Opposition to Aukus – especially from New Zealand, but also from Australia and the Pacific, and across the political spectrum
Military Initiative by Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS) is Another Major Step in Prospective War on China
Covert Action Magazine, By Murray Horton, June 29, 2023
“………………………………………………“We Are Not at War, But Neither Are We at Peace”
New Zealanders may not have appreciated the degree of militarization in Australia, much more so than here. AUKUS should jolt us out of any complacency about what is going on with our nearest neighbor—it is preparing for war. Australian media commentary at the time of the AUKUS launch made that clear. “The monumental price tag of the AUKUS pact has made it clear. We are not at war, but neither are we at peace…”
“Almost $A400b, even over three decades, is not peacetime spending in anyone’s book—a fact Government ministers concede privately. Rather, we are navigating a dangerous and unpredictable new grey zone of superpower rivalry between China and the United States. It’s a contest in which we are poised to be a central player despite our geographical isolation and relatively small population.”
“Accepting such a role will require tough spending decisions the nation as a whole is not yet ready to confront. Already, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is flagging his willingness to support reduced spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme to pay for the submarine programme. Other unsettling trade-offs will need to be discussed. Even in the short term, before the big bills start arriving, difficult calls will have to be made….This is because…it will cut $A3b from existing defence programmes…This is likely to anger other branches of the military, such as the Army, while the Navy is lavished with money.”[2]
Albanese tried to put a positive spin on it,……………………………………..
Criticism from Inside the Political Elite
Pleasingly, AUKUS was not unopposed among Australia’s political elite (or, at least, former leading members of it). Paul Keating, who was Labor Prime Minister from 1991 to 1996, really put the boot into the good submarine AUKUS and all who sail in her. He did so in a March 2023 speech, the day after the AUKUS announcement. “Former prime minister Paul Keating has launched an extraordinary attack on the Albanese government over its adoption of the AUKUS pact, accusing it of making the worst foreign policy decision by a Labor government since the attempted introduction of conscription in World War I.”
“He said signing up to AUKUS had broken Labor’s long ‘winning streak’ on foreign policy over the past century and was a ‘deeply pathetic’ moment in the Party’s history. ‘Falling into a major mistake, Anthony Albanese, befuddled by his own small-target election strategy, emerges as prime minister with an American sword to rattle at the neighbourhood to impress upon it the United States’ esteemed view of its untrammelled destiny…’”
“‘Naturally, I should prefer to be singing the praises of the government in all matters, but these issues carry deadly consequences for Australia and I believe it is incumbent on any former prime minister, particularly now, a Labor one, to alert the country to the dangerous and unnecessary journey on which the Government is now embarking.’”
“‘This week, Anthony Albanese screwed into place the last shackle in the long chain the United States has laid out to contain China…I don’t think I suffer from relevance deprivation, but I do suffer concern for Australia as it most unwisely proceeds down this singular and dangerous path,’ he said.”
“Keating presented a largely benign view of China’s rise, saying it was ‘not the old Soviet Union’ and was ‘not seeking to propagate some competing international ideology’ to the United States. The fact is China is not an outrider,’ he said. ‘China is a world trading state—it is not about upending the international system,’”
“Keating said: ‘Every Labor Party branch member will wince when they realise that the party we all fight for is returning to our former colonial master, Britain, to find our security in Asia—236 years after Europeans first grabbed the continent from its Indigenous people. That of all things, a contemporary Labor government is shunning security in Asia for security in and within the Anglosphere’”[3]
Nor was Keating alone in his criticism from within the elite. “The Australian National University’s Hugh White, an emeritus professor of strategic studies, unleashed a quite extraordinary criticism of Australia’s nuclear submarine plan…Professor White, a former deputy secretary of the Defence Department, said Australia was not only going to ‘hand over some serious dollars’ to the US but also pay with ‘a promise’ to enter any future conflict with China.’”
“‘This is a very serious transformation of the nature of our alliance with the United States,’ White said in an interview recorded for the ANU’s politics podcast Democracy Sausage. ‘The US don’t really care about our submarine capability—they care deeply about tying Australia into their containment strategy against China.’”
“White said he couldn’t see why the US would sell its own submarines—of which they have fewer than they need—unless it was absolutely sure Australia’s submarines would be available to it in the event of a major conflict in Asia. He said a war between America and China over Taiwan would be ‘World War III’ and have a ‘very good chance’ of being a nuclear conflict.”
“‘Australia’s experience of war [is] shaped by the fact that we’ve tended to be on the winning side, but there is no reason to expect America to win in a war with China over Taiwan,’ he warned. He suggested there was also a high chance the AUKUS deal could fall over under [sic] a future American administration and a worsening strategic environment.”
“White said there were cheaper, quicker, less risky and less demanding ways for Australia to get the submarines it needed, labelling the AUKUS plan a waste of money that ‘doesn’t make sense. There’s going to be no actual net increase in the number of submarines available until well into the 2040s, even if it goes to plan—which it probably won’t,’ he said.”[4]……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Former New Zealand Prime Ministers from Rival Parties Dissent
When AUKUS was first announced in 2021, New Zealand, which was not invited to join, simply confined itself to saying that nuclear-powered submarines would not be allowed into New Zealand territorial waters, or ports, because of our nuclear-free law dating back to the 1980s. So, the issue flew below the radar (or sailed under the water, to put it more appropriately). However, once AUKUS really kicked off in March 2023, debate and disquiet started in New Zealand.
Helen Clark was the Labour Prime Minister (1999-2008) who has dined out for 20 years on having refused to let New Zealand join the U.S., UK and Australia in the illegal and disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq (in all other aspects Clark was a very loyal servant of the U.S.). She came out quickly and said that New Zealand is better off outside AUKUS (the word she used was “entanglement”).
She was not alone as the only former New Zealand Prime Minister to criticize it. “…[F]ormer National prime minister Jim Bolger [1990-97] participated in a forum about New Zealand’s foreign policy in Wellington, in which he is reported by the Herald’s Audrey Young to have criticised the Australian submarine buy up as ‘beyond comprehension’ because of the cost and the damage to peace in the Pacific region.”
“Bolger said that New Zealand certainly doesn’t want any such submarines, and challenged proponents of the AUKUS deal to defend it: ‘If you can find any Australian official who can explain why they need nuclear-powered submarines, come and tell me. I’d like to know.’ And Young reported Bolger asking rhetorically, ‘How mad are we getting?’ She says ‘he spoke with despair about the near-daily threats of nuclear war, which had the potential to destroy the planet.’”[7]
Opposition Across the Political Spectrum
“As part of the AUKUS deal Western Australia will play host to US and UK nuclear submarines from 2027. With nuclear-capable American B52 bombers and thousands of American marines rotating through the Northern Territory, Australia is lining up as a loyal lieutenant to the United States in the Pacific and would be expected to fight should war break out.”
“Would New Zealanders fight in a war between the nuclear superpowers? While we aren’t required by treaty obligations to act if America or Taiwan are attacked we are if Australia is. It is not an exaggeration to say Australia could be a target in a future war and already the country has been threatened with missile attacks in that scenario.”
“The risks of New Zealand being dragged in are real. Unlike in Australia, the conversation in New Zealand has been much more muted with limited discussion on the likelihood of war. Why aren’t we talking about it? New Zealand is in a difficult situation contemplating conflict between our largest trading partner and traditional security partner.”
“We weren’t invited to join AUKUS and Australian nuclear submarines won’t be allowed to berth here under our nuclear-free legislation. That same legislation sees New Zealand as only a friend and not an ally of the United States, but we are increasingly acting like we are an ally. In the years since New Zealand’s principled decision not to join the invasion of Iraq we have become more enmeshed with the United States defence apparatus.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………….. “New Zealanders need to talk more about the risks, our decision-makers need to explain why New Zealand is aligning more closely with the United States military and as a sovereign country we have to ask are we acting independently or as a cog in a machine? Our role could be focused on reducing tensions, finding solutions and building trust. War is never inevitable.”[8]
Former politicians across the spectrum have come out against AUKUS. For example, Richard Prebble, one-time Labour Cabinet Minister and later ACT Party founder and Leader.
He is currently a relentless right-wing critic of the current Labour government. His take on AUKUS is the classic mercantilist one. “China is New Zealand’s biggest trading partner. This country has joined China’s Belt and Road initiative. China has signed a free trade agreement with New Zealand, something the U.S. Senate refuses to consider.”
“Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has warned that New Zealand’s exports to China could be caught up in a ‘storm,…………….. New Zealand’s exporters are only too aware of their dependency. There is no other obvious alternative to the New Zealand-China trade.”
“New Zealand has no territorial disputes with China. When we recognised the Government of China 50 years ago, we acknowledged Taiwan is part of China. Paul Keating and Helen Clark are correct. New Zealand’s strategic interest is in the peaceful resolution of conflicts with China rather than sleepwalking into anti-Chinese alliances.”[9]
Academic Skepticism
Leading academic Robert Patman spelled it out in an article entitled “Why New Zealand Should Remain Sceptical About AUKUS.” He wrote that “the basic problem facing AUKUS is that it is based on a binary assumption that the fate of the Indo-Pacific will be largely shaped by the outcome of U.S.-China rivalry and, in particular, by the capacity of America and its closest allies to counterbalance Chinese ambitions in the region.”[10]
“Such a perspective is problematic on a number of counts. First, it exaggerates the influence of great powers in the 21st century in a large, diverse region like the Indo-Pacific. The region contains 60% of the world’s population including significant economic players like Japan, South Korea and fast-growing economies such as Vietnam and India.”
“Second, AUKUS does not factor in the Indo-Pacific and European nations’ quite distinctive security and economic interests in countering China. While countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam and EU states like Germany and France are deeply worried about China’s forceful diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific, they remain sceptical that a security arrangement involving three English-speaking states, two of whom have baggage in the region, is an adequate response.”
“Third, China’s global ambitions are very real, but they should not be over-hyped. AUKUS states depict China as a ‘systemic threat’ and, according to US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, the ‘only competitor out there with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, a power to do so.’ Really?…”
“Fourth, the provision of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia has raised very real fears in the Indo-Pacific about nuclear proliferation. In 1995, ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] member states signed the Treaty of Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ). Furthermore, Singapore is now the only ASEAN state yet to sign or ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a diplomatic initiative heavily promoted by New Zealand.”
………………………………………………………………………. New Zealand remains sceptical that China is a systemic threat to US dominance, sees a good fit between its non-nuclear security policy and the Indo-Pacific region, and views detachment from AUKUS as both consistent with the goal of diversifying New Zealand’s trade ties and building a diplomatic network of like-minded states to strengthen the international rules-based order through measures like UN Security Council reform.”
Madness to Support U.S. War Against China
Mike Treen, veteran union leader and left-wing activist, put it all very succinctly in an article in the Daily Blog on April 21, 2023. He wrote: “The US is going to war against China because it is losing the international economic competition that previously enabled its military and economic bullying to dominate the globe. The empire is in slow decline.”[11]
“China’s extraordinary rise as an economic powerhouse over the past few decades means that it is now the top international trading partner for 120 countries. This has given the world the freedom to act in ways they have never before—politically and economically.
………………………………………………………………………………. “New Zealand was wrong to join the war against Afghanistan. We were wrong to join the occupation of Iraq. We were wrong to become an ‘observer’ at NATO. And it would be foolish and dangerous to become a participant in any way with the AUKUS military provocation against China. New Zealand should be a neutral power that offers medical aid to the world not a tiny jumped-up militarised puppet of the US empire like Australia has become.”
Defence Minister Tempted by AUKUS
The AUKUS carrot that is being dangled in front of New Zealand and Defence Minister Andrew Little is keen to take a bite……………………………………………………..
But Not PM or Minister of Foreign Affairs
However, both the Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nanaia Mahuta, have since “dismissed suggestions the Government has shown interest in joining aspects of the pact.”
Mahuta made a May 2023 speech stressing that New Zealand’s nuclear-free position is a “cornerstone of our independent stance” ………………………
AUKUS Causing Alarm in the Pacific.
“[T]he Pacific Islands Forum warns ‘AUKUS will bring war much closer to home and goes against the Blue Pacific narrative on nuclear proliferation and the cost to climate change.’ Forum secretary-general Mark Brown said AUKUS would heighten geopolitical tensions and disturb the peace and security of the region.”…………………………………………………………………….
New Zealand Needs to Be Aware of War Drums Next Door
…………………………. New Zealand is actively supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia. There is an irony in our government being so invested in a war, and its attendant geopolitics, on the other side of the world while, right next door to home, our Aussie Big Brother is making a major push toward war via AUKUS and accompanying militarization.
………Make no mistake—AUKUS is a major lurch toward war with China and it is unfolding before our eyes.
The Australian peace movement is waging a vigorous and very active campaign against AUKUS. Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) https://ipan.org.au/
References:………………………………………………………..
U.S. aggression against China ignores lessons of Hiroshima
The USA and Australia as its right-hand man in the region has worked to make the idea of war a realistic option. The truth has been distorted in order to sell the idea that it is necessary to stop China. Stop it from doing what? No rational argument has yet been made that can convince any thinking person that China is a threat. The U.S. sees things differently.
And yet China threatens no one. It has no history of expansionism or incursionary activity, effectively has no overseas bases, and its fleet and army are China-based. At the same time, we have the USA and its 800-plus bases, its ring of missiles off China’s shores and its history of blatant aggression, meddling in the affairs of states and regime change.
By William Briggs | 3 August 2023, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/us-aggression-against-china-ignores-lessons-of-hiroshima,17773
In its determination to become the superior military power, the U.S. is ignoring historical actions that many consider war crimes, writes Dr William Briggs.
SEVENTY-EIGHT years ago, the United States chose to destroy the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was and remains unjustifiable and ought to be regarded as a war crime. The war was all but over. The targets were almost exclusively civilian.
The purpose of the atomic devastation was to signal to the world that a new order was being born. We now know that order as the international rules-based order. We know who sets the rules and what happens if those rules are not obeyed.
Since establishing its new order, the USA and its allies have made the world an intensely more dangerous place to live. War with China is openly discussed. Today, the doomsday clock has its hands set at just 90 seconds to midnight. Never, since the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists put the clock in place, has the world been so close to destruction.
The sword that hangs over us has a double-edged blade. We face both the threat of nuclear destruction and a devastating climate crisis. The two – war and climate – cannot be separated. War, be it conventional or nuclear, will only make the climate crisis immeasurably worse. We are facing an existential crisis on two fronts.
While the planet burns, governments talk about reducing emissions, but emissions from the military are simply not included in the figures. The U.S. military is the single biggest emitter in America. If the U.S. military was a separate country, then it would be among the worst polluters on the planet. The link between the death of the planet by climate change and by military adventures is clear for all to see. The fault lies with those who profit from war and climate destruction and those who allegedly govern us.
Governments of whatever shade have, generation after generation, driven us to war. Lives of soldiers and civilians have been sacrificed, infrastructure wantonly destroyed and vast sums of money that could solve all of humanity’s problems have been wasted. They have been getting away with murder for an awfully long time.
Millions have died in conflict since the end of the war and millions more have been displaced by wars and now by climate destruction.
Today, people ask if war with China is inevitable and whether such a war might involve nuclear weapons. In 2020, the International Committee of the Red Cross polled millennials across 16 countries. Eighty per cent saw a real possibility of a catastrophic war in their lifetime. Fifty-four per cent believe that it will be a nuclear war.
How can this be?
Wars can only be imagined, let alone fought, if they have a degree of “popular” support. Support gives legitimacy. Support is built using a propagandised media that acts in the service of the state that has determined that war is an acceptable option. The motivation for war is almost always economic. It can include a desire to maintain and to secure hegemony, to win political outcomes and to maintain power and prestige. For all these reasons, the U.S. has determined that China is the enemy.
Our leaders accept the U.S. argument without question. Critical thought is made more difficult when enormously influential groups like the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) come into play. ASPI receives about a third of its funding from the Government and the rest from the international arms industry. ASPI’s job is to advise the Government about military threats and miraculously, China is confirmed to be the enemy.
And yet China threatens no one. It has no history of expansionism or incursionary activity, effectively has no overseas bases, and its fleet and army are China-based. At the same time, we have the USA and its 800-plus bases, its ring of missiles off China’s shores and its history of blatant aggression, meddling in the affairs of states and regime change.
The road to war with China is not all that new. Since President Obama, there has been a push from the U.S. to “contain” China. This containment was designed to be both economic and military. For every action, however, there has been a reaction. Each push has been met with a reciprocal pushback and gives license for America and its allies to respond to an “assertive” China.
It is in this light that AUKUS assumes special importance. So, too, do declarations of missile production in Australia and a move to what is becoming a war economy. Few can now doubt that there is a push, a drive to war. War plans are openly discussed. It is all on show and the thinking of the Pentagon is there for all to see. U.S. generals make insane and obscene statements but are neither relieved of duty, much less locked away.
To illustrate this point, we have General Mike Minahan, head of the United States Air Force’s Air Mobility Command who recently sent a message to the world. It is blunt, threatening and sinister: ‘My gut tells me we will fight in 2025.’
The General sent his message as a memorandum to the leadership of the 110,000-strong USAF, with the unambiguous title, ‘February 2023 Orders in Preparation for — The Next Fight’.
The chief of the U.S. Marine Corps, Commandant David Berger, was in Australia a few months back. His take on things is that “we can’t slow down, we can’t back off, we can’t get comfortable with where we are”. The message is clear.
If there is a war against China, then it will be the U.S. who will start it. It will push until it gets what it wants. That wish is to hold back, contain or seriously weaken its designated rival and adversary by whatever means it feels appropriate. That includes the use of force. If it is war and it becomes a nuclear conflict, which it might well, then it will be the USA who will be the initiator. This is not being fanciful. China, just as the Soviet Union in the Cold War, has pledged a no-first-use doctrine. The USA refuses to do the same.
The USA and Australia as its right-hand man in the region has worked to make the idea of war a realistic option. The truth has been distorted in order to sell the idea that it is necessary to stop China. Stop it from doing what? No rational argument has yet been made that can convince any thinking person that China is a threat. The U.S. sees things differently.
For America, the threat is about either China as an economic power that will displace it, that China is a socialist threat, or that China is a powerful economy that is possibly moving towards establishing a socialist economy and social system. Any of these scenarios is enough to make the Americans reach for their guns.
What would the world look like if war comes and if it ends up as a nuclear conflict? This does not necessarily mean a repeat of the imagery of mushroom clouds and Hiroshima silhouettes, although that may well be the case. The war would more likely be fought with tactical and “low-yield” nuclear weapons. These are already being produced in industrial numbers and being fitted to U.S. ships and missiles, including Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Significantly, Australia has placed an order for 220 of these missiles. They will fit snugly on the AUKUS submarines and any other ordinance that our masters see fit and can be fitted with nuclear warheads at a moment’s notice.
Missile installations have been strengthened across the region. Nuclear capable missiles are within a few minutes flying time of major Chinese cities. Japan, South Korea, Guam, the Philippines, Australia and importantly Taiwan are all part of the encirclement. Then there is the permanent deployment of 60% of the total U.S. Navy and Air Force, in close proximity to China.
It’s an obvious point but China simply does not threaten mainland USA. New York or San Francisco are not in danger from imminent missile attacks from Chinese offshore bases and installations. Could there be a scenario that might see the U.S. use these missiles to destroy civilian targets in China? Ask the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Australian MPs Blast Blinken Over Assange
The MPs called the U.S. secretary of state’s remarks that Julian Assange threatened U.S. national security “nonsense” and said the U.S. is only bent on revenge, reports Joe Lauria.
SCHEERPOST, By Joe Lauria / Consortium News August 2, 2023
Three Australian members of Parliament have dismissed U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s strong statement in support of prosecuting imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange as “nonsense.”
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie told The Guardian‘s Australian edition that Assange was “not the villain … and if the US wasn’t obsessed with revenge it would drop the extradition charge as soon as possible.”
“Antony Blinken’s allegation that Julian Assange risked very serious harm to US national security is patent nonsense,” Wilkie said.
“Mr Blinken would be well aware of the inquiries in both the US and Australia which found that the relevant WikiLeaks disclosures did not result in harm to anyone,” said Wilkie. “The only deadly behaviour was by US forces … exposed by WikiLeaks, like the Apache crew who gunned down Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists” in the infamous Collateral Murder video.
Speaking at a press conference with Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong in Brisbane on Saturday, Blinken said he understood Australians’ concerns about their imprisoned citizen, but took a hard line against any move to end his persecution. Blinken said:
“…………………………………………………….Mr Assange was 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 actions that he is alleged to have committed risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries, and put named human sources at grave risk of physical harm, grave risk of detention…………”
As was shown conclusively by defense witnesses in his September 2020 extradition hearing in London, Assange worked assiduously to redact names of U.S. informants before WikiLeaks publications on Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010. U.S. Gen. Robert Carr testified at the court martial of WikiLeaks‘ source, Chelsea Manning, that no one was harmed by the material’s publication.
Instead, Assange faces 175 years in a U.S. dungeon on charges of violating the Espionage Act, not for stealing U.S. classified material, but for the First Amendment-protected publication of it.
The Meaning of ‘National Security’
WikiLeaks has indeed threatened “national security” if the “nation” is defined as merely its rulers. If “national security” however is meant to be the security of the entire nation, then Blinken’s obsession with continuing the war in Ukraine with the risk of nuclear conflict is truly a threat to the nation’s security.
Liberal MP Bridget Archer, another co-chair of the pro-Assange parliamentary group, said: “He continues to suffer mentally and physically, as does his family, and the government should redouble their efforts to secure his release and return to Australia.”
………………………..Labor MP Julian Hill, also part of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group last week called on Assange to take a plea deal, which should not reflect badly on him. In the meantime, Hill said improving prison conditions “should not be difficult to do even while argument continues about resolution of this matter.”
A recent opinion poll shows that 79 percent of Australians want Assange released and bought home. https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/02/australian-mps-blast-blinken-over-assange/—
The Day Australian Sovereignty Died
Australian Independent Media, August 2, 2023, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark
If a date might be found when Australian sovereignty was extinguished by the emissaries of the US imperium, July 29, 2023 will be as good as any. Not that they aren’t other candidates, foremost among them being the announcement of the AUKUS agreement between Australia, UK and the US in September 2021. They all point to a surrender, a handing over, of a territory to another’s military and intelligence community, an abject, oily capitulation that would normally qualify as treasonous.
The treason becomes all the more indigestible for its inevitable result: Australian territory is being shaped, readied, and purposed for war under the auspices of closer defence ties with an old ally. The security rentiers, the servitors, the paid-up pundits all see this as a splendid thing. War, or at least its preparations, can offer wonderful returns.
The US Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin III, was particularly delighted, though watchful of his hosts. His remit was clear: detect any wobbliness, call out any indecision. But there was nothing to be worried about. His Australian hosts, for instance, proved accommodating and crawling.
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles, for instance, standing alongside Austin, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Australian Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, declared that there was “a commitment to increase American force posture in respect of our northern bases, in respect to our maritime patrols and our reconnaissance aircraft; further force posture initiatives involving US Army watercraft; and in respect of logistics and stores, which have been very central to Exercise Talisman Sabre.” To the untutored eye, Marles might have simply been another Pentagon spokesman of middle-rank…………….
Australian real estate would be given over to greater “space cooperation”, alongside creating “a guided weapons and explosive ordnance enterprise in this country, and doing so in a way where we hope to see manufacturing of missiles commence in Australia in two years’ time as part of a collective industrial base between the two countries.” Chillingly, Marles went on to reiterate what has become something of a favourite in his middle-management lexicon. The efforts to fiddle the export-defense export control legislation by the Biden administration would create “a more seamless defence industrial base between our countries.” Seamless, here, is the thick nail in the coffin of sovereignty.
Moves are also underway to engage in redevelopment of bases in northern Australia, in anticipation of the increased, ongoing US military presence. The RAAF Base Tindal, located 320km south-east of Darwin in the Northern Territory, is the subject of considerable investment “to address functional deficiencies and capacity constraints in existing facilities and infrastructure.” The AUSMIN talks further revealed that scoping upgrades would take place at two new locations: RAAF Bases Scherger and RAAF Curtin.
Australia’s Defence Intelligence Organisation will also be colonised by what is being termed a “Combined Intelligence Centre – Australia” by 2024. This is purportedly intended to “enhance long-standing intelligence cooperation” while essentially subordinating Australian intelligence operations to their US overlords. Marles saw the arrangement as part of a drive towards “seamless” (that hideous word again) intelligence ties between Canberra and Washington. “This is a unit which is going to produce intelligence for both of our defence forces … and I think that’s important.”
……….. Under the Albanese government we have reverted completely to our worst selves on defence. We’re going to do almost nothing consequential over the next 10 years other than get the Americans to do more on our land.” ……… Australia might be at war with China under US-direction before a decade is up, vassalized warriors eager to kill and be killed. https://theaimn.com/the-day-australian-sovereignty-died/
Australia Agrees To Build US Missiles; US Dismisses Australian Concerns About Assange
The reason Blinken keeps repeating the word “risk” here is because the Pentagon already publicly acknowledged in 2013 that nobody was actually harmed by the 2010 Manning leaks that Assange is being charged with publishing, so all US officials can do is make the unfalsifiable assertion that they could have potentially been harmed had things happened completely differently in some hypothetical alternate timeline.
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, JUL 30, 2023, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/australia-agrees-to-build-us-missiles?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=135542172&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Two different news stories about US-Australian relations have broken at around the same time, and together they sum up the story of US-Australian relations as a whole. In one we learn that Australia has agreed to manufacture missiles for the United States, and in the other we learn that Washington has told Australia to go suck eggs about its concerns regarding the US persecution of Australian journalist Julian Assange.
The relationship between Australia and the United States is all the more clearly illustrated by the way they are being reported by Australia’s embarrassingly sycophantic mainstream press.
In a Sydney Morning Herald article published Friday titled “‘Hugely significant’: Australia to manufacture and export missiles to US,” the US-educated war propagandist Matthew Knott exuberantly reports on the latest development on Australia’s total absorption into the American war machine.
“Australia is set to begin manufacturing its own missiles within two years under an ambitious plan that will allow the country to supply guided weapons to the United States and possibly export them to other nations,” Knott reports,” adding that the “joint missile manufacturing effort is being driven by the war in Ukraine, which has highlighted a troubling lack of ammunition stocks in Western nations including the US.”
Knott — perhaps best-known for being publicly told to “hang your head in shame” and “drum yourself out of Australian journalism” by former prime minister Paul Keating over his virulent war propaganda on China — gushes enthusiastically about the wonderful opportunities this southward expansion of the military-industrial complex will offer Australians.
“As well as creating local jobs, a domestic missile manufacturing industry will make Australia less reliant on imports and provide a trusted additional source of munitions for the US,” Knott writes ecstatically in what has somehow been presented by The Sydney Morning Herald as a hard news story and not an opinion piece.
An article published the next day, also in The Sydney Morning Herald and also by Matthew Knott, is titled “Assange ‘endangered lives’: Top official urges Australia to understand US concerns”.
It’s not unusual to see this type of propagandistic headline designed to convey a specific message above Knott’s reporting on this subject; in 2019 he authored a piece which was given the bogus title “‘A monster not a journalist’: Mueller report shows Assange lied about Russian hacking”.
“The United States’ top foreign policy official has urged Australians to understand American concerns about Julian Assange’s publishing of leaked classified information, saying the WikiLeaks founder is alleged to have endangered lives and put US national security at risk,” Knott writes. “In the sharpest and most detailed remarks from a Biden administration official about the matter, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Assange had been involved in one of the largest breaches of classified information in American history and had been charged with serious criminal conduct in the US.”
Blinken’s remarks came during a press conference for the Australia–US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) forum on Saturday, in response to a question asked by Knott himself.
Here are Blinken’s comments in full:
“Look, as a general matter policy, we don’t really comment on extradition matters, extradition proceedings. And so, I really would refer you to our Department of Justice for any questions about the status of the criminal case, whether it’s with regard to Mr Assange or the other person in question. And I really do understand and can certainly confirm what Penny said about the fact that this matter was raised with us as it has been in the past. And I understand the sensitivities, I understand the concerns and views of Australians. I think it’s very important that our friends here understand our concerns about this matter. And what our Department of Justice has already said repeatedly, publicly, is this, Mr Assange was 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 actions that he is alleged to have committed risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries and put named human sources at grave risk, grave risk of physical harm, grave risk of detention. So, I say that only because, just as we understand sensitivities here, it’s important that our friends understand sensitivities in the United States.”
The reason Blinken keeps repeating the word “risk” here is because the Pentagon already publicly acknowledged in 2013 that nobody was actually harmed by the 2010 Manning leaks that Assange is being charged with publishing, so all US officials can do is make the unfalsifiable assertion that they could have potentially been harmed had things happened completely differently in some hypothetical alternate timeline.
In reality, Assange is being persecuted by the United States for no other reason than the crime of good journalism. His reporting exposed US war crimes, and the US wishes to set a legal precedent that allows for anyone who reveals such criminality to be imprisoned in the United States — not just the whistleblowers who bring forth that information, but publishers who circulate it. This is why even mainstream press outlets and human rights organizations unequivocally oppose his extradition; because it would be a devastating blow to worldwide press freedoms on what is arguably the single most important issue that journalists can possibly report on.
So here is Australia signing up to become the Pentagon’s weapons supplier to the south — on top of already functioning as a total US military/intelligence asset which is preparing to back Washington in a war with China, and on top of being so fully prostrated before the empire that we’re not even allowed to know if American nuclear weapons are in our own country — being publicly hand-waved away by Washington’s top diplomat for expressing concern about a historic legal case in which an Australian citizen is being persecuted by the world’s most powerful government for being a good journalist.
You could not ask for a clearer illustration of the so-called “alliance” between Australia and the United States. It’s easy to see that this is not an equal partnership between two sovereign nations, but a relationship of total domination and subservience. I was only half-joking when I wrote the other day that our national symbol should be the star-spangled kangaroo.
Australia is not a real country. It’s a US military base with marsupials.
Australian National Sovereignty and Economic Welfare in Peril? Feedback from the AUSMIN Meeting in Brisbane
Behind the scenes intrigues by defence chiefs and intel services through their media releases are a quite inadequate substitute for these democratic consultations.
Hopes of US co-operation in releasing Julian Assange who is languishing in Belmarsh Prison in London while awaiting extradition to the USA to face charges for breaches of the US Espionage Act were dashed at the recent AUSMIN Meeting.
July 30, 2023. by: The AIM Network, By Denis Bright
Decades ago – in 1951 – the ANZUS Pact promised ongoing consultations about strategic policies within the US Global Alliance. Now, from the elite surroundings of Queensland’s Government House in Brisbane, media statements from AUSMIN have taken everyone back to school days. Our elected leaders are now the principals in a frightening new age in which preparation for war is a key element in foreign and strategic policies (Joint Statement from AUSMIN 29 July 2023):
Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles hosted the U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on 29 July in Brisbane to advance the Australia-U.S. Alliance and their cooperation in the Indo-Pacific and globally. Building on the high tempo of engagement between leaders and ministers, including the meeting between Prime Minister Albanese and President Biden in May 2023, the Ministers and Secretaries (the principals) determined that the Alliance has never been stronger. Based on a bond of shared values, it remains a partnership of strategic interest – premised on a common determination to preserve stability, prosperity, and peace.
For our visiting US Principals, it seems that peace will be delivered by exporting cluster bombs to extend the war in Europe.
National sovereignty is always imperiled by unnecessary secrecy like the Treaty of London (1915) which moved Italy from neutrality to becoming a participant in the Great War (1914-18) at the instigation of the British Government.
Extracts from the Treaty of London 1915
ARTICLE 2. On her part, Italy undertakes to use her entire resources for the purpose of waging war jointly with France, Great Britain, and Russia against all their enemies…………………………….
ARTICLE 16. The present arrangement shall be held secret.
It would have been better for Italy if a brave Julian Assange from the era told the Italian people about the secret strategic deals with Britain in 1915. Italy’s involvement in the Great War brought family tragedies, mass immigration, financial ruin and the rise of fascism in its wake.
The current militarization of the global economy by potential friend and foe alike will ultimately be ended by accidental conflict or economic recession from burnt out commitments and distortion of investment flows globally. Going too far by Australian leaders risks schism in the Labor Movement as in the Great War or tensions within the Labor Party during the Cold War in the 1950s and more recently when New Zealand withdrew from the ANZUS Pact over visits by naval vessels that were either nuclear powered or carrying nuclear weapons or both in the 1980s.
If there is a chink in the armour of public support for Australia’s defence commitments to the US Global Alliance, it lies in medium and long-term concerns about the costs of the AUKUS defence commitments which are apparent in the Lowy Institute’s 2023 Polling.
It would have been better for Italy if a brave Julian Assange from the era told the Italian people about the secret strategic deals with Britain in 1915. Italy’s involvement in the Great War brought family tragedies, mass immigration, financial ruin and the rise of fascism in its wake.
The current militarization of the global economy by potential friend and foe alike will ultimately be ended by accidental conflict or economic recession from burnt out commitments and distortion of investment flows globally. Going too far by Australian leaders risks schism in the Labor Movement as in the Great War or tensions within the Labor Party during the Cold War in the 1950s and more recently when New Zealand withdrew from the ANZUS Pact over visits by naval vessels that were either nuclear powered or carrying nuclear weapons or both in the 1980s.
If there is a chink in the armour of public support for Australia’s defence commitments to the US Global Alliance, it lies in medium and long-term concerns about the costs of the AUKUS defence commitments which are apparent in the Lowy Institute’s 2023 Polling.
The financial costs of the submarine deal is the real chink in favourable Australian public opinion towards more participation in the US Global Alliance.
Despite the outpouring of patriotic rhetoric at the launching event in Mobile, Alabama, Austal Limited Australia had not finalized its Australian taxation commitments from an annual revenue of $579.4 million in 2020-21 by 2 November 2022. The tax owing under review by the ATO was a paltry $28 million due to legalized tax minimization by the company’s accountants. Austal’s explanation of these processes is well covered in the 2022 Annual Report from Austal Australia which can easily be perused by interested readers.
Orders for AUKUS vessels and commitments to the QUAD Defence Arrangements will provide windfall revenue for the military and industrial complexes of Britain and the USA for a generation ahead until 2050. In the traditions of the original ANZUS Defence Alliance of 1951, our bipartisan strategic commitments were always consistent with adherence to the UN Charter and to open discussion of defence arrangements.
Behind the scenes intrigues by defence chiefs and intel services through their media releases are a quite inadequate substitute for these democratic consultations.
Hopes of US co-operation in releasing Julian Assange who is languishing in Belmarsh Prison in London while awaiting extradition to the USA to face charges for breaches of the US Espionage Act were dashed at the recent AUSMIN Meeting. Defence analyst Chelsea Manning who actually released the Pentagon documents to Julian Assange for publication had his charges commuted by President Obama in 2017.
These documents are largely in the public domain through sites like ChatGPT which can retrieve the gist of most items released but without adequate referencing by the AI robots at Opensystems in San Francisco. Readers can avail themselves of the resources of ChatGPT in the absence of full and frank media releases from Australian government strategic agencies.
Environmental risks of nuclear-powered ship visits to Australian ports also add to the policy dilemmas facing Australians.
It was the Morrison Government which welcomed the ageing French nuclear powered submarine to HMAS Sterling near Perth in late 2020 en route to naval manoeuvres near Guam and likely stealth operations in the South China Sea to test China’s maritime intelligence. Such manoeuvres in troubled waters are hazardous operations. This epic seven-month voyage to the Indo-Pacific Basin was well covered in this YouTube video.
The New York Times (31 March 1994) and other global media outlets of the nuclear accident involving the nuclear-powered submarine off Toulon. ChatGPT has a blind spot about the reporting of this incident from media monitoring:
Ten sailors died today in an accident aboard a French nuclear-propelled submarine that was taking part in naval exercises in the Mediterranean off Toulon, the Defense Ministry announced.
A ministry spokesman said that the Émeraude, a 2,400-ton Rubis-class attack submarine, did not carry nuclear missiles and that its 48-megawatt nuclear reactor was not damaged in the accident, which occurred when a burst pipe released high pressure steam into a turbine compartment.
“The steam is certainly not radioactive,” Rear Adm. Philippe Roy said at a news conference in the southern port city of Toulon this evening.
Hours after the accident, the navy recalled three other nuclear-propelled submarines — two from the Mediterranean and one from the Atlantic — pending an investigation. “We are recalling them because we are asking questions about what happened,” Admiral Roy said.
Since I covered this topic the WA State Police Minister’s Office has kindly provided details of protocols operating for the containment of accidents involving nuclear powered ship visits which possibly carry nuclear weapons under Don’t Ask Won’t Tell Protocols operating within the US Global Alliance……………………………………………………………………………….
Nuclear powered vessels from countries in the US Global Alliance have been visiting Australian ports since 1960. The details of these visits can be monitored on the web sites of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and the Departments of Defence itself in both Australian and the USA.
Specialist staff within DFAT will of course have access to some classified documents generated by the US Department of Defense and its related intel networks. To guard against the emergence of any new generation of Australians wishing to follow in the traditions of Chelsea Manning of Oklahoma, it is my understanding from personal communications from just one staff member on my reporting rounds for AIM Network that personal phones and communication systems are all monitored by local intel services and probably by overseas agencies as well.
Whilst ChatGPT is tightening up on the topics on which it is able to release information, it can still provide a wealth of anecdotal information to assist in the reporting of hearsay on strategic and intelligence matters. Reporters can work on this anecdotal information by perusing reliable documents in the public domain such as annual reports of companies within the global military industrial complexes.
Like the manufacturers of lethal weapons during the Great War, not all corporate data can be withheld from potential investors and curious members of the general public. Corporations here and overseas will make windfall profits from defence contracts. ChatGPT could offer these details of key defence companies operating in Australia:
- Thales Australia: Thales is a major defense contractor with operations in various sectors, including aerospace, defense, security, and transportation. They have a significant presence in Australia and are involved in projects such as armoured vehicles, naval systems, and communications.
- Austal: Austal is an Australian shipbuilding company known for designing and manufacturing high-speed aluminum vessels for defense and commercial purposes.
- BAE Systems Australia: BAE Systems is a global defense company with a significant presence in Australia, involved in areas such as maritime, aerospace, and land systems.
- Rheinmetall Defence Australia: Rheinmetall is a German defense company with operations in Australia, focusing on armored vehicles and defense technology.
- ASC (Australian Submarine Corporation): ASC is a government-owned company that specializes in submarine maintenance, sustainment, and upgrades.
US Companies operating in Australia who are likely to gain from international strategic tensions include:
- Lockheed Martin Australia: Lockheed Martin is a prominent U.S. defense contractor, and its Australian subsidiary, Lockheed Martin Australia, operates in the country. They are involved in various defense projects, including aerospace, cybersecurity, and naval systems.
- Boeing Defence Australia (BDA): Boeing, a major U.S. defense and aerospace company, has a subsidiary known as Boeing Defence Australia. BDA is actively engaged in providing defense products, services, and solutions in Australia, including aviation and intelligence systems.
- Northrop Grumman Australia: Northrop Grumman, another U.S. defense company, has a presence in Australia through its subsidiary Northrop Grumman Australia. They focus on delivering advanced defense and security technologies and systems.
- General Dynamics Land Systems – Australia (GDLS-A): General Dynamics is a U.S. defense contractor, and its Australian subsidiary GDLS-A is involved in the design, engineering, and support of military land systems.
- Raytheon Australia: Raytheon, a major U.S. defense and technology company, has a presence in Australia through its subsidiary Raytheon Australia. They are active in areas such as defense systems, cybersecurity, and intelligence.
Inquisitive readers can easily check which prominent Australian family is a big shareholder in Austal Limited which manufactured the USS Canberra in Mobile, Alabama prior to its commissioning in Sydney on 22 July 2023. With so many millions to spare, this family is a prominent investor in the Ukrainian Development Fund with just a small holding of US $500 million.
More than a century ago during the Great War (1914-18) peace initiatives were by-passed because both sides of the conflict in Europe hope for strategic advantages from continuing the fighting. These peace initiatives involved the Vatican under Pope Benedict XV and ultimately diplomatic engagement between the warring parties in 1916-17.
More than a century later, Pope Francis has authorized his peace envoy in Cardinal Matteo Zuppi of Bologna to visit Washington, Kiev, Moscow and Beijing to sound out the possibilities for an end to the current conflicts with colleagues from the Vatican secretariat of state. As in the Great War, initial efforts are on behalf of the civilian victims of warfare. These efforts became mainstream in the Great War as noted by Philip Zelikow in his book for the US Woodrow Wilson Institute.
he Road Less Travelled: The Secret Battle to End the Great War, 1916-1917
For more than five months, from August 1916 to the end of January 1917, leaders from the United States, Britain, and Germany held secret peace negotiations in an attempt to end the Great War. They did so far out of public sight – one reason why their effort, which came astonishingly close to ending the war and saving millions of lives, is little understood today. In The Road Less Travelled.
As Australia is not a current non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, our immediate efforts for some token welfare support for the victims of war can be made through the efforts of NZ’s UN Ambassador Carolyn Schwalger (NZ Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade). NZ is still officially outside the US Global Alliance but is kept well in the loop by the Australian Government.
Supporting governments which are involved in the use of cluster bombs to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine is dramatically at odds with the values of the broader Labor Movement and this opposition should be taken up by delegates from the progressive wings of the Labor Party within the National Conference. Supporters of lobbyists from the commercial military industrial complexes across the US Global Alliance have no affinity with Labor Values and should be exposed by committed delegates who believe in peace and disarmament.
https://theaimn.com/australian-national-sovereignty-and-economic-welfare-in-peril-feedback-from-the-ausmin-meeting-in-brisbane/more https://theaimn.com/australian-national-sovereignty-and-economic-welfare-in-peril-feedback-from-the-ausmin-meeting-in-brisbane/
The Star-Spangled Kangaroo
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, JUL 27, 2023 https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-star-spangled-kangaroo?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=135485598&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
A new US warship has been ushered into service in Sydney. The ship is called the USS Canberra to honor the military union of the United States and Australia, and, if that’s still too subtle for you, it has a literal star-spangled kangaroo affixed to its side.
That’s right: the first US warship ever commissioned in a foreign port has been emblazoned with a kangaroo covered in the stars and stripes of the United States flag. An Australian officer will reportedly always be part of the staff of the ship, to further symbolize the holy matrimony between Australia and the US war machine.
“I can think of no better symbol of this shared future than the USS Canberra,” gushed US ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy. “Built by American workers at an Australian company in Mobile, Alabama, her crew will always include a Royal Australian Navy sailor, and from today forward, she will proudly display a star-spangled kangaroo.”
And you know what? She’s right. Not because of her giddy joy over the complete absorption of Australia into the US military apparatus of course — that’s a horrifying nightmare which is increasingly putting this nation on track toward a frontline role in Washington’s war plans against China. But she’s right that the star-spangled kangaroo and the ship which carries it is a perfect symbol for the way these two nations have become inseparably intertwined.
In fact, I’d take it a step further. I’d say the star-spangled kangaroo should be the new symbol for our entire nation.
I mean, we might as well, right? Australia is not a sovereign nation in any meaningful way; we’re functionally a US military/intelligence asset, and according to our defence minister Richard Marles our own military is being moved “beyond interoperability to interchangeability” with the US war machine so they can “operate seamlessly together, at speed.”
The US imprisons Australian journalist Julian Assange for exposing US war crimes like he’s the personal property of the Pentagon, and when the US doesn’t like our Prime Minister because he’s too keen on Australian independence or perceived as too friendly with China, they simply replace him with another one.
We even found out recently that Australians are not permitted to know if the US is bringing nuclear weapons into this country. That is a secret the US keeps from all of us, and our government respects their privacy on the matter.
So I think the star-spangled kangaroo is an entirely appropriate symbol for this country. Put it on our flag. Put it on our money. Put it on all our warships and planes, and on every military uniform. When you walk into an Australian government building, Yankarooey (or whatever stupid Aussie nickname we make up for the thing to mask our own cognitive dissonance) should be the first thing everyone sees.
Undignified? Certainly. Humiliating? Absolutely. An admission that Australia is not a real nation? Of course. But at least it would be honest. If we’re going to act like Washington’s subservient basement gimp, we may as well dress the part.
Nuclear weapons:“Oppenheimer” won’tmake a difference, but Australia can
The Interpreter GARETH EVANS, 26 July 23
The movie missed a chance to galvanise a renewed campaign, to better protect against existential danger than rely on sheer dumb luck.
Oppenheimer is a big disappointment for those of us who hoped that this super-hyped, all-star-cast new movie might give new life to the nuclear disarmament cause, creating new awareness of nuclear risks and energising popular support for their elimination – maybe even influencing senior policymakers in the way that the 1983 telemovie The Day After was, famously, an epiphany for Ronald Reagan.
…………………………… while making clear that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were big bangs, and the Edward Teller’s anticipated H-bomb much bigger still, it is no part of the film’s mission to convey the sheer flesh and blood horror of these most indiscriminately inhumane weapons ever devised.
Oppenheimer’s moral qualms about massive civilian death tolls, and the catastrophic potential of an internationally unregulated post-war nuclear arms race, are not as clearly or forcefully explained as they could be. And the film takes it as given that the bomb-dropping (not the Soviet Union’s almost simultaneous declaration of war) was the decisive factor in Japan’s surrender – an historically flawed storyline, but one that remains critical to this day in keeping alive belief in the utility of nuclear weapons.
So, with no new help from the cinema, it’s back to the same old frustrating drawing board for nuclear risk reduction and disarmament campaigners.
The need for effective advocacy and action here has never been more compelling. 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, now growing again. 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. Longstanding nuclear arms control agreements are now either dead (ABM, INF, Open Skies) or on life support (New START).
Moreover, the risk of use through human or system error or miscalculation is greater than ever, not least given new developments in AI and cyber-offence capability. That we have not had a nuclear weapon used for nearly 80 years is not a result of statesmanship, system integrity and infallibility, or the inherent stability of nuclear deterrence. It has been sheer dumb luck, and it is utterly wishful thinking to believe that this luck can continue in perpetuity.
…………………………..what can reasonably be hoped for, and sooner rather than later, is a serious global commitment to nuclear risk reduction.
Australia has a more useful role in this enterprise than many may imagine, with our generally strong record on arms control – including bringing to conclusion the Chemical Weapons Convention – and our nuclear credentials burnished by the ground-breaking Keating government-initiated Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, the Howard Government’s role in getting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to a vote, and the more recent Rudd government-initiated Australia-Japan International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.
The most commonly proposed risk-reduction measures – and central elements in the Australia–Japan commission’s proposed “minimisation” agenda – may be described as the “4 Ds”. They are Doctrine (getting universal buy-in for a No First Use (NFU) commitment), Deployment (drastically reducing the number of weapons ready for immediate use), De-alerting (taking weapons off high-alert, launch-on warning readiness) and Decreased numbers (reducing the overall global stockpile to less than 2,000 weapons).
A world with low numbers of nuclear weapons, with very few of them physically deployed, with practically none of them on high-alert launch status, and with every nuclear-armed state visibly committed to never being the first to use them, would still be very far from perfect. But one that could achieve these objectives would be a very much safer world than we live in now.
What has been most depressing about Australia’s performance in recent years, which it is very much to be hoped will now change, is that even these realistic objectives have not been actively supported. Australia’s status as a close US ally and, as such, one of the “nuclear umbrella” states, gives us a particularly significant potential role in advancing some key elements of the risk-reduction agenda just described.
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. ………………… At the NPT Review Conference concluded in New York in August 2022, a great deal of support was evident for such No First Use commitments as part of a larger risk reduction agenda. But the delegation of our new Labor government made no contribution to that debate. I live in hope that that position will change. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/nuclear-weapons-oppenheimer-won-t-make-difference-australia-can
New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stance means it won’t play a role in Australia’s submarine plans
New Zealand’s commitment to remaining nuclear-free means it won’t play a role in Australia’s defense plans to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, the leaders from both countries said Wednesday
ABC News, By NICK PERRY Associated Press, July 26, 2023
WELLINGTON, New Zealand — New Zealand’s longstanding commitment to remaining nuclear-free means it won’t play a role in Australia‘s plans to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, the leaders from both countries said after meeting Wednesday…………………………………………………………. more https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/new-zealands-anti-nuclear-stance-means-play-role-101659242
Japan Doesn’t Want to Fight for Taiwan and Neither Do Other US Allies
if Japan fought alongside the US in a hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan, the Japanese civilians and economy would suffer greatly. What’s more, in a conflict between two nuclear powers, China and the US, Japan may itself become a nuclear target,
22.07.2023 Ekaterina Blinova https://sputnikglobe.com/20230722/japan-doesnt-want-to-fight-for-taiwan-and-neither-do-other-us-allies-1112066099.html
Despite Japan bolstering its military capabilities under the nation’s new Defense Buildup Program, it appears to have zero appetite to engage in direct confrontation with China over Taiwan, Western media and think tanks say.
US military facilities in Okinawa, Japan, might play a central role in any Taiwan crisis, according to the Western press. Moreover, American military analysts have almost unanimously agreed that Japan is “the most likely US ally to contribute troops” in a potential US conflict with China over the island.
Back in October 2021, War on the Rocks, a US online media outlet, quoted a Japanese poll which appeared to indicate that 74% of respondents would support their government’s military engagement in the Taiwan Strait against China. The report further speculated about the possibilities of circumventing the country’s Constitution, which limits Japan’s ability to participate in conflicts.
Bold statements made by some Japanese officials also seemed to confirm Tokyo’s resolve. One of them, former Minister of Defense Yasuhide Nakayama, insisted in June 2021 that Taiwan is a “red line” and that “we have to protect Taiwan as a democratic country.” Japan and Taiwan are geographically close and any possible military actions over the island could potentially affect Japan’s Okinawa prefecture, Nakayama argued at the time.
Is China Going to Take Taiwan by Force?
The People’s Republic of China, which considers Taiwan its inalienable part, has repeatedly stated that it is going to reunite with the island peacefully, referring to years of fruitful collaboration with the former Taiwanese government formed by members of Kuomintang Party.
The Kuomintang can make a spectacular comeback during the Taiwanese general elections, scheduled for January 2024. The party’s victory could nip the fuss around Taiwan’s secessionism and potential conflict in the bud. Even US lawmakers admit it, considering the Kuomintang’s win a potential “threat” to Washington’s plans in the Asia-Pacific.
Biden Fast-Tracks Arming of Taiwan
For their part, the Biden administration and American legislators have repeatedly issued provocative statements with regard to the island, with the US president claiming time and time again that Washington is ready to “protect” Taiwan “militarily.” The US has also bolstered arms sales to the island.
In late June, Biden approved two potential arms sales totaling $440 million to Taiwan, including ammo and other military equipment. Earlier, in March, the US State Department approved a $619 million sale of hundreds of missiles to Taiwan to arm its new US-made F-16 jet fighters. Moreover, the Biden administration has started to use fast-track authority for accelerating the pace of the arming of Taiwan. The same mechanism has been used by Biden to speed-up Ukraine’s militarization.
Japanese Leadership Seems Unhappy With US Bellicosity
The unfolding situation has apparently given shivers to the Japanese leadership. The Wall Street Journal broke on Monday that the Japanese government is ready to give permission to the US to use bases in Japan in the case of conflict over Taiwan, but Tokyo’s own participation is unlikely.
Per the report, Washington invited Tokyo to consider using its Self-Defense Forces, especially the Maritime Self-Defense Force for hunting for Chinese submarines around the island of Taiwan and for other military missions.
Presently, Japan is home to about 54,000 US troops, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. It also hosts the headquarters of the US Navy’s 7th Fleet and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit.
Tokyo’s concerns have certain grounds. In May, Japanese scholar Kiyoshi Sugawa wrote for Responsible Statecraft, the online magazine of the Quincy Institute (a DC-based think tank), that if Japan fought alongside the US in a hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan, the Japanese civilians and economy would suffer greatly. What’s more, in a conflict between two nuclear powers, China and the US, Japan may itself become a nuclear target, Sugawa warned.
The DC-based think also refers to the recent Japanese polls which indicate that just 11% of Japanese respondents consider it possible to fight alongside the US against China, while 27% said that their forces should not cooperate with the US military at all. The majority (56%) said that providing logistical support to the US would be more than enough in the event of the conflict.
Nobody Wants to Die for Uncle Sam
What’s more, Japan is not the only US ally unwilling to fight with China over Taiwan. The Australian government has recently signaled that it gave no promises to Washington about military participation in a potential conflict. The Philippines does not want to get dragged into the conflict, either.
When it comes to South Korea, it also lacks any enthusiasm of joining the US in a combat operation in the Taiwan Strait. Western observers draw attention to the fact that South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol avoided meeting with then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Seoul after her controversial tour to Taiwan. The Diplomat suggested that Seoul has at least three reasons to avoid a possible war over the island. First, the China market accounts for 30% of South Korea’s total trade; second, Seoul fears that a Taiwan conflict would increase “the North Korean threat”; third, for Seoul friendly relations with Beijing is a guarantee against a conflict with Pyongyang.
Still, there is yet another US regional treaty ally, Thailand. However, according to the DC-based think tank, it’s completely impossible to force Bangkok to fight against China for the sake of Taiwan.
While muddying the waters of the Taiwan Strait, the US risks staying face-to-face with China which would mean a defeat in a possible military standoff, judging from the US’ earlier war game simulations.
Congressional Concerns: Stalling Nuclear Submarines for Australia
Australian Independent Media July 23, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark
Any security arrangement with too many variables and multiple contingencies, risks stuttering and keeling over. Critical delays might be suffered, attributable to a number of factors beyond the parties concerned. Disputes and disagreements may surface. Such an arrangement is AUKUS, where the number of cooks risk spoiling any meal they promise to cook.
The main dish here comprises the nuclear-powered submarines that are meant to make their way to Australian shores, both in terms of purchase and construction. It marks what the US, UK and Australia describe as the first pillar of the agreement. Ostensibly, they are intended for the island continent’s self-defence, declared as wholesomely and even desperately necessary in these dangerous times. Factually, they are intended as expensive toys for willing vassals, possibly operated by Australian personnel, at the beckon call of US naval and military forces, monitoring Chinese forces and any mischief they might cause.
While the agreement envisages the creation of specific AUKUS submarines using a British design, supplemented by US technology and Australian logistics, up to three Virginia Class (SSN-774) submarines are intended as an initial transfer. The decision to do so, however, ultimately resides in Congress. As delighted and willing as President Joe Biden might well be to part with such hulks, representatives in Washington are not all in accord.
Signs that not all lawmakers were keen on the arrangement were already being expressed in December 2022. In a letter to Biden authored by Democratic Senator Jack Reed and outgoing Republican Senator James Inhofe, concerns were expressed “about the state of the US submarine industrial base as well as its ability to support the desired AUKUS SSN [nuclear sub] end state.” Current conditions, the senators went on to describe, required “a sober assessment of the facts to avoid stressing the US submarine industrial base to the breaking point.”
On May 22, a Congressional Research Service report outlined some of the issues facing US politicians regarding the procurement of the Virginia (SSN-774) submarine for the Australian Navy……………………………
The report has proven prescient enough. Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee have realised that stalling aspects of AUKUS might prove useful, if it entails increasing military spending beyond levels set by the current debt-limit deal………………………………………
Then came another problem: almost 40% of the US attack submarines would be incapable of deployment due to maintenance delays………………………….
The terms, for Wicker, are stark. “To keep the commitment under AUKUS, and not reduce our own fleet, the US would have to produce between 2.3 and 2.5 attack submarines a year.”…………………………………………..
Such manoeuvring has caught the Democrats off guard……………………………………………..
As US lawmakers wrestle over funds and the need to increase submarine production, the Australian side of the bargain looks flimsy, weak, and dispensable. With cap waiting to be filled, Canberra’s undistinguished begging is qualified by what, exactly, will be provided. What the US president promises, Congress taketh. Wise heads might see this as a chance to disentangle, extricate, and cancel an agreement monumentally absurd, costly and filled with folly. It might even go some way to preserve peace rather than stimulate Indo-Pacific militarism. https://theaimn.com/congressional-concerns-stalling-nuclear-submarines-for-australia/
US Republicans threaten to block AUKUS deal
By Anthony Galloway, The Age, July 21, 2023
Australia’s AUKUS submarine deal with the United States has hit a hurdle with Senate Republicans threatening to block the sale unless President Joe Biden boosts funding for the domestic production line.
Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday moved to block legislation which would enable the sale of US Virginia-class submarines to Australia.
Under the AUKUS deal, Washington was set to sell Canberra between three and five of its own nuclear submarines in the 2030s before Australia begins building a new class of boat with Britain.
But the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, senator Roger Wicker, said Biden needed to commit more money to guarantee “we have enough submarines for our own security before we endorse that pillar of the agreement”.
Wicker said Australia’s commitment of US$3 billion ($4.4 billion) for the US production line would not be enough to meet the needs of both countries.
“The president needs to submit a supplemental request to give us an adequate number of submarines,” he told US news outlet Politico…………………………………………………….. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/foolish-us-republicans-threaten-to-block-aukus-deal-20230721-p5dqc3.html
UK campaigners call on Australian PM to withdraw Kimba nuke dump threat.
UK campaign groups opposed to nuclear waste dumps were ‘delighted’ to hear that their counterparts in Australia, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, have just won their court case against the imposition of a similar dump on their Traditional Lands.
In a historic judgement given earlier this week (18 July), Her Honour Justice Charlesworth in the Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision to quash Federal Government plans to move nuclear waste from the reactor at Lucas Heights to an unwanted waste dump at Napandee near Kimba in South Australia. Justice Charlesworth charged government officials with ‘pre-judgement’ and ‘apprehended bias’.
In March, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities joined Radiation Free Lakeland, Millom against the Nuclear Dump / South Copeland against GDF, and Guardians of the East Coast, which are local groups fighting plans to locate a so-called Geological Disposal Facility in either West Cumbria or East Lincolnshire, wrote a joint letter to the Australian Government to raise their international objections to the plan.
Our objections were that there was no need for such a dump as the facility at Lucas Heights has capacity to take the waste and that the rights to the land by the Traditional Owners were being wilfully and shamefully disregarded, contrary to international law, with the government giving no proper consideration to the position of the Barngarla.
The attempt to impose a nuclear waste dump is all par for the course in Australia with the ill-treatment of Indigenous Peoples by corporations, political elites and the military over nuclear matters having an established history, with First Nation territories ravaged by uranium mining or shattered by British atomic weapon testing.
Following the damning judgement, the four British organisations have today written to the Prime Minister of Australia Anthony Albanese asking him to ‘take the honourable and courageous course of action’, withdraw the plan and ‘leave the Barngarla in peace’.
A copy of the letter and a message of solidarity will be sent to the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. more https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/uk-campaigners-call-on-australian-pm-to-withdraw-kimba-nuke-dump-threat/
Start from scratch call as nuclear dump plan shelved
Yahoo Sport, Tim Dornin, Wed, 19 July 2023
The Commonwealth needs to go back to the drawing board on plans for a nuclear waste dump and put all options back on the table, the South Australian government says.
Following the Federal Court’s move to set aside a decision to build the dump on SA’s Eyre Peninsula, Deputy Premier Susan Close said it was important for the Commonwealth to take a cautious approach to where the facility might best be located.
“I think it’s important they start from the beginning about where it’s most suitable,” she said.
“Where is the material coming from, where is the geological stability and where is the community acceptance?”
Dr Close said the previous coalition government had botched the process, exaggerating the urgency for the facility and excluding the Indigenous community.
“As a result, it’s come a cropper in the court, as it should have,” she said.
The deputy premier said given the level of angst surrounding the Kimba location in SA, it would be best to start from scratch.
The previous government decided to build the dump at Napandee, near Kimba, in November 2021, when it announced it had acquired 211 hectares of land with the proposed facility subject to heritage, design and technical studies…….
But the proposal faced strong opposition from the Barngarla traditional owners and environmental groups.
Earlier this year the Barngarla went to the Federal Court seeking a judicial review of the government’s declaration and on Tuesday Justice Natalie Charlesworth upheld one of their four grounds.
She said the only appropriate order was to set aside the whole of the declaration made by former resources minister Keith Pitt.
The Barngarla Aboriginal Determination Corporation welcomed the decision, describing the fight against the dump as crucial to First Nations people around the country.
Resources Minister Madeleine King said Labor had worked with the Barngarla people in the last term of parliament to ensure they secured the right to seek judicial review of the decision to acquire the site and that she would review the judgment. 2023
https://au.sports.yahoo.com/start-scratch-call-nuclear-dump-072229979.html
NATO’s talk of further Asian engagement should be feared by Australia
Independent Australia, By Binoy Kampmark | 13 July 2023
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has undermined its mission to foster stability, becoming a vessel of U.S. power. Where NATO goes, war is most likely — Australia should take note, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.
SINCE THE end of the Cold War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has distinctly strayed from its original purpose. It has become, almost shamelessly, the vessel and handmaiden of U.S. power, while its burgeoning expansion eastwards has done wonders to upend the applecart of stability. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
A continent was thereby destabilised. The true beneficiaries proved to be the tapestry of warring rebel groups characterised by sectarian impulses and a voracious appetite for human rights abuses and war crimes.
The Ukraine War has been another crude lesson in the failings of the NATO project. The constant teasing and wooing of Kyiv as a potential future member never sat well with Moscow, and while much can be made of the Russian invasion, no realistic assessment of the war’s origins can excise NATO from playing a deep, compromised role.
The Alliance is also proving dissonant among its members. Not all are exactly jumping at the chance of admitting Ukraine. ………………………………………
– Biden did draw the logical conclusion that bringing Kyiv into an alliance of obligatory collective defence during current hostilities would automatically put NATO at war with Moscow.
With such a spotty, blood-speckled record marked by stumbles and bungles, any suggestions of further engagement by the Alliance in other areas of the globe should be treated with abundant wariness.
The latest talk of further Asian engagement should also be greeted with a sense of dread.
According to a recent July statement:
‘The Indo-Pacific is important for the Alliance, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security. Moreover, NATO and its partners in the region share a common goal of working together to strengthen the rules-based international order.’
With these views, conflict lurks.
The form of that engagement is being suggested by such ideas as opening a liaison office in Japan, intended as the first outpost in Asia. It also promises to feature in the NATO Summit to take place in Vilnius on 11 and 12 July, which will again repeat the attendance format of the Madrid Summit held in 2022.
That new format featuring the presence of Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea – or the AP4 – should have induced much head-scratching. But the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), Washington’s beady eyes in Canberra, celebrated this ‘shift to taking a truly global approach to strategic competition’.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is also much in favour of such competition, warning member states of Beijing’s ambitions.“We should not make the same mistake with China and other authoritarian regimes”, he suggested, alluding to a dangerous and flawed comparison between Ukraine and Taiwan.
Cautioned Stoltenberg:
“What is happening in Europe today could happen in Asia tomorrow.”
One of the prominent headscratchers at this erroneous reasoning is French President Emmanuel Macron. Taking issue with setting up the Japan liaison office, Macron has expressed opposition to such expansion by an alliance which, at least in terms of treaty obligations, has a strict geographical limit. ……..
In 2021, Macron made it clear that NATO’s increasingly obsessed approach with China as a dangerous belligerent entailed a confusion of goals:
Said Macron:
“NATO is a military organisation; the issue of our relationship with China isn’t just a military issue. NATO is an organisation that concerns the North Atlantic, China has little to do with the North Atlantic.”
Such views have also pleased former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating, whose waspish ire has also been trained on the NATO Secretary General.
In his latest statement, Keating condemned Stoltenberg as ‘the supreme fool’ of ‘the international stage’.
Declared Keating:
‘Stoltenberg, by instinct and by policy, is simply an accident on its way to happen.’
China, Keating said,
“… represents 20 per cent of humanity and now possesses the largest economy in the world… and has no record for attacking other states, unlike the United States, whose bidding Stoltenberg is happy to do”.
The record of this ceramic-breaking bloc speaks for itself. In its post-Cold War visage, the Alliance has undermined its own mission to foster stability, becoming Washington’s axe, spear and spade. Where NATO goes, war is most likely. Countries of the Indo-Pacific, take note. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/natos-talk-of-further-asian-engagement-should-be-feared-by-australia,17709
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
Australians deserve the truth
about AUKUS
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 