Antinuclear

Is Australia-US Alliance Hurting Australia?

27 February 2026, By Denis Hay 

Criticism of the Australia-US alliance examines whether unquestioning support for the US undermines peace, sovereignty, and regional stability.

Introduction – Asking the Question Australians Rarely Hear

For decades, Australia has treated close alignment with the United States as the unquestioned foundation of its foreign and defence policy. This article advances criticism of the Australia-US alliance in a calm, factual way, asking whether that loyalty still serves Australian interests or exposes the country to unnecessary risk. This is not an argument against the American people. It is an argument for honesty about power, history, and Australia’s place in the region.

The Problem – A History That Is Rarely Acknowledged

1. US power and coercion are not new

US pressure on other nations did not begin with Donald Trump. Across its history, the United States has used sanctions, economic coercion, regime change, and military force to advance strategic and corporate interests. Trump did not invent this behaviour; he removed the diplomatic language that once softened it. This matters because Australia often treats US actions as benign by default, even when they undermine international law or regional stability.

2. US military influence on Australia

The influence of the U.S. military-industrial system extends beyond policy advice to Australian territory itself. Through joint facilities, force posture agreements, and rotational deployments, US military assets run on Australian soil with limited transparency and little public scrutiny. Although described as cooperative, these arrangements often leave strategic control and escalation decisions primarily with Washington.

This creates a clear danger for Australia. In any conflict involving the United States, Australian bases may be considered legitimate targets, regardless of whether Australia has made an independent decision to participate. Hosting foreign forces therefore increases Australia’s exposure to war while reducing its ability to stand apart from US strategic choices.

The Impact – How Fear Shapes Policy and Public Debate

3. The China threat narrative in Australia

Public discussion of China in Australia is dominated by fear-based framing. China is routinely portrayed as an inevitable military adversary, despite being Australia’s largest trading partner and a country whose primary focus has been economic development and internal stability. This narrative leaves little room for diplomacy, cooperation, or recognition that China has not pursued global military dominance as the United States has.

4. Why politicians rarely challenge the US

Australian politicians across both major parties rarely question US behaviour because the costs of dissent are high. Defence integration, intelligence sharing, media pressure, and elite political incentives all discourage independence. Challenging the US risks being labelled reckless or weak on security, even when the concern is evidence-based and aligned with Australian interests.

The Alternative – A Clearer View of Australia’s Interests

5. Seeing China without fear or fantasy

Viewing China in a more positive and realistic light does not mean ignoring disagreements. It means recognising that China poses no credible invasion threat to Australia and that stability is better served through engagement than confrontation. A mature foreign policy distinguishes between legitimate concerns and manufactured fear.

6. An independent foreign policy grounded in peace

Australia keeps full sovereignty over its choices. Independence does not need abandoning alliances, but it does require the courage to say no when US actions increase the risk of war. Reducing automatic alignment would strengthen Australia’s credibility in the region and lower the chance of being drawn into conflicts that do not serve Australian citizens

Practical steps include:

• Prioritising diplomacy and regional institutions
• Limiting foreign military exposure on Australian soil
• Encouraging genuine parliamentary debate on alliance commitments
• Investing in peace building rather than perpetual deterrence……………….

Final Thoughts – Choosing Independence Over Reflex

Australia-US alliance criticism is not about turning away from allies. It is about recognising that blind loyalty carries real dangers. Australia is better served by calm engagement with its region, a realistic view of China, and a clear-eyed assessment of US behaviour. Peace, not fear, should guide Australian foreign policy https://theaimn.net/is-australia-us-alliance-hurting-australia/

March 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

China’s Retaliation: when will it happen?

And more appropriately, what form will it take?

Jerrys take on China, Feb 18, 2026, https://jerrygrey2002.substack.com/p/chinas-retaliation-when-will-it-happen?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1744413&post_id=188346536&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

A few comments about why China is like it is – first of all, in the last 45 years, there has been no invasions, despite what people like little Marco Rubio of the US and Richard Marles the Australian Defence Minister might say, China is not and does not pose a threat to any of these countries – Japan might think there is a threat, China does not agree, in fact the opposite is true, Japan poses a much larger threat to China than China has ever posed to Japan.

China is concerned about, and in fact does feel threatened by Japan’s military expansion because the last time it happened literally millions of Chinese were murdered by the Japanese. Australia’s defence minister, Marles, asks us to consider why China has the world’s largest military expansion but he’s wrong – we have to hope he’s wrong because he’s been misinformed and is too dim to check out for himself, but more likely he knows he’s lying about this as China spends considerably less money than the US, in terms of not only its population but its geographical size, it’s quite entitled to spend more cash, when on a per capita basis, the amount is tiny compared to the US, on a ratio to GDP, it’s smaller than the US, it’s one third or less than NATO has been required to spend in terms of percentage of GDP and there’s one more very important factor that the US with only two neighbouring countries doesn’t have – that is 14 neighbouring countries with a shared land border.

Here’s another thing. China was invaded when they were weak, the British did it, the Americans did it, the eight nations alliance did it, Britain carved up part of Burma and took away some of China, it carved up India and took away parts of China, the Russians carved up Mongolia and Heilongjiang, taking away parts of China, the Japanese invaded and occupied China for 14 years. The classic twists and mental gymnastics people like Marles make would have us believe that the hundreds of US bases around China are to prevent China from doing what they’ve NEVER done – going out to invade other countries.

He, and several pundits would like us all to believe is that the US is keeping the world safe from China by arming their neighbours, interfering in the Provinces, Regions and the SARs but the reality is, China is building a military that will defend Chinese people inside China and Chinese land that belongs to China now – it’s not looking to reclaim land back, except in disputed regions.

Those disputed regions include parts of Tibet that the British took away and gave to India, parts of the South China Seas that the Japanese took away and both the US and UK, at the end of the Second World War, agreed would come back to China. There’s one military base in Africa, which is in a region shared with many other countries, including the USA, Japan, France, Italy, Germany Spain and even Saudi Arabia. Taiwan is NOT one of these disputed regions – the entire world whether they recognise Beijing or Taipei as the capital, recognises that there is one China and Taiwan is part of it – anyone who suggests that Taiwan is a country is either a liar, deliberately misleading us, or is far too dim to read the Constitution of the Republic of China, which not only claims all of the Chinese Mainland, it also wants those disputed regions back too.

China has something else which its detractors hate to admit and will lie about – that’s a policy of non-interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation – when it invests in another nation, it doesn’t call for democracy or elections, it doesn’t even ask that Communism or Socialism are accepted, it doesn’t send military to protect its assets, it won’t send missionaries to convert their subjects and it won’t impose conditions that force countries to give up their national assets or utilities if they can’t make the payments – if that sounds familiar and if it’s because you’ve been hearing that China will do all of those things and, if you think they have, I’d implore you to find me an example of where it’s happened, outside of opinion pieces written by people who want you to believe they have, almost every incident where we can find any of these things alleged, will be speculative – they’ll tell us what China might do, what China could do, what China may be doing, is alleged to have done or suspected to be involved in.

We might find individual cases of rogue Chinese people, Chinese criminals even and they use these tiny individual examples to tell you that this is “what China does” when that person who has broken the law has usually already been punished by the time they report it in western media and, if they mention that at all, it’ll be after the third paragraph where most of us have stopped reading.

On the other hand, I can find literally hundreds of examples where the USA is doing these things, where the UK and France have done these things, where Germany, Belgium, even Spain and Portugal have done them.

So then some of the comments I have been getting relate to the Port in Darwin, the ports in Panama and the Pirelli saga in Italy. Just for some background here, Sinochem owns 37% of Pirelli, the big Italian tyre company which wants to expand into the USA, of course the US won’t allow that while China has such a controlling interest. The share of Sinochem hasn’t changed, the only change is that the board, and remember Sinochem had controlling interest being the largest single shareholder, has declared that Sinochem no longer has control, giving the board more autonomy, – Sinochem agreed to this, so this isn’t a situation where anything has been taken from China, merely an agreement that the board retains control which a Chinese corporation retains more shares.

Erich, one of my followers said this: “if China doesn’t protect its assets it will lose them like Pirelli in Italy, the Ports in Panama, etc. Maybe at some point China will start caring about these things.”

My response is that it’s not just Erich, it’s literally hundreds of people, probably thousands but many in my responses who are misunderstanding China. China cares very deeply about the assets its people and corporations invest in, particularly overseas, but it will not break international laws, or contractual Agreements in order to protect them from people or governments which do break laws.

China will react to this in the same way it reacts to every other illegal action against it, by negotiations, and where they fail, arbitration, it will, when all else fails, take the appropriate legal action, which might be appeals to the WTO and perhaps even the UN or more likely the local courts – it knows there will be no satisfaction from those appeals but they are the legal mechanisms open to Chinese corporation. China as a government participates in legal and lawful bodies and does not want to overthrow them, to do so, makes China another USA – so the actions China takes, which will definitely be retaliatory, will be legal, they can, and probably will reduce purchases from offending countries, and of course, they will be much more careful in the decisions when investing in those countries both of which are well within their legal rights.

What China will not do is: unilaterally sanction anyone, any country or even any organisation within the country, it will not militarily defend its assets, it will not interfere in the internal affairs of another country but there is no doubt in my mind that if any country persists and acts on threats to China’s investments, there will be repercussions, probably it’s best not to call them retaliations, they are simply normal responses to a situation of risk.

In Australia for example, if they persist with this challenge to the legal investments Landbridge has made, investments that are compliant in every way and even beneficial to the people of the Northern Territory in jobs and payroll taxes, as well as increased business going through it’s port and beneficial to the people of Australia in 4.5 million income tax paid last year, those are the people who will suffer – China will find other suppliers for the things Australia sends – so far, the only one which is not directly sourced elsewhere is iron ore and, if China stops buying that in any great quantity, it will kill Australia’s economy.

Just continuing to use Darwin Port as an example, it is a critical trade hub in Northern Australia, handling minerals, agriculture, and livestock, with 2,295 vessel visits recorded in 2024-25, marking a 31.07% increase on the previous year. Darwin serves as a key gateway to Asia, managing significant exports of manganese, titanium, iron ore, and livestock. Given that China is the major trading partner of Australia, a huge proportion, unfortunately, there’s no way I can find out, would be Chinese owned, flagged, operated or destined ships, they would be travelling between China and Darwin – that’s 44 ships a week, many of which will simply divert to other ports, or, if the asset has been seized they’re more likely to simply stop coming altogether – how can that possibly benefit the warehouses, the truckers, the waste management, the catering and hospitality venues that the sailors use, the customs brokers, the security and surveillance companies – there’s an entire eco-system of industries deriving their income from a well-operated port and Darwin, which is a small city will feel a very heavy impact from no Chinese ships arriving and departing there. There will also be a lot of farmers, miners and other suppliers using that port to ship to China – it will all stop.

So, to think China will just sit back and do nothing is wrong, they are very mindful that their investments are not just at risk but under threat – business leaders in China understand this and are already taking action – there’s an April 2024 KPMG report, that’s almost 2 years old now showing that China’s investments in Australia have declined from a peak in 2016, just after the Free Trade Agreement was signed to the lowest level since 2006. It’s well worth a read if you’re interested, the report defines all kinds of factors but fails to mention the obvious one – Australia simply doesn’t want Chinese investment, they feel threatened by perceptions given to them by media which are completely false.

In keeping with the maxim that one person’s loss is another’s gain, the vast majority of China’s Overseas Direct Investment is now going to One Belt One Road countries – these are safe destinations, they are countries that welcome trade with and investments from China. In the Western world, that’s not many countries. Leaders of Canada and the UK were recently in China seeking investment opportunities, in both cases, they returned to their home countries to media criticism. It remains to be seen how they will handle this but they, as leaders, and their business leaders all know the truth – the media is lying, a few politicians who are actually paid by Washington to further lie about China are losing influence. Some people will assume that I’m either exaggerating about this but the reality is there for all to see, if you don’t believe me, go look up who are the main funders of the Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). It states clearly on its website that it does not accept funds from governments. But then lists the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican movement, Hello Taiwan the National Democratic Institute and others, all of which are government funded and almost all of which can trace their funds back to Washington DC and congressionally approved expenditure.

The vast majority of the Non-US aligned world realises – there is no threat from China and, once again I reiterate something I’ve said many times, the people telling you China is a threat are more likely to damage your economy and your global standing than China ever will – China isn’t a threat, it’s those people telling you it is, who are.

February 21, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Aussie Flotilla Team to Gaza Announced

13 February 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/aussie-flotilla-team-to-gaza-announced/

The Australian Delegation of the Global Sumud Flotilla released the names of the first wave of Australians, including several First Nations participants, a feminist author, climate justice activists and an anti-zionist Jewish activist, due to set sail to Gaza in late March 2026.

Australian delegates, including Anny Mokotow, Sam Woripa Watson, Clementine Ford, Surya McEwen, Juliet Lamont, Zack Schofield and Jayden Kitchener-Waters, will join thousands of participants from 100 countries as part of the Global Sumud Flotilla. The flotilla will again attempt to break the illegal Israeli naval blockade of Gaza to deliver crucial aid and medicine to Palestinians.

In January, the Israeli government banned Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam, Save the Children, and over 30 other aid organisations from operating within Gaza. Medical evacuations have ended. This attempt by the Global Sumud Flotilla to break the siege on Gaza is now more vital than ever. One of the Australian delegation’s demands is the establishment of a Palestinian-led humanitarian corridor to deliver food and medicine, and to facilitate the entry of health, legal, engineering, logistics and construction workers to support the people of Gaza.

Spokesperson Juliet Lamont stated: “People around the world have had enough of watching the starvation of children and the bombing of Palestinian families in tents. Members of the Australian delegation are sailing to Gaza to sustain and support life. Meanwhile, the Australian Government hosts the President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, a president who has been accused of incitement to genocide by the United Nations Human Rights Council.”

Juliet Lamont, leader of the Australian delegation sailing to Gaza on the Global Sumud Flotilla, condemned the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog to Australia, calling it “a failure of democracy and a betrayal of human rights”.

Zack Schofield of climate activist group Rising Tide stated, “Most Australians reject association with breaches of international law. Australians do not want to welcome or assist the architects of mass civilian starvation. We don’t want to be tied to governments that openly flout the Geneva Convention and commit war crimes.” He confirmed a much larger delegation of Australians will be sailing this time in an attempt to break Israel’s illegal maritime blockade and deliver food and medical aid to Gaza.

As Israel continues to attack Gaza from the air, land and sea (despite the so-called ceasefire), the Global Sumud Flotilla is needed now more than ever to break the siege and to let aid flow to Gaza. According to the Gaza Ministry of Health, since the ‘ceasefire agreement’ came into effect on October 10, 2025, Israeli forces killed more than 464 people, including at least 100 children. UNICEF reports that Israeli bombing injured 1,275 people during this period of time. According to the UN, more than three-quarters of the population of Gaza is facing acute hunger and malnutrition.

Zack Schofield explained “A country our politicians call a mate is actively starving and bombing civilians and instead of punishing that behaviour, we’ve just spent millions in taxpayer dollars to play host to a politician who has, according to the United Nations, incited genocidal violence.”

“Ordinary Australians don’t want us to extend friendship, free trade, and even weapons components to a country so proficient at killing unarmed civilians as people suffer through a cost-of-living crisis at home. It’s time for us to get new mates, get aid to Gaza, and get Australia out of Israel.”

He went on to say, “those of us joining the flotilla will be putting our lives on the line to protect what people we can against tanks made with Australian steel, and bombs dropped from F-35s with Australian engineering.”

Jewish activist Anny Mokotow stated “I’m joining the Flotilla because I cannot stand by while Palestinian children die from starvation, homes and hospitals are bombed, and aid is blocked. As a child of Holocaust survivors, I believe “never again” means for everyone. When governments fail, ordinary citizens must act to bring food, medicine, and hope to the most vulnerable.”

Sam Woripa Watson, Wangerriburrah and Birri Gubba community activist and film maker said “We see our collective liberation in Palestinian liberation, and theirs in ours. As First Nations people, we know what colonial violence looks like – land theft and erasure. Palestinians are facing that same violence now. Standing with Gaza is standing for justice everywhere. Let Palestinians live. Let aid flow. Cut ties with Israel.”

Author Clementine Ford stated on joining the Flotilla “I am no different to the mothers in Gaza, even if governments want me to believe I am while they send weapons that kill their children. I know what it is to love a child the same way Palestinian parents do. Let aid flow. Cut ties with Israel.”

Jayden Kitchener-Waters a Gomeroi and Ngiyampaa singer and storyteller said “Our government is helping to do to Palestinians what they did to our people – colonisation, land theft, and starvation. We need to cut ties with Israel, instead of spending millions on bringing Herzog here.”

Surya McEwen, taking part in his fourth flotilla stated “We all feel that the suffering on this mass scale is too much to bear, and something desperately has to be done. Taking these steps together is the most natural and reasonable response in the world. Let Palestinians live. Let aid flow. Cut ties with Israel.”

The Global Sumud Flotilla is calling on people around the world to get involved, sign up to join the flotilla or donate and follow online to keep participants safe. The Flotilla will be sailing from various ports around the Mediterranean from late March 2026 onwards.

February 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Why I Cannot Stand By: Protesting Israeli President Herzog’s Visit to Australia

Herzog isn’t just any visiting dignitary. He reportedly signed artillery shells destined for Gaza – a symbolic endorsement of actions that have killed tens of thousands of civilians, the majority women and children.

By Sue Barrett, 7 February 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/why-i-cannot-stand-by-protesting-israeli-president-herzogs-visit-to-australia/

When the Jewish Council of Australia says ‘not in our name,’ we have a moral duty to stand with them. Join us on 9th February 2026.

This Monday, I’ll be protesting Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia. This isn’t about politics. It’s about moral clarity.

The Context

On December 14, 2025, fifteen people were killed in a horrific attack at a Hanukkah event on Bondi Beach. The grief is real. The trauma is profound.

Nine days later, on December 23, the Zionist Federation of Australia invited Herzog to meet with victims’ families and survivors. That same day, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese elevated this to an official state visit. Herzog arrives Sunday, February 8, with full red-carpet protocol.

The intention – solidarity with Jewish Australians – is understandable. The execution is appalling.

Why This Matters

Because grief should never be weaponised to provide political cover for someone implicated in grave human rights violations.

UN experts, including Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese and Professor Ben Saul, have flagged Herzog’s statements as potentially inciting genocide in Gaza. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Gallant for war crimes. Australia has obligations under international law.

Human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti has called for rescinding the invitation “for the sake of social cohesion,” arguing that Herzog’s presence inflames rather than heals divisions. Federal Labor MP Ed Husic has voiced deep concerns. Greens Senator David Shoebridge urges the government to withdraw the invitation immediately.

This is not about denying Jewish Australian grief. It’s about refusing to let that grief be used as a political prop while there is genocide in Gaza.

I Stand With the Jewish Council of Australia

The most powerful voices against this visit are progressive Jewish Australians themselves.

The Jewish Council of Australia launched a petition declaring: “Israeli President Herzog does not speak for us and is not welcome here.”

Their statement is unequivocal: “This visit betrays Jewish communities, multicultural Australia, and advocates for Palestinian human rights. It conflates Jewish identity with Israeli state actions – a dangerous and offensive move that puts Australian Jews at greater risk, not less.”

Executive Officer Sarah Schwartz warns against “using Jewish grief as a political prop.” The Council has joined a historic legal complaint with the Hind Rajab Foundation and Australian National Imams Council, calling for Herzog to be arrested or barred entry over allegations of incitement to genocide and war crimes.

Progressive Jewish groups like Jews Against the Occupation ‘48 are organising protests. These are not fringe voices – these are Jewish Australians refusing to let their identity be weaponised to justify the unjustifiable.

What Herzog Represents

I stand with them. I support their work. This is what true solidarity looks like

Herzog isn’t just any visiting dignitary. He reportedly signed artillery shells destined for Gaza – a symbolic endorsement of actions that have killed tens of thousands of civilians, the majority women and children.

When UN experts warn that a leader’s rhetoric contributes to potential genocide, when the ICC issues arrest warrants for war crimes against his government’s senior officials, when respected Australian human rights lawyers call for his arrest upon arrival – we have an obligation to listen.

Australia Deserves Better

This visit doesn’t foster unity. It deepens divisions.

It tells Palestinian Australians their lives matter less. It tells progressive Jewish Australians their voices don’t count. It tells the world that Australia will provide red-carpet protocol to leaders implicated in humanitarian catastrophes as long as they claim to represent “the Jewish community.”

That’s not solidarity. That’s complicity

True solidarity means:

• 
  Condemning all violence unequivocally
• Supporting Jewish Australians in their grief
• AND refusing to let that grief be exploited to normalise violations of international law
• AND standing with Palestinians facing unimaginable suffering
• AND listening when progressive Jewish voices say “not in our name”

These things are not contradictory. They’re all essential to justice.

Monday, February 9

Protests are planned across Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, and beyond. Thousands will gather. NSW Police have extended restrictions on demonstrations, citing “safety concerns” – an attempt to stifle dissent rather than address the root problem.

I’ll be there because silence is complicity

I’ll be there alongside the Jewish Council of Australia, Jews Against the Occupation, Palestinian Australians, and people of conscience from every background.

I’ll be there because when a government provides honours to someone implicated in potential genocide, when UN experts warn us, when our own international law obligations demand action – we have a moral duty to speak.

This Is About Values

Australia prides itself on fairness, multiculturalism, and standing against atrocities. We signed the Genocide Convention. We claim to uphold international law. We say we care about human rights.

Then we must act like it.

Hosting Herzog isn’t just poor judgement – it’s a betrayal of everything we claim to stand for. It says Australia’s commitment to human rights is conditional. It says some lives matter more than others. It says international law applies only when convenient.

I reject that. So do thousands of Australians who will protest Monday.

What I Ask

Join us Monday. If you can’t attend, speak out. Share the Jewish Council of Australia’s petition. Contact your MP and demand they condemn this visit. Support organisations doing the hard work of building true solidarity across communities.

Listen to progressive Jewish voices. The Jewish Council of Australia, Jews Against the Occupation, and countless Jewish Australians who refuse to let their identity be weaponised are showing us what courage looks like.

Understand that opposing this visit is not antisemitic – it’s anti-racist. It refuses the conflation of Jewish identity with Israeli state actions. It protects Jewish Australians by rejecting the very logic that puts them at risk.

Demand better from our government. Australia can support Jewish Australians in their grief without providing state honours to leaders implicated in war crimes. These are not incompatible positions.

Final Word

On December 14, fifteen people were murdered in a tragic attack. That grief is sacred. Those lives mattered. That horror demands justice.

However, justice cannot be built on hypocrisy

We cannot condemn violence against Australians while honouring a leader whose government’s actions are under investigation for war crimes and potential genocide. We cannot claim to stand for human rights while rolling out red carpets for those who violate them.

The families who lost loved ones at Bondi Beach deserve genuine solidarity – not the politicisation of their grief. The Jewish Council of Australia is showing us what that looks like: refusing to let tragedy be exploited, demanding accountability for all, building a future where no community’s safety depends on another’s suffering.

That’s the solidarity I choose. That’s the Australia I believe in

Monday, February 9. We stand for justice. We stand with progressive Jewish voices. We stand against complicity.

We cannot – we will not – stand by.

Join us.

You know what to do.

Onward we press

Details:

When: Monday, February 9, 2026

Where: Protests in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, and other cities – see the list below.

Who: Jewish Council of Australia, Jews Against the Occupation ‘48, Palestine Action Group, and thousands of Australians of conscience.

This is a peaceful protest. If you’re attending, bring water, wear comfortable shoes, know your legal rights. Legal observers will be present.

Support: Jewish Council of Australia petition and information at jewishcouncil.com.au

February 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

The Rules-Based Order: Where America Gets Away with Murder, and Everyone Else Gets the Bombs

When the US bombs Iranian nuclear sites, it’s a “strike”. When Iran defends itself, it’s “aggression”. When the US funds insurrections, arms rebels and sabotages economies, it’s “promoting democracy”.

While Ms Penny Wong chants the “rules based order” mantra, Mr Moriarty, gets the gong: he is off to Washington to ensure Australia remains locked in step with the world’s biggest bully. Meanwhile, as the ICJ rules that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute plausible genocide, and as the US and Australia continue to arm and fund Israel’s apartheid regime, the hypocrisy would knock you over. The “rules based order” isn’t about justice. It’s about power and who gets to wield it without consequences.

31 January 2026 David Tyler , Australian Independent Media

Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong chants “rules based order” like a sacred hymn.

Order? In reality, it’s a squalid, pseudo-legal jargon for a world where might is right. While the US drops depleted uranium on Iraqi children, arms Israeli apartheid and fuels insurrections in Iran, any nation that dares assert its independence is crushed under a tonne of bricks. In Iran’s case, a hail of “precision strikes” designed to wound, maim and cause lifelong agony. Meanwhile, in Gaza, the International Court of Justice has declared Israel’s actions plausible genocide, ordering an immediate halt to atrocities and unimpeded humanitarian access. The US and its allies, including Australia, have ignored every ruling, proving once again that the “rules based order” is nothing more than a mafia protection racket, and we’re collecting the rent.

Depleted Uranium is often said to drop but it’s part of the super new bullets or “rounds” in use. The A-10 Warthog’s GAU-8 Avenger, for example, fires 30mm DU rounds. Tank rounds (e.g., the US M829 series) use DU in their cores to penetrate enemy armour. So kids get a spray of it, rather than a drop.

When these rounds hit a target, they aerosolise into fine, toxic dust, which can be inhaled or contaminate soil and water, leading to long-term health risks (e.g., cancer, birth defects) and environmental damage.

The Rules Based Order A Licence to Kill

Penny Wong stands in Parliament, her voice trembling with moral certainty. To her, Australia stands with the brave people of Iran as they struggle against an “oppressive regime”. She invokes the rules based order like it’s a force field against tyranny, a beacon of justice in a murky, chaotic and mercenary world. Just one snag. The rules apply to everyone else. Only.

When the US bombs Iranian nuclear sites, it’s a “strike”. When Iran defends itself, it’s “aggression”. When the US funds insurrections, arms rebels and sabotages economies, it’s “promoting democracy”.

When anyone else does it, it’s “terrorism”. And as the US sprays depleted uranium, children become cancer statistics? Birth defects are an inter-generational curse, it’s “collateral damage” a euphemism for war crimes.

This isn’t a rules based order. It’s a licence to kill, and Australia through our defence secretary Greg Moriarty, our intelligence agencies and our slavish alignment with US foreign policy is complicit at every step.

And now, as the International Court of Justice declares Israel’s actions in Gaza a plausible genocide, ordering Israel to halt its military operations and allow humanitarian aid, the US and its allies, including Australia, have done what they always do ignored the ruling and doubled down.

Loaded Language “Regime” vs “Government”, “Strikes” vs “Slaughter”

Let’s talk about the language of empire. The US and its press never refer to the “Iranian government”. It’s always the “Iranian regime” a term that strips legitimacy, implies tyranny and justifies intervention. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, a brutal monarchy that beheads dissidents and bombs Yemeni school buses, is a “key ally.”

Israel, an apartheid state with nuclear weapons, is a “vibrant democracy”

When the US bombs a Syrian hospital, it’s a “precision strike”. When Iran fires a missile in self defence, it’s “terrorism”. When the US funds, arms and trains insurgents in Iran such as the Network of Iranian Activists for Democracy (NAD), which distribute Molotov cocktails to protesters and boast about “turning Tehran into a warzone” it’s “supporting democracy”. When Iran arrests those same insurgents, it’s “crushing dissent”.

This isn’t reportage. It’s propaganda, and it’s designed to manufacture consent for the next war.

The Dirty Weapons Engineered to Maim, Designed to Terrorise

The US doesn’t just kill. It maims. It terrorises. It leaves behind a legacy of suffering so grotesque that it defies the term “war crime”. What’s happening is worse than death. Generations suffer. The US has used depleted uranium munitions in every major Middle East conflict since the Gulf War. Why? Because DU is dense enough to pierce armour, but its real legacy is cancer, birth defects and environmental poisoning.

In Fallujah, where the US used DU in 2004, doctors reported a 14 fold increase in birth defects; babies born with two heads, missing limbs and organs outside their bodies. The called the city “the new Hiroshima”. In Syria, the Pentagon confirmed using DU in 2015, despite international condemnation. The result? Radioactive dust that lingers for decades, poisoning soil, water and people. In Iraq, the US ignored its own guidelines, firing DU at unarmoured targets, buildings and even troops turning cities into toxic wastelands.

The US knows DU is a war crime in slow motion. It just doesn’t care.

The US military has set out to maximise suffering. From cluster munitions banned by 100 countries, but still used by the US to white phosphorus, which burns through flesh to the bone, the goal isn’t just to win wars it’s to leave populations traumatised, disabled and dependent.

Cluster bombs scatter hundreds of tiny bomblets, many of which fail to explode until a child picks one up years later. White phosphorus doesn’t just burn. It melts flesh and re-ignites when exposed to air, ensuring victims suffer excruciating, prolonged deaths. Drones don’t just kill targets. They terrorise entire communities, turning the sky into a permanent threat and leaving survivors with PTSD for life.

This isn’t warfare. It’s sadism, dressed up in the language of “national security”.

The Australian Connection Greg Moriarty and the Art of Complicity

Australia isn’t just a bystander to this horror-show. We’re in it up to our necks. Greg Moriarty, our defence secretary and soon to be ambassador to the US, cut his teeth in Iran. As Australia’s ambassador to Tehran from 2005 to 2008, he briefed George W. Bush on Iranian politics at the height of US sabotage operations, assassinations and economic warfare against Iran.

Moriarty’s stellar career is a masterclass in how Australia punches above its weight in the US empire from intelligence sharing to military drill, from sanctions enforcement to diplomatic cover for US aggression.

While Ms Penny Wong chants the “rules based order” mantra, Mr Moriarty, gets the gong: he is off to Washington to ensure Australia remains locked in step with the world’s biggest bully. Meanwhile, as the ICJ rules that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute plausible genocide, and as the US and Australia continue to arm and fund Israel’s apartheid regime, the hypocrisy would knock you over. The “rules based order” isn’t about justice. It’s about power and who gets to wield it without consequences.

Historical Parallels Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, Syria and Now Iran (and Gaza)

This isn’t new. The US has been skittling independence for decades. In Chile in 1973, the CIA sabotaged the economy, funded strikes and backed a coup against Salvador Allende all to protect US corporate interests. The result? Seventeen years of Pinochet’s torture chambers……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Call tyranny for what it is. While we are still permitted to express dissent.

This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES https://theaimn.net/the-rules-based-order-where-america-gets-away-with-murder-and-everyone-else-gets-the-bombs/

February 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

The Afterlife of Failed Prime Ministers

30 January 2026 Roswell , https://theaimn.net/the-afterlife-of-failed-prime-ministers/

There is a curious phenomenon in modern politics whereby leaders rejected by voters at home are reborn as sages abroad. It is a kind of political reincarnation, except instead of coming back as something wiser, they come back with a microphone, an expense account, and a suspiciously friendly audience.

Take Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison. Two of the most out-of-their-depth, ineffectual, policy-light and spectacularly uninspiring Australian prime ministers of the past 50 years. Governments so underwhelming that voters didn’t merely change their minds – they slammed the door, locked it, and put the furniture up against it.

This is surprising, because while neither man excelled at governing Australia, they have since been warmly embraced on the international speaking circuit – mainly by right-wing conferences, “freedom” forums, and governments that find Western accents useful when saying deeply illiberal things.

Tony Abbott, whose prime ministership was defined by instability, internal warfare and three-word slogans that passed for policy, is now invited to explain leadership. Abbott struggled to explain his own government to his own party room, but apparently this has not deterred organisers elsewhere.

Scott Morrison’s record is fresher – and stranger. A prime minister who treated government as a branding exercise, communicated almost exclusively through slogans, and managed crises with photo opportunities rather than competence. A man so committed to secrecy that, in his final months in office, he quietly appointed himself to five ministries without telling the ministers involved.

Ironically, since leaving office, Morrison appears to have lost the ability to keep secrets altogether.

The man who secretly ran half the government now speaks endlessly. Panels, conferences, fireside chats. There is no shortage of words – just an ongoing shortage of insight. Morrison’s speeches are long on grievance, heavy on culture-war talking points, and light on anything resembling reflection or accountability.

One might reasonably ask: who is paying to hear this?

The answer is not “the public.” These are not broad, curious audiences wondering what went wrong. They are curated rooms. Friendly rooms. Rooms where applause is guaranteed and difficult questions are optional. Rooms where electoral defeat is reframed as martyrdom and democratic accountability as persecution.

Failure, it seems, has become a credential.

In a healthy democracy, losing office used to mean something. It was feedback. A verdict. An instruction to step aside. Now it is merely the start of a second career – one in which rejection at home is marketed overseas as proof of courage.

None of this is illegal. None of it is particularly new. But it is revealing.

If Abbott and Morrison had left office respected, effective, and admired, their global speaking careers would make sense. Instead, they left behind governments remembered largely for chaos, secrecy, and exhaustion. And yet, somewhere overseas, there is always a stage, a lectern, and an audience eager not to ask why.

January 30, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Australia should reconsider alliance with ‘fiercely unpredictable’ US, former foreign ministers say.

“It’s a wake-up call that can no longer be ignored by the Australian government. It’s now more than time for the Aukus submarine project to be abandoned, and our defence capability to be built in our own interests, not those of a now totally unreliable United States,” Evans said.

Bob Carr says Trump foreign policy presents a ‘colossal challenge’ for Australia and Gareth Evans says the Aukus pact should be reconsidered

Krishani Dhanji and Josh Butler, 13 Jan 26. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jan/12/australia-should-reconsider-alliance-with-fiercely-unpredictable-us-former-foreign-ministers-say?utm_term=69655116eea0abf467c940c50cdab5ac&utm_campaign=MorningMailAUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=morningmailau_email&fbclid=IwY2xjawPdK6FleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFuaUFSaWxJY2FSTlo1T1dLc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHhrkHcOHn4omPARW4aqaQsheqn-uOz_TJt4rvJlgWOMc7GskLPNWvpqaqFFc_aem_AL6w_5wPn02F0Z9Dqghefg

The Albanese government should urgently reconsider Australia’s alliance with the US, two former Labor foreign ministers have said, as they voiced alarm over Donald Trump’s military intervention in Venezuela and renewed push to claim Greenland.

Speaking to Guardian Australia in the days after the US seizure of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, former Labor foreign minister Bob Carr said Trump’s US had become a “fiercely unpredictable” ally, raising a “colossal challenge” for Australia.

Another former Labor foreign minister, Gareth Evans, said he was concerned the US had “zero respect” for international law or the interests of its allies. Evans said the Aukus pact should be reconsidered.

“It’s a wake-up call that can no longer be ignored by the Australian government. It’s now more than time for the Aukus submarine project to be abandoned, and our defence capability to be built in our own interests, not those of a now totally unreliable United States,” Evans said.

After launching airstrikes and a raid in Venezuela that led to the seizure of Maduro earlier this month, Donald Trump has threatened to take over Greenland and has said the US would take action on Greenland “whether they like it or not”.

Australia has not criticised the Trump administration’s actions or rhetoric on Venezuela or Greenland. After the US operation to capture Maduro and moves to capture Venezuelan oil, Albanese said his government was “monitoring developments”, calling for an adherence to international law and a “peaceful, democratic transition” of political power.

Carr, the foreign minister from 2012 to 2013, said it was wise for the government to “keep our head down and watch closely”, adding it was unclear what Trump’s “burst of unilateralism” meant for the world.

“Our US ally is fiercely unpredictable and dedicated ruthlessly to American national interests, without any pretence of being committed to universal values or a global, rules-based order,” he said.

“That is a colossal challenge for Australia and the national security establishment.

“This is an utterly different America than the one that generated our rhetoric about shared values, rules-based order and seeing the world through that lens.”

Carr has used recent posts on social media to suggest “our alliance with the mad politics of the US might have run its course”, adding “goodbye US-led alliance structures”.

Evans, foreign minister between 1988 and 1996, claimed Trump’s recent actions “put beyond doubt that his America has zero respect for international law, morality, and the interests of its allies and partners”.

“The crazy irony of the whole project [Aukus] has always been that it commits Australia to spending eye-watering amounts to build a capability supposed to defend us from military threats which are in fact most likely to arise simply because we have that capability – and are using it to support the US in some conflict not in our interests to engage, without any guarantee of support in return should we ever need it,” Evans said.

Both Carr and Evans have long criticised the Aukus pact, but Evans said recent developments required an urgent rethink about the military agreement.

Penny Wong’s former adviser, Allan Behm, last week wrote that Trump’s short-term tactical success had “come at the expense of the complete destruction of the rules of international behaviour”.

“Australia … has a strong and consistent reputation as an instigator of and contributor to the diplomatic engineering needed when things go pear-shaped, regionally or globally,” he wrote in Guardian Australia. “This is what we need to saddle up for again.”

Trump endorsed the military agreement between the US, Australia and the United Kingdom when he met with Albanese in Washington in October. Aukus was put under review by the Pentagon after the Trump administration was sworn in. Australia has pledged more than $4.5bn towards building US shipbuilding capacity.

The US government separately withdrew from 66 international organisations and treaties in January, including UN commissions on peace keeping and international law.

January 22, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Australia’s Response to US Intervention in Venezuela

8 January 2026 AIMN Editorial By Denis Hay

Description

Australia’s response to US intervention in Venezuela raises serious questions about sovereignty, international law, and political courage.

Introduction

The Australia response to US intervention in Venezuela was cautious, restrained, and carefully worded. While the United States openly spoke about taking control of another country’s political future, Australia chose not to condemn the action. For many Australians, this raises an uncomfortable question.

This matters because US intervention in Venezuela sets a precedent for how powerful allies bypass international law while expecting silence from partners like Australia. If Australia claims to support a rule-based international order, why does it fall silent when a powerful ally breaches it?

Context box:

Under the UN Charter, sovereign equality and non-intervention are core principles. These rules are meant to apply to all nations, large or small.

This is not an abstract legal debate. It goes to the heart of whether international law still matters, and whether Australia has an independent foreign policy voice or merely echoes its most powerful partner.

The Problem

US intervention in Venezuela and the assertion of control

The trigger was a public statement by Donald Trump, who said the United States would run Venezuela until a safe and proper transition could occur. The problem begins with how the US intervention in Venezuela was framed, justified, and left largely unchallenged by allied governments. This was not diplomatic language. It was an assertion of authority over a sovereign state.

At the time, Venezuela had a sitting president, Nicolás Maduro. His legitimacy was contested, but under international law, governance disputes do not allow external powers to impose control. There was no UN Security Council mandate, no international trusteeship, and no lawful basis for administering another country.

Australia’s reluctance to name the breach

Australia responded by urging restraint and dialogue, while avoiding any direct criticism of the United States. Statements from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade focused on stability rather than legality.

This creates a clear problem. When breaches go unnamed, norms weaken. Silence becomes precedent.

The Impact

Erosion of international law credibility

The US attack on Venezuela international law debate is not about defending any one government. It is about defending rules that prevent powerful nations from deciding the fate of weaker ones. When allies ignore these rules, enforcement becomes selective.

The consequences of US intervention in Venezuela extend beyond Latin America, weakening global respect for sovereignty and law.

Australia regularly invokes international law when condemning adversaries. When it does not apply the same standards to friends, credibility suffers.

Who benefits from silence

Silence benefits powerful states that wish to act without constraint. It also benefits political leaders who want alliance comfort without accountability. Ordinary Venezuelans do not benefit, and neither do Australians, who rely on international law to protect smaller nations.

The Solution

Reclaiming Australia’s foreign policy sovereignty

Australia’s foreign policy sovereignty does not require hostility toward allies. It requires consistency. Australia can support diplomacy while also saying clearly that external control and regime change violate international law.

A genuinely independent foreign policy would acknowledge that alliances do not override legal obligations.

Using Australia’s monetary sovereignty for peace

Australia has full monetary sovereignty. It is never financially constrained from investing in diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and multilateral institutions. Instead of reflexively aligning with military power, Australia could invest public funds in conflict prevention, mediation, and UN-led solutions that respect self-determination………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/australias-response-to-us-intervention-in-venezuela/

January 13, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

The Unbroken Thread: China’s Civilisational-State vs. The West’s Contractual Empire – A Study in Divergent Destinies

10 January 2026 Andrew Klein, PhD, https://theaimn.net/the-unbroken-thread-chinas-civilisational-state-vs-the-wests-contractual-empire-a-study-in-divergent-destinies/

Abstract

This article contrasts the developmental trajectories of China and the United States (representing the modern West) by examining their foundational civilisational codes, historical experiences, and political philosophies. It argues that while the U.S. follows the extractive, individual-centric model of a classic maritime empire (extending the Roman pattern), China operates as a continuous civilisational-state, its policies shaped by a deep memory of collapse and humiliation and a Confucian-Legalist emphasis on collective resilience. The analysis critiques the Western failure to comprehend China through the reductive lens of “Communism,” ignoring the profound impact of the “Century of Humiliation” and China’s subsequent focus on sovereignty, infrastructure, and social stability as prerequisites for development. The paper concludes that China’s model, focused on long-term societal flourishing over short-term extraction, presents a fundamentally different, and perhaps more durable, imperial paradigm.

Introduction: The Mandate of History vs. The Mandate of Capital

The rise of China is often analysed through the prism of Western political theory, leading to a fundamental category error. To compare China and the United States is not to compare two nation-states of similar ontological origin. It is to compare a civilisational-state – whose political structures are an outgrowth of millennia of unified cultural consciousness and bureaucratic governance – with a contractual empire – a relatively recent construct built on Enlightenment ideals, but ultimately sustained by global financial and military hegemony (Jacques, 2009). Their paths diverge at the root of their historical memory and their core objectives.

China’s Catalysing Trauma: Modern China’s psyche is indelibly shaped by the “Century of Humiliation” (c. 1839-1949), beginning with the Opium Wars – a stark example of Western imperial extraction enforced by gunboats (Lovell, 2011). This was compounded by the collapse of the Qing dynasty, civil war, and the horrific suffering during the Second World War. The foundational drive of the People’s Republic, therefore, was not merely ideological victory but the restoration of sovereignty, stability, and dignity (Mitter, 2013). Every policy is filtered through the question: “Will this prevent a return to fragmentation and foreign domination?”

America’s Founding Myth: The U.S. narrative is one of triumphant exceptionalism. Born from anti-colonial revolution, it expanded across a continent it saw as empty (ignoring Native nations) and engaged with the world primarily from a position of growing strength. Its traumas (Civil War, 9/11) are seen as interruptions to a forward progress, not as defining, humiliating collapses. This fosters an optimistic, forward-looking, and often abistorical mindset (Williams, 2009).

2. Political Philosophy: Meritocratic Collectivism vs. Individualist Democracy

China’s System: The “Exam Hall” State. China’s governance synthesises Confucian meritocracy and Legalist institutionalism. The modern manifestation is a rigorous, multi-decade screening process for political advancement, emphasising administrative competence, economic performance, and crisis management (Bell, 2015). The objective is governance for long-term civilisational survival. The Communist Party frames itself as the contemporary upholder of the “Mandate of Heaven,” responsible for collective welfare. Political legitimacy is derived from delivery of stability and prosperity.

The West’s System: The “Arena” State. Western liberal democracy, particularly in its U.S. form, is a contest of ideas, personalities, and interest groups. Legitimacy is derived from the procedural act of election. While capable of brilliance, this system incentivises short-term focus (electoral cycles), polarisation, and the influence of capital over long-term planning (Fukuyama, 2014). Expertise is often subordinated to popularity.

3. The Social Contract: Infrastructure & Security vs. Liberty & Opportunity

China’s Deliverables: Post-1978 reforms shifted focus to development, but within the framework of the party-state. The state prioritises and invests heavily in tangible foundations: universal literacy, poverty alleviation, high-speed rail networks, urban housing, and food security (World Bank, 2022). The social contract is explicit: public support in exchange for continuous improvement in material living standards and national prestige.

The West’s Deliverables: The Western social contract, historically, promised upward mobility and individual liberty protected by rights. However, the late-stage extractive economic model has led to the decline of public goods: crumbling infrastructure, unaffordable higher education, for-profit healthcare, and eroded social safety nets (Piketty, 2013). The contract feels broken, leading to societal discord.

4. Global Engagement: Symbiotic Mercantilism vs. Extractive Hegemony

China’s Method: Development as Diplomacy. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the archetype of its approach: offering infrastructure financing and construction to developing nations, facilitating trade integration on its terms. It is a form of state-led, long-term strategic mercantilism aimed at creating interdependent networks (Rolland, 2017). Its “soft power” is not primarily cultural, but commercial and infrastructural.

The West’s Method: The post-WWII U.S.-led order, while providing public goods, has been characterised by asymmetric extraction: structural adjustment programs, financial dominance, and military interventions to secure resources and political alignment (Harvey, 2003). It maintains a core-periphery relationship with much of the world.

Conclusion: The Durability of Patterns

The West’s mistake is viewing China through the simple dichotomy of “Communist vs. Democratic.” This ignores the 4,000-year-old continuum of the Chinese statecraft that values unity, hierarchical order, and scholarly bureaucracy. China is not “learning from Communism”; it is learning from the Tang Dynasty, the Song economic revolutions, and the catastrophic lessons of the 19th and 20th centuries.

China’s course is different because its definition of empire is different. It seeks a Sinic-centric world system of stable, trading partners, not necessarily ideological clones. Its focus is internal development and peripheral stability, not universal ideological conversion. Its potential weakness lies in demographic shifts and the challenge of innovation under political constraints. The West’s weakness is its accelerating internal decay and inability to reform its extractive, short-termist model.

Two imperial models are now in full view. One, the West, is a flickering, brilliant flame from Rome, burning its fuel recklessly. The other, China, is a slowly rekindled hearth fire, banked for the long night, its heat directed inward to warm its own house first. History is not ending; it is presenting its bill, and the civilisations that prepared their ledger will write the next chapter.

References…………………………..

January 12, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Trump’s Annexation Threats: Australia’s Alliance Dilemma

7 January 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Alasdair Black, https://theaimn.net/trumps-annexation-threats-australias-alliance-dilemma/

How can we, Australia, remain allied to the US if they threaten annexation of an ally’s territory?

This throws into question our AUKUS pact with the UK and US, and sets America on the path to being an unreliable – if not dangerous and possibly even hostile – ally.

This is getting all too bizarre.

What of our official status as an “Enhanced Opportunities Partner of NATO”? While we are not a member of NATO, because it is a geographically confined alliance, we have always worked in partnership with them because of our historical connection to the UK and having been involved in European conflicts in both WWI and WWII, and the conflict following the collapse of the former Yugoslavia.

Are we just going to shrug off the violation of a NATO partner’s territory, abandon the support of self-determination, sovereignty, and support of an international rules-based order?

Will the potential collapse of NATO be without repercussions to AUKUS or our relationship with an aggressively military expansionist America?

Do we even want to maintain a relationship with such a dangerous, unreliable partner and ally?

We are in an epoch- or era-changing moment.

Trump is a declining, demented geriatric, raging against the dying of his light, with megalomaniacal and sociopathic tendencies.

This current crisis is possibly the biggest global crisis since Hitler marched into Poland in 1939.

Are we going to choose the moral high ground, or are we going to be on the wrong side of history?

Are we going to, by default, end up being on the side of a Hitlerian maniac, who could quite possibly be setting the foundations of WWIII?

Trump right now is being more of a threat to Europe than Putin, if that’s even possible.

The Trump shit show has just jumped the shark.

America needs to muzzle and chain up its distempered dog.

America, is it time to metaphorically take “Old Yeller” out behind the barn and put him out of his misery.

Are there any adults left in the room in the American Congress, in the American establishment, in the American military-intelligence apparatus?

Where we stand at the moment, in my opinion, is at one minute to midnight on the Doomsday clock.

America, along with their demented President, has dangerously lost the plot.

Trump is turning into a global threat!

January 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Venal Reactions: US Allies Validate Maduro’s Abduction.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did little to improve upon the weak formula in his shabby statement, similarly skipping over the violations of the UN Charter and Maduro’s abduction. “We urge all parties to support dialogue and diplomacy in order to secure regional stability and prevent escalation.” A bland acknowledgement of “the need to respect democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms” is made, along with the risible reference to supporting “international law and a peaceful, democratic transition in Venezuela that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.”

5 January 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/venal-reactions-us-allies-validate-maduros-abduction/

On the surface, abducting a Head of State is a piratical act eschewed by States. A Head of State enjoys absolute immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction, known as ratione personae, at least till the term of office concludes. The International Court of Justice was clear enough about this principle in the 2002 Arrest Warrant Case, holding that high ranked government officials such as a foreign minister are granted immunity under customary international law to enable the effective performance of their functions “on behalf of their respective States.”

That said, international law has been modified on this score by the jurisdiction of theInternational Criminal Court, whose founding Rome Statute stipulates that the official standing of a serving Head of State is no exemption from criminal responsibility. The effectiveness of this principle lies in the cooperation of State parties, something distinctly unforthcoming regarding certain serving leaders. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu springs to mind.)

US domestic law puts all of this to side with the highwayman logic of the Ker-Frisbie doctrine. Decided in Ker v Illinois in 1886, the decision overlooks the way, lawful or otherwise, a defendant is apprehended, even if outside the jurisdiction. Once American soil is reached, judicial proceedings can commence without challenge. The US Department of Justice has further attempted to puncture ancient notions of diplomatic immunity by recategorizing (how else?) the standing of a leader – in this case Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro – as nothing more than a narco-terrorist. Maduro was seized, explains US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as part of a law enforcement operation.

In addition to being a violation of the leadership immunity principle, the January 3 kidnapping of Maduro and his wife by US forces was an audacious breach of the sovereignty guarantee under Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. Operation Absolute Resolve involved 150 aircraft, strikes on military infrastructure including surface-to-air missile and communication systems, and various depots. The security fantasists from the White House to the State Department treated Venezuela as not merely a dangerous narco-state but one hosting undesirable foreign elements, but it has never posed a military threat to the US homeland.

In the face of such unalloyed aggression – a crime against peace, if you will – the response from Washington’s allies has been feeble and worse. This is made all the more grotesque for their claims to purity when it comes to defending Western civilisation against the perceived ogres and bogeymen of international relations: Russia and China.

From the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer could not have been clearer about his contempt for the processes of international law. “The UK has long supported a transition of power in Venezuela,” he declared in his January 3 statement. “We regarded Maduro as an illegitimate President and we shed no tears about the end of his regime.” Having given a coating of legitimacy to the banditry of the Trump administration, he could still claim to “support” international law. His government would “discuss the evolving situation with US counterparts in the days ahead as we seek a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate government that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.” Certainly, judging from this, the will of President Donald Trump.

An official statement from the European Union released by its high representative, Kaja Kallas, was even more mealy-mouthed: “The EU has repeatedly stated that Nicolás Maduro lacks the legitimacy of a democratically elected president and has advocated for a Venezuelan-led peaceful transition to democracy in the country, respectful of its sovereignty.”  

The tactic here involves soiling the subject before paying some false respect for such concepts as democracy and sovereignty. We can do without Maduro, and won’t miss him, but make some modest effort to respect some cardinal virtues when disposing of him. All those involved should show “restraint […] to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution of the crisis.”

The arrogance of this position is underlined by the concession to diplomacy’s importance and the role of dialogue, when there has been no dialogue or diplomacy to speak of. “We are in close contact with the United States, as well as regional and international partners to support and facilitate dialogue with all parties involved, leading to a negotiated, democratic, inclusive and peaceful resolution to the crisis, led by Venezuelans.”  

From the Canadian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Anita Anand, there was not a whisper of Maduro’s abduction, or the US breach of the UN Charter. The phantom conveniently called the Venezuelan People stood as an alibi for lawbreaking, for they had a “desire to live in a peaceful and democratic society.” And there was the familiar call “on all parties to exercise restraint and uphold international law,” marvellous piffle in the face of illegal abductions.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did little to improve upon the weak formula in his shabby statement, similarly skipping over the violations of the UN Charter and Maduro’s abduction. “We urge all parties to support dialogue and diplomacy in order to secure regional stability and prevent escalation.” A bland acknowledgement of “the need to respect democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms” is made, along with the risible reference to supporting “international law and a peaceful, democratic transition in Venezuela that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.”

Who, then, are these idealised people? Presumably these Venezuelans are the vetted ones, sanitised with the seal of approval, untainted by silly notions of revolution and the poverty reduction measures initially implemented by the government of Hugo Chávez. But if EU officials and other states friendly to Washington thought that a Venezuelan appropriately representative of the People’s Will might be the opposition figure and travesty of a Nobel laureate, María Corina Machado, Trump had other ideas. To date the Maduro loyalist Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, has caught his fickle eye. “I think,” he said with blunt machismo, “it would be very tough for [Machado] to be the leader. She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.” The Venezuelan people’s choice will be, putting democracy and dialogue to one side, the same as Trump’s.

January 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

The Venezuela Playbook: How Australian Media Sold Us Another War

4 January 2026 David Tyler AIM Extra , https://theaimn.net/the-venezuela-playbook-how-australian-media-sold-us-another-war/

Part One: The Anatomy of an Imperial Project

“Venezuelan strongman Maduro seized in daring US operation.”

That’s how our ABC led its coverage when American forces stormed Caracas in January. Over at The Australian, it was “Narcoterrorist-in-chief finally brought to justice,” a newly-minted international crime, ingeniously linking two scourges, drugs and terror.

The Sydney Morning Herald went with the risible “Democracy’s long-delayed victory in Venezuela.”

Not one dare say that what we’d just witnessed was an illegal military invasion of a sovereign nation. Dear SMH, how is the invasion democratic? Not one asked why Australian media were suddenly experts on Venezuelan “narcoterrorism”, a freshly-pressed grape of wrath? Or brand-new imperial panic button.

And not a soul bothered to note that we’ve seen this movie before, frame for frame, lie for lie.

Welcome to the second level of contempt: not just the violence itself, in which we all through our membership of various organisations failed the people of Venezuela, but the propaganda about the propaganda, served up by our own trusted news sources.

It’s as if we’re too dim to remember Iraq’s WMDs or Libya’s “humanitarian intervention.” They’re counting on our goldfish memories, our inability to hold a pattern in our heads long enough to shout: “Hang about, haven’t we been down this path before?”

Narcoterrorism: The Empire’s Latest New Designer Label

Every imperial adventure needs its signature scare. Saddam had (invisible) WMDs that could strike London in 45 minutes. John Howard, hadn’t actually seen them but he was prepared to lie that proof existed. Gaddafi was about to massacre Benghazi. Assad gassed his own people (some of which was true, conveniently omitting our backing of jihadists fighting him). Now Maduro runs a “narcoterrorist state”, a portmanteau phrase that fuses two reliable panic buttons into one handy package.

If he could remember his earlier phrase, Trump would doubtless call Venezuela a shithole country.

But let’s be clear, we are being sold a smash and grab raid. Cool. Maduro had it coming. It’s Marketing 101 for illegal invasion. Drugs? Terrifying. Terrorism? Even worse. Mash them up and you’ve got a villain so vile that international law is just a mere technicality. Far-fetched? It’s a hoot. The United States; the world’s largest consumer of cocaine, its biggest market and architect of the catastrophic “War on Drugs”, now poses as global sheriff, with just a whiff of the crusader against narcotics? Hilarious.

But the crusader copy writes itself. And our media newshounds are selling it with a straight face.

It’s not the drugs. It’s the oil. Venezuela sits atop the world’s largest heavy sour crude oil reserves. Bigger than Saudi Arabia. Bigger than Iraq. And unlike those compliant petrostates, Venezuela has had the temerity to suggest that its oil might benefit Venezuelans rather than Exxon-Mobil shareholders.

That’s the real crime. The drugs are just the marketing.

Our media know this. They’re not stupid, just complicit. When The Australianquotes “Western intelligence sources” on Maduro’s drug empire, they’re parroting CIA talking points. When the ABC describes Venezuela as a “failed state,” they skip over how it got that way. And when they mention sanctions at all, it’s as a footnote, “pressure for reform”, not as the economic siege warfare it actually is.

But always check your oil. A reality check: Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt contains extra‑heavy, sulphur‑laden crude that’s expensive and technically finicky to extract and refine. CNN reports that gulf refineries in Texas and Louisiana are already tooled up for this dirty work—cheaper than retro-fitting to deal with local shale oil.

Despite Venezuela needing $58 billion for infrastructure upgrades, refining Venezuelan oil remains cheaper long-term due to low production costs and refinery optimisation. This could stabilise US diesel amid tight global supply, potentially dropping American refining costs 10-20% versus Saudi or Canadian alternatives.

Economic Strangulation as Prelude to Invasion

Since 2017, Washington has waged silent war on Venezuela, strangling its economy with a sadistic deliberation that would make any medieval besiegers green with envy. To be fair, corruption in Caracas and mismanagement helped. But billions in Venezuelan funds were frozen. Oil exports blocked. Access to global financial markets cut. Ships intercepted. Assets seized. The whole machinery of dollar dominance weaponised against a country whose real offence is daring to chart its own course.

The arithmetic of empire is written in bodies. Forty thousand preventable deaths from sanctions-induced medicine shortages by 2024, according to Physicians for Human Rights. Three hundred thousand Venezuelans with cancer, diabetes, HIV at risk of death because medical supplies can’t get through the blockade. Maternal mortality at 125 deaths per 100,000 live births. A population where 75% collectively lost an average of over 8 kilograms to hunger. Seven point six million people, nearly a quarter of the population, driven into exile, generating the largest displacement crisis in Latin American history.

UN human rights experts have condemned these sanctions as collective punishment, noting that unilateral coercive measures enforced through armed blockades violate international law. Human Rights Watch criticised the sanctions for lacking humanitarian exemptions. In 2025, UN rapporteurs called US actions “collective punishment,” violating international law by inducing suffering without UN Security Council approval. They are, in plain English, economic warfare against civilians.

Now Australian media perform their best trick: they report the humanitarian crisis while erasing its primary cause. Venezuela is “collapsing under Maduro’s mismanagement,” we’re told. True enough; the man couldn’t run a chook raffle. But the sanctions turbo-charged a crisis into a catastrophe, and that’s the bit that gets memory-holed. It’s like reporting on a bushfire while forgetting to mention the arsonist.

It’s America’s classic neocon playbook. Throttle the economy. Wait for the suffering to mount. Blame the government. Present military intervention as mercy. Rinse and repeat. We did this to Iraq. We did this to Libya. We did this to Syria. And now, with barely a change in script, we’re doing it to Venezuela while the ABC and its fellow travellers play their assigned role: cheerleaders for the latest passage in a very old US game play.

From Sanctions to Shock and Awe: The Long Con

The January military assault isn’t some sudden eruption. It is the logical endpoint of a strategy perfected over generations. The USA has been toppling Latin American governments since before most of us were born.

Guatemala’s Jacobo Árbenz in 1954, was overthrown for daring to redistribute land owned by United Fruit Company. Chile’s Allende was sent packing in 1973, because socialism and copper don’t mix (from Washington’s perspective). Panama’s Manuel Noriega in 1989.

Yes it’s the same narcotics pretext, when a former CIA asset outlived his usefulness. Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Haiti: the list reads like a greatest hits of manufactured regime change.

Each time, the script is identical. Step one: demonise the target government. (Check: Maduro’s been “dictator” and “strongman” in our papers for years, never mind that he’s been elected multiple times under international observation.) Step two: manufacture or exploit a crisis. (Check: sanctions created the crisis, now presented as evidence of governmental failure.) Step three: present military action as the only solution. (Check: “No choice but to act,” as the Pentagon spokesman put it, parroted faithfully by our lot.)

The “kidnapping” of Maduro; let’s call it what it is, not “arrest”, represents peak imperial theatre. A sitting president of a sovereign nation, indicted by a US court on charges of narcoterrorism and having guns and stuff, (the real charge sheet is preposterous), seized in a military raid that violated every principle of international law, paraded before cameras like a trophy buck.

Legal scholars and a UN Secretary-General have warned this sets a catastrophic precedent. Without Security Council authorisation, without credible self-defence claims, this is simply illegal. An act of war.

But watch how Australian media runs with it: as if it were a police procedural, not an invasion. “Wanted man captured.” “Fugitive seized.” The language of law enforcement, not the language of international aggression. This is propaganda by omission, the most insidious kind.

Australian Complicity: Our Shame

Australia isn’t some innocent bystander tutting from the sidelines. We’re up to our necks in this.

Check our UN voting record on Venezuela: lockstep with Washington, backing every condemnatory resolution, every sanctions package, every diplomatic manoeuvre designed to isolate Caracas. We’ve imposed our own sanctions; targeting oil, gold, and individual officials, all while the Australian press trumpet this as righteous punishment of corruption rather than a lethal punching-down in economic warfare.

Not spelled out: Through Five Eyes intelligence sharing, we’re part of the machinery that provided targeting data for the Caracas raid. Our Pine Gap facility, that polite lie of “joint defence,” played a role in communications and surveillance. We’re not just cheer-leading; we’re materially enabling the US.

And the media? They’re the propaganda arm of this operation, whether they admit it or not. When The Australian runs pieces about Venezuela’s “criminal regime” sourced entirely to the US State Department and the CIA-backed opposition, that’s just stenography, not journalism.

When the ABC describes Maduro as “widely regarded as illegitimate” without noting that “widely” means “by Western governments who want his oil,” that’s editorialising posing as fact.

Compare the coverage to Saudi Arabia, for example, a real autocracy that dismembers journalists, starves Yemen, and funds extremism globally. The press might tut occasionally, but there’s no drumbeat for regime change, no breathless coverage of Saudi “crimes against humanity,” no earnest panels discussing whether we have a “responsibility to protect” Yemeni children from starvation.

Why? Because the Saudis play ball with Western oil interests. Venezuela doesn’t. That’s the difference, and our media know it.

This is the second level of contempt I feel: they think we’re mugs. They think we won’t notice the pattern. They think we can’t hold two ideas together long enough to ask: “Hang on, didn’t they sell us this same pig in a poke before?”

The Oil They’re Not Talking About

Let’s cut through the smoke: this is about oil. Always has been, always will be.

Venezuela holds roughly 300 billion barrels of reserves; the largest in the world. After years of sanctions crippled Russian oil exports following Ukraine, and with OPEC playing hard to get on production increases, those reserves are irresistible to Washington. Add China’s deepening energy partnerships with Venezuela; Belt and Road investments, oil-for-loans deals, and you get the strategic picture.

Maduro’s great sin isn’t drugs or authoritarianism (Washington has backed far worse). It’s keeping Venezuela’s oil revenues at home instead of letting them flow north to Houston. It’s partnering with Beijing instead of bowing to the Monroe Doctrine. It’s being an example, however flawed, of resource nationalism in a region where the US prefers compliant client states.

The press mention the oil in passing, if at all. It’s treated as context, not cause. But follow the money, follow the barrels, and the whole “narcoterrorism” narrative reveals itself as window dressing for a very old-fashioned resource grab.

Chevron, notably, got a sanctions exemption in 2022 to restart Venezuelan operations. Funny how the “criminal narco-state” is fine for doing business with when it suits corporate interests, but requires military intervention when it doesn’t play ball politically.

The Human Cost: What They Won’t Count

And now, in the January strikes: at least 40 dead in the initial assault, Venezuelan and Cuban military personnel alongside civilians. An apartment block in Catia La Mar with its exterior wall blown off, one confirmed dead, others seriously injured. “Unspecified” casualties—that bureaucratic language that erases individual lives. The Venezuelan government is still counting bodies while the American press celebrates “liberation.”

Add to that the 115 people killed in the boat strikes from August through December 2025, fishermen and alleged traffickers alike, all part of the same operation. Governments and families of those killed say many were civilians, primarily fishers. The Pentagon insists they were all “narco-terrorists.” The bodies can’t argue back.

But this is developing information, casualties still being tallied. What we know for certain: Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez confirmed deaths among both military and civilians. Trump confirmed two US soldiers injured. One US helicopter was hit but remained flyable. The 30-minute assault involved over 150 aircraft striking military bases, ports, communication facilities, and yes, civilian areas too.

Resistance: The Story They’re Burying

Here’s what should terrify the Pentagon but won’t make the ABC news: Venezuela isn’t collapsing in grateful relief. The Bolivarian militia, whether 1.6 million or government claims of eight million, represents a genuine popular defence force. Millions of Venezuelans, whatever they think of Maduro’s economic management, won’t thank the Americans for bombing their capital and kidnapping their president.

Across Latin America, governments from Mexico to Argentina have condemned the invasion. Not because they love Maduro; many don’t, but because they recognise the precedent: if Washington can do this to Venezuela, it can do it to anyone. Regional solidarity isn’t about personality; it’s about sovereignty.

China and Russia have issued sharp condemnations. They’ve got skin in the game: billions in loans and infrastructure investments that a US-installed puppet government might default on. This isn’t ideological—it’s the emerging reality of a multi-polar world where US military adventurism faces actual push-back.

And in the streets, from Caracas to Mexico City, from Barcelona to Sydney; protests are building. Not because protesters are Maduro fans, but because they’re sick of watching the same imperial playbook run again and again while their media gaslight them about “liberation” and “democracy promotion.”

The press is busting a gut to ignore or minimise this resistance.

Can’t have the narrative complicated by inconvenient facts like Latin American solidarity or popular opposition to invasion. Better to focus on the “drama” of Maduro’s capture, the “terrorism” charges, the grateful (CIA-vetted) Venezuelan exiles welcoming “freedom.”

Lest We Forget

What ought to enrage us: the utter contempt for our minds. They genuinely believe we won’t remember.

Colin Powell’s vial of “anthrax” at the UN, the aluminium tubes, the mobile weapons labs lies. Or Libya, where “protecting civilians” became regime change and now boasts open-air slave markets. Syria’s Assad was gassing his people (true) so we’d better arm the jihadists (catastrophic).

Won’t remember that every single time, the pattern is identical: demonisation, sanctions, crisis, intervention. And every single time, our media play their part in manufacturing consent.

The difference now? They’re not even trying that hard. The “narcoterrorism” frame is lazy; transparently so. But they’re banking on our scattered attention being too fragmented to notice. They’re counting on the dopamine hit of outrage at the “dictator” overwhelming any critical thought about whether invading a sovereign nation might be, you know, illegal and catastrophic.

This is what I mean by the second level of contempt. The violence itself is bad enough. But being propagandised about it by our own media, who know better but do it anyway? That’s the deepest cut.

What Comes Next

The US may have captured Maduro, but they haven’t captured Venezuela. Guerrilla resistance, regional backlash, and international condemnation are already brewing. This may not be the clean victory our media are selling. It could be messy, bloody, protracted; another forever war to add to the collection.

But then our media could “both-sides” Gaza. Australia is complicit. Our government will back it. Our media will sell it. And most of us will scroll past, troubled but not troubled enough to actually do anything.

Unless we start holding the pattern in our heads. Unless we start asking the questions our media won’t: Who benefits? What’s being omitted? Where have we seen this before?

The anatomy of an imperial project isn’t complicated. It’s the same operation, over and over. The only variable is whether we’re awake enough to recognise it.

Time to wake up.

[To be continued in Part Two: The Media’s Role in Manufacturing Consent

This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES

January 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment