you why it is propagandizing you.
I always get people complaining that I focus too much on the US war machine when I live in Australia, but anyone who’s paying attention knows the behavior of the US war machine is as relevant to Australians as it is to Americans. They are beating the drums for a future war of unfathomable horror all to please a dark god known as unipolarism, and it threatens to destroy us all.
The time to start resisting is now. https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/murdoch-propaganda-pushes-australia?r=pf4vw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&fbclid=IwAR2-MoxPsyKvcurWfgwc2Qd8aFn6YwgGaG4clg0wgUKO7NYQypg76A-zLUY
‘Extreme situation’: Antarctic sea ice hits record low
Damian Carrington 16 Feb 23
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-record-low-climate-crisis
The area of sea ice around Antarctica has hit a record low, with scientists reporting “never having seen such an extreme situation before”. The ice extent is expected to shrink even further before this year’s summer melting season ends.
The impact of the climate crisis in melting sea ice in the Arctic is clear in the records that stretch back to 1979. Antarctic sea ice varies much more from year to year, which has made it harder to see an effect from global heating.
However, “remarkable” losses of Antarctic sea ice in the last six years indicate that the record levels of heat now in the ocean and related changes in weather patterns may mean that the climate crisis is finally manifesting in the observations.
Scientists were already very concerned about Antarctic ice. Climate models suggested as far back as 2014 that the giant West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), which sits on the continent, was doomed to collapse due to the levels of global heating already seen then.
The increasing loss of sea ice exposes ice sheets and their glaciers to waves that accelerate their disintegration and melting, researchers warned. A recent study estimated that the WAIS would be tipped into gradual collapse – and four metres of sea level rise – with a global temperature rise as low as 1C, a point already passed.
“I have never seen such an extreme, ice-free situation here before,” said Prof Karsten Gohl, from the Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in the Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany, and who first visited the region in 1994.
Gohl, on board the research vessel Polarstern in Antarctica, said: “The continental shelf, an area the size of Germany, is now completely ice-free. It is troubling to consider how quickly this change has taken place.”
Prof Christian Haas, also at the Helmholtz Centre, said: “The rapid decline in sea ice over the past six years is quite remarkable, since the ice cover hardly changed at all in the 35 years before.”
Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the US have also said a new record low has been set. They said Antarctic sea ice extent fell to 1.91m square kilometres on 13 February, below the previous record set on 25 February 2022.
Sea ice melts away in the Antarctic summer before starting to grow again as autumn arrives. “In past years, the annual minimum has occurred between 18 February and 3 March, so further decline is expected,” the NSIDC researchers said. “Much of the Antarctic coast is ice free. Earlier studies have linked low sea ice cover with wave-induced stresses on the floating ice shelves that hem the continent, leading to break up of weaker areas.”
The German scientists said the “intense melting” could be due to unusually high air temperatures to the west and east of the Antarctic peninsula, which were about 1.5C above the long-term average. Furthermore, there have been strong westerly winds, which increase sea ice retreat. The result is “intensified melting of ice shelves, an essential aspect of future global sea-level rise”, the researchers said.
Historical records also show dramatic changes in Antarctica, they said. The Belgian research vessel Belgica was trapped in massive pack ice for more than a year in the Antarctic summer 125 years ago, in exactly the same region where the Polarstern vessel is now sailing in completely ice-free waters.
Prof Carlos Moffat, at the University of Delaware, US, and recently returned from a research cruise in the Southern Ocean, told Inside Climate News: “The extraordinary change we’ve seen this year is dramatic. Even as somebody who’s been looking at these changing systems for a few decades, I was taken aback by what I saw.”
With weasel words, Australia’s top military brass, and sycophant Richard Marles, justify allowing U.S. nuclear weapons in Australia
US nuclear-armed bomber visits allowed under Australian treaty obligations The Age, Matthew Knott, February 15, 2023
American B-52 bombers armed with nuclear warheads could rotate through Australia without breaching treaty obligations, the nation’s most senior defence public servant has indicated.
The Australian public would never be informed whether such aircraft are carrying nuclear weapons under the so-called US policy of “warhead ambiguity” in which it neither confirms nor denies if particular forms of military equipment are nuclear-armed.
While adamantly refusing to address hypothetical scenarios, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said: “The responsible way of handling this is to recognise that the US has a ‘neither confirm nor deny position’ which we understand and respect.”
It was revealed last year that the United States is preparing to build dedicated facilities for up to six B-52 bombers at Tindal air base, south of Darwin, for use in the Northern Territory dry season.
Nuclear weapons opponents and the Chinese government blasted the plan on the basis it could escalate tensions in the Asia-Pacific and accelerate an arms race in the region………………….
Australia is prohibited from permanently housing nuclear weapons in the country under its treaty obligations. But Moriarty, speaking in general terms, suggested US nuclear-armed bombers could temporarily pass through Australia without breaching international law.
“The stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear-free Zone Treaty to which Australia is fully committed,” Moriarty said.
“There is no impediment under this treaty or the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to the visit of foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace, including in the context of our training and exercise programs and Australia’s force posture co-operation program with the United States.”
The B-52 is a long-range, heavy bomber that can carry out ocean surveillance and anti-ship operations and “can carry nuclear or precision guided conventional ordnance”, according to the US government……………
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge said: “It is highly alarming that Australian military facilities are being made available for the US to launch its nuclear-capable bombers.
“This decision not only makes us a nuclear target – it further erodes our sovereignty.
“The US has made it clear it won’t tell anyone when their B-52’s are nuclear armed or not. This leaves Australia in the dark about our role in the USA’s global nuclear strategy.”
Defence Minister Richard Marles said that while Australia had agreed to an increased tempo of American rotations in northern Australia, there had been no change in policy regarding the presence of nuclear-armed weapons.
“America maintains a policy of ambiguity in terms of the nature of assets that are on their platforms and they do that so as to amplify their extended nuclear deterrence,” he told the ABC.
Asked whether US nuclear-armed bombers should be allowed in Australia, opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie said: “Of course, we want to see a greater presence of the American military in the Indo-Pacific.”……………………………………………
When the ABC’s Four Corners revealed the plan to build dedicated facilities for the B-52s in October, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said: “Such a move by the US and Australia escalates regional tensions, gravely undermines regional peace and stability, and may trigger an arms race in the region.”
Greens foreign affairs spokesman Jordan Steele-John said: “Nuclear-capable B-52 bombers have no place on Australian bases, on Australian shores or in Australian airspace. They are an offensive weapon that will destabilise our region.” https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/us-nuclear-armed-bomber-visits-allowed-under-australian-treaty-obligations-20230215-p5ckrs.html—
Australian government OK with not knowing whether or not visiting US aircraft carry nuclear weapons!
“………………… Appearing before a Senate estimates hearing, Defence secretary Greg Moriarty and senior military figures were also quizzed about a nuclear submarines deal with the United States and Britain.
Mr Moriarty said the AUKUS agreement would also accelerate the acquisition of guided weapons…………….
“There is no impediment under either treaty to the visit of foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace, including in the context of our training and exercise programs,” he said.
“Successive Australian governments have understood and respected the long-standing US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms.”……..
Canberra mulls defence overhaul as subs decision nears (msn.com)
The Defence Strategic Review and Australia’s ‘Alliance’ obsession
After that Australian forces, or rather their equipment, was aligned to a newer kind of threat from irregular or insurgent forces in Western Asia, conflicts in which Australia had little or no direct interest but was engaged there to keep the US on-side
The proposed long term acquisition of nuclear submarines has completely upended our diplomatic and strategic positioning, as revealed (perhaps unintentionally) by Defence Minister Richard Marles when he told a gathering in London this month that the AUKUS goal is to create “a more seamless defence industrial space” between the three countries, affirming that Australia is more tied at the hip to the US than previously admitted – because we would not have national control over the submarines in relation to their location and deployment, thereby severely compromising our national sovereignty.
The submarines would have little purpose for independent defence if ranged against China
Pearls and Irritations. By Andrew Farran, Feb 16, 2023
How might the renown mid-20th century linguist Ludwig Wittgenstein have addressed the current defence strategic review?
As the perceptive mid-20th century Cambridge based English/Austrian linguist Ludwig Wittgenstein explained, the answer you get to a question depends on how the question is formed. The same wisdom could have been conveyed to military planners in the past when they set out to plan force structures for twenty or more years ahead. Wrong question. Wrong answers.
Looking back, think of all the military expenditure over the past twenty years and more that has been wasted as being unusable or irrelevant to purpose. Think of the lost opportunities for sound force development and the money saved that might have been available for under-resourced schools, hospitals and welfare assistance falling short of need.
After World War Two planning remained where it had left off, with established formations around divisions, battalions and platoons, essentially ground forces and an expensive aircraft carrier unsuitable for serious combat. After much debate a viable carrier fleet was seen as unattainable and unaffordable with the loss of the existing fleet air arm. Upgrades on traditional lines were undertaken following the Korean War but thereafter with Vietnam becoming the main preoccupation (misconceived), and keeping faith with the US on military commitments, the conventional wisdom in military circles was that future conflict would involve containing insurgents in Asian jungles and the protection of naval approaches around continental Australia and its resources of a conventional nature.
Nonetheless a parallel objective was the search for a silver bullet that would provide cover for all contingencies whether existing or not. Hence the embrace by government of the F111 fighter/bomber not withstanding the tribulations of its procurement and eventual deployment (the latter being relatively little as it happened). After that Australian forces, or rather their equipment, was aligned to a newer kind of threat from irregular or insurgent forces in Western Asia, conflicts in which Australia had little or no direct interest but was engaged there to keep the US on-side – being our insurance in case of larger dangers closer to home.
…………………………. The real threat to America today is largely internal given rising levels of rioting and disaffection (racial and otherwise). But concern over America’s decline vis a vis China, whether real or not, is now front and centre on force structure issues.
…………….. As before we have looked for a magic pudding that would enhance our profile and please our once great and powerful friends. Hence as was the case with the F111s, and more recently the F-35s we have become fixated with nuclear powered submarines, having decided they are needed for long range deployment.
There is much that is unreal about this move. Firstly long range deployment implies that China is the potential or envisaged enemy requiring Australian engagement at that level. While China might be seen as flexing its muscles lately it has done nothing in this regard that is different from the United States. Both seek to protect and advance their relative status. But for neither side would this be advanced by military conflict.
……………..
wider world has a vested interest in the avoidance of counter-productive warfare and a deep felt need for viable multilateralism.
(See Jeffrey Sachs, “The new geopolitics”.)
………………………… The proposed long term acquisition of nuclear submarines has completely upended our diplomatic and strategic positioning, as revealed (perhaps unintentionally) by Defence Minister Richard Marles when he told a gathering in London this month that the AUKUS goal is to create “a more seamless defence industrial space” between the three countries, affirming that Australia is more tied at the hip to the US than previously admitted. – because we would not have national control over the submarines in relation to their location and deployment, thereby severely compromising our national sovereignty.
That would be a high price to pay even if we were engaged in a major war as was the case in 1942; but it is not and should not be the price we pay on speculation over assumed threats that are anything but imminent. The submarines would have little purpose for independent defence if ranged against China which can deploy a growing number of nuclear powered and armed submarines together with some 50 conventional powered ones (bearing in mind too that North Korea could deploy just as many given that the Korean War remains unresolved).
The Strategic Review currently underway will certainly strengthen our capacity to protect our immediate off-shore regions and coastline with new technologies including drones for enhanced surveillance, medium range missiles and sea mines, and survivable platforms to support them – while appreciating at the same time that in a high conflict situation the Chinese or any other militarily powerful nation could lob missiles on our vulnerable locations with disconcerting accuracy (including cities, Pine Gap and North West Cape). That point could well be the end of us sooner than we would like to think
So why buy into this unless doing so would make a difference when we know it would not. There is a lot more to this issue for the government to consider than when Prime Minister Menzies and his Cabinet decided on Australian forces being deployed in Vietnam or when Prime Minister Howard and his kitchen cabinet decided similarly in the case of Iraq – both gigantic mistakes. https://johnmenadue.com/the-defence-strategic-review-and-australias-alliance-obsession/
Kazzi Jai comments on ARPANSA ( The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) and the issue of the mislaid (now found) highly radioactive device
As a generalisation here’s the takeaway so far….
Thinking that consultation = consent!!!
No way buddy!!!
That the Cesium source was not a Commonwealth responsibility…..um….those sources need to be registered and licenced through ARPANSA!!!
Is ARPANSA NOT a Commonwealth body??
We do NOT have data or details on the transport of these huge quantities of CLASSIFIED NUCLEAR WASTE through the Blue Mountains or inverse estuaries like the Spencer Gulf !!! There have been reports in the past dealing with these considered inadequacies of these magnitude in Australia- it CANNOT AND MUST NOT BE GLOSSED OVER!
How do the Blue Mountains or Spencer Gulf which is a inverse estuary deal with contamination which WILL NOT “IF” happen!!
X-rays are NOT PART OF THE NUCLEAR DUMP!
They have NO NUCLEAR COMPONENT!!!
Nuclear Medicine Sector ? How about explaining the INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION of Technetium 99m which is the MAJOR PRODUCTION at Lucas Heights where THE MAJORITY ISNT USED IN AUSTRALIA BUT IS EXPORTED!!!
And we in Australia SHOULDER THE COSTS!!
Also – there is a REGISTER held by ARPANSA called the AUSTRALIAN RADIATION INCIDENT REGISTER – which includes ALL INCIDENTS INCLUDING TRANSPORT MISHAPS AND ACCIDENTS! It was once available as an open public portal but now you must apply for it through ARPANSA…
Sky News presents rubbishy programme on “preparing Australia for war against China”
National Times 15 Feb 23 Now Hear This Now Hear This – Pauline Hanson has Spoken ( Eric Remarque for the National Times and Isaac Floyd on Twitter)
SKY TV News has a special Wednesday night program ( shock horror) about preparing for war with China.
REALLY !
Pauline Hanson a noted expert on Foreign Affairs and International Relations is obligingly feeding into this right wing war mongering propaganda.
But it appear that it is NewsCorp who’s on the warpath, not China, not Australia.
How soon before the likes of Pauline Hanson and others on the right side of politics start advocating for conscription.
The question is – do these people really understand that China is a Nuclear Power or that the key to Australia is trade.
Maybe SKY-TV News should understand that their favoured Political Party the Liberals lost the election because the people were sick and tied of the incompetence of the Morrison Government.
Its also worth noting that Lockheed Martin is a sponcor of SKY -TV News.
All things considered companies like this should not be permitted to sponsor news outlets.
So lets treat this SKY-TV News Special for what it is – RUBBISH
7.30 Report: Sarah Ferguson Opens Up New Perspectives on the AUKUS Nuclear Submarine Deal
The secrecy associated with the formation of the Submarine Taskforce should be of great concern to Australians of all persuasions as our partners in France had no clues about what was happening behind the scenes as they made preparations to supply the contracted diesel submarines that more fully complied with commitments to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone with the support of New Zealand and other island states. No wonder that President Macron had little respect for Scott Morrison. (The video and the news clip of the French President’s remarks are available here.)
February 14, 2023 By Denis Bright
Sincere appreciation must be extended to the Albanese Government for allowing Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead AO to be interviewed in some depth on the 7.30 Report (13 February 2023). Sarah Ferguson was up to speed again in her interviewing skills with a seasoned naval officer who was assigned to active service in the Persian Gulf in 2006 as Captain of HMAS Parramatta.
The Vice Admiral’s understanding of nuclear technology being applied in the selection of the new submarine options was of course beyond reproach through his involvement with the clandestine Nuclear Submarine Taskforce established by the Morrison Government. Our US allies are great salespersons for the Anglo-American military industrial complexes in the post-Brexit era.
At least Britain’s BAE Systems as potential manufacturers of the AUKUS Submarines paid some tax in 2020-21 with a payment of $26.293 million to the ATO on a revenue base of $1.062 billion and a declared taxable income of just $123.484 million. The US military and aerospace giant Lockheed Martin kept its tax bill to $14.891 million on an income take of just over half a billion and a taxable income of $53.056 million (ABC News Taxation List, 2 November 2022).
The concerns of ordinary Australians about the financial and security costs of the AUKUS Submarine deal extend well beyond concerns about the technical capacity of those sealed reactors which are expected to operate for 30 years for the full life of the submarines until the year 2070 approaches.
The secrecy associated with the formation of the Submarine Taskforce should be of great concern to Australians of all persuasions as our partners in France had no clues about what was happening behind the scenes as they made preparations to supply the contracted diesel submarines that more fully complied with commitments to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone with the support of New Zealand and other island states. No wonder that President Macron had little respect for Scott Morrison. (The video and the news clip of the French President’s remarks are available here.)
…………………………………………………….. The Naval News video admitted that the Émeraude had transited the South China Sea in stealth mode. This was confirmed by coverage from France 24 (12 February 2021). Perhaps the stealth mode was to test the awareness of Chinese vessels and shore installations. Other military French vessels have done navigation runs through the Taiwan Straits which is always provocative when the current Democratic Party (DPP) holds power in Taipei and is calling for a formal declaration of independence from China to cheers from far-right global opinion.
…………….For China, the Taiwan Straits are definitely disputed waters as most countries in the US Global Alliance supported a One China Policy fifty years ago. This should have ended the US practice of using Taiwan for propaganda purposes throughout the Cold War.
……………………….. Just imagine the outrage in the Murdoch press if Chinese submarines made jaunts into Bass Strait to annoy the naval officers at HMAS Cerberus or to scare students at the Vice Admiral’s old secondary school at St. Bede’s in Mentone if the remnants of the federal LNP tried to establish Tasmania as an Independent Nationalist State with the support of a friendly US Administration.
Annoying China as well as alienating some ASEAN nations and members of the Pacific Island Forum will not assist with the current repair work on trading and investment relations with China.
The proposed AUKUS submarine deal imposes frightful financial burdens on Australia during inflationary times in which costs estimates for the AUKUS submarines extends into the 2040s (The Guardian 14 December 2021). Losses on trade and investment opportunities with China would of course extend these costs with 43 per cent of our exports destined to China at present (Latest data from Trading Economics).
Taiwan can assist to defuse tensions by giving a guarantee that it is not about to make a declaration of independence from the mainland. Relations between Taiwan and the Mainland seem to be improving again as China reverts to commercial diplomacy over displays of military strength. This style of diplomacy at least ensures that the economy of Taiwan is more fully integrated with the Mainland. Over 12,000 Taiwanese students were studying in Chinese academic institutes prior to the COVID-19 epidemic.
Despite all the negative media coverage of China in the Murdoch press, 42 per cent of Taiwan’s exports went to China in 2021-22 and 22 per cent of Chinese imports originated in either China or Hong Kong (CNBC 4 August 2022). Many Taiwan-based companies and services operate in China and Hong Kong.
With President Tsai Lng-wen unable to seek a third term as President in 2024, the popularity of the DPP seems to be on the wane. The opposition KMT gained 50.14 per cent of the vote at the recent local government elections on 26 November 2022 and controls fourteen local government areas to five held by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
The Taiwanese electorate is undoubtedly evaluating the sustainability of nationalist rhetoric favouring a declaration of Taiwanese independence while the Australian government is negotiating those AUKUS submarine deals.
Signs of some thawing in cross-strait relations include a recent visit by the vice-chairman of the KMT to China and the restoration of more frequent fast ferry services between China’s Fujian Province and the adjacent Taiwanese islands of Kinmen and Matsu which are just a few kilometres off-shore.
There is great scope for the 7.30 Report to extend its coverage of the upsurge in regional strategic tensions with China after election cycles in Taiwan which bring the DPP into office. Re-election of the KMT in Taiwan in 2024 may totally defuse the current situation and leave Australians to bear the financial costs of the AUKUS submarine deal.
Opportunities exist to invite guest speakers onto future 7.30 Report programs to consider the impact of nuclear-powered submarines on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone which was ratified by all South Pacific nations as well as differing viewpoints on commercial ties with China.
Extending the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to coverage ASEAN Countries, the South China Sea and Taiwan might be a logical extension for consideration.
Toning down provocative visits by unfriendly naval vessels can be part of a Win-Win Deal to avoid future flyovers by Chinese jets.
Even the jellyfish in Moreton Bay are not very welcoming about the prospects of nuclear-powered ships:
According to a leading marine biologist and jellyfish expert Lisa-ann Gershwin, if the fleet is based in Brisbane, which is one of the shortlisted sites of the Australian government, the nuclear-powered submarines may be forced into an emergency reactor shutdown by swarms of jellyfish.
Gershwin added that Brisbane is “close to the absolute worst place” for a nuclear submarine base, due to the conditions in Moreton Bay and the usual jellyfish blooms.
Safety protocols for nuclear powered ships which sometimes carry nuclear weapons into Australian ports have been prepared by all states and territories as the ACT has its Jervis Bay facility which is separated from land-locked Canberra. The Queensland Government has made its precautions public in the publication Nuclear Powered Warship Visits to the Port of Brisbane.
Perhaps more public discussion as presented on the 7.30 Report can give the Australian government more wriggle room before the contracts are signed to initiate the AUKUS submarine deal. Payment of $835 million has already been made by the Albanese Government to France for breach of contract on the previous arrangements as negotiated by Malcolm Turnbull’s Government.
Appeals from our US allies for more military commitment from Australia and more use of the Pine Gap electronic base for offensive operations have landed Australia in compromising situations for decades from interventions in Vietnam to Afghanistan. The nostalgia for a return to the Cold War era with new military bases in the Philippines is an unfortunate regression. The ASEAN region to our north is better off left as a zone of peace and sustainable development.
By the time Australians discuss these issues, there may be a KMT Government in Taipei, and peaceful Win-Win scenarios may make the AUKUS deal redundant. Cheers then to the 7.30 Report’s contribution to strategic sanity. This style of reporting offers guest speakers who are saturated in knowledge of their specialist topics. I can only promote discussion and would be a real novice in head-to-head discussions with the Vice Admiral.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 