Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Mapping the revolving door between government and the weapons industry

Undue Influence revolving door database progresses

MICHELLE FAHY, Undue Influence Substack, NOV 4, 2023

Some 80 per cent of the United States’ four star generals and admirals go on to work for US weapons-making companies, it was revealed last month. US arms industry expert William Hartung also noted that with the Pentagon’s budget soaring towards US$1 trillion a year, and security challenges posed by Russia and China front and centre, an independent assessment of the best path ahead for the US was vital.

Yet, he said, “more often than not, special interests override the national interest in decisions on how much to spend on the Pentagon, and how those funds should be allocated”.

Hartung’s revelations were made possible by US research tracking the revolving door between the US government and the weapons industry.

In Australia, the defence budget is also rising. At the same time, transparency and accountability from our politicians and the Defence Department continues to decline.

The US research has reinforced the importance of the Australian revolving door database that I am creating, in collaboration with a research assistant and a technical specialist. This project was made possible by a grant from the Jan de Voogd Peace Fund.

Revolving door a feature in major defence procurement in Australia

My two-part investigative feature, first published by Declassified Australia in July, put the spotlight on the revolving door between the Australian government and the world’s sixth largest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems. It also contributed to a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

The investigation revealed close links between government and industry – information that will be included in the revolving door database – and provided a rare insight into the Australian revolving door in action. It exposed how the government gave former senior BAE insiders influential behind-the-scenes roles before and during a tender process that BAE went on to win. Few of these senior roles were publicly acknowledged by the government.

The procurement of the Hunter class frigates, now at $46 billion (and rising), is Australia’s second largest ever defence acquisition. The Greens’ defence spokesman David Shoebridge made the referral to the NACC.

Database progress to date

The revolving door database has been funded by the Jan de Voogd Peace Fund (administered by the NSW Quakers). The project is being auspiced by the Medical Association for Prevention of War.

The database architecture is now complete following a detailed and complex development process which enables arms company contract data to be extracted from the government’s public databases. The website will aggregate hundreds of contract values into a single annual figure for each major arms corporation, updated daily. With major multinational arms makers having up to 20 or more relevant subsidiaries, it is vital to be able to combine the total value, and this is what the database will do.

The names of people who have occupied 60 senior military, political and defence-related positions back to the year 2000 have been compiled. We will now investigate the existence of subsequent arms-related private sector positions.

How you can help

November 4, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Defence continues its blanket secrecy on weapons exports

Mapping the revolving door between government and the weapons industry

Undue Influence revolving door database progresses

Undue Influence Substack, MICHELLE FAHY, NOV 4, 2023

Australia has approved 322 military or dual-use permits to Israel over the past six years, according to new figures the government provided last week in response to questions on notice from Greens Senator David Shoebridge. The period covered was January 2017 to March 2023.

Defence has previously admitted that it favours secrecy over transparency and accountability regarding its decisions on weapons exports.

As I reported in 2021, Defence elevates the protection of ‘commercially sensitive’ information and ‘opportunities for Australian companies’ above fundamental democratic principles of transparency and accountability.

The recent reports show that Defence Department secrecy around weapons exports has not improved with the change in government.

Australia is obliged under international law to ensure weapons exports are not used to commit human rights violations, but Defence’s ongoing secrecy means the public has no idea what the Department has approved for export in our name.

“Australia has a legal duty under the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which Australia actively promoted when it was a UN Security Council member, to ensure that weapons are not used to commit human rights violations,” says former United Nations legal expert and Australian government minister Melissa Parke, who now leads the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). “Under the treaty, there must also be fully transparent public reporting about arms exports.”

Senator Shoebridge, the Greens’ defence spokesperson, said Australia had “one of the most secretive and unaccountable weapons export systems in the world”, given that it doesn’t break down the exact items exported.

Furthermore, Defence’s disclosure of the number of permits it has approved is a statistical veneer of limited value. Consider: one permit can cover multiple shipments or shipments to multiple countries. One permit can also cover multiple quantities, types and models of weapons or other items, whether physical or ‘intangible’ (electronic). In addition, as Defence freely admits, not all permits it approves proceed to export and delivery. Knowing the number of approved permits is therefore meaningless.

The ethical consequences of Defence’s policy of protecting the commercial interests of Australian weapons companies can be readily understood given the current war between Israel and Hamas: Australia is likely to have contributed towards the indiscriminate killing of innocent people in Gaza.

“Australia’s actions in approving arms exports to countries that are known to be committing serious violations of human rights, and its failure to be transparent about this, are inconsistent with its obligations under international law,” says Parke. “Having signed up to … these international laws, the Australian government can’t just cherry pick what aspects it’s going to abide by, especially when it … lectures other countries, such as China and Russia, about the importance of the international rule of law.”  https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/mapping-the-revolving-door-database-progress?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=138509639&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email

November 4, 2023 Posted by | secrets and lies, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australian leadership in Indo‑Pacific nuclear diplomacy

JOHN TILEMANN, The Interpreter, 3 Nov 23

With growing state capabilities in the region, “guardrails”
are more important than ever. Canberra can help.

