Independents pressure Australia on nuclear ban treaty ahead of UN meeting
November 24th, 2023
11 independent parliamentarians have issued a public call on the Prime Minister to keep Labor’s promise to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, ahead of the treaty’s Second Meeting of States Parties on 27 November – 1 December in New York.
The letter, which is signed by Kate Chaney MP, Zoe Daniel MP, Dr. Helen Haines MP, Senator David Pocock, Dr. Monique Ryan MP, Dr. Sophie Scamps MP, Allegra Spender MP, Zali Steggall OAM MP, Senator Lidia Thorpe, Kylea Tink MP, and Andrew Wilkie MP, states that “nuclear weapons do not promote security, they undermine it. We don’t accept the everlasting presence of these weapons.” They “urge the Government to advance its signature and ratification of the Ban Treaty without delay, to bring Australia in line with our South-East Asian and Pacific island neighbours.”
In regards to the letter, Federal Member for Goldstein, Zoe Daniel MP, said: “Voters supported Labor at the election, believing in good faith that they would implement their platform.
“Signing and ratifying was Labor Party policy before the election and has been reaffirmed since.
“In the most perilous times since the height of the Cold War this treaty is needed more than ever; voters want it and so do the vulnerable nations of the Pacific whose backyards were used for nuclear testing without their permission.
“Look at what Labor does, not what it says.”
Australia will attend the Second Meeting of States Parties as an observer, with a parliamentary head of delegation, after attending the first Meeting of States Parties in June 2022. It is expected that several states, including Indonesia, will ratify the treaty during the meeting, bolstering universalisation efforts. Around 100 countries will attend, along with over 400 civil society delegates.
Gem Romuld, ICAN Australia Director, welcomed the independents’ statement and Australia’s attendance at the meeting, but said the Albanese Government must do more, in line with their policy platform to sign and ratify the treaty.
“We welcome the Australian government’s engagement with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, but observing meetings isn’t enough. There is clearly broad support for signing on to this treaty in the Australian Parliament, as indicated by the independents’ statement to the PM.
“Labor needs to make good on their promise to join the majority of our South East Asian and Pacific neighbours and sign and ratify the TPNW. We hope that Australia’s attendance at this meeting will spur efforts towards this urgent goal.”
Romuld is joining the international ICAN delegation at the meeting, including Yankunytjatjara-Anangu woman and second-generation nuclear test survivor Karina Lester, and current ICAN Executive Director, former Labor MP Melissa Parke.
A four-decade-old Pacific treaty was meant to preserve the ‘peaceful region’. Now experts say it’s being exploited
“We regret that the Aukus agreement … is escalating geopolitical tensions in our region and undermining Pacific-led nuclear-free regionalism,” says the Pacific Elders’ Voice,
the US and the UK will increase rotations of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia,
Pacific countries rushed to join the TPNW six years ago, reflecting their longstanding concerns about nuclear testing legacies. It’s the same regional sentiment that spurred the earlier Treaty of Rarotonga.
Daniel Hurst in Rarotonga
Nearly 40 years after the Treaty of Rarotonga came into force, the region is on edge about another rise in geopolitical tension
…………………………………………………………………………….heightened concerns permeated the region in the months leading up to the crucial meeting in the Cook Islands in August 1985 where leaders endorsed a nuclear-free zone.
Hawke, the Australian prime minister at the time, hailed the negotiations as a “dramatic success” that would send “a clear and unequivocal message to the world”, with the treaty leaving major powers in no doubt about the region’s desire to preserve “the South Pacific as the peaceful region which its name implies”.
But nearly 40 years after the Treaty of Rarotonga came into force, the region is on edge about another rise in geopolitical tensions – and critics say gaps in the treaty’s coverage are now being exploited.
“The treaty was really important to a lot of people, especially for grassroots activists,” says Talei Mangioni, a Fijian-Australian board member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Australia.
But it was quite watered down. And so even though we celebrate it today, what activists were saying in the 1980s and what progressive states like Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu were saying was that it wasn’t comprehensive enough.”
Mangioni, who researches the legacy of the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Movement, adds: “That’s what’s left us now with things like Aukus exploiting certain loopholes that have remained in the treaty.”
A hotbed of great-power competition?
When leaders met last week in the Cook Islands for the annual meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum (Pif), the Treaty of Rarotonga was once again on everyone’s lips.
The host of the summit, prime minister Mark Brown of the Cook Islands, argued the region “should rediscover and revisit our Rarotonga treaty to ensure that it reflects the concerns of Pacific countries today, and not just what occurred back in 1985”.
The treaty – signed on the 40th anniversary of the US atomic bombing of the Japanese city of Hiroshima – reflected “the deep concern of all forum members at the continuing nuclear arms race and the risk of nuclear war”.
Also known as the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, it designated a vast area from the west coast of Australia to Latin America where its parties must prevent the “stationing” (critics say this was always a deliberately ambiguous word) of nuclear weapons.
“The treaty prohibits the use, testing or stationing of nuclear explosive devices in the South Pacific,” the Cook Islands News explained on 7 August 1985.
“It does not prohibit countries from transporting nuclear devices through the zone nor does it prohibit nuclear-powered or equipped ships from calling in ports within the area.”
Today the parties to this treaty are Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
Once again, many of these nations are worried about the Pacific becoming a hotbed of great-power competition and the risk of that spiralling into conflict. Aukus feeds into some of those fears.
“We regret that the Aukus agreement … is escalating geopolitical tensions in our region and undermining Pacific-led nuclear-free regionalism,” says the Pacific Elders’ Voice, a group of former leaders whose members include Anote Tong, the ex-president of Kiribati.
The legality of a treaty – and the spirit of it
Under the Aukus plan, Australia will buy at least three Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the 2030s, before Australian-built boats enter into service from the 2040s.
In the meantime, the US and the UK will increase rotations of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, all aimed at deterring China from unilateral action against Taiwan or destabilising activities in the increasingly contested South China Sea.
One point of sensitivity is that it will be the first time a provision of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime has been used to transfer naval nuclear propulsion technology from a nuclear weapons state to a non-weapons state.
The Australian government has worked assiduously behind the scenes to reassure Pacific leaders on a key point about Aukus.
“Certainly when I was talking to people about it I would explain how it was consistent with the Treaty of Rarotonga,” says the Australian minister for the Pacific, Pat Conroy.
Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, concurs. The treaty, he notes, does not deal with nuclear-propelled submarines.
“My view is that Aukus is consistent with Australia’s Treaty of Rarotonga obligations,” Rothwell says.
“Pacific states may have concerns about the potential stationing of US and UK nuclear-armed warships in Australian ports under Aukus. The stationing of such vessels, as opposed to port visits, would be contrary to the treaty.”
The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, sought to allay any Aukus-related concerns when he briefed Pacific leaders during the Pif meetings last week and appears to have held off any open rebellion.
Albanese insists the treaty remains “a good document” and “all of the arrangements that we’ve put in place have been consistent with that”.
But anti-nuclear campaigners point to the planned new aircraft parking apron at the Tindal base in the Northern Territory that will be able to accommodate up to six US B-52 bombers.
The US refuses to confirm or deny whether the aircraft on rotation would be nuclear-armed, in line with longstanding policy.
“We should delineate between a legalistic interpretation of the Treaty of Rarotonga and the spirit of it,” says Marco de Jong, a Pacific historian based in Aotearoa New Zealand.
“Pacific nations are growing increasingly frustrated at Australia’s reliance on loopholes and technicalities.”
Australia: the regional outlier
The Nobel prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons says a good way for Australia to reassure the region about its long-term intentions would be to sign the newer Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
This is an idea Albanese previously supported enthusiastically but which appears stalled.
One potential problem is that the US has warned that the TPNW – which includes a blanket ban on helping others to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons – wouldn’t allow for close allies like Australia to enjoy the protection of the American “nuclear umbrella”.
Documents obtained by the Guardian under freedom of information laws show the Australian defence department has warned the Labor government that the TPNW is “internationally divisive” because the nuclear weapons states “are all opposed”.
But Mangioni, a member of the Youngsolwara Pacific movement of activists, counters that Pacific countries rushed to join the TPNW six years ago, reflecting their longstanding concerns about nuclear testing legacies. It’s the same regional sentiment that spurred the earlier Treaty of Rarotonga.
“I would say that Australia is indeed the outlier compared to the rest of the Pacific states,” Mangioni says.
“Australia depends on nuclear deterrence as its policy but the rest of the Pacific states are nuclear abolitionists.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/19/a-40-year-old-pacific-treaty-was-meant-to-maintain-the-peaceful-region-now-experts-say-its-being-exploited
Republicans and Democrats Unite to Push for Assange’s Freedom
Sixteen members of Congress signed a letter to President Biden urging him to drop the case against the WikiLeaks founder.
By Dave DeCamp / Antiwar.com https://scheerpost.com/2023/11/12/republicans-and-democrats-unite-to-push-for-assanges-freedom
Abipartisan group of 16 members of Congress has called on President Biden to drop the case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, warning of the grave threats to press freedom if he is convicted.
The lawmakers made the call in a letter sent to President Biden on Wednesday. The effort was led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and James McGovern (D-MA), who began circulating the letter to their colleagues for signatures last month.
“It is the duty of journalists to seek out sources, including documentary evidence, in order to report to the public on the activities of government,” the letter reads, according to a press release from Assange Defense.
“The United States must not pursue an unnecessary prosecution that risks criminalizing common journalistic practices and thus chilling the work of the free press. We urge you to ensure that this case be brought to a close in as timely a manner as possible,” the letter states.
The letter was also signed by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Greg Casar (D-TX), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Cori Bush (D-MO), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Eric Burlison (R-MO), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Jesús García (D-IL), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Matthew Rosendale (R-MT), and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
The letter comes as the Biden administration has been under pressure from the Australian government to free Assange, who is an Australian citizen. In September, a delegation of Australian members of parliament from across the political spectrum visited Washington and met with US officials to lobby for Assange. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese brought up the case with President Biden when he visited the White House in October.
Assange faces up to 175 years in prison if extradited to the US and convicted for exposing US war crimes. The charges stem from documents published by WikiLeaks that Assange obtained from his source, former Army Private Chelsea Manning, a standard journalistic practice. Assange has been held in London’s Belmarsh Prison since April 2019 as his legal team is fighting against US efforts to extradite him.
Pacific Islands Forum – time to reinvigorate the Treaty of Rarotonga, the nuclear weapons-free pact ?
Pacific backs Australian climate policy: Albanese.
St George and Sutherland Shire Leader, Australian Associated Press 9 Nov 23
“…………………………………………………………………………………………………. Joining climate as one of the top issues at the gathering are nuclear concerns, with Pacific leaders showing their resolve to keep the region nuclear-free.
The Pacific is stridently nuclear-free, a legacy of the region’s painful history with testing of nuclear weapons by the United States, United Kingdom and France.
Australia’s AUKUS deal to obtain nuclear-powered submarines raises concern among many, given the sensitivity of nuclear issues.
Leaders in Kiribati, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands and Fiji have previously expressed reservations on different fronts, including the extravagant cost, which exceeds the entire annual GDP of PIF members excepting Australia and New Zealand.
PIF chair and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested the time could have come to “reinvigorate” the Treaty of Rarotonga, the nuclear weapons-free pact signed during the Cold War.
Mr Albanese was less forthcoming on whether reform was needed, declining to respond to questions on whether he supported Mr Brown’s calls.
“We support the Treaty of Rarotonga. It is a good document. It has stood the test of time, all of the arrangements that have been in place, we’ve been consistent with that, and it retains our support,” he said.
The legacy of another nuclear incident – the 2011 Fukushima power plant disaster – also hangs over the Pacific.
Japan is releasing treated wastewater from the power plant, insisting it is safe to do so, with an International Atomic Energy Agency report as proof.
Australia and New Zealand accept those guarantees, but a growing number of Pacific nations hold concerns, including Polynesian and Melanesian blocs.
At the PIF summit, Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka is championing another initiative: declaring the Pacific an “ocean of peace”.
That proposal, the nuclear concerns and the Suva Agreement regional unity pact are late inclusions onto the agenda of the leaders retreat. https://www.theleader.com.au/story/8417306/pacific-backs-australian-climate-policy-albanese/
Small modular nuclear reactor that was hailed by Coalition as future cancelled due to rising costs
Opposition climate and energy spokesperson had pointed to SMRs as a solution to Australia’s energy needs, but experts raise questions over price tag.
Adam Morton, Guardian, 9 Nov 23
The only small modular nuclear power plant approved in the US – cited by the Australian opposition as evidence of a “burgeoning” global nuclear industry – has been cancelled due to rising costs.
NuScale Power announced on Wednesday that it had dropped plans to build a long-promised “carbon free power project” in Idaho. It blamed the decision on a lack of subscribers for the plant’s electricity.
The Coalition’s energy and climate spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, has cited NuScale’s technology as part of the opposition’s contentious argument that Australia should lift a national ban on nuclear energy and that small modular reactors (SMRs) could be an affordable replacement for its ageing coal-fired power plant
In an opinion piece in the Australian earlier this year, O’Brien said the company’s integrated reactors, starting with the Idaho plant in 2029, offered “exceptional flexibility” and were an example “of a burgeoning nuclear industry for next-generation technology” in the US.
The climate change minister, Chris Bowen, said SMRs were “the opposition’s only energy policy”.
“The most advanced prototype in the US has been cancelled. The LNP’s plan for energy security is just more hot air from Peter Dutton,” he said………………………………………………………………………………
Industry experts say SMRs are not commercially available, that nuclear energy is more expensive than alternatives and in a best-case scenario could not play a role in Australia for more than a decade, and probably not before 2040. The Australian Energy Market Operator found renewable energy could be providing 96% of the country’s electricity by that time.
The Coalition opposes Labor’s goal of reaching 82% renewable electricity by 2030. It has argued for a slower response to the climate crisis and amplified local concerns about new clean energy and electricity transmission connections.
The projected cost of the NuScale project had blown out from US$3.6bn for 720 megawatts in 2020 to US$9.3bn for 462MW last year. It failed after securing subscriptions for only 20% of the required capital from a Utah-based consortium of electricity companies.
Simon Holmes à Court, a clean energy advocate and commentator and convener of political fundraising body Climate 200, said the estimated capital cost of the Idaho project before it was cancelled was 70% higher than CSIRO projections of what nuclear power plants could cost to build in 2030.
He said this undermined arguments by the Coalition and other nuclear advocates, who had accused the CSIRO of exaggerating the likely cost of nuclear energy.
Holmes à Court said Australia needed a rapid rollout of solar, wind and energy storage. He recently toured nuclear power projects in the US.
“The simple fact is that commercial SMRs don’t exist. There are zero in operation or even contracted for construction outside Russia and China. The cancellation of one of the three leading proposals underscores the speculative nature of this far-off technology,” he said.
“More than two thirds of our coal generators will retire in the next decade due to age. By pushing a unicorn technology the Coalition is posing a threat to the cost and security of Australia’s electricity grid.” https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/09/small-modular-nuclear-reactor-that-was-hailed-by-coalition-as-future-cancelled-due-to-rising-costs
—
Showboating for War: Johnson and Morrison in Israel
November 7, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/showboating-for-war-johnson-and-morrison-in-israel/
Banished Prime Ministers are an irritation. They clog the airwaves of punditry with their views about how things were and how things should be. But even there, degrees of severity and competence should be observed. The more noble sorts would pursue the goals of peace, even as they bag large wads of cash in stating the obvious. With former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and his disgraced counterpart from the UK, Boris Johnson, the cash is being forked out for war.
That Israeli authorities thought it suitable to invite these two men to bolster their war against Hamas shows a degree of deep desperation. Johnson, a serial rule breaker when it came to his own government’s pandemic regulations, was forced to resign as PM by his own Conservative party in June this year. He proved to be persistently and pathologically mendacious, a ragtag mix of contemptuousness and buffoonery.
Only Australia’s own Morrison could have possibly kept up, secretly commandeering, without knowledge of his own Cabinet, up to five different ministries in addition to his own. Despite losing the May 2022 election to Labor’s Anthony Albanese, he remains a sitting federal member, when not avidly think-tanking for anti-China causes and the US imperium.
As Gaza City is being systematically liquidated, pulverised, demolished and destroyed by Israeli firepower, these two men have decided to cheer matters on with their equivalent of pompoms and drums. The Israeli Defence Force needs all the help it can get in destroying any vestige of Palestinian political power in the small settlement, and history lessons are not what interests them. While Johnson is infinitely more informed about history than Morrison, both were united in their cheap showboating exercise.
Their Israeli hosts, assured that they would never be questioned, took the men to Kibbutz Kfar Aza, the place where 100 residents met their fate at the hands of the al-Qassam Brigade, the military wing of Hamas, on October 7. Here was a chance to compress and cleanse history, to give it that ethical clarity Morrison and Johnson always resisted as prime ministers. It was Johnson’s wish that the world would be able to see what had taken place “so people could be under no illusion about the savagery, the sadism, the lack of humanity of Hamas terrorists.”
That word, again: humanity. The humanity exorcised from any assessment of Palestinian worth, sovereignty, liberty. A humanity reserved for a certain type of privileged victimhood, one rarified in the cool atmosphere of exceptionalism known as God’s chosen people drawn from a document part fiction, part history. It follows that the retaliatory steps taken in prosecuting any response will be justified. “Of course,” Johnson emphasises, “it is right for Israel to take the necessary steps… to stop that happening again.”
On Channel 12 news, Johnson stressed the need to keep the moral compass steady and free of any regard for the Palestinians or their cause: “[S]ince that appalling massacre of October 7, you’re seeing a kind of fog descend, a moral fog, and I just want to remind people of the absolute barbarism of what took place and to make it clear that Israel has the right to defend itself.” With emphasis, he stated that, “There can be no moral equivalence between the terrorism of Hamas and the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces.”
When given the chance to talk about pursuing a ceasefire in the name of ecumenical grace, Johnson was curt. Think of those 240 hostages held by Hamas. “[W]hen you have a crime of this scale, and when there’s the possibility of it happening again, I don’t think it’s the business of the world to tell Israel to stop.” Forget international law, humanitarian restraint on the use of force, proportionate response, and conduct might just find itself within the margins of the tolerable.
Morrison, for his part, saw the trip as “an opportunity to understand firsthand what is occurring on the ground, honour those who have been lost, show support for those who have suffered and are now engaged in this terrible conflict and discuss how to move forward.” He also argued against a ceasefire, as this would only “advantage Hamas to be able to strengthen their positions and make this war go on for even longer”.
As for the matter of making sure the attacks of October 7 are never repeated, the point is all too obvious. It will keep happening again with dreary, bloody predictability. If not next year, then the next decade. Or generation. Eliminating Hamas will simply be a bloody pruning exercise verging on genocide, allowing fresh vegetation to thrive. The forest of vengeance will continue to grow; the thousands of children who survive will never forgive the IDF for what they have done and continue to do. Each dead family brings with it a family of converts for the Palestinian cause. Israel’s publicity relations wonks would be best advised to pay Johnson and Morrison and wish them on their merry way.
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
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
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
—
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
France attempts to pressure Australia to stop engaging with UN nuclear weapons ban treaty
https://www.icanw.org/france_pressures_australia_to_stop_engaging_with_un_nuclear_weapons_ban_treaty 2 Oct 23 #nuclear #anti-nuclear #Nuclear-Free #NoNukes
Recent statements by a French diplomat to “the Australian” newspaper criticizing Australia’s decision to observe the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) reveal the panicked efforts by nuclear-armed states to undermine the treaty as support for the ban continues to grow. It also shows a European state with a dark colonial legacy continuing to exert pressure on the Pacific – an area heavily impacted by French nuclear testing – instead of respecting national sovereignty.
On 2 October an article in “the Australian” newspaper cited an unnamed French diplomat claiming that Australia’s support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons “undermines the primacy of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)” and “is contradictory with Australia’s ambition to reinforce its partnership with NATO.”
Both of these statements are not only hamfisted attempts at pressuring the Australian government away from the TPNW, they are also factually incorrect: The TPNW was carefully crafted to reinforce, complement, and build on the NPT, which obligates its parties – including France – to negotiate further legal measures to achieve nuclear disarmament under Article VI, and NATO members face no legal barrier to joining the treaty, so long as they commit not to engage in or support any nuclear-weapon-related activities. Moreover, several NATO partners are already TPNW parties (Austria, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Malta, Mongolia, New Zealand) or signatories (Algeria, Colombia).
These declarations show France’s mounting concern over the growing support for the TPNW. The statements themselves are no surprise, as France has stridently protested the TPNW ever since it was adopted at the UN in 2017 with the backing of 122 states. France insists it has a legitimate right under the NPT to possess nuclear weapons, while ignoring its commitments to pursue negotiations in good faith for nuclear disarmament under the same treaty. What is new is the fact that this pressure is being exerted publicly, and on a state that is largely seen as an ally on security issues. Previously, France has limited this kind of pressure for formerly colonised states, particularly in Africa.
Australia’s growing support for the TPNW
The Australian Labor Party, which has been in power since May 2022, adopted a resolution in 2018 committing it to sign and ratify the TPNW in government. This was moved by Anthony Albanese, who now serves as prime minister and has been a vocal supporter of the TPNW. He said at the time: “Our commitment to sign and ratify the nuclear weapon ban treaty in government is Labor at its best.” Labor reaffirmed this position in 2021 and most recently on 18 August 2023. The government also has confirmed its intention to observe the treaty’s upcoming meeting of states parties in New York (2MSP) and is evaluating whether to sign and ratify the treaty.
This is an encouraging step, but ICAN’s Executive Director, former Labor MP Melissa Parke, has criticised the government’s delay in ratifying the treaty: “It’s not enough to keep promising to sign the treaty without acting. We want to see the Prime Minister put pen to paper, without delay. Labor’s commitment on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation will be hollow if Australia fails to do so.”
Speaking to the revelation that French diplomats are exerting pressure on Australia to consider, she said: “Our two countries have never seen eye to eye on nuclear weapons. France shouldn’t be lecturing Australia on nuclear policy. We can make our own decisions, in our own interests – and for the global common good.”
France’s unresolved nuclear legacy in the Pacific
From 1966 to 1996, France tested 193 nuclear weapons in Maohi Nui/French Polynesia, a Self Governing Territory of France in the Pacific. In 1974, Australia famously took France to the International Court of Justice in a bid to force an end to its atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific, as the impacts of nuclear weapons are not contained by national borders. Yet France only ended its Pacific nuclear test explosions once it was confident it had developed non-explosive testing methods sufficiently for new weapons development, and it refuses to acknowledge and address the catastrophic legacy of its nuclear tests to this day.This legacy is also a subject of hot debate at the national level in France. On 28 September, only days before France’s criticisms of Australia, the assembly of French Polynesia unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the TPNW, highlighting the region’s history as the site of numerous French nuclear tests. The resolution underscores the TPNW as a humanitarian disarmament treaty and emphasises the deep concerns of the French Polynesian population regarding this issue. While French Polynesia cannot currently access the assistance and rehabilitation outlined in Articles 6 and 7 of the TPNW due to France’s non-ratification, it sends a resounding message in favour of the treaty to Paris.
Pacific island States support the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – a problem for Australia in joining AUKUS nuclear military alliance
French criticism of nuclear ban treaty highlights Canberra’s dilemma #nuclear #anti-nuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
The Interpreter, NIC MACLELLAN, 2 Oct 23
Can Australia rebuild a strategic military partnership with France at
the same time as independence movements claim Pacific support?
On 28 September, the Assembly of French Polynesia unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the nuclear ban treaty that entered into force in 2021. Even though France refuses to sign the treaty, and still controls the defence and foreign policy of French Polynesia, the local legislature in Tahiti with its new pro-independence government sees TPNW as setting a new norm in international law. The resolution encourages “the participation of France as an observer state at the next TPNW Meeting of the States Parties”, to be held in New York in late November. It also calls on the French government to “work towards France’s adherence to this new international norm.”
A key reason for this pointed message to Paris are the TPNW provisions that call for assistance to nuclear survivors and clean-up of contaminated nuclear test sites. The Ma’ohi people are still seeking compensation for the health and environmental effects of 193 French nuclear tests at Moruroa and Fangataufa.
Beyond this, French Polynesia’s critique of nuclear weapons echoes the views of the majority of members of the Pacific Islands Forum. Unlike Australia, nine independent Pacific Island countries and Aotearoa-New Zealand have already signed and ratified the TPNW.
At the recent Australian Labor Party (ALP) National Conference in Brisbane, the party re-confirmed its support for signing the TPNW – under restrictive conditions – and agreed to send an observer to the next Meeting of State Parties. However key ALP leaders are opposed to signing, and nuclear weapons states such as the United States and France, having long derided the treaty, are now ramping up their opposition to it.
A front-page story in The Australian on 2 October cited an unnamed French diplomat who criticised Australia over its tentative moves towards signing TPNW, though the story fails to mention last week’s resolution from the Assembly of French Polynesia…………………………………………….
the Australian government has held a series of meetings with key French ministers to rebuild relations disrupted by AUKUS, including a summit between Defence Minister Richard Marles and French counterpart Sebastien Lecornu in September 2022, and a 2+2 meeting of defence and foreign ministers in January. Marles and Lecornu are organising the South Pacific Defence Ministers meeting in Noumea in December, to the dismay of the FLNKS independence movement, which is in the midst of talks with the French state over a new political status for New Caledonia.
Last year, Marles congratulated Emmanuel Macron on his re-election to the French presidency, proclaiming “France is our neighbour. France is a Pacific country. And as such, France deeply matters to Australia.”
But France is a European colonial power, not a Pacific country. It is recognised by the United Nations as the administering power of non-self-governing territories. It has responsibilities for decolonisation under international law. Australian governments may be reluctant to talk publicly about this, but the issue of self-determination is firmly on the regional agenda, posing difficult choices for all Forum member countries (as shown by recent debates over West Papua, Bougainville, Guam, etc).
Another problem is that, in both Australia and France, the perspectives of leaders from Francophone island communities are usually missing from the public debate about France’s role in Indo-Pacific security. It’s rare to see the media or think tanks cite President Louis Mapou of New Caledonia or newly elected President Moetai Brotherson of French Polynesia. Both will be attending the next Pacific Islands Forum summit in Rarotonga as it discusses regional security – for the first time, leaders from both French territories in the Forum are supporters of independence and sharp anti-nuclear critics.
So, can Australia rebuild a strategic military partnership with France at the same time as its Pacific neighbours are seeking an independent and sovereign state?
As Penny Wong travelled to Noumea last April, becoming the first Australian Foreign Minister to address the Congress of New Caledonia, Mapou was eager to strengthen ties with Canberra around trade, investment and people-to-people engagement. He also diplomatically highlighted key differences around Australia’s close alignment with the United States under the AUKUS partnership:
The independence movement of New Caledonia – of which I’m a member – is in favour of non-alignment. We regularly attend the summits of the Non-Aligned Movement. From the earliest days, we have supported a nuclear free Pacific – that’s even set out in the preamble of the draft Constitution of Kanaky that we submitted to the United Nations in 1986. When Australia decides to align itself with the United States in the framework of AUKUS to acquire nuclear submarines, it raises the question: if it starts here, where will it end? How does this impact the Treaty of Rarotonga and the Boe Declaration on security?
The Albanese government has proclaimed its support for a world without nuclear weapons. But talk is easy. It’s getting harder for the ALP government to balance tensions between its role as an AUKUS partner, a strategic partner with France and the “security partner of choice” for the island nations of the Pacific, which are deeply opposed to nuclear weapons. Why should Australia side with a European colonial power against its closest neighbours? https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/french-criticism-nuclear-ban-treaty-highlights-canberra-s-dilemma
Mission to Free Assange: Australian Parliamentarians in Washington
Australia remains the prized forward base of US ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, the spear pointed against China and any other rival who dares challenge its stubborn hegemony. The AUKUS pact, featuring the futile, decorative nuclear submarines …………also makes that point all too clear.
September 24, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/mission-to-free-assange-australian-parliamentarians-in-washington/
It was a short stint, involving a six-member delegation of Australian parliamentarians lobbying members of the US Congress and various relevant officials on one issue: the release of Julian Assange. If extradited to the US from the United Kingdom to face 18 charges, 17 framed with reference to the oppressive, extinguishing Espionage Act of 1917, the Australian founder of WikiLeaks risks a 175-year prison term.
Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, Labor MP Tony Zappia, Greens Senators David Shoebridge and Peter Whish-Wilson, Liberal Senator Alex Antic and the independent member for Kooyong, Dr. Monique Ryan, are to be viewed with respect, their pluckiness admired. They came cresting on the wave of a letter published on page 9 of the Washington Post, expressing the views of over 60 Australian parliamentarians. “As Australian Parliamentarians, we are resolutely of the view that the prosecution and incarceration of the Australian citizen Julian Assange must end.”
This is a good if presumptuous start. Australia remains the prized forward base of US ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, the spear pointed against China and any other rival who dares challenge its stubborn hegemony. The AUKUS pact, featuring the futile, decorative nuclear submarines that will be rich scrapping for the Royal Australian Navy whenever they arrive, also makes that point all too clear. For the US strategist, Australia is fiefdom, property, real estate, terrain, its citizenry best treated as docile subjects represented by even more docile governments. Assange, and his publishing agenda, act as savage critiques of such assumptions.
The following views in Washington DC have been expressed by the delegates in what might be described as a mission to educate. From Senator Shoebridge, the continued detention of Assange proved to be “an ongoing irritant in the bilateral relationship” between Canberra and Washington. “If this matter is not resolved and Julian is not brought home, it will be damaging to the bilateral relationship.”
Senator Whish-Wilson focused on the activities of Assange himself. “The extradition of Julian Assange as a foreign journalist conducting activities on foreign soil is unprecedented.” To create such a “dangerous precedent” laid “a very slippery slope for any democracy to go down.”
Liberal Senator Alex Antic emphasised the spike in concern in the Australian population about wishing for Assange’s return to Australia (some nine out of 10 wishing for such an outcome). “We’ve seen 67 members of the Australian parliament share that message in a joint letter, which we’ve delivered across the spectrum.” An impressed Antic remarked that this had “never happened before. I think we’re seeing an incredible groundswell, and we want to see Julian at home as soon as possible.”
On September 20, in front of the Department of Justice, Zappia told reporters that, “we’ve had several meetings and we’re not going to go into details of those meetings. But I can say that they’ve all been useful meetings.” Not much to go on, though the Labor MP went on to state that the delegation, as representatives of the Australian people had “put our case very clearly about the fact that Julian Assange pursuit and detention and charges should be dropped and should come to an end.”
A point where the delegates feel that a rich quarry can be mined and trundled away for political consumption is the value of the US-Australian alliance. As Ryan reasoned, “This side of the AUKUS partnership feels really strongly about this and so what we expect the prime minister [Anthony Albanese] to do is that he will carry the same message to President Biden when he comes to Washington.”
The publisher’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, also suggests that the indictment is “a wedge in the Australia-US relationship, which is a very important relationship at the moment, particularly with everything that’s going on with the US and China and the sort of strategic pivot that is happening.” Assange, for his part, is bound to find this excruciatingly ironic, given his lengthy battles against the US imperium and the numbing servility of its client states.
Various members of Congress have granted an audience to the six parliamentarians. Enthusiasm was in abundance from two Kentucky Congressmen: Republican Senator Rand Paul and Republican House Representative Thomas Massie. After meeting the Australian delegation, Massie declared that it was his “strong belief [Assange] should be free to return home.”
Georgian Republican House member Marjorie Taylor Greene expressed her sense of honour at having met the delegates “to discuss the inhumane detention” of Assange “for the crime of committing journalism,” insisting that the charges be dropped and a pardon granted. “America should be a beacon of free speech and shouldn’t be following in an authoritarian regime’s footsteps.” Greene has shown herself to be a conspiracy devotee of the most pungent type, but there was little to fault her regarding these sentiments.
Minnesota Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Omar also met the parliamentarians, discussing, according to a press release from her office, “the Assange prosecution and its significance as an issue in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Australia, as well as the implications for freedom of the press both at home and abroad.” She also reiterated her view, one expressed in an April 2023 letter to the Department of Justice co-signed with six other members of Congress, that the charges against Assange be dropped.
These opinions, consistent and venerably solid, have rarely swayed the mad hatters at the Justice Department who continue to operate within the same church consensus regarding Assange as an aberration and threat to US security. And they can rely, ultimately, on the calculus of attrition that assumes allies of Washington will eventually belt up, even if they grumble. There will always be those who pretend to question, such as the passive, meek Australian Foreign Minister, Penny Wong. “We have raised this many times,” Wong responded to a query while in New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly. “Secretary [of State Antony] Blinken and I both spoke about the fact that we had a discussion about the views that the United States has and the views that Australia has.”
Not that this mattered a jot. In July, Blinken stomped on Wong’s views in a disingenuous, libellous assessment about Assange, reminding his counterpart that the publisher had been “charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country.” The libel duly followed, with the claim that Assange “risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries, and put named sources at grave risk – grave risk – of physical harm, and grave risk of detention.” That gross falsification of history went unaddressed by Wong.
Thus far, Blinken has waived away the concerns of the Albanese government on Assange’s fate as passing irritants at a spring garden party. However small their purchase, six Australian parliamentarians have chosen to press the issue further. At the very least, they have gone to the centre of the imperium to add a bit of ballast to the effort.
Chris Hedges: Craig Murray on the ‘Slow Motion Execution’ of Assange
And I saw, 100% for certain, that the judge came into court with her ruling already typed out before she heard the arguments, and she sat there almost pretending to listen to what the defense was saying for now and what the prosecution was saying for now. Then she simply read out the ruling.
Chris Hedges: She’s like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland giving the verdict before she hears the sentence.
SCHEERPOST, September 17, 2023
Julian Assange continues to fight extradition to the United States to face prosecution under the Espionage Act, a growing chorus of voices is rising to demand an end to his persecution. Hounded by US law enforcement and its allies for more than a decade, Assange has been stripped of all personal and civil liberties for the crime of exposing the extent of US atrocities during the War on Terror. In the intervening years, it’s become nakedly apparent that the intent of the US government is not only to silence Assange in particular, but to send a message to whistleblowers and journalists everywhere on the consequences of speaking truth to power. Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who was fired for exposing the CIA’s use of torture in the country, joins The Chris Hedges Report to discuss what Julian Assange’s fight means for all of us.
TRANSCRIPT
Chris Hedges: Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, was removed from his post after he made public the widespread use of torture by the Uzbek government and the CIA. He has since become one of Britain’s most important human rights campaigners and a fierce advocate for Julian Assange as well as a supporter of Scottish independence. His coverage of the trial of former Scottish first minister Alex Salman, who was acquitted of sexual assault charges, saw him charged with contempt of court and sentenced to eight months in prison. The very dubious sentence, half of which Craig served, upended most legal norms. He was sentenced, supporters argued, to prevent him from testifying as a witness in the Spanish criminal case against UC global director, David Morales, being prosecuted for installing a surveillance system in the Ecuador embassy when Julian Assange found refuge that was used to record the privileged communications between Julian and his lawyers.
Morales is alleged to have carried out this surveillance on behalf of the CIA. Murray has published some of the most prescient and eloquent reports from Julian’s extradition hearings and was one of a half dozen guests, including myself, invited to Julian and Stella’s wedding in Belmarsh Prison in March 2022. Prison authorities denied entry to Craig, based on what the UK Ministry of Justice said were security concerns, as well as myself from attending the ceremony.
Joining me to discuss what is happening to Julian Assange and the rapid erosion of our most basic democratic rights is Craig Murray.
And to begin, Craig, I read all of your reports from the trial which are at once eloquent and brilliant. It’s the best coverage that we’ve had of the hearings. But I want you to bring us up to date with where we are with the case at this moment.
Craig Murray: Yeah. The legal procedures have been extraordinarily convoluted after the first hearings for the magistrate ruled that Julian couldn’t be extradited, on essentially, health grounds. Due to the conditions in American prisons, the US then appealed against that verdict. The high court accepted the US appeal on extraordinarily dubious grounds based on a diplomatic note giving certain assurances which were conditional and based on Julian’s future behavior. And of course, the US government has a record of breaking such assurances, and also, those assurances could have been given at the time of the initial hearing and weren’t.
Chris Hedges: I don’t think those assurances have any… It was a diplomatic note. It has no legal validity.
Craig Murray: It has no legal validity. It’s not binding in any sense. And as I say, it is in itself conditional. It states that they may change this in the future. It actually says that –
Chris Hedges: Well, based on his behavior.
Craig Murray: – Based on his behavior, which they will be the sole judges of.
Chris Hedges: Of course.
Craig Murray: And which won’t involve any further legal process. They will decide he’s going into a supermax because they don’t like the way he looks at guards or something. It’s utterly meaningless. And so the US, having won that appeal so Julian could be extradited, it was then Julian’s turn to appeal on all the points he had lost at the original extradition. Those include the First Amendment, they include freedom of speech, obviously, and they include the fact that the very extradition treaty under which he’s being extradited states that there shall be no political extradition and this is plainly a very political case and several other important grounds. That appeal was lodged. Nothing then happened for a year. And that appeal is an extraordinary document. You can actually find it on my website, CraigMurray.org.uk.
I’ve published the entire appeal document and it is an amazing document. It’s an incredible piece of legal argument. And some of the things it sets out like the fact that the US key witness for the charges was an Icelandic guy who they paid for his evidence. They paid him for his evidence and he is a convicted pedophile and convicted fraudster. And since he has said he lied in his evidence and he just did it for the money. That’s one example of the things you find. The documentation is not dry legal documentation at all. It’s well worth going and looking through Julian’s appeal. That appeal ran to 150 pages plus supporting documents.
For a year, nothing happened. Then two or three months ago it was dismissed in three pages of double-spaced A4, in which the judge, Judge Swift, said that there were no legal arguments, no coherent legal arguments in this 150 pages and it followed no known form of pleading and it was dismissed completely. And the thing is that the appeal was written by some of the greatest lawyers in the world. It’s supervised and written by Gareth Pierce, who I would say is the greatest living human rights lawyer. Those people have seen the film In the Name of the Father, starring Daniel Day-Lewis…………………………………….
She’s won numerous high-profile cases. She has enormous respect all around the world and this judge, who is nobody, is saying that there’s no validity to her pleadings which follow no known form of pleading. This is quite extraordinary.
Chris Hedges: Am I correct in that he was a barrister, essentially, for the defense ministry? He was served the interests of the UK government and that’s essentially got him his position. Is that correct?
Craig Murray: Exactly. He was the lead barrister for the security services. Well, he was a banister who specialized in working for the security services.
……………………………………………………And I saw, 100% for certain, that the judge came into court with her ruling already typed out before she heard the arguments, and she sat there almost pretending to listen to what the defense was saying for now and what the prosecution was saying for now. Then she simply read out the ruling.
Chris Hedges: She’s like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland giving the verdict before she hears the sentence.
……………………………..On the most basic level, the evisceration of attorney-client privilege because UC Global recorded the meetings between Julian and his lawyers, that in a UK court, as in a US court alone, should get the trial invalidated
Craig Murray: In any democracy in the world, if your intelligence services have been recording the client’s attorney consultations, that would get the case thrown out. ………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….at times it seemed as though they were deliberately doing things as slowly as possible.
Chris Hedges: Well, this is what Neils Melzer, the special repertoire on torture for the UN, said that he called it, a slow motion execution, were his words.
………………………………..Craig Murray: It was because of my advocacy for and friendship with Julian. That’s why they put me in jail. I was in the cell, my cell was 12 feet by eight feet which is slightly larger than Julian’s cell, and I was kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, sometimes 23.5 hours a day for four months. And that’s extremely difficult. It’s extremely difficult. But I knew when I was leaving, I had an end date. To be in those conditions as Julian has been for years and years and no idea if it will ever stop, no idea if you’ll ever be let out alive, let alone not having an end date, I can’t imagine how psychologically crushing that would be……………………………………………………………………………….
Craig Murray: The immediate thing that will happen is that Julian’s lawyers will try to go to the European Court in Strasbourg –
Chris Hedges: To the European Court of Human Rights.
Craig Murray: – The European Court of Human Rights to submit an appeal and get the extradition stopped, pending an appeal. The worry is that Julian would instantly be extradited and that the government wouldn’t wait to hear from a European Court.
Chris Hedges: Explain to Americans what it is and what jurisdiction it has in the UK, the European Court.
Craig Murray: Yeah, the European Court of Human Rights is not a European Union body. It’s a body of the Council of Europe. It has jurisdiction over the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees basic human rights and therefore it has legally binding jurisdiction over human rights violations in any member state of the treaty. So it does have a legally binding jurisdiction and is acknowledged as such, normally, by the UK government. They’re very powerful voices within the current conservative government in the UK which wants to exit the convention on human rights. But at present, that’s not the case. The UK is still part of this system. And so the European Court of Human Rights has legally binding authority over the government of the United Kingdom purely on matters that contravene human rights.
Chris Hedges: And if they do extradite him, they’ve essentially nullified that process, the fear is that, of course, the security services would know about the ruling in advance. He’d be on the tarmac and shuttled in, sedated, and put in a diaper and hooded or something and put on a CIA flight to Washington. I want to talk about if that happens. It’s certainly very possible. What we need to do here, and I know part of the reason you’re in the US, is to prepare for that should it take place. You will try and cover the hearings and trial here as you did in the UK but let’s talk about where we go if that event occurs.
Craig Murray: Yeah. The first thing to say is that if that happens, on the day it happens, it will be the biggest news story in the world; It would be a massive news story. So we have to be prepared. We have to know who, from the Assange movement or who from his defense team, who’s going to be the spokesman, who are going to be the spokespeople, who are going to be offered up to all the major news agencies? We have to affect the story on day one. Because if you get behind the story – And we know what their line will be. They’ll put out all these lies about people being killed because of WikiLeaks, about the American insecurity being endangered, we know all the propaganda that they will try to flood the airwaves with – So we need to be ready and ahead of the game to know who our people are, who are going to be offered up to interview, who are going to proactively get onto the media, and not just the alternative media like this media, but onto the so-called mainstream as well, and get out the story…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Chris Hedges. ………………….my reading of it is that they don’t care how they look. And part of it is to send a message. It doesn’t matter what nationality you are, it doesn’t matter where you are. WikiLeaks is not a US-based publication, it doesn’t matter where you are. If you expose the information that Julian and WikiLeaks exposed, we’re going to come for you. Isn’t that the message?
Craig Murray: That’s absolutely right. And this, again, it’s amazing they don’t see the dangers in this claim of universal jurisdiction. …………………….
This claim of universal jurisdiction is extraordinary. And what’s even more extraordinary is they’re claiming universal jurisdiction but Julian is under their jurisdiction because he published American Secrets even though he’s not an American and he wasn’t in America. And at the same time, while they claim jurisdiction over him, they’re claiming he has no First Amendment rights because he’s an Australian.
The combination of we have jurisdiction over you, you have all the liabilities that come with that but you have none of the rights that come with that because you’re not one of our citizens, that’s pernicious. It’s so illogical and so vicious. …………………………………………
Chris Hedges: I want to close because there’s been noise out of Australia. The ambassador, Carolyn Kennedy, said that they might consider a plea deal. I have put no credence in it. It’s all smoke but I wondered what you thought.
Craig Murray: Yeah. It’s an attempt to placate Australian public opinion. Public opinion in Australia is extremely strong. Over 80% of Australians want Julian released and allowed to go home to Australia. Blinken came there and made some very hostile and un-diplomatic remarks at a time when Australia was allowing the US to base nuclear weapons on its side. Caroline Kennedy came out… It’s a lie, frankly. There has been no approach from a justice department or from the State Department to doing any plea deal. It’s purely smoke and mirrors to try to distract the Australian public. Caroline Kennedy was lying to the Australian public. That’s pure and simple.…………..
Eating the three-eyed fish: where is Australia on nuclear wastewater in the Pacific?
As is usual in this framing, the peoples of the Pacific – the people impacted most by the decisions of rich, developed nations sitting on the edge of the vast ocean home of the Pacific Islands – have been ignored.
Our “Pacific family” is no doubt, once again, deeply disappointed by Australian inaction and acquiescence. A government “committed” to the Pacific is apparently not entirely on board with supporting the aspirations of its peoples – at least not when it comes to their aspirations to not live in a radioactive ocean.
by Emma Shortis https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/eating-the-three-eyed-fish-where-is-australia-on-nuclear-wastewater-in-the-pacific/00
The Australian government’s muted response to Japan’s release of Fukushima wastewater into the Pacific raises serious questions about its commitment to the region and Australia’s history of standing against nuclear testing.
In August, Japan began what will be a decades-long process of releasing more than one million tons of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown into the Pacific Ocean.
Though deemed in compliance with international safety standards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the release of water containing tritium – a form of radioactive hydrogen – has been met with significant opposition.
Most of that opposition has come, unsurprisingly, from China. In June, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said that the “ocean is humanity’s common good, not Japan’s private sewer.”
Opposition from Japan’s other neighbours and allies, meanwhile, has been muted. After expressing significant concerns, the governments of nearby nations like Korea have apparently been assuaged by promises of regulatory compliance – notwithstanding the continued opposition of local environmental and industry groups.
What appears to have happened is that the release of irradiated water into the world’s biggest ocean has been drawn all too quickly into either side of the now well-worn battle lines of “strategic competition” in the Indo-Pacific. Opposition and acquiescence fell easily, and predictably, into the binary framing of US President Biden’s world of democracies versus autocracies. So the focus of dissent has been on China.
As is usual in this framing, the peoples of the Pacific – the people impacted most by the decisions of rich, developed nations sitting on the edge of the vast ocean home of the Pacific Islands – have been ignored.
Pacific Islander peoples have been expressing their significant, historically grounded concerns about the Fukushima release since the plan was announced. In June, a member of the Pacific Islands Forum independent panel of experts, appointed to support the Pacific Islands in consultations with Japan over the release, questioned the IAEA sign-off, arguing that “the critical, foundational data upon which a sound decision could be made was either absent or, when we started getting more data…extremely concerning.”
The “unanimous conclusion” of the expert panel was that “this is a bad idea that is not defended properly at this point, and that there are alternatives that Japan should really be looking at.”
So where is Australia, an apparently critical player in the stability and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific, in all this?
This country, we have long been told, is “committed to our Pacific family, and to working together to realise our shared vision for a stable, secure and prosperous region, and to support the aspirations of Pacific island countries.”
But in a short statement released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade just before the wastewater release began, the Australian government expressed “confidence in the process that has led to the decision by Japan to release the treated water.” In February, Foreign Minister Penny Wong acknowledged the concerns of Pacific Islanders, but was assured that “transparency and trust” were in place. In a move redolent of an iconic Simpsons episode, diplomatic staff at the Australian Embassy in Tokyo even went so far as to enjoy a meal of “Fukushima fish and chips”.
Our “Pacific family” is no doubt, once again, deeply disappointed by Australian inaction and acquiescence. A government “committed” to the Pacific is apparently not entirely on board with supporting the aspirations of its peoples – at least not when it comes to their aspirations to not live in a radioactive ocean.
This muted reaction is doubly disappointing from a country, and a party, that has a long and proud history of both contesting nuclear activity in the Pacific and standing up to Japanese efforts to trample environmental consensus.
For decades, and particularly in the 1990s, Australian labor governments stood alongside Pacific Island nations in furiously contesting French nuclear testing. Stretching into the 2000s, Australian governments remained staunch in their opposition to Japanese “scientific” whaling. In both cases, Australia successfully expressed significant opposition to the damaging actions of an important strategic ally. In both cases, that opposition was mostly contained to the specific issue at hand, and did not impinge on broader security relationships – which, even if they became tense, never broke down completely and have now fully recovered.
In the same Department that joyously expressed its “confidence” in Japan and effectively ignored its “family” in the Pacific, there is – or at least there should be – deep institutional knowledge of how to manage strong disagreements and successfully cordon them off from deeper security ties. Our history should make us confident that we can – and should – share and support the legitimate, evidence-based anger of our Pacific family.
So why isn’t the Australian government condemning, loudly, the release of nuclear wastewater into the world’s largest ocean?
As is becoming increasingly clear, the Labor Party’s decision to support the Morrison government’s pursuit of nuclear-powered submarines has far-reaching consequences. That decision, made within a matter of hours, has unthinkingly shattered many labor traditions – the most relevant of which here is that long, proud history of labor governments unapologetically standing against rich and powerful nuclear powers treating the Pacific as a dumping ground.
The insistence that Australia “needs” AUKUS has apparently created a reluctance to engage in that discussion in good faith, most likely to avoid the topic of nuclear waste as much as possible – now, because of Labor’s doubling down on AUKUS, a sensitive topic domestically.
AUKUS also points to another factor – this government’s extreme insecurity over issues of foreign and security policy. As was made clear at Labor’s recent national conference, party leadership is determined not to be wedged on issues of national security. Despite all the talk of being able to have “adult conversations”, the government is not willing to allow even the slightest appearance of concession to China, around which every aspect of foreign and security policy now revolves. While on paper, wastewater dumping looks like it should fall into Wong’s category of “cooperate where we can”, in reality, we cannot be opposed to something China opposes, because we are not, and can never be, on the same side about anything – even if that thing is the dumping of radioactive wastewater into the Pacific.
This framing of a world divided into enemies and allies now extends into all of Australia’s relationships. The Australian government’s reaction to the Fukushima release, and its broader relationship with Japan, make that abundantly clear. As a member of the Quad, alongside India and the United States, Japan is regarded as critical to “stability” in the Indo-Pacific and to countering or containing China. That now means, apparently, that Japan can effectively dictate Australian policy – it can be assured of our “confidence” that dumping radioactive water in the Pacific Ocean is fine, actually, and that also, we’d better not even consider phasing out the export of fossil gas to a critical ally, lest we undermine our own security and the stability of our region.
Taken together, all of this – bad faith engagement with the Pacific, AUKUS, and the ongoing insistence that our own use and export of fossil fuels is necessary to regional stability – reveal a deeply uncomfortable truth about this labor government.
Despite all assurances to the contrary, it does not take climate change seriously. Nor does it take nuclear hygiene seriously. And questions have to be asked about its long-term commitment to nuclear disarmament.
Like its predecessors, this government is hiding behind security in order to avoid doing the hard work on climate. That weakness, which extends across all areas of domestic and international policy, is why the Australian government is not “committed” to “our Pacific family”, not really.
In failing to support Pacific Islanders’ aspirations for a nuclear-free Pacific, and in failing to rapidly decarbonise, the Australian government shows “our family” who we are, every day. And they see it.
This, in the words of the Prime Minister, is how Australia deals with “the world as it is.” Our Pacific family could be forgiven for thinking that our vision of a “bright future” for the world is one in which nuclear-powered submarines prowl silently through a rising, irradiated Pacific.
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 