FBI Sued For Withholding Files On Assange And WikiLeaks
Kevin Gosztola, Sep 12, 2024, https://thedissenter.org/fbi-sued-for-withholding-files-on-assange-and-wikileaks/
“With the legal persecution of Julian Assange finally over, the FBI must come clean to the American people,” Chip Gibbons, policy director for Defending Rights & Dissent.
The civil liberties organization Defending Rights and Dissent sued the FBI and United States Justice Department for withholding records on WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.
“For nearly a decade and a half, we’ve been trying to get at the truth about the U.S. government’s war on WikiLeaks,” declared Chip Gibbons, the policy director for Defending Rights and Dissent.
Gibbons added, “With the legal persecution of Julian Assange finally over, the FBI must come clean to the American people.”
On June 25, 2024, U.S. government attorneys submitted a plea agreement [PDF] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands after Assange agreed to plead guilty to one conspiracy charge under the U.S. Espionage Act.
Assange was released on bail from London’s Belmarsh prison, where he had been jailed for over five years while fighting a U.S. extradition request. He flew on a charter flight to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory where a plea hearing was held.
The plea agreement marked the end of a U.S. campaign to target and suppress Assange and WikiLeaks that spanned 14 years and first intensified after WikiLeaks published documents from U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning that exposed crimes committed in U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as U.S. complicity in human rights abuses in dozens of countries around the world.
“As soon as we began publishing newsworthy stories about US war crimes in 2010, we know the US government responded to what was one of most consequential journalistic revelations of the 21st century by spying on and trying to criminalize First Amendment-protected journalism,” stated WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.
Hrafnsson continued, “While WikiLeaks has fought for transparency, the U.S. government has cloaked its war on journalism in secrecy. That’s why Defending Rights & Dissent’s lawsuit is so important, as it will help unmask the FBI’s efforts to criminalize journalism.”
On June 27, Defending Rights and Dissent requested [PDF] “all records created, maintained, or in the custody of the FBI that mention or reference: WikiLeaks; Julian Assange.”
The FBI separated the request into two requests—one for files mentioning “WikiLeaks,” one for files mentioning Julian Assange. And by August 19, the organization was informed by the FBI that it would take around five and a half years (2,010 days) to “complete action.”
Previously, on June 22, 2021, Defending Rights and Dissent submitted a nearly identical request. It took the FBI two years to respond and notify the organization that the documents could not be provided because there was a “law enforcement” proceeding that was pending against Assange.
The FBI became involved in pursuing an investigation against Assange and WikiLeaks in December 2010.
In 2011, FBI agents and prosecutors flew to Iceland to investigate what they claimed was a cyber attack against Iceland’s government systems. But as Iceland Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson told the Associated Press in 2013, it became clear that the FBI agents and prosecutors came to Iceland to “frame” Assange and WikiLeaks.
The FBI was interested in interviewing Sigurdur Thordarson, a serial liar and sociopath who embezzled funds from the WikiLeaks store and sexually preyed on underage boys. As I recount in my book “Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case Against Julian Assange,” Thordarson subsequently became an FBI informant or cooperating witness.
“When I learned about it, I demanded that Icelandic police cease all cooperation and made it clear that people interviewed or interrogated in Iceland should be interrogated by Icelandic police,” Jónasson added.
A little more than a year before the U.S. government’s prosecution against Assange collapsed, the FBI approached three journalists who had worked with Assange but had a falling-out with him. Each refused to help U.S. prosecutors further their attack on journalism.
“The decision to respond to reporting on U.S. war crimes with foreign counterintelligence investigations, criminal prosecutions, and dirty tricks continues to cast a dark shadow over our First Amendment right to press freedom,” Gibbons said.
Gibbons concluded, “We will work tirelessly to see that all files documenting how the FBI criminalized and investigated journalism are made available to the public.”
Albanese has a second chance with AUKUS
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters.
it is America which now sets our defence policy,
By Mike Gilligan, Sep 14, 2024 https://johnmenadue.com/albanese-has-a-second-chance-with-aukus
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Minister RIchard Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters. The Albanese Government’s defence policy manufactures grievous risk for Australia. That risk must be understood by the government.
The weekend Sydney Morning Herald (7 September) front page said: “Australia key to new US security scheme” by Peter Hartcher in Washington.
Hartcher is known as part of the Herald’s China-threat scare in March 2023, telling Australians that we face war with China within three years. Today that leaves just 18 months at the outside before war breaks out. Clearly ill-founded, it was a sensationalist attempt to panic Australians into embracing America’s planning for conflict with China.
The Americans are still at it, of course. And Hartcher is their messenger – boasting that his access in Washington is special because his interview at the White House is the only one which President Joe Biden’s National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, has given to Australian media in his 3-1/2 years in the role. Hartcher followed up with another report a few days later explaining that the Americans are looking for another big technology project to foist on Australia. In a hurry, because progress against China has been too slow.
Sullivan wants the new scheme stitched up before Biden leaves office. And by the way, Australia must spend more on defence for its role against China.
America is accustomed to dealing with its allies in that way. Europe’s NATO forces always have been shaped by US close oversight. Its member states are regularly hectored to spend more on defence against a common enemy. Sullivan is treating Australia just as he would another NATO ally. Without a second thought. And Australia’s leaders have fallen into line obsequiously.
Again it has to be said – Australia is not like the NATO countries. NATO was set up in response to an agreed security threat, the USSR.
We have no security threat. No Australian Government has declared, much less demonstrated, that China is a security threat. We had decades of understanding with the United States that our defence spending should be directed to Australia’s own defence with our own forces. Without relying on America. In situations where Australia supported the US militarily overseas, it would be with forces which we held for our own priorities. Nothing special would be done for America. America agreed. That was Australia’s independence in action.
It worked for 35 years until President Barack Obama visited in 2010 effectively requiring Australia to do an about-face. Signalling that henceforth Australia’s defence would be done America’s way.
The Albanese Government’s defence policy manufactures grievous risk for Australia. That risk must be understood by the government.
It is Australia’s experience with the US itself which defines the risk. No need to look elsewhere for examples. Ever since the ANZUS treaty was signed in 1953, America has told Australia not to rely on it if attacked. Again in contrast to NATO, ANZUS deliberately avoids American commitment to assisting Australia if attacked. It was the proof of that American reluctance (over Indonesia) and the Vietnam tragedy which led to Australia facing reality – bipartisanly adopting a self- reliant defence policy in 1976. The risk of not embracing self- reliance was deemed intolerable. To not pursue self-reliance feckless. And that initiative came with America’s enthusiastic endorsement, for 35 years.
Today it suits America to use Australia’s forces for its own ends against China. Yet it won’t commit to our security by dignifying us with a genuine treaty. The obvious risk is that America’s interest in Asia will decline, for many reasons. Then Australia will be left with defences of little use for our own need. What good is an island-hopping army dependent on US Marines, who have gone home? It’s been said before. But the profound risk hasn’t sunk in.
At the business end, the Albanese Government is spending heavily to dump Australia ever deeper into the risk predicament. Marles flaunts the financial cost. Noting that the Defence budget was $48 billion in 2022-23, the Albanese Government will raise it to $55.7 billion in 2024-25:
“These increases will see annual Defence spending almost double over the next ten years to $100 billion in the financial year 2033-34. Taken over a 10-year period, it will be the largest sustained growth in the Defence budget since the Second World War.”
This is the spending which Sullivan says should be increased. Australia’s defence budget of $58 billion is the same as Japan’s, also accelerating because of US pressure.
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters. Sam Roggeveen in his elegant essay “The Jakarta Option” describes the influences which render Marles’ strategy foolhardy. He presents evidence of a structural shift in warfare which renders maritime attack on an opponent’s territory increasingly hazardous. The exchange ratio of maritime forces to land-based weapons has swung heavily to the defender ie China in this case. Marles strategy of “projection” is squarely on the wrong side of this asymmetry.
So, what to do about this latest American “initiative”? Albanese tells the tale of having just one day to consider AUKUS when in opposition. He now has the full resources of Cabinet and can set his own timetable. He can require Marles to talk to the risks and costs to Australia of his National Strategy of power projection. And this latest directive from Washington. Ministers, especially the treasurer, should work through the risks, costs and consequences so that they genuinely know what Australia is being led into at vast cost.
Back to Hartcher. He unwittingly does us a service, demonstrating yet again that Australians have to rely on the candour of American leaders to see through the murky verbiage of Defence Ministers, confirming that it is America which now sets our defence policy, down to project detail. Hartcher will have something to brag about when he has the level of access in Beijing which he claims in Washington.
Labor claims Aukus nuclear waste dumping issue just a Greens scare campaign
the amendment did not specifically mention “high-level radioactive waste” and it “still allows the US and UK to dump intermediate-level waste, and Australian high-level waste, anywhere in Australia”.
Matt Thistlethwaite, an assistant minister, said Australia would “not manage, store or dispose of spent nuclear fuel from the US or the UK submarines”.
Legislation before Australian parliament covers the way the country’s nuclear-powered submarine program will be regulated
Guardian, Daniel Hurst Foreign affairs and defence correspondent, 13 Sept 24
The Albanese government has bowed to pressure to close an Aukus loophole, insisting that the newly revealed changes will ensure Australia will not become a dumping ground for nuclear waste from US and UK submarines.
The Greens argued the government’s latest amendments did not go far enough and it was becoming increasingly clear the Aukus security pact was “sinking”.
But Labor MPs later told the parliament Australia would not become “a dumping ground for nuclear waste for other countries” and argued such claims were part of “a scare campaign”.
The legislation before the Australian parliament covers the way the country’s nuclear-powered submarine program will be regulated. It includes the creation of a new statutory agency, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator.
The bill – in its original form – talked about “managing, storing or disposing of radioactive waste from an Aukus submarine”, which it defined broadly as Australian, UK or US submarines.
This prompted concerns from critics that the bill could pave the way for Australia to eventually store nuclear waste from other countries, regardless of a political commitment from the incumbent government not to do so.
In May, a Labor-chaired inquiry called for a legislative safeguard to specifically rule out accepting high-level nuclear waste from the US and the UK.
New amendments circulated by the government on Wednesday include a “prohibition on storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel that is not from an Australian submarine”.
The wording says the regulator “must not issue a licence” for the storage or disposal in Australia “of spent nuclear fuel that is not from an Australian submarine”.
The government is also amending the bill to prevent appearances of conflicts of interest at the new naval nuclear safety regulator.
The legislation will ensure anyone who has worked in the Australian defence force or the Department of Defence in the previous 12 months cannot be appointed to be the director general or deputy of the new regulator.
The defence minister, Richard Marles, said the amendments would “reaffirm the government’s already-established commitment that Australia will not be responsible for the storage or disposal of high-level radioactive waste from the US, UK or other countries”.
He said the government would “continue to build the foundations to safely and securely build, maintain and operate conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines”.
Greens say changes ‘far from clear’
But the Greens defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said the amendments were “far from clear”.
“The Albanese Labor government tried to sneak through a loophole that would allow the UK and US to dump their nuclear waste in Australia,” Shoebridge said.
“We called the government out and people around Australia pushed back, now Albanese is quickly putting through a half-measure to shut everyone up.”
Shoebridge said the amendment did not specifically mention “high-level radioactive waste” and it “still allows the US and UK to dump intermediate-level waste, and Australian high-level waste, anywhere in Australia”.
“Everyone can see Aukus is sinking,” he said.
Matt Thistlethwaite, an assistant minister, said Australia would “not manage, store or dispose of spent nuclear fuel from the US or the UK submarines”.
He told the parliament’s federation chamber that the government’s new amendments were intended to “put the matter beyond doubt”.
A fellow Labor MP, Rob Mitchell, said: “We will not be, as some have suggested, a dumping ground for nuclear waste for other countries. And it’s important that we put that scare campaign to bed very quickly and very clearly.”……………. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/11/labor-aukus-nuclear-waste-loophole-greens
Record weeks for renewables blow up Dutton’s nuclear con
The record high of low-cost wind and solar in the grid comes as we are still waiting for the costing on the Coalition’s plan to nationalise the eye-watering cost of seven nuclear plants.
Tim Buckley and Annemarie Jonson, 12 Sept 24, https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/record-weeks-for-renewables-blow-up-dutton-s-nuclear-con-20240910-p5k9e4
It’s been a red-letter few weeks for renewables in Australia. In the last week of August, coal dropped below 50 per cent of electricity generation for the first time, as renewables’ share rose to a record high 48.7 per cent, boosted by windy conditions and low grid demand.
In August last year, coal contributed 57 per cent and renewable energy held a 37 per cent share
As in the US and Britain, where zero-emissions supply is burgeoning as fossil fuels’ contribution to generation falls, this threshold moment in Australia symbolises that the inevitable shift to clean energy is well under way and accelerating here and globally. China is deploying 23 gigawatts of renewables every month, four times what Australia does in a year.
The record-high renewable energy penetration in our national electricity market was accompanied by near record-low wholesale prices, averaging $57 per megawatt hour in the last week of August, versus $91 in August last year. This shows that more renewables equals cheaper power.
South Australia is the standard-bearer for Australia’s renewable energy future. In the past seven days, more than 75 per cent of its power use was generated by renewables, at average wholesale prices of just $37 per megawatt hour, way below the $123 average over the past year.
South Australian Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis has revised the state’s renewables target to 100 per cent by 2027, off the back of the continued rollout of clean energy infrastructure.
This includes three big batteries announced last week under Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s flagship Capacity Investment Scheme – a key driver of investment momentum underpinning the renewables build-out nationally – and major grid developments, with concomitant projected residential and business energy bill savings.
The federal government and its state counterparts are getting on with the job of accelerating our national energy transition, working to deliver the federal 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target and the resulting energy bill relief. The lower house passed the Future Made in Australia Act this week, key to the government’s vision for a renewables-powered economy.
Still no nuclear costings
Meanwhile, the federal Coalition continues to perpetuate its nuclear con, designed to blow up progress on the transformation of our energy system to low-cost, reliable firmed renewables and entrench decades more of volatile, expensive fossil fuel-based power while we wait … and wait.
Next week marks three months since Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and chief nuclear spruiker Ted O’Brien released their fact- and costings-free, one-page nuclear memo, effectively a note proposing to nationalise the eye-watering cost of construction of seven nuclear plants nationwide – in a country with zero history and expertise in nuclear power generation, on a timeframe that, by all expert accounts, will not result in any material delivery before the mid-2040s. We’re still waiting for their budget projections on this excuse for a policy.
Only this week, Dutton was reported as dismissing questions about budget impacts because he didn’t want to overload Australians with too much information, as the government released an ad citing calculation by industry body the Smart Energy Council that the nuclear energy build would cost up to $600 billion and add $1000 annually to household electricity bills.
Our estimate is that the public cost would be a minimum of $100 billion, and this would inevitably be taxpayer-funded because, unlike firmed renewables, into which private capital is increasingly flowing, there is zero investor interest in nuclear in Australia without massive government subsidies, risk transfer and guarantees.
The Coalition plan involves a fiscally negligent impost on consumers already struggling with cost-of-living pressures. The global history of huge cost blowouts and bailouts in every Western economy building nuclear exacerbates this, and should discourage even the most credulous believer.
This alone makes nuclear unviable here. But the clincher is ongoing generation costs feeding into retail prices. The 2024 GenCost report by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator prices large-scale nuclear energy at $155 to $252 a megawatt hour. That is double their estimate of the cost of fully firmed renewable energy of $90 to $100, even after factoring in grid transmission, curtailment and battery firming costs.
The renewables surge is the way of the future. We cannot afford to entertain the Coalition’s damaging nuclear distraction.
Any government proposing nuclear here would be robbing Australians three times: once via a $100 billion public capital subsidy for nuclear reactors; again by locking in long-term hyperinflated energy prices; and third to compensate owners of the former coal power sites the Coalition has slated for nuclear, which have already built new clean energy assets, such as batteries onsite.
Progress is building on transforming our grid with superabundant wind and solar energy, distributed across rooftops and utility-scale, backed up by battery storage and modernised transmission. This now needs further acceleration, particularly given looming closures of breakdown-prone, expensive end-of-life coal power clunkers.
The evidence that firmed renewables win on cost is irrefutable, and double-digit annual deflation of battery and solar costs widens this advantage every year. The energy market operator last month confirmed it sees no energy supply reliability gaps to 2030 in the national electricity market, assuming planned renewables projects proceed on time and at the targeted scale.
The renewables surge we have experienced is the way of the future. We cannot afford to entertain the Coalition’s damaging nuclear distraction. For the sake of Australia, let’s hope that as the renewables reality rises, the Coalition’s domestic nuclear pipe dream is consigned to oblivion, where it belongs.
Any government proposing nuclear here would be robbing Australians three times: once via a $100 billion public capital subsidy for nuclear reactors; again by locking in long-term hyperinflated energy prices; and third to compensate owners of the former coal power sites the Coalition has slated for nuclear, which have already built new clean energy assets, such as batteries onsite.
Progress is building on transforming our grid with superabundant wind and solar energy, distributed across rooftops and utility-scale, backed up by battery storage and modernised transmission. This now needs further acceleration, particularly given looming closures of breakdown-prone, expensive end-of-life coal power clunkers.
The evidence that firmed renewables win on cost is irrefutable, and double-digit annual deflation of battery and solar costs widens this advantage every year. The energy market operator last month confirmed it sees no energy supply reliability gaps to 2030 in the national electricity market, assuming planned renewables projects proceed on time and at the targeted scale.
The renewables surge we have experienced is the way of the future. We cannot afford to entertain the Coalition’s damaging nuclear distraction. For the sake of Australia, let’s hope that as the renewables reality rises, the Coalition’s domestic nuclear pipe dream is consigned to oblivion, where it belongs.
Barnaby Joyce — nuclear energy not as cheap as he thinks it is
Independent Australia, By Belinda Jones | 14 September 2024,
Barnaby Joyce jumps on the nuclear energy bandwagon but gets his facts wrong, writes Belinda Jones.
THE COALITION’S NUCLEAR PLANS suffered another setback this week when it revealed that the Member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, got key nuclear facts wrong in a recent debate.
As part of the annual Bush Summit, presented by Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting and News Corp, Joyce took part in a debate with Chair of the Climate Change Authority, Matt Kean.
The Bush Summit has been an annual event on the bush calendar since 2019, which meets in rural and remote locations around the country and brings together leaders in politics, mining, agriculture and many other fields……………………………………..
Joyce had jumped on the nuclear energy bandwagon a few years earlier and has been there ever since. Joyce’s position was supported in 2019 with a push for an inquiry into the feasibility of nuclear energy by fellow National Keith Pitt and L-NP Senator James McGrath.
In 2022, Coalition donor Rinehart invested $60 million in Arafura Rare Earths. Arafura’s Nolans Project outputs involve exploration and processing of rare earths, including uranium ‘as a minor product’. A minor product that could be very lucrative if Australia had nuclear energy.
According to the Minerals Council of Australia ‘Australia’s uranium reserves are the world’s largest, with around one-third of global resources’, which might explain mining billionaire Rinehart’s embrace of nuclear energy as the transition away from coal continues…………..
Joyce’s passion for nuclear energy does beg the question — why didn’t the Coalition seize the opportunity to begin a transition to nuclear energy while they were in government from 2013 to 2022? One government minister said at the time it was because ‘financially it doesn’t stack up’.
In 2021, Morrison rejected nuclear energy because of a lack of bi-partisan support. Joyce revealed at the recent Bush Summit debate with Matt Kean that the real reason Morrison had rejected nuclear energy was because internal polling said nuclear energy was unpopular, as it still does, not because of a lack of bipartisan support.
During the recent Bush Summit debate, Joyce claimed that France and Finland’s energy is cheaper than Australia’s because they use nuclear energy.
This claim has since been fact-checked by AAP as wrong:
‘The National Party MP was responding to a suggestion that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had driven up power prices globally.
When asked to provide evidence for the claim, Mr Joyce’s office sent AAP FactCheck an article from the Australian Energy Council comparing household electricity prices internationally.
The analysis is from February 3, 2022, which predates the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by three weeks.’
Currently, the Coalition has released scant details about their nuclear energy ambitions. In the absence of a clear, comprehensive, costed nuclear energy plan from which Coalition politicians can work, misinformation or disinformation is more likely to spread on the nuclear issue…………………………….
Joyce has become the self-appointed poster boy for groups opposing renewables, particularly the New England, Illawarra and Hunter regions. He will be a panelist on ABC’s Q and A next Monday. Advertised shuttle buses will likely be ferrying anti-renewables activist audience members from Muswellbrook and Port Stephens to the Newcastle studio. Joyce will be at his theatrical best, knowing he has an audience full of supporters………………………… more https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/barnaby-joyce–nuclear-energy-not-as-cheap-as-he-thinks-it-is,18977
Award-winning Australian film-maker David Bradbury detained in India (he exposed India’s repression of its peaceful anti-nuclear activists).
The police used riot tactics and baton charges, mace and teargas to bludgeon the good people of Indinthakarai into submission. Which is the situation today. They are too scared to come out of their homes in mass protest. The Government of India, of Prime Minister Modi has become a terrorising state of its own people.
David Bradbury 14 September 24
I flew from Bangkok to Chennai Tuesday night with my two children – Nakeita Bradbury (21) and Omar Bradbury (14).
We all have visas issued by the Indian Govt in Australia before we left Sydney, last Saturday, Sept 7th.
After three days in Bangkok we flew to Chennai to begin what was to be a family holiday to remember: five major tourist destinations in two weeks.
Accommodation and internal flights (non refundable…) booked in advance in several locations.
(In Bangkok I showed my latest doco – a tribute to Neil Davis who was tragically killed in a 24 hour coup in Bangkok 39 years ago. Death is a Lady was shown at the Foreign Correspondents Club and we raised $Aust407 for the children of Gaza).
Arriving at Immigration counter at Chennai airport, my two children got their passports stamped and were able to go through no problem. When it came my turn, the perplexed official had to call for help as he laboured over his computer terminal.
Putting in my details had obviously triggered alarm bells. He called for his Supervisor who similarly winced as he looked over his shoulder. It was
2am in the morning. My kids waited patiently on the ot her side of the glass barrier between us.
Eventually I was told it would not be possible for me to enter India. I asked why not? I had a legitimate visa I told them.
And my kids were on the other side of the barrier separating us.
We were here on a family holiday we’d planned and saved for many months. With the usual Indian courtesy of avoiding the question:
‘Why not? What is wrong with my visa..?’
My kids were on one side of the border…and I was on this side. I could not join them. As they waved sadly, reluctantly Goodbye to me, I was led off down a corridor to a small room with high ceilings. Pretty disgusting room with papers and rubbish on the floor under a bed which had a filthy mattress on it, no sheets. A metal grill window that looked out to a blank corridor wall.
Occasionally a guard would come and stare through it at me.
During the course of the rest of the day and into the night various Immigration
Plainclothes police would come and interrogate me. What was I doing in India? What did I do here before in previous visit in 2012? Who did I know here in India and who have you been talking to before I came to India this time. Can you open up your phone and give it to us, please? Can we have their phone number?
I was cold and asked for my long trousers and socks which were in my suitcase and some medication I was taking for an enlarged prostrate. They never got them for me, only an hour before they forced me back onto the flight to Bangkok. My bag still hasn’t arrived here in Bangkok.
I asked if I could make a phone call to the Australian embassy in Delhi but that request was ignored.
As the plane took off from Chennai yesterday morning for Bangkok at 1.30am, it hurt my world weary heart to accept being separated from my kids and our plans to have a grand tour of the Indian subcontinent which included going to Varanasi to show my Omar how Hindus deal with death and farewelling their loved ones into the next life.(Omar lost his mum, my wife to breast cancer five months ago. We both feel strongly attached to each other).
What had caused the cancellation of my Indian Visa? Over the course of the afternoon and being interrogated by Indian Immigration plainclothes, I quickly concluded the Indian Govt had not forgiven me for writing an article for my local newspaper back in Australia and daring to enter a ‘No-go’ zone for both Indian national press and foreign media like myself in 2012.
Back then after I’d done my duties on the jury of the Mumbai International film festival, with wife Treena (Lenthall) and son Omar, then aged 3, we went and stayed in a small fishing village on the southern most tip of India. At a village called Indinthakarai where thousands of locals led by Dr Udayakamur, Catholic priests and nuns. Since the 1980’s the good fisherfolk of Indinthakarai had maintained a David and Goliath struggle against the pro-nuclear designs of the central Govt in far away New Delhi.
These people embraced Treena, Omar and I because we felt for them in their struggle against the central Government 3,000kms away in New Delhi who had run roughshod over their rights and their community. We lived in the village for the next two weeks and filmed their everyday lifestyle, their fishing in the ocean which their livelihood depended upon. I interviewed their leaders on why they were so upset with the Government. One of them, a wonderful man called Dr Udayakamur stood out. He told me why they were determined to keep on with their struggle.
It was because their Government had signed a very dodgy deal with the Russians to build six nuclear powers plants on top of a major earthquake fault line. That faultline right where a cabal of corrupt senior Indian politicians and senior bureaucrats had signed the contract with the Russians had seen 1,000 villagers swept to their deaths when the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami hit.
He told me on camera how the humble fisherfolk of Idinthakarai
whose ancestors had ploughed the ocean for millennia;
How the Delhi Govt refused to have any community consultation and refused repeated requests by the people of Indinthakarai to be given access to environmental assessment reports.
Dr Udayakamur is an earnest practitioner of Gandhi’s non violent protest actions to effect Change.
The locals under Dr Uday staged sit-down protests where they buried their bodies in the sand up to their necks on the foreshore where the nuclear plants were being built. Thousands of people marched into the sea out front of the power plants defying police orders.
In the end their actions were in vain. The police used riot tactics and baton charges, mace and teargas to bludgeon the good people of Indinthakarai into submission. Which is the situation today. They are too scared to come out of their homes in mass protest. The Government of India, of Prime Minister Modi has become a terrorising state of its own people.
Dr Uday faces 58 criminal charges which includes ’Sedition’. He faces many years in gaol and long years before that in drawn out court proceedings. It has taken its toll on his health and his family.
All this happening out of sight of reporter’s notebooks and cameras in the world’s largest ‘Democracy’.
The lucrative charity, yes CHARITY, running the Land Forces weapons expo
by Michael West | Sep 14, 2024, https://michaelwest.com.au/the-lucrative-charity-yes-charity-running-the-land-forces-weapons-fair/
The promoters behind the Land Forces weapons expo are registered as a charity. This charity, AMDA, pays no tax but does pay high salaries and just tripled its income to $35m. Michael West
It was rubber bullets and tear gas for peace protestors but special police mollycoddling and a Victorian Government sponsorship for the merchants of death.
What do we know about the promoters of the Land Forces weapons fair which the Victorian government so avidly protected from anti-war protestors this week with a $15m police presence, stun grenades, pepper spray and batons?
We know from regulatory filings the promoter behind Land Forces is a charity called AMDA Foundation. We know from AMDA’s financial disclosures that this charity is highly profitable. Its income shot up from $13m in 2022 to $34.6m last year
That was for the year to June; at which point it was sitting on a financial investment portfolio of $43m in cash, stocks and bonds. AMDA even gets government grants – grant revenue is booked at $6.6m over the past 2 years. The principal sponsor for Land Forces expo this year was none other than the Victorian Government, which went to extraordinary lengths to protect and promote its investment.
The mainstream media was bizarrely strident in its anti-protest coverage, running the story (not disavowed by the government and Victoria Police) that protestors sprayed police with acid. That was later downgraded to ‘irritants’ and ‘low-level acid’ bringing speculation it might have been orange juice (citric acid) or maybe the chemicals in the bubble liquid from the bubble machine with which the outnumbered protestors entertained the police blockade at one point.
It’s all a rort on the public, on the very taxpayers and citizens the Victorian government had its police assaulting this week, because weapons companies – the likes of AMDA’s exhibitors BAE, Lockheed Martin, Thales and Boeing – are funded by governments globally.
In Australia, the Defence budget is soaring amid rising weapons sales; so it is a fair bet that the income of AMDA will be higher in 2024.
AMDA’s $30m in expenses last year included $8m in pay for its 31 employees (FTE equivalent), which averages out at almost $260k per employee. The 5 KMP – the crew at the top of the charity – shared $1.5m or almost $300k apiece in ‘charity pay’.
The fake charity AMDA Foundation is exposed by Michael West Media’s Michelle Fahy.
Landforces’ brothers in arms: how a weapons peddler qualified for charitable status . https://www.michaelwest.com.au/landforces-brothers-in-arms-how-a-weapons-peddler-qualified-for-charitable-status/
by Michelle Fahy | Jun 4, 2021 The Coalition is cracking down on charitable organisations. However, the Australian charity promoting arms deals on behalf of weapons makers that profit from humanitarian catastrophes is unlikely to be in the government’s sights. With the weapons expo LandForces wrapping up in Brisbane this week, Michelle Fahy delves into the charity behind LandForces.
The Morrison government has charitable organisations in its sights. It proposes to amend the legislation covering charities so that minor legal misdemeanours by staff or supporters of a charity could be used as a prompt by the regulator for a review of a charity’s privileged status.
St Vincent de Paul told The Saturday Paper that if an activist wearing a Vinnies T-shirt refused to move along when asked by police, Vinnies could risk having its charitable status removed.
Hands Off Our Charities, an alliance of Australian charities, said in a submission to government: “The proposal is a major overreach and the need for further regulation has not been (and in our view cannot be) properly explained.”
Yet consider the activities of a not-for-profit organisation that many Australians will be astounded to discover has gained privileged charitable status – AMDA Foundation Limited (AMDA).
AMDA is the organiser of Land Forces, a biennial military and weapons exhibition running in Brisbane this week showcasing organisations “operating across the full spectrum of land warfare”.
The 600 exhibitors at Land Forces include local and multinational weapons manufacturers and other suppliers to military forces. Event sponsors include global arms corporations such as Boeing, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Rheinmetall, General Dynamics, Saab and Hanwha, along with local companies Electro Optic Systems (EOS), CEA, and NIOA. Representatives from foreign governments and militaries are among the attendees.
Several of AMDA’s arms-maker sponsors have supplied their weaponry to the two countries leading the coalition fighting the war in Yemen – Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The UN has been pleading for years for countries to cease supplying weaponry to these countries.
In late 2018, the New York Times published distressing photographs of emaciated children in Yemen dying as a result of aid blockades during the war. The mass starvation continues. UNICEF has said more than 400,000 Yemeni children under five could die preventable deaths this year.
Promoting arms deals on behalf of corporations that have profited from this unspeakable humanitarian catastrophe is the antithesis of what an Australian registered charity should be doing.
But the political posturing evident in the government’s proposed changes is unlikely to result in any repercussions for the AMDA Foundation. Instead, it is ‘activist’ environmental charities that are being targeted by the changes. Which is precisely the problem with such sweeping broad powers. They can be implemented selectively to silence voices the government does not want heard.
“It is the principle that underpins the change that is wrong, regardless of who it is used to target,” said Matt Rose, Economy & Democracy Program Manager at the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Arms trade promotion a “charitable activity”?
AMDA runs numerous major military and weapons-related trade exhibitions around Australia. Its roster of events includes Avalon, a biennial aerospace military and weapons expo in Victoria, next slated for early December 2021. The Indo Pacific Expo, a maritime warfare exhibition, is scheduled for May 2022 in Sydney.
These and other industry trade shows bring together sellers and buyers of weaponry and other military and security-related equipment. “Doing business is easy at Land Forces,” says its website, noting that Land Forces serves as a “powerful promotional and industry engagement forum”.
AMDA says it exists to help the “general community in Australia”. But the general community is not permitted to attend Land Forces nor AMDA’s other arms exhibitions. (The public can attend the Avalon Air Show, a separate public event run at the same time as the Avalon arms expo.)
AMDA is part of a group of companies registered with ACNC which operates around the country. It had 24 full-time-equivalent employees and a gross income in 2020 of $11.7 million – 32% of which came from government grants and 61% from operating revenue. Its income in 2019 was $26.2 million, mostly from operating revenue.
Revolving doors and conflicted interests
The AMDA board is an all-male affair. Its chair is former chief of the Royal Australian Navy, Christopher Ritchie, who joined the board in May 2017 while concurrently sitting on the boards of Lockheed Martin Australia (until 2020) and German naval shipbuilder Luerssen Australia, both multibillion dollar contractors to the Defence Department.
Former chief of army Kenneth Gillespie sits on the AMDA board while also sitting on the board of Naval Group, the French multinational building Australia’s controversial new submarines. Gillespie is also chair of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) Council, the highly influential and supposedly “independent” think tank tasked with providing strategic advice to the government.
ASPI is sponsored by Naval Group as well as other global arms manufacturers including Lockheed Martin, Thales, Saab and Northrop Grumman. ASPI has been vocal in its anti-China ‘war drums’ rhetoric, stoking regional tensions, along with the Asia Pacific arms race.
Why Aged Care Funding Scrutinised, but Military Spending Not
Double Standards in Public Discourse
The double standard in how we view social versus military spending is stark. While aged care is framed as a financial burden that requires higher contributions from individuals, military spending is accepted without the same level of scrutiny. Why is it that investments in the well-being of citizens are questioned while investments in military equipment go ahead without question?
Australia’s government has the financial ability to distribute more resources toward aged care without compromising national defence. By reallocating just, a fraction of the $368 billion earmarked for submarines, the aged care system could receive the necessary funding to address worker shortages, improve infrastructure, and ensure that no senior is left without quality care.
September 13, 2024 by By Denis Hay, The AIM Network
Introduction
Australia is grappling with rising demands for aged care services as its population grows older, leading to a $5.6 billion reform package to improve the sector. Yet, every dollar given to aged care is met with scrutiny, with questions about sustainability and affordability. In stark contrast, military spending – including the $368 billion given for the AUKUS submarine deal – goes ahead with far less financial scrutiny.
Why do we ask, “At what cost?” for aged care, yet overlook the same question for military projects? This article explores these double standards and how Australia’s currency sovereignty means the government has the financial capacity to fund both without compromising one for the other.
Disparities in Spending Scrutiny
I. Aged Care Reforms: Why “At What Cost” is Constantly Asked
A. Key Changes in Aged Care
The Australian government’s $5.6 billion aged care reform package aims to improve services for more than 1.4 million older Australians, helping them stay at home longer before entering institutional care. However, the reforms include higher means-tested contributions from seniors, raising concerns about affordability for lower-income individuals.
B. Challenges in Aged Care Funding
Australia’s aged care sector is facing significant challenges, even with the new reforms:
1. Workforce shortages – More than 300,000 workers are needed to meet the demand for aged care services, but underfunding is making recruitment and retention difficult.
2. Underfunding – The sector is still underfunded despite the reforms, with many care facilities still struggling to provide adequate services.
3. Increased demand – With Australia’s aging population expected to double by 2050, more funds will be needed to provide quality care.
Despite these growing challenges, aged care funding is constantly questioned. The $5.6 billion reform package was seen as necessary, but it came with a public narrative focused on budget concerns and intergenerational equity, suggesting the government is walking a financial tightrope when funding such social services.
C. Public and Political Scrutiny
Aged care spending is consistently subjected to public and political debate, with media coverage often emphasising the “cost to the taxpayer“ and generational fairness. Yet this intense scrutiny stands in stark contrast to how military spending is viewed, where multibillion-dollar defence projects move forward with little financial questioning.
II. Military Spending: An Unquestioned Cost
A. Overview of Military Expenditures
In 2023, Australia committed $368 billion over the next 30 years to the AUKUS submarine program, making it one of the largest military spending commitments in the country’s history. The overall defence budget for 2023-2024 alone reached $50 billion, marking a significant increase compared to previous years.
B. Justifications for Military Spending
Proponents of military spending often argue that defence investments are critical for national security, particularly with the growing military presence of China in the Indo-Pacific region. The AUKUS deal, which promises to deliver nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, has been framed as necessary for safeguarding Australia’s interests in the future.
However, this narrative ignores the question of cost. While $368 billion has been committed for submarines over the next three decades, far less attention is given to the financial opportunity costs – what else could be funded with such vast sums?
C. Limited Scrutiny on Defence Budgets
In contrast to aged care, military expenditures are rarely subject to serious financial scrutiny. Public debate around defence spending typically focuses on national security threats rather than the financial burden of these projects. Even when media coverage addresses military budgets, it rarely compares them to the costs of social services, leaving aged care and defence spending to occupy entirely different public conversations.
Australia’s Currency Sovereignty and the Real Limits…………………………………………………………………………..
Double Standards in Public Discourse
The double standard in how we view social versus military spending is stark. While aged care is framed as a financial burden that requires higher contributions from individuals, military spending is accepted without the same level of scrutiny. Why is it that investments in the well-being of citizens are questioned while investments in military equipment go ahead without question?
…………………………………………………………… Rebalancing Australia’s Budget Priorities
…………………..Australia’s government has the financial ability to distribute more resources toward aged care without compromising national defence. By reallocating just, a fraction of the $368 billion earmarked for submarines, the aged care system could receive the necessary funding to address worker shortages, improve infrastructure, and ensure that no senior is left without quality care. ……………..more https://theaimn.com/why-aged-care-funding-scrutinised-but-military-spending-not/
The tangled nuclear web of lies and half-truths – can we believe that Australia will refuse to take USA toxic wastes?
How is the Australian government going to twist their way around THIS ONE!
I’d really like to believe Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who once was a noble opponent of the military-industrial-nuclear complex.
But – now – I fear that he is as gutless as most Australian politicians when it comes to sucking up to the USA.
https://theaimn.com/can-we-believe-that-the-australian-government-will-really-refuse-to-take-usa-uk-nuclear-submarine-waste/ 12 Sept 24, Today comes one of those amazing bits of news that a national government, in this case, it seems, Australia, has actually listened and responded to the many voices of peace and environment activists who are shocked at the proposed Naval Nuclear Propulsion Treaty which benefits the USA, but not Australia, and which makes Australia responsible for high level nuclear wastes from U.S/UK nuclear submarines.
If we can believe the Labor government – they are going to stand up to the USA and the UK, and refuse to accept high level toxic radioactive trash from USA – ‘Relief’ Australia won’t take high-level nuclear waste under AUKUS.
The latest information on Australia getting nuclear submarines is that as early as 2027, the United States will begin rotational presence in the Western Australia facility. Ultimately, there will be up to four U.S. Virginia-class submarines and one United Kingdom Astute-class submarine at HMAS Stirling. https://www.defenseone.com/business/2024/01/race-prepare-australia-nuclear-subs/393601/
So these nuclear submarines will be stationed in Australia , but owned by the USA and UK, not by Australia.
Well- here are a couple of clauses from this jargon-filled proposed Treaty:
ARTICLE IV – D
Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any
spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Plants transferred pursuant to this Article, including radioactive waste generated
through submarine operations, maintenance, decommissioning, and disposal.
ANNEX B: SECTION I – SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
Such Power Units shall contain highly enriched uranium and, only with respect to irradiated fuel, may contain plutonium.
Friends of the Earth are among the many who have sounded the warning:
Minister for Defence Richard Marles has stated that Australia would not accept radioactive waste from overseas, but this has not been explicitly ruled out in the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 currently before Parliament. The words of an under-pressure defence minister in 2024 are unlikely to count for much decades hence if Australian legislation and the Agreement between Australia, the UK and
the US do not prohibit the acceptance of foreign spent nuclear fuel.
It is important to acknowledge Australia’s poor history regarding radioactive waste disposal
facilities.
How is the Australian government going to twist their way around THIS ONE!
I’d really like to believe Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who once was a noble opponent of the military-industrial-nuclear complex.
PM Albanese has been adroit at making himself a “small target” for both the Opposition nuclear enthusiasts, and for his own Labor Party members who deplore the AUKUS nuclear deal. No doubt he will rely on the mealy-mouthed USA-sycophant defence Minister Richard Marles to spin the story on this.
Submission -Terry Barridge – re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion – it’s dangerous, the public should vote on it.
Given the significant implications of such a security pact, it is only democratic that the Australian population has a direct say in this matter. I strongly advocate for this issue to be put to a vote, allowing the voices of Australian citizens to be heard and respected in a decision that will impact our nation’s future.
I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the recent enhancement of the AUKUS agreement,
commonly referred to as AUKUS 2.0, between Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. As an
Australian citizen deeply invested in the long-term security and prosperity of our nation, I feel compelled to voice my apprehensions regarding the implications of this agreement
Firstly, I am troubled by the increased proximity of Australian military and security policies to those of the
United States. The United States, in its current geopolitical stance, appears to many as a waning power, facing significant domestic challenges and shifting international allegiances. By binding our security interests so closely with those of the United States through agreements like AUKUS 2.0, Australia risks inheriting the animosities and conflicts that are directed towards America. This alignment not only draws us into the sphere of influence of a nation facing considerable global scrutiny and criticism but also potentially makes Australia a target for those who view the United States unfavorably.
Secondly, the financial burden of AUKUS 2.0 on Australian taxpayers is a major concern. The investment
required to uphold the commitments within this agreement is substantial, and the returns – both in terms of security enhancements and economic benefits – are uncertain. In an era where economic stability is precarious, it is crucial that government expenditures are made with a clear and guaranteed return on investment. The lack of transparency regarding the financial implications and benefits of AUKUS 2.0 is worrying. Australian taxpayers deserve clarity on how their funds are being used and assurances that these expenditures will not only safeguard but also enhance our national interests.
Furthermore, in light of the current “cost of living” crisis, the financial commitment required for this deal
appears especially irresponsible. Many Australians are already struggling to manage everyday expenses, from utility bills to housing costs. Allocating substantial public funds to an uncertain and contentious military agreement further burdens the average citizen without offering immediate or transparent benefits.
Moreover, the United States has a long and contentious history of treating warfare as a business opportunity, enriching a select few at the expense of many. This perspective on military engagement should not be what we aspire to promote in our region. America’s track record in wars across the globe has often led to long-standing conflicts without clear successes, posing significant concerns about the wisdom of aligning our defense policies so closely with their strategies.
Given the significant implications of such a security pact, it is only democratic that the Australian population has a direct say in this matter. I strongly advocate for this issue to be put to a vote, allowing the voices of Australian citizens to be heard and respected in a decision that will impact our nation’s future.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response, outlining how you and your office will address these concerns. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
Submission – Stephen Clendinnen – re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion – oppose this costly, dangerous, AUKUS mistake
I am writing to you to oppose the proposed AUKUS deal. Here are my reasons.
1 The AUKUS deal will provoke an arms race with China which will destabilise the entire Indo-Pacific region and lead to increased conflict in our region. China is our number one trading partner. Entering an arms race with China will seriously jeopardise our economic interests with potential massive financial costs. Entering an arms race with China will also make us more of a target for attack.
2 The proposal is extremely expensive and we know from past experience that these type of high tech defence projects usually run massively over budget. So it is safe to say that the cost will be well over $386 billion.
3 The AUKUS deal will make us completely subservient to the USA. These submarines will not really be owned by Australia; the US and the UK will retain complete control over crucial technologies that operate the subs. Without active support from the US and the UK the subs will not be able to operate.
4 There are very real risks that the USA will cease to be a functioning democracy in the near future. There are no contingency plans for this eventuality. The USA is complicit in war crimes that Israel is committing through the supply of weapons. Both the Republicans and the Democrats support this policy. By entering the AUKUS agreement Australia will bear legal and moral responsibility for participating in war crimes.
5 These subs will not be built in Australia. There are massive technical and labour force impediments to this ever happening. The promises made about building submarines here are always deliberately vague about the time line.
6 The US cannot make enough of the subs for their own needs and are running way behind schedule. Delivery of submarines to Australia will be massively delayed, however Australia has already started making payments.
7 This is a very expensive proposal that gives all the benefits to the USA and the UK with many of the up front costs being paid by Australia.
8 Australia will be receiving large amounts of nuclear waste from the USA and from the UK as part of this arrangement.
Submission -James Lechte – re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion it’s not too late to walk back this AUKUS commitment
China has never in its long history shown a track record of external aggressiveness.
its highly likely that
rather than China, the US in fact may become more unstable and less trustworthy in the coming
decades, even sooner perhaps.
Submission no 19
This is formal feedback on the proposed AUKUS legislation/policy and related $ 370 billion budget
spend forecast by the current administration for the nuclear submarine acquisition from the US.
As a concerned Aussie citizen, and having had the privilege of living in Switzerland for a number of
years whilst working overseas, it brings new light on recent commentary about the AUKUS deal and
Australia’s position, held by both Labour and the Liberal National party coalition.
My feedback relates to If and how.
IF
The key question Australians deserve further dialogue over is whether or not its in our best interests
to develop a first of a kind, pro US, assertive (some would consider aggressive) defense posture in
the region. Australia is a peaceful country, with a diverse and increasingly multi-cultural pan Asian
background. History tells us that wars are difficult, do not end well nor are in any parties interests.
Whatsmore, history also tells us that deterrence based on increased defence capability is not based
in fact. Rather, strategic ambiguity – where by any threat does not understand which side we would
take in a conflict, may be a better deterrent, as it gives parties options and does not actively signal a
threat.
AUKUS removes this opportunity.
likelihood of getting into conflict. Switzerland is an excellent example here – across their history from
the late 1200s, they have managed to achieve this ambiguity, which has provided them with options
in alliances and support, in different scenarios across history.
China has never in its long history shown a track record of external aggressiveness. On the contrary,
despite them being very assertive in their economic position, often crossing the line, the latest
example from 2020/21 economic stoush with Australia highlights to us that this can be managed and
resolved, by using soft power – diplomacy, patience and dialogue. In any conflict, showdown or
threat, we have already engaged by virtue of the posture that is in question built into AUKUS. We
have no option but to engage, regardless of the rhetoric of Minister Marles suggesting that this is
within our discretion. We effectively have a target on our back.
As Ray Dalio highlights in his essays regarding world power being reshaped, its highly likely that
rather than China, the US in fact may become more unstable and less trustworthy in the coming
decades, even sooner perhaps. If this happens, where does this leave Australias options around
independence, freedom of defence action and strategic ambiguity? If this world power shift continues and China continues its ascendency, why is it in Australias interest to maintain an
aggressive posture with the new world power? This makes no sense.
How
If one is to assume that based on a long history of alliance, collaboration and defence information
and knowledge sharing, Australia should join an AUKUS alliance, then the question is how this can be
achieved whilst maintaining a) as much of the above ambiguity as possible as its in our long term
interests, and b) a commercial strategy that sees Australia have an equitable commercial
relationship, grow its economy, not primarily its debt. It is in Australias interest to have a resilient
and multi faceted defence capability, whilst also managing a careful cost benefit of investing in these
assets. This means that we need to be extremely commercial, shrewd and strategic in the use of
multiple options to fend off potential threats and get the best long term value for money. This
classically is now termed ‘Asymmetric’ capabilities. Aside from the issue of how Australian Defence
experts and the Government choose to renew this capability, one thing is for certain, we need to
develop much better commercial capabilities in this space given the quantum were talking about,
this role would be similar in scale to a Deputy capability group within the ATO or home affairs for
example, dealing with the size of the spend. We should be extremely commercially aggressive on
clawing back spend where budgets have been over run, ultimately meaning that shared success is
the primary objective for all parties.
The deal that has been presented to Australians, with scant detail, suggests that none of the above
has been achieved. On the contrary, it seems like we have entered into an agreement MAXIMISING
our partners interests and not ours. The context that this deal is/has taken shape under is that for
the health and prosperity of the region, it is in many parties (US, Japan, Indo Pacific nations etc)
interests for Australia and other nations to have strategic defence capabilities. It is also important to
note, that in doing so, we are buttressing the US’s defence posture in the region and as such,
deserve special economic consideration, just like the defence consideration (being given access to
these tools). We are also an extension of the US defence capability, given the tools being selected. It
somehow flies in the face of economic reality and pragmatism, that Australia is the sole payer at
what appears a significant premium, where the bulk of the jobs, companies and profits will go
offshore.
This is an enormous let down to Australians. A let down for the significant work and taxpayer dollars
that taxpayers are burdened by. There is no question that a) we have enormous spending
commitments over the coming decades with an ageing population and at best c class infrastructure
across the country and b) declining tax revenues combined with c) an inability to reform the tax
system so that the wealthy, mining and other multinationals pay way too little tax. It is more that
arguable that Australia simply cannot afford this luxury capability, especially until one or many of
these aforementioned planks of our economic condition are improved measurably.
Ultimately, if we have no choice but to contribute to the AUKUS pact, we should do so judiciously,
economically, and carefully. However – its not too late to maintain some form of independence by
walking back commitments to acquire nuclear submarines, which will undoubtedly be well over
budget, technologically inferior and pin us down to be a multi decade minion of the US, as one
recently put it – ‘the 51 state of the United States’. Developing a more conservative stance within
these treaties is in all Australians interests. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
‘Relief’ Australia won’t take high-level nuclear waste under AUKUS
In response to recommendations made by a parliamentary committee, Labor has proposed changes that make clear Australia will be responsible only for high-level waste produced by its submarines
New Daily Tess Ikonomou, Sep 11, 2024
Australia will not accept high-level nuclear waste from other countries under a security pact with the US and UK.
Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines for $368 billion under the AUKUS agreement.
The Albanese government is introducing amendments to the bill which sets up the framework to regulate the safety of activities relating to the nuclear-powered submarines.
In response to recommendations made by a parliamentary committee, Labor has proposed changes that make clear Australia will only be responsible for high-level waste produced by its submarines.
The need to manage nuclear fuel is expected to occur in the 2050s
The University of Melbourne’s Professor Tilman Ruff, from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said the welcome move was a “relief”.
“The other issue that concerns us is the proliferation potential of the fact that there is highly enriched uranium in any nuclear submarine that Australia is likely to acquire,” he said.
Dr Ruff said it was “really unfortunate” the new regulator monitoring how nuclear material would be handled would sit within Defence.
“That’s a fundamental conflict with good governance – the regulators should be independent,” he said.
“This obviously requires very expert, but also very independent, transparent and accountable regulation.”
Under the treaty, the US or UK can quit the pact with a year’s notice.
It also requires Australia to legally protect both allies against costs or injuries arising from nuclear risks.
The agreement will remain in force until 2075 and says the AUKUS deal should not adversely affect the ability of the US and UK to “meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs”.
US government and military officials have moved to reassure the deal will withstand changing administrations for decades to come, amid fears it could be torn up by a new leader. https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2024/09/11/australia-nuclear-waste-aukus—
Protecting the Merchants of Death: The Police Effort for Land Forces 2024
September 12, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/protecting-the-merchants-of-death-the-police-effort-for-land-forces-2024/—
September 11. Melbourne. The scene: the area between Spencer Street Bridge and the Batman Park–Spencer Street tram stop. Heavily armed police, with glinting face coverings and shields, had seized and blocked the bridge over the course of the morning, preventing all traffic from transiting through it. Behind them stood second tier personnel, lightly armed. Then, barricades, followed by horse mounted police. Holding up the rear: two fire trucks.
In the skies, unmanned drones hovered like black, stationary ravens of menace. But these were not deemed sufficient by Victoria Police. Helicopters kept them company. Surveillance cameras also stood prominently to the north end of the bridge.
Before this assortment of marshalled force was an eclectic gathering of individuals from keffiyeh-swaddled pro-Palestinian activists to drummers kitted out in the Palestinian colours, and any number of theatrical types dressed in the shades and costumery of death. At one point, a chilling Joker figure made an appearance, his outfit and suitcase covered in mock blood. The share stock of chants was readily deployed: “No justice, no peace, no racist police”; “We, the people, will not be silenced. Stop the bombing now, now, now.” Innumerable placards condemning the arms industry and Israel’s war on Gaza also make their appearance.
The purpose of this vast, costly exercise proved elementary and brutal: to defend Land Forces 2024, one of the largest arms fairs in the southern hemisphere, from Disrupt Land Forces, a collective demonised by the Victorian state government as the great unwashed, polluted rebel rousers and anarchists. Much had been made of the potential size of the gathering, with uncritical journalists consuming gobbets of information from police sources keen to justify an operation deemed the largest since the 2000 World Economic Forum. Police officers from regional centres in the state had been called up, and while Chief Commissioner Shane Patton proved tight–lipped on the exact number, an estimate exceeding 1,000 was not refuted. The total cost of the effort: somewhere between A$10 to A$15 million.
It all began as a healthy gathering at the dawn of day, with protestors moving to the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre to picket entry points for those attending Land Forces.
Over time, there was movement between the various entrances to prevent these modern merchants of death from spruiking their merchandise and touting for offers. As Green Left Online noted, “The Victorian Police barricaded the entrance of the Melbourne Convention Centre so protestors marched to the back entrance to disrupt Land Forces whilst attendees are going through security checks.”
In keeping with a variant of Anton Chekhov’s principle, if a loaded gun is placed upon the stage, it is bound to be used. Otherwise, leave it out of the script. A large police presence would hardly be worthwhile without a few cracked skulls, flesh wounds or arrests. Scuffles accordingly broke out with banal predictability. The mounted personnel were also brought out to add a snap of hostility and intimidation to the protestors as they sought to hamper access to the Convention. For all of this, it was the police who left complaining, worried about their safety.
Then came the broader push from the officers to create a zone of exclusion around the building, resulting in the closure of Clarendon Street to the south, up to Batman Park. Efforts were made to push the protests from the convention centre across the bridge towards the park. This was in keeping with the promise by the Chief Commissioner that the MCEC site and its surrounds would be deemed a designated area over the duration of the arms fair from September 11 to 13.
Such designated areas, enabled by the passage of a 2009 law, vests the police with powers to stop and search a person within the zone without a warrant. Anything perceived to be a weapon can be seized, with officers having powers to request that civilians reveal their identity.
Despite such exercisable powers, the relevant legislation imposes a time limit of 12 hours for such areas, something most conspicuously breached by the Commissioner. But as Melbourne Activist Legal Support (MALS) group remarks, the broader criteria outlined in the legislative regime are often not met and constitute a “method of protest control” that impairs “the rights to assembly, association, and political expression” protected by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
The Victorian government had little time for the language of protest. In a stunningly grotesque twist, the Victorian Premier, Jacinta Allan, defended those at the Land Forces conference as legitimate representatives of business engaging in a peaceful enterprise. “Any industry deserves the right to have these sorts of events in a peaceful and respectful way.” If the manufacture, sale and distribution of weapons constitutes a “peaceful and respectful” pursuit, we have disappeared down the rabbit hole with Alice at great speed.
That theme continued with efforts by both Allan and the opposition leader, John Pesutto, to tarnish the efforts by fellow politicians to attend the protest. Both fumed indignantly at the efforts of Greens MP Gabrielle de Vietri to participate, with the premier calling the measure one designed for “divisive political purposes.” The Green MP had a pertinent response: “The community has spoken loud and clear, they don’t want weapons and war profiting to come to our doorstep, and the Victorian Labor government is sponsoring this.”
The absurd, morally inverted spectacle was duly affirmed: a taxpayer funded arms exposition, defended by the taxpayer funded police, used to repel the tax paying protestors keen to promote peace in the face of an industry that thrives on death, mutilation and misery.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 