Australia should again take a leadership role in nuclear diplomacy, working with regional neighbours, to reduce nuclear threats in the Indo-Pacific through confidence building and preventive diplomacy measures.

This was the call in an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese published this week by a cross-party and expert group of prominent Australians in the fields of public policy and nuclear security, urging the government to act to stem the rising tide of global nuclear threats – threats mostly generated today in the Indo-Pacific.

The seriousness of the danger has been acknowledged by regional leaders, including Australia’s prime minister. But it has yet to receive the high-level political attention it demands.

Eight of the world’s nine nuclear-armed states have strategic stakes in our region. Tensions among these nuclear players continue to rise, and the price of nuclear mistakes, or worse, intentional use of nuclear weapons, could be existential.

The numbers illustrate the danger…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Long gone are the days of the relative simplicity of the bipolar world of two opposing blocs with a degree of stability arising from the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. The multi-polar nuclear world of the Indo-Pacific is an even more dangerous place.

And additional nuclear complexity arises from the expectations of states benefiting from “ironclad treaty alliances” that the United States extends to Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand.   

Both South Korea and Japan have expressed concern about the reliability of US strategic assurances, and both could build nuclear weapons quickly should they take that decision. Australia’s nuclear diplomacy must also address those proliferation pressures…………………………………………….

Global instruments to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to cap nuclear weapon testing have been very successful – but there are big gaps in these regimes in the Indo-Pacific. 

Three of the four countries to reject the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, are in this region: India, Pakistan and North Korea. The formal entry into force of the global ban on nuclear weapon testing is blocked by eight countries in two areas of regional tension – the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific.

Widely supported proposals for a global ban on the production of materials used to make nuclear weapons – highly enriched uranium and plutonium – are also resisted by those in our region still growing their nuclear arsenals.

While remaining hugely important, global mechanisms must be supplemented by regional mechanisms. Even basic tools for crisis management such as hotlines are either unevenly maintained or non-existent.

The ASEAN Regional Forum brings together all relevant Indo-Pacific players but has had limited success in moving beyond information exchange to confidence building measures – and preventive diplomacy remains a distant ambition. 

The East Asia Summit also engages all key Indo-Pacific strategic nuclear parties, but it has yet to become a mechanism for addressing security challenges, let alone reducing nuclear threats.    

Nevertheless, Australia has a solid record of institution building from APEC through to its strong engagement with the ASEAN-led arrangements that have done much to establish the habits of regional dialogue. ……………………………………………………… more https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australian-leadership-indo-pacific-nuclear-diplomacy

November 4, 2023 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australia must lobby US for ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons, says ex-minister Gareth Evans

 Former foreign minister says it is ‘sheer dumb luck’ that arms have not been used in the past 78 years and urges leadership on control measures

Daniel Hurst, Guardian, 1 Nov 23

Labor luminary and former foreign minister, Gareth Evans has urged Australia to lobby the US to promise “no first use” of nuclear weapons, warning that global arms control agreements “are now either dead or on life support”.

Evans says that in the wake of sealing the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine deal, the Albanese government should give “some comfort to ALP members and voters that we are really serious about nuclear arms control”.

Evans told Guardian Australia it was “sheer dumb luck” that the world had avoided a nuclear attack in the 78 years since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and “it is utterly wishful thinking to believe that this luck can continue in perpetuity”.

Evans joined arms control experts and former senior diplomats in urging the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, to take “a leadership role in addressing the rising nuclear threats in our region”.

Australia should appoint “a high-level envoy to engage our regional partners on an agenda of nuclear confidence building and preventive diplomacy measures”, according to a letter from the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (APLN).

While the group’s letter to Albanese is not specific about policy measures, Evans offered his own view that Australia’s status as a close US ally “gives us a particularly significant potential role” in pushing to reduce nuclear risks.

“The most immediately useful step we could take would be to support the growing international movement for the universal adoption of No First Use doctrine by the nuclear-armed states,” Evans told Guardian Australia…………………………………….

In a stark warning about the security environment, Evans said the risk of nuclear weapons being used through human error, miscalculation or system error was “greater than ever, not least given new developments in AI and cyber-offence capability”.

“Nearly 13,000 nuclear warheads are still in existence, with a combined destructive capability of close to 100,000 Hiroshima- or Nagasaki-sized bombs, and stockpiles, especially in our own Indo-Pacific region … are now growing again,” he said.

“The taboo against their deliberate use is weakening, with Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, talking up this prospect in language not heard since the height of the cold war.”

In addition to seeking universal support for “no first use”, Evans said other potential risk-reduction measures include cutting the number of weapons ready for immediate use……………………………………………….

The APLN letter gained support from high-powered experts including John Carlson, the former head of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, and Ramesh Thakur, a former UN assistant secretary general.

Other signatories included John Tilemann, a former diplomat and international civil servant with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Gary Quinlan, a former Australian ambassador to the UN.

