Antinuclear

Assange Joins Historic Anti-Genocide March Across Sydney’s Harbour Bridge

By Joe Lauria,  Consortium News, 3 August 25, https://consortiumnews.com/2025/08/03/assange-joins-historic-anti-genocide-march-across-sydneys-harbour-bridge/

Julian Assange joined at least 90,000 and as many as 300,000 people who marched across Australia’s most famous bridge on Sunday to protest Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, his wife Stella and brother Gabriel Shipton joined Australian journalist Mary Kostakidis and, according to police estimates, 90,000 other people, but according to organizers as many as 300,000, to march across Sydney’s Harbour Bridge on Sunday to demand an end to Israel’s genocide in Gaza. 

The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

“At least 90,000 pro-Palestine protesters walked across Sydney Harbour Bridge and into history through the pelting rain, as a larger crowd than expected used the landmark as a symbol, bringing the city to a standstill and leading police to sound the alarm of a potential crowd crush.

In the face of the sheer size of the protest against the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, which organisers say drew between 200,000 and 300,000 people, police were forced to ditch plans for the march to end at North Sydney and redirected the crowd. … The last major march across the bridge was 25 years ago, when 250,000 people marched in support of reconciliation [with  Indigenous Australians.]”

Kostakidis is in court accused of racial hatred by the Zionist Federation of Australia for her social media reporting and commentary critical of the Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza.

[Consortium News was on the bridge and will be providing a full video report.].

The New South Wales premiere and police both tried to stop the march from happening by making protestors liable to arrest for blocking traffic. It took a Supreme Court ruling on Saturday to let it go ahead. About four times as many people turned up than organizers had expected — even in a driving winter rain — because of the concerted effort to stop it, an organizer told The Sydney Morning Herald. 

The paper quoted Palestine Action Group organiser Josh Lees as saying said the march was “’even bigger than we dreamt of’ after people travelled from across the country to attend. He called the event a ‘monumental and historic’ success. ‘Today was just a huge display of democracy,’ he said.”

The massive turnout shows the revulsion a good number of Australians feel for Israel’s ongoing slaughter and for their government’s complicity. “Netanyahu/Albanese you can’t hide. Stop supporting genocide,” the protestors chanted.

Police were not prepared for the outpouring of outrage. The Herald said:

“NSW Police acting deputy commissioner Peter McKenna said the march came ‘very close’ to a ‘catastrophic situation’ and that officers had been forced to make a snap decision to turn tens of thousands around to avoid a crowd crush as people exited for North Sydney. McKenna said part of the problem was the organisers’ application to march stated that 10,000 people were likely to attend, not the 90,000 people the police estimated turned up.”

August 7, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Dare To Hope

Caitlin Johnstone, Aug 04, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/dare-to-hope?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=170050544&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

At least 100,000 Australians, including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, marched for Gaza across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in the pouring rain at a demonstration on Sunday.

It wasn’t that long ago when I sincerely wondered if we’d ever see Assange’s face again, let alone in public, let alone in Sydney, let alone heading up what had to be one of the largest pro-Palestine rallies ever held in Australia. Dare to be encouraged. The light is breaking through.

The western political/media class is fuming with outrage about images of Israeli hostages who are severely emaciated, which just says so much about how dehumanized Palestinians are in western society. Everyone stop caring about hundreds of thousands of starving Palestinians, it turns out two Israeli hostages are starving in the same way for the same reason.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry has announced that in order to improve “public diplomacy” efforts the term “hasbara” will no longer be used, because people have come to associate it with lies and propaganda.

The Times of Israel reports:

“Long referred to as hasbara, a term used to denote both public relations and propaganda that has been freighted with negative baggage in recent years, the ministry now brands its approach as toda’a — which translates to ‘awareness’ or ‘consciousness’ — an apparent shift toward broader, more proactive messaging.

That “negative baggage” would of course be public disgust at the nonstop deluge of lies that Israel and its apologists have been spouting for two years to justify an act of genocide. Westerners have grown increasingly aware that Israel and its defenders have a special word for their practice of manipulating public narratives about their beloved apartheid state, so they’re changing the word.

Simply stopping the genocide is not considered as an option. Simply ceasing to lie is not considered as an option. They’re just changing the word they use for their lies about their genocide.

One of the reasons Israel’s supporters love to hurl antisemitism accusations at its critics is because it’s a claim that can be made without any evidence whatsoever. It’s not an accusation based on facts, it’s an assertion about someone’s private thoughts and feelings, which are invisible. Support for Israel doesn’t lend itself to arguments based on facts, logic and morality, so they rely heavily on aggressive claims about what’s happening inside other people’s heads which cannot be proved or disproved.

It’s entirely unfalsifiable. I cannot prove that my opposition to an active genocide is not in fact due to an obsessive hatred of a small Abrahamic religion. I cannot unscrew the top of my head and show everyone that I actually just think it’s bad to rain military explosives on top of a giant concentration camp full of children, and am not in fact motivated by a strange medieval urge to persecute Jewish people. So an Israel supporter can freely hurl accusations about what’s going on in my head that I am powerless to disprove.

It’s been a fairly effective weapon over the years. Campus protests have been stomped out, freedom of expression has been crushed, entire political campaigns have been killed dead, all because it’s been normalized to make evidence-free claims about someone’s private thoughts and feelings toward Jews if they suggest that Palestinians deserve human rights.

A Harvard professor of Jewish studies named Shaul Magid recently shared the following anecdote:

“I once asked someone I casually know, an ardent Zionist, ‘what could Israel do that would cause you not to support it?’. He was silent for a moment before looking at me and said, ‘Nothing.’”

This is horrifying, but facts in evidence indicate that it’s also a very common position among Zionists. If you’re still supporting Israel at this point, there’s probably nothing it could do to lose your support.

August 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Anthony Albanese says Israel’s denial of starvation in Gaza ‘beyond comprehension’

ABC News, By national affairs correspondent Jane Norman, 29 July 25

In short:

Anthony Albanese has expressed his astonishment at claims made by Israel’s prime minister that “there is no starvation in Gaza”, telling Labor MPs that statement is “beyond comprehension”.

The prime minister made the comments in response to a question from a Labor backbencher about when Australia would move to recognise Palestinian statehood.

What’s next?

Overnight, US President Donald Trump also appeared to dispute Mr Netanyahu’s statement, but Opposition Leader Sussan Ley later declined to say whether she believed starvation was occurring.

Anthony Albanese has expressed his astonishment at claims made by Israel’s prime minister that “there is no starvation in Gaza”, telling Labor MPs that statement is “beyond comprehension”.

The prime minister made the comments in response to a question from a Labor backbencher about when Australia would move to recognise Palestinian statehood.

Mr Albanese — who has been sharpening his criticism of Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip — appeared to directly criticise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who posted a clip to X saying “there is no starvation in Gaza, no policy of starvation in Gaza”.

That assertion was repeated in Canberra yesterday by Israeli’s deputy ambassador to Australia, Amir Meron.

“Those claims that there’s no starvation in Gaza are beyond comprehension,” Mr Albanese told the Labor caucus, according to a spokesperson.

The prime minister outlined Australia’s pre-conditions for recognition, including “democratic reforms” in the Palestinian territory, but indicated these obstacles were not insurmountable, referencing a famous quote from Nelson Mandela that “it always seems impossible until it’s done”.

……………………………………………………….. The prime minister’s intervention came amid growing international concern about both the number of deaths at aid centres managed by the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and the level of hunger in the enclave………………………………………………………………… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-29/pm-criticises-israels-denial-of-starvation-in-gaza/105585494

July 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Out of Step with the World: Australia’s Refusal to Recognise Palestine is a Moral Failure

27 July 2025, Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/out-of-step-with-the-world-australias-refusal-to-recognise-palestine-is-a-moral-failure/

In a world that is finally waking up to the urgent need for justice and peace in the Middle East, Australia has chosen silence and hesitation. While 147 of the 193 United Nations member states have formally recognised the State of Palestine – including France, Spain, Ireland, and Norway – Australia continues to sit on its hands. This refusal is not only out of step with global momentum; it is out of step with the values of fairness, dignity, and the will of the Australian people.

Recognition of Palestine is not an endorsement of violence, nor is it a rejection of Israel’s right to exist. It is a simple acknowledgement that the Palestinian people – stateless for 76 years – deserve the same rights and recognition afforded to others. It is a step toward equality, toward dialogue, and ultimately toward peace.

Yet Australia clings to a failed policy of “not yet” – as though Palestinian dignity must forever be postponed for fear of offending a powerful ally. In doing so, our government aligns itself not with justice or international law, but with the shrinking minority of countries who continue to look the other way.

This decision does not reflect the views of the Australian public. Poll after poll shows a majority of Australians support Palestinian statehood and an end to the occupation. We are a people who believe in the fair go, in standing up for the underdog, in peace over power. And yet, our government refuses to act – cowed by geopolitical caution and domestic political pressure.

Refusing to recognise Palestine is not a neutral act. It is a political choice – one that undermines the international consensus, emboldens the status quo, and tells the Palestinian people that their suffering is invisible.

Australia once stood tall in the fight against apartheid. We helped build international pressure that led to its end in South Africa. Why, then, do we hesitate now?

If we truly believe in a two-state solution – if we truly believe in peace – then we must recognise both states. It is time for Australia to find its moral courage and join the vast majority of the world in recognising Palestine.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

July 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Australia must rethink AUKUS and assert its sovereignty

16 July 2025 AIMN Editorial, By John Sherman  , https://theaimn.net/australia-must-rethink-aukus-and-assert-its-sovereignty/

Australia stands at a crossroads, facing mounting pressure from an AUKUS partnership that increasingly compromises its sovereignty. The trilateral agreement with the United States and United Kingdom, initially framed as a strategic alliance to bolster regional security, has evolved into a complex web of demands that risks binding Australia to U.S. interests for decades. This shift raises serious concerns about our foreign policy autonomy and economic relationships with key trading partners, particularly China.

The original AUKUS framework promised mutual benefit, but recent U.S.-driven stipulations have tilted the balance, treating Australia as a subordinate rather than an equal partner. Australians are expressing a growing unease: AUKUS is now a leash on our independence. The agreement’s expanding scope now threatens to dictate Australia’s foreign policy, potentially straining ties with Asia-Pacific neighbours vital to our economy. This is not the partnership we signed up for.

Defence Minister Richard Marles must take a firmer stance. His apparent acquiescence to these demands undermines Australia’s interests. If he cannot renegotiate terms that prioritise our sovereignty, he should step aside for leadership capable of navigating this complex geopolitical landscape. Australia deserves a minister who can assert our position as a confident middle power, not one tethered to U.S. policy.

The Trump administration’s approach, as seen in its dealings with African nations, offers a cautionary tale. Countries like Nigeria and South Africa have rejected similar U.S. agreements laden with restrictive conditions, opting instead for partnerships that respect their autonomy. Australia should take note. Our alliances must serve our national interests, not entangle us in great-power rivalries that destabilise the region.

Global challenges – climate change, resource scarcity, and economic recovery – demand unity, not division. Australia must champion a future where nations collaborate as equals, not as pawns in a superpower’s strategy. By reevaluating AUKUS and asserting our independence, we can lead by example, fostering a world that prioritises collective progress over zero-sum conflicts. The time for bold, principled leadership is now.

July 17, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

A Vassal’s Impulse: Australia Backs US Strike on Iran

The Australian position, along a number of European states, also failed to acknowledge the General Conference Resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (in particular GC(XIXI)/RES/444 and GC(XXIV)/RES/533) declaring that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.”

29 June 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/a-vassals-impulse-australia-backs-us-strike-on-iran/

The initial statement from Australian government sources was one of constipated caution and clenching wariness. Senator Penny Wong’s time as head of the Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs has always been about how things come out, a process unsatisfyingly uncertain and unyielding in detail. Stick to the safe middle ground and sod the rest. These were the cautionary words of an Australian government spokesperson on June 22: “We have been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security.”

That insipid statement was in response to Operation Midnight Hammer, a strike on three nuclear facilities in Iran by the US Air Force, authorised by US President Donald Trump on June 22. With such spectacular violence came the hollow call for diplomatic prudence and restraint. There was an importantdifference: Tehran, not Israel or Washington, would be the subject of scolding. Iran would not be permitted nuclear weapons but jaw jaw was better than war war. “We note the US president’s statement that now is the time for peace,” stated the spokesperson. “The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”

Within twenty-four hours, that anodyne position had morphed into one of unconditional approval for what was a breach of the United Nations Charter, notably its injunction against the threatened or actual use of force against sovereign states in the absence of authorisation by the UN Security Council or the necessity of self-defence. “The world has long agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent this. That is what this is,” accepted Wong.

This assessment was not only silly but colossally misguided.It would have been an absurd proposition for the US to make the claim that they were under imminent threat of attack, a condition seen as necessary for a pre-emptive strike. This was a naked submission to the wishes of a small, destabilising and sole (undeclared) nuclear power in the Middle East, a modern territorial plunderer celebratory of ethnonational supremacy.

The Australian position, along a number of European states, also failed to acknowledge the General Conference Resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (in particular GC(XIXI)/RES/444 and GC(XXIV)/RES/533) declaring that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.”

Wong also misrepresented the circumstances under which Iran was told they could negotiate over their nuclear program, erroneously accepting the line from the Trump administration that Tehran had “an opportunity to comply”. Neither the US diplomatic channel, which only permitted a narrow, fleeting corridor for actual negotiations, nor Israel’s wilful distortion of the IAEA’s assessment of Iran’s uranium enrichment plans and prevarication, ever gave chance for a credible resolution.Much like the calamitous, unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003 by a crew of brigand nations – the merry trio of US, UK and Australia stood out – the autopilot to war was set, scornful of international law.

Wong’s shift from constipated caution to free flow approval for the US attack, with its absent merits and weighty illegalities, was also a craven capitulation to the warmonger class permanently mesmerised by the villain school of foreign relations. This cerebrally challenged view sees few problems with attacking nuclear facilities, the radioactive dangers of doing so, and the merits of a state having them in the first place.

The US attack on Iran found hearty approval among the remnants of the conservative opposition, who tend tospecialise in the view that pursuing a pro-Israeli line, right,wrong, or murderous, is the way to go. Liberal Senator and former Australian ambassador to Israel, David Sharma, thought the Albanese government’s initial response “underwhelming and perplexing,” claiming that support for this shredding of international law “a straightforward position for Australia to adopt.” Sharma is clearly getting rusty on hislaw of nations.

His side of politics is also of the view that the attacked party here – Iran – must forgo any silly notion of self-defence and retaliation and repair to the table of diplomacy in head bowedhumiliation. “We want to see Iran come to the negotiating table to verify where that 400 kilos of enriched uranium is,” stated a very stern opposition home affairs minister, Andrew Hastie. “I’m very glad to see that Penny Wong has essentially endorsed our position and I’m glad we have bipartisanship on this.”

Australia’s response has been that of the weary poltroon. Little has been asked about Canberra’s standout complicity in assisting the US imperium fulfil its global reach when it comes to striking targets. The role of the intelligence signals facility in Pine Gap, cutely and inaccurately called a joint venture, always lends its critical role to directing the US war machine through its heavy reliance on satellite technology. Wong, when asked about the role played by the facility in facilitating the attacks on Iran, had little to say. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was also cold towards disclosing any details. “We are upfront, but we don’t talk about intelligence, obviously. But we’ve made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States.”

At least on this occasion, Australia did not add its forces to anillegal adventure, as it all too wilfully did in 2003. Then, Iraq was invaded on the spurious grounds that weapons of mass destruction not only existed but would somehow be used either by the regime of Saddam Hussein or fictional proxies he might eventually supply. History forever shows that no such weapons were found, nor proxies equipped. But the Albanese government has shown not only historical illiteracy but an amnesia on the matter. Unfortunately, it’s the sort of amnesia that has become contagious, afflicting a goodly number of Washington’s satellites, vassals and friendly states.

June 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Why is Australia Supporting the US Attack on Iran?

24 June 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay  https://theaimn.net/why-is-australia-supporting-the-us-attack-on-iran/

Description

Why is Australia supporting the US attack on Iran despite no proven nuclear threat? Explore the truth behind the alliance and why our national interest is at stake.

Introduction: The Flashpoint

Location: Parliament House, Canberra – just hours after the US launched strikes on Iranian facilities.

The Prime Minister steps up to the podium. Flashbulbs pop. He says solemnly, “We support action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

But there’s a problem: Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Nor has the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found proof of an active nuclear weapons program. Yet, Australia is once again supporting US attack on Iran, despite lacking credible evidence.

By supporting the US attack on Iran, Australia reinforces a troubling trend of endorsing military aggression based on disputed intelligence.

This article delves into the underlying reasons behind this decision, separating rhetoric from reality.

The Problem: Why Australia Is Supporting the US Attack on Iran

A History of Following Washington

Since Vietnam, Australia has followed the US into conflicts: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The justification is often “shared values”, but the outcomes? Displacement, destabilisation, and destruction.

“We’re not a central player,” the PM insists. Yet, we continue to echo Washington’s every move.

No Proof, Yet Full Support

The IAEA has repeatedly said there’s no verified Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran enriched uranium to 60%, but weapons-grade is 90 %+. Still, our leaders claim this is reason enough for supporting the US attack on Iran, even without definitive proof.

What Was Actually Hit?

According to US sources, the strikes targeted “nuclear-related sites”. But independent verification is scarce. And our Prime Minister won’t confirm whether Pine Gap or other Australian resources were involved. This silence raises concerns that supporting the US attack on Iran also involves more profound complicity behind the scenes.

The Consequences of Obedience

Civilian Risk and Global Fallout

Imagine being an Australian working in Tehran. One day, you’re sending postcards home. Next, you’re rushed to the Azerbaijani border under armed escort. Over 3,000 Australians were left scrambling.

“We’re evacuating staff,” Foreign Minister Wong said. “Airspace is closed.”

Damaged Diplomacy, Rising Insecurity

Supporting the US attack on Iran damages Australia’s credibility as an independent voice in global affairs. We’re seen less as an independent nation and more as a military proxy. This makes us, and our citizens, potential targets.

The Illusion of Peace Through Bombs

Our leaders claim they “support de-escalation.” Yet, they support an illegal airstrike that has only escalated tensions.

Peace isn’t achieved through provocation – it’s forged through diplomacy.

Double Standards in Nuclear Politics

The Real Nuclear Threats: Israel and the USA

While Iran is accused of developing nuclear weapons without proof, Israel, a state with confirmed nuclear warheads, faces no sanctions or inspections. Worse still, Israel continues to violate international law, commit human rights abuses, and face allegations of war crimes. Yet, it is never threatened with airstrikes.

The United States remains the only country in history to use nuclear weapons in