The leader of the Greens in the Senate, Larissa Waters, backed the letter with the former Australian Democrats leader Natasha Stott Despoja and the former Labor minister for international development Melissa Parke.  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/01/australia-must-lobby-us-for-no-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons-says-ex-minister-gareth-evans #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

November 2, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

AUKUS nuclear submarine deal triggers accusations over cost and construction

SMH, By Daniel Keane 30 Oct 23

South Australia’s premier remains insistent that the nation’s future nuclear-powered submarines should be constructed in Adelaide, despite a prominent call for the vessels to instead be built by, and purchased from, another AUKUS nation in order to save taxpayers “billions and billions of dollars”.

Key points:

  • Alexander Downer has called for all of the nation’s future nuclear subs to be built overseas
  • But SA premier Peter Malinauskas says Australia should build them “for national security reasons”
  • Mr Downer also said the question of storage of AUKUS nuclear waste needs to be addressed

Former foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer has described the AUKUS project’s $368 billion price tag as “eye-watering”, and said he expects a future federal government to abandon the local construction element of the deal.

“We’re just going to wreck Australia if we keep promising to spend money on any manner of projects and have no idea where the money is going to come from,” Mr Downer told the ABC on Sunday.

“I don’t think the existing federal parliament or the next one is going to make a decision on this, but I think down the years, in the end, the federal government will decide that this is just too expensive, and they will buy the submarines from overseas.

“I’d be almost certain of that.”

Responding to similar comments Mr Downer made in The Weekend Australian, SA premier Peter Malinauskas said it is vital that Australia develops the ability to build the vessels “for national security reasons”, but also because “neither the US nor the UK in the long term have the capacity” to construct Australia’s entire fleet.

“They are struggling to meet their own demand,” Mr Malinauskas said.

Under the current terms of the AUKUS pact, Australia will get three US-made Virginia-class submarines while it builds up to eight nuclear-powered submarines of its own.

Mr Malinauskas accused Mr Downer of “misunderstanding” the intentions and expected outcomes of AUKUS…………………………………………………………..

But Mr Downer has rejected the premier’s comments, and in turn accused Mr Malinauskas of failing to understand the economics of AUKUS.

“I have a challenge to the premier — to explain where all this money is going to come from, and why does the premier think it’s better we spend eye-watering amounts of money on building nuclear submarines in Adelaide rather than investing … in other parts of our economy?” Mr Downer said……………………

“Peter Malinauskas and [SA opposition leader] David Speirs will be well and truly retired by the time this project comes about.

“It’s easy for them to make any manner of promises about times in the future, which will be way beyond their political life span — we can all make promises about the Second Coming.”

Mr Downer also said the question of storage of nuclear waste from the subs had not been satisfactorily addressed.

“There’s some elements of the Labor Party who have reservations, or are opposed to, nuclear-powered submarines and any association with nuclear power, and so I part company with them on that,” he said.

“But you’re going to have to store the waste somewhere. I’m not sure where that will be stored.”  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-29/sa-premier-defends-aukus-after-alexander-downer-questions-cost/103036822

October 31, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) steps up drive to keep U.S. military expansion out of Australia

By Bevan Ramsden | 26 October 2023 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/ipan-steps-up-drive-to-keep-us-military-expansion-out-of-australia,18020

The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) has produced a petition opposing the Force Posture Agreement (FPA) which is enabling U.S. militarisation of Australia in preparation for the U.S. to support/launch war from the Australian continent against China.

The e-petition to Parliament is an instrument for peace calling for the termination of the FPA.

It can be signed HERE.

The devastation of war, currently in Ukraine and in Palestine, confronts us on TV on a daily basis. All peace-loving people cry out for a ceasefire on both war fronts to enable, hopefully under United Nations auspices, conferences of all affected parties to find solutions that meet the security needs of all parties and free non-combatants from the horrors of war.

But concern about these wars should not blind us to the preparations for war occurring on our own continent under the auspices of the United States and with the enthusiastic complicity of successive Australian governments.

When defence matters are discussed, much is made of the U.S.-Australia alliance. But when the U.S. militarisation of Australia is considered, the alliance pales into insignificance compared to the U.S.-Australia FPA. It emerged as a concept from former President Barack Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” of the U.S. armed forces, in which he announced the stationing of U.S. marines in Darwin each year to train for war with our Defence Force.

The “Pivot” was a strategy designed to “contain” China and maintain U.S. hegemony in the Asia/Pacific area. President Obama’s concept was enthusiastically received by all politicians of both major parties.

Subsequently, the Gillard and Abbott Governments, in conjunction with their U.S. defence counterparts, produced a greatly expanded concept, the FPA, providing “an operational posture” for U.S. forces in Australia, a gateway for U.S. militarisation of Australia. It was signed by the Abbott Government and the United States Government in 2014.

The FPA:

  • facilitates the stationing in Darwin, for six months each year, of up to 2,500 U.S. Marines; they are trained and equipped for immediate deployment and while in Australia, train for war in exercises with the Australian Defence Force. They are not under the control of the Australian Government. They are under the control of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command;
  • facilitates unimpeded access to Australia’s airfields and airport facilities for U.S. fighter planes and bombers including the stationing of up to six B-52 bombers at RAAF Base Tindall. B-52 bombers were used to devastate Vietnam in that war and some are capable of carrying nuclear weapons;
  • facilitates unimpeded access to Australia’s seaports for U.S. naval vessels including their nuclear submarines at HMAS Stirling in WA;
  • facilitates the establishment of storage facilities for aircraft fuel, spare parts and munitions under U.S. military control. This includes huge fuel storage facilities at East Arm, Darwin and logistics facilities for storage of equipment, munitions and spare parts at Bandiana in Victoria;
  • opened the door for the embedding of U.S. military intelligence operatives within the Australian defence intelligence organisation now called the Combined Intelligence Centre — Australia; and
  • under the FPA, a U.S. command centre has been established in Darwin to control U.S. aircraft operations and another command centre in Darwin to control U.S. marine operations.

In short, the U.S. could launch and control military operations from Australia.

I have stressed the words “unimpeded access” because they are the words used in the Agreement.

Article IV of the FPA states:

…United States Forces and United States Contractors shall have unimpeded access to and use of Agreed Facilities and Areas for activities undertaken in connection with this Agreement.

Australia hereby grants to the United States operational control of Agreed Facilities and Areas…

Part 4 of Article VII states:

‘As mutually determined by the Parties, aircraft, vehicles, and vessels operated by or for United States Forces shall have access to aerial ports and seaports of Australia and other locations, for the delivery to, storage and maintenance in, and removal from the territory of Australia of United States Forces’ prepositioned materiel.’

Activities under Article IV include:

‘…training, transit, support, and related activities; refuelling of aircraft; bunkering of vessels; temporary maintenance of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; temporary accommodation of personnel; communications; prepositioning of equipment, supplies, and materiel; deploying forces and material; and such other activities as the Parties may agree.’

Summing up, the FPA, with the enthusiastic support of the Australian Government, is facilitating increased U.S. militarisation of Australia to support U.S. military operations in the Indo-Pacific from which it could launch or support a war against China. This has been done with the agreement of both major political parties.

The FPA lasts 25 years from the date of signing but has a clause facilitating termination if either party gives one year’s notice.

IPAN is campaigning to have this FPA terminated. This would be a strong step in the direction of keeping Australia out of another U.S. war. And this time, one which would have a catastrophic impact on the Australian people.

If you wish to join this campaign, IPAN has a parliamentary e-petition which is open until 15 November 2023 for signature and it can be accessed by using your mobile phone and this QR code. [on original] #nuclear #antinuclear #NoNukes

October 28, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Australians Call to End Long Persecution of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.

ROBIN ANDERSEN, 25 Oct 23  https://fair.org/home/australians-call-to-end-long-persecution-of-wikileaks-julian-assange/

As WikiLeaks founder and Australian citizen Julian Assange has nearly exhausted his appeals to British courts against a US extradition order, Australia has ramped up its advocacy on his behalf. Six Australian MPs held a press conference outside the US Department of Justice on September 20 to urge the Biden administration to halt its pursuit of Assange (Consortium News, 9/20/23).

They came representing an impressive national consensus: Almost 80% of Australian citizens, and a cross-party coalition in Australia’s Parliament, support the campaign to free Assange (Sydney Morning Herald, 5/12/23). Opposition leader Peter Dutton joined Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in urging Assange’s release.

The day before, an open letter to the Biden administration signed by 64 Australian parliamentarians appeared as a full-page ad in the Washington Post. It called the prosecution of Assange “a political decision” and warned that, if Assange is extradited, “there will be a sharp and sustained outcry” from Australians.

Given what is at stake for freedom of the press in the Assange case, and the intensified pressure from Australia—a country being wooed to actively enlist in the US campaign against China by spending $368 billion on nuclear submarines and supersonic missiles (Sydney Morning Herald, 8/10/23)—we ought to expect coverage from the Washington Post, New York Times and major broadcast networks. But coverage of the press conference was virtually absent from US corporate media.

Prosecuting publishing

The US has been seeking to extradite Assange from Britain on charges relating to the leaking of hundreds of thousands of documents to international media in 2010 and 2011, many of which detailed US atrocities carried out in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and other human rights violations, such as the torture of detainees at Guantánamo Bay (Abby Martin, 3/10/23).

In 2019, President Donald Trump’s administration brought Espionage Act charges against Assange for obtaining and publishing leaked documents, a dramatic new attack on press freedom (FAIR.org, 8/13/22). Assange could face 175 years in a supermax prison if convicted under the Espionage Act, “a relic of the First World War” meant for spies (American Constitution Society, 9/10/21), and not intended to criminalize leaks to or publications by the press. The Biden administration has rolled back much of the legal mechanism used by Trump to attack journalists, but President Joe Biden has reaffirmed the call to extradite Assange.

Assange also coordinated with international news outlets to publish other material known as Cablegate about the “inner-workings of bargaining, diplomacy and threat-making around the world” (Intercept, 8/14/23). Indeed, the New York Times (e.g., 11/28/10) published many articles based on the WikiLeaks documents, which had been sent to Assange by US army whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

US officials have repeatedly justified their case by charging that Assange put lives at risk; to date, no evidence has surfaced that any individuals were harmed by the leaks (BBC, 12/1/10; Chelsea Manning, Readme.txt, 2022). As the Columbia Journalism Review (12/23/20) admonished, don’t let the Justice Department’s

misdirection around “blown informants” fool you—this case is nothing less than the first time in American history that the US government has sought to prosecute the act of publishing state secrets, something that national security reporters do with some regularity.

US officials have repeatedly justified their case by charging that Assange put lives at risk; to date, no evidence has surfaced that any individuals were harmed by the leaks (BBC, 12/1/10; Chelsea Manning, Readme.txt, 2022). As the Columbia Journalism Review (12/23/20) admonished, don’t let the Justice Department’s

misdirection around “blown informants” fool you—this case is nothing less than the first time in American history that the US government has sought to prosecute the act of publishing state secrets, something that national security reporters do with some regularity.

In failing health after suffering a stroke, Assange has been held in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison since he was removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy in April 2019. He had sought asylum at the embassy in London in 2012 to avoid being sent to Sweden for questioning over sexual assault allegations, because Sweden would not provide assurances it would protect him from extradition to the US. Sweden dropped charges against Assange in November 2019 (BBC, 11/19/19), after he was in British custody.

International condemnation

The Australian diplomatic mission coincided with the convening of the UN General Assembly in New York City, where President Lula da Silva of Brazil condemned the prosecution of Assange, offering yet another opportunity for US corporate media to cover the strong international opposition to Assange’s treatment.

A video (9/19/23) of Lula speaking at the opening of the UN General Assembly was widely circulated on social media. “Preserving press freedom is essential,” Lula declared. “A journalist like Julian Assange cannot be punished for informing society in a transparent and legitimate way.”

Former British ambassador Craig Murray commented about Lula’s reception at the UN (Twitter, 9/17/23):

It is really not normal for the hall at the UN General Assembly to break into this kind of spontaneous applause. The US has been losing the room internationally for a decade. The appalling treatment of Julian is a focus for that.

US media absence

Yet, with a few exceptions (Fox News, 9/20/23; The Hill, 9/21/23; Yahoo News, 9/21/23), none of this made the major US news outlets.

Over a week later, Business Insider (10/1/23) ran a long piece that featured an interview with Gabriel Shipton, Assange’s half-brother. It pointed out that Assange had become an obstacle to US plans to involve Australia in its aggression toward China, quoting the PM. But the piece also hashed through a number of long-debunked claims, including one that reminded readers that Mike Pompeo once called Assange “a fugitive Russian asset” (FAIR.org, 12/03/18; Sheerpost 2/25/23), and another that repeated US assertions that WikiLeaks releases would put the US at risk.

The New York Times has been conspicuously absent from the coverage of Assange. Though the Times signed a joint open letter (11/28/22) with four other international newspapers that had worked with Assange and WikiLeaks, appealing to the DoJ to drop its charges, the paper has remained almost entirely silent on both Assange and the issues raised by his continued prosecution since then.

As FAIR pointed out, during the Assange extradition hearing in London, the Times

published only two bland news articles (9/7/20, 9/16/20)—one of them purely about the technical difficulties in the courtroom—along with a short rehosted AP video (9/7/20).

There were no editorials on what the case meant for journalism. FAIR contributor Alan MacLeod noted that the Times seemed to distance itself from Assange and WikiLeaks, and its own reporting on the Cablegate scandal, coverage that boosted the papers’ international reputation.

Other opportunities for coverage have been missed by the Times. For instance, Rep. Rashida Tlaib wrote a letter (4/11/23), signed by six other members of the Progressive Caucus, calling for the DoJ to drop the charges against Assange. Tlaib cited support from the ACLU, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Defending Rights & Dissent and Human Rights Watch, and many others, stating that his prosecution “could effectively criminalize” many “common journalistic practices.” The letter was covered by The Nation (4/14/23), the Intercept (3/30/23), Fox News (4/1/23), The Hill (4/11/23) and Politico (4/11/23), but the Times and other major newspapers were conspicuously silent.

When Assange lost his most recent appeal against extradition in June, a few outlets reported the news online (e.g., AP, 6/9/23; CNN, 6/9/23), but not a single US newspaper report could be found in the Nexis news database. (Newsweek‘s headline framed the news as a “headache for Biden”—6/8/23—rather than a blow for press freedom.)  The Times only vaguely referred to the news (Assange “keeps losing appeals”) two weeks later in a feature (6/18/23) on the late whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who had criticized Biden’s decision not to drop the case against Assange.

The world is watching

A huge collective breath is being held as the world watches to see what will happen to Assange, the most famous publisher on the globe. Will he be returned to his country and his family by Christmas, as the Australian MPs have requested? Or will Britain and the US continue to slowly execute him?

Assange’s case is expected to be discussed during Prime Minister Albanese’s current visit to the US, which includes a state dinner hosted by Biden on October 25. MP Monique Ryan, part of the pro-Assange delegation, told news outlets: “Our prime minister needs to see this as a test case for standing up to the US government. There are concerns among Australians about the AUKUS agreement, and whether we have any agency” (Business Insider, 10/1/23).

As Common Dreams (9/19/23) quoted from the delegation’s letter:

We believe the right and best course of action would be for the United States’ Department of Justice to cease its pursuit and prosecution of Julian Assange…. It is well and truly time for this matter to end, and for Julian Assange to return home.

October 26, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, civil liberties, media | Leave a comment

South Australia takes another bold leap into deep green energy future

 There is little doubt that South Australia is leading the world on the
integration of wind and solar. Now, it’s about to take an even bolder
leap into a deep green energy future through its hydrogen jobs plan.

The state has sourced more than 70 per cent of its electricity demand from wind
and solar over the past year, and when RenewEconomy interviewed state
energy minister Tom Koutsantonis on Sunday afternoon for its Energy
Insiders podcast, it was nearing the end of a 60-hour period where it
average more than 100 per cent wind and solar. Earlier that day, the state
had reached a stunning new peak of 264 per cent “potential” wind and
solar, the combination of renewable energy actually produced, and the
renewable energy curtailed by the lack of a market.

South Australia response to the this excess of green energy is to encourage even more, with
another bold step that it hopes will make it a global leader in green
hydrogen, just as it has done with renewables.

 Renew Economy 25th Oct 2023

South Australia takes another bold leap into deep green energy future

October 26, 2023 Posted by | energy, South Australia | Leave a comment

Australian Submarine Agency stated Osborne, South Australia for building nuclear submarines, – but Osborne is totally unsuitable!

25 Oct 23

The latest reliable information is that Osborne, South Australia, is unsuitable for the construction of the new hybrid nuclear power submarines in that it is far too small.

Besides it in its inherent size, being too small without any capacity for expansion, the submarines building
facility will require two concentric buffer zones for which there is simply no room based on the reports in
InDaily.

The first of these buffer zones will be immediately surrounding the Osborne complex and will be a “
shoot to kill“ buffer zone for high security.

The external buffer zone surrounding the first one will be fairly substantial and is to ensure complete
environmental and similar protection

It is therefore daydreaming to put up Osborne for the construction of the hybrid nuclear powered
submarines

From INDAILY 11 October 2023, Radiation monitoring at SA nuclear subs: – “In a written response to InDaily, a spokesperson from the Australian Submarine Agency said they had informed the State Government, Port Adelaide Enfield Council, and the PortnAdelaide residents Environment Protection group of the environmental baseline contamination assessment at Osborne.

“This assessment will determine existing levels of non- radiological contaminants and background radiation on the preferred site for the Submarine Construction Yard and surrounding areas,” the spokesperson said.” –

This is at first instance no more than a good political photoshoot based on ignorance .
It seems that as pointed out by Rex Patrick the government has failed to learn anything from the ill fated and expensive Kimba situation

Having regard to the warnings by ANSTO it also seems that yet again there is no consensus by the various organs of the federal government
Finally it is interesting that Susan Close who is the deputy premier of South Australia and is ostensively regarded environmental scientist has had little to say on this situation which is similar to her stance on Kimba.

Both the federal and state governments should heed the excellent study entitled RESET OF AMERICA’S NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT Strategy and Policy by Professor Rod Ewing and his assembled experts to properly understand the implications and requirements of the possible start of a nuclear installation such as in this instance.

The work now being undertaken should immediately start a safety case for full community consultations which seems most appropriate since media polls suggest that more than 70% of South Australia’s population is against any nuclear activity
This situation is just another black mark for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for not approving the implementation of AUKUS under the nonproliferation treaty

October 25, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Albanese’s nuclear submarine plans in disarray as he visits USA in the midst of a Republican Congressmen’s brawl

Congressional brawl threatens to overshadow Anthony Albanese’s US trip

The Age David Crowe. October 20, 2023 

A political brawl in the United States is hurting Australian plans to persuade legislators to support the AUKUS pact on nuclear-powered submarines by casting doubt over whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will be able to meet senior Congressional leaders next week.

Albanese is due to fly to Washington DC on Sunday to hold talks with US President Joe Biden on the alliance and broader security issues as well as attending a state dinner at the White House on Wednesday night, the first for an Australian leader in four years.

The agenda for the state visit includes stronger cooperation on climate change, critical mineral supplies as well as the sharing of nuclear secrets for the AUKUS plan, which needs Congress to approve changes to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, to allow the export of US knowledge and technology.

But the upheaval in the US capital, with the Republicans in disarray over whether Jim Jordan of Ohio should become Speaker of the House of Representatives, means there is no authority to approve an address to Congress and limited time for Albanese to meet top leaders…………..

Albanese is seeking meetings with Congressional leaders and the Australian ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, is planning a formal opening of the new embassy on Scott Circle, with guests including political and corporate leaders, and a business delegation from Australia.

While former prime minister John Howard addressed a joint sitting of Congress in 2005 and Julia Gillard did the same in 2011, a similar event appears unlikely for Albanese given the challenges with the Republican leadership…………………………………………………………………………..

Albanese is also due to meet Biden in the Oval Office and join the president in a meeting with cabinet secretaries at the White House, as well as meeting Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the State Department.  https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/congressional-brawl-threatens-to-overshadow-anthony-albanese-s-us-trip-20231020-p5eds1.html
—

October 20, 2023 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Antipodean Nuclear Free Zones: Testing Times for Antarctica and the South Pacific

October 19, 2023  https://nonproliferation.org/antipodean-nuclear-free-zones-testing-times-for-antarctica-and-the-south-pacific/

Australia and New Zealand have historically promoted strong anti-nuclear policies at both a global, regional, and sub-regional level. They joined with the United States and the other original parties to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty to make Antarctica nuclear free.

Both countries also took France to the International Court of Justice in 1973 in order to bring about a halt to France’s nuclear testing program in the South Pacific, and actively promoted the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone in the 1985 Treaty of Rarotonga.

However, in 2021 Australia along with the UK and US announced the AUKUS initiative, which in March 2023 was finalized in San Diego. Australia will eventually acquire AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines during the 2030s.

This has placed a spotlight on Australia’s anti-nuclear credentials and its international law commitments and has attracted criticism from within the Asia Pacific, including from New Zealand, Pacific island states, and China. This seminar considers these issues through the lens of international law.

VIDEO – on original

Chapters:
00:00:00 Moderator: Avner Cohen, Professor, Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies
00:01:44 Speaker: Donald R. Rothwell, Professor of International Law, ANU College of Law, Australian National University
00:57:07 Q&A

October 20, 2023 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australia needs ‘drastic’ renewables boost as nuclear not an option for decades, says centre-right thinktank

Blueprint Institute says nuclear ban should be lifted, but disagrees with Coalition opposition to green energy rollout

Guardian Adam Morton, 20 oct 23

A centre-right thinktank is calling for “drastically accelerated deployment” of renewable energy, batteries and electricity transmission infrastructure and acknowledged there is no prospect of nuclear energy playing a role in Australia before 2040.

The report by the Blueprint Institute, not yet released but seen in draft form by Guardian Australia, says the ban on nuclear energy should be repealed and argues small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) could play a “small but vital role” in minimising costs in reaching net zero emissions in the power grid by 2050.

The report, due to be published soon, is set to land during a polarised debate about the future of energy and the pace of decarbonisation.

The Coalition and parts of the media have attacked the Albanese government’s renewable energy policy and have called for the rollout to be slowed, a position at odds with scientific warnings that emissions cuts need to accelerate. The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has suggested SMRs could be built on the site of old coal plants.

The Blueprint Institute report says reaching the government’s target of 82% renewable energy by 2030 will be a major challenge, but does not provide support for those challenging the goal. It says the country has “no choice, at least in the short-term”, but to “double down on renewable energy” and proven “firming” technology to avoid “calamitous blackouts” as old coal plants close.

“This means a drastically accelerated deployment of batteries, solar, onshore wind, pumped hydro, and gas, along with a corresponding build out of transmission infrastructure,” the report says.

The report says the potential role of nuclear energy in Australia is “strictly limited to a decade or more from now – specifically, from 2040”……………………………….

Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre, said the report’s findings had “no great policy weight” because it was impossible to accurately predict the cost of cutting emissions from the grid in the long-term given technological change was happening so rapidly…………………..

He said nuclear energy was not well suited to playing a minor role in a grid already overwhelmingly running on renewable energy, and its introduction would be “likely to require the abandonment of a good deal of already existing renewable generation”………………….. more https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/19/australia-needs-drastic-renewables-boost-as-nuclear-not-an-option-for-decades-says-centre-right-thinktank

October 20, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy | Leave a comment

Australian Red Cross calls on the Australian Government to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. 

Black Mist and the Ban

On the 70th anniversary of the first nuclear weapon test on mainland Australia, we support the call for a nuclear weapons ban.

On the 70th anniversary of the first nuclear weapon test on mainland Australia at Emu Field on Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) lands, and at a time when people in Australia consider deeply new ways to address realities in the experience of First Nations people, we support the call for Australia to urgently join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

On 15 October 1953, the first nuclear weapons testing on mainland Australia took place at Emu Field as part of Operation Totem. This was only one in a series of twelve major nuclear weapons tests and the hundreds of smaller-scale trials conducted in Australia from 1952 to 1963. Today, First Nations People continue to suffer long-term and inter-generational effects from these blasts, impacting their health, communities, and homelands.

The devastating legacy of nuclear weapons testing in Australia cannot be undone, it must never be forgotten and we, as Australians, must do everything in our power to right these wrongs. These actions include compensating affected communities, remediating contaminated lands, and recommitting to the fight in ensuring that these weapons are never used again.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), as the first and only treaty to comprehensively ban these bombs, recognises their disproportionate impact on Indigenous communities. The Treaty, which also provides for victims’ assistance and environmental remediation, is the clear path forward to addressing these weapons’ destructive force in Australia.

Australian Red Cross calls on the Australian Government to sign and ratify the TPNW. We endorse the “Black Mist and the Ban” Statement, released by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and co-drafted by Karina Lester, Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman and second generation survivor of the Emu Field nuclear tests, urging the Government to take swift action towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

October 19, 2023 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Radioactive instrument missing at South Australian steel plant

The West Australian, Neve Brissenden and Jacob Shteyman AAP, Thu, 19 October 2023

Authorities are scratching their heads after a piece of radioactive material went missing at a steel plant in South Australia.

The Environmental Protection Authority was called to the Liberty OneSteel site on the Eyre Peninsula three weeks ago with reports of a missing industrial bin level gauge – a measuring instrument containing a small radiation source.

Despite a combined effort of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, police, firefighters and steelworkers, the device – which is about the size of a domestic gas BBQ cylinder – is yet to be found.

The EPA said there was no risk to the public and the 35-year-old device had low levels of radioactivity.

…………………………………….A spokesman for ARPANSA said a team of experts with specialised detection equipment were performing “extensive radiological searches for the missing item”.

He said repercussions would be determined by the regulator and the missing devices were not unusual.  https://thewest.com.au/news/radioactive-instrument-missing-at-sa-steel-plant-c-12256768

October 19, 2023 Posted by | safety, South Australia | Leave a comment

‘Cottage industry’: Gurus say nuclear no match for solar energy

Professor Green described nuclear as “pie in the sky” – including the small modular reactor technologies that have enthused the British government and the opposition in Australia as countries race to transition to green energy.

Hans van Leeuwen  https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/cottage-industry-gurus-say-nuclear-no-match-for-solar-energy-20231013-p5ebxp

Hans van Leeuwen covers British and European politics, economics and business from London. He has worked as a reporter, editor and policy adviser in Sydney, Canberra, Hanoi and London. Connect with Hans on Twitter. Email Hans at hans.vanleeuwen@afr.com

London | The debate on nuclear power is a distraction from solar, which is about to tip into exponential growth that will sweep aside all other energy sources, say Australia’s much-garlanded pair of leading solar inventors.

Andrew Blakers and Martin Green, often dubbed the “fathers of photovoltaics”, described nuclear energy as “a cottage industry”, with no chance of reaching economies of scale in any useful timeframe.

Solar, though, “is going to take over energy it is in a way that will be utterly astonishing for most people”, Professor Blakers said.

“It is going to do it as fast as we went from film photography to digital photography. In the space of 20 years, basically we’re going to flip from solar being a few per cent to solar being everything but a few per cent. It really is the fastest energy change in all of history by a large margin,” he said.

The two men were in London to collect the latest in a string of prizes for their work on PERC solar photovoltaic technology, which has brought down the cost of solar panels by 80 per cent in the past decade.

At Buckingham Palace on Thursday (Friday AEDT), the King awarded them and their colleagues Aihua Wang and Jianhua Zhao with the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering.

Professor Green described nuclear as “pie in the sky” – including the small modular reactor technologies that have enthused the British government and the opposition in Australia as countries race to transition to green energy.

“They are going to have a few prototypes up by 2030, but it really needs the economy of volume to get the prices down to where they’re projecting,” he said. “So you need to be selling hundreds of these things, not just a few sample ones.”

He also said that the history of power generation had been about reducing costs by making things bigger. “It’s going against historical trend, I think, imagining that you can do things cheaply by making a lot of [smaller ones].”

Professor Blakers said nuclear was simply not in the net-zero race. “This year, it looks like the world will do about 500 gigawatts of solar and wind – maybe 400 gigawatts of solar, 100 gigawatts of wind. Hydro will do about 20 gigawatts, nuclear will do approximately one, gas and coal maybe 50,” he said.

“Solar has been growing at 20 per cent a year for a long time. If it continues to grow at this level, we will completely decarbonise the world by the early 2040s. This is how fast it’s happening. It’s so cheap compared with anything else.”

Nuclear, meanwhile, had not increased its capacity in the past 13 years, he said, adding no more than a gigawatt a year.

“You cannot grow an industry from one to multi-thousand gigawatts, which is what you’d need per year, in any reasonable timeframe. It’s impossible unless you put it on a war footing,” he said.

“You just don’t have enough engineers, scientists, raw materials, the factories, the factories to build the factories, the factories to build the factories to build the factories – it just doesn’t happen.”

Grids: the big hurdle

Both men were convinced that battery technologies and costs would continue to fall, driving increasingly rapid growth. The one big obstacle in Australia was transmission.

“Basically, you need a lot of new transmission to bring the new solar and wind into cities. And we’re not building it,” Professor Blakers said.

“Transmission only becomes important once you get up to 30, 40 per cent solar-wind. We’re currently 33 per cent solar-wind, and we will be 75 per cent by 2030. We don’t have a transmission problem yet. But in two years’ time, we’ll have a major one, and everyone can see that.”

He said initiatives to increase compensation to land owners should overcome the remaining community resistance.

Professor Green said the growth of solar energy use would not unseat China’s dominance of the supply chain for solar panels.

“Solar is basically going to demolish the market for coal and gas. And the geopolitical question is whether India, Europe and the US would tolerate having 80 or 90 per cent of the global solar industry coming out of China,” he said.

“It’s very hard to see other countries competing with China. The momentum they’ve got.”

He said India might become a major manufacturer, but its industry’s development would not be as co-ordinated and co-operative as China’s had been.

China, though, would have to address the demand of its customers for higher environmental and social standards – creating an opportunity for Australia to become a player in providing green-friendly metallurgical-grade silicon.

October 15, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, solar | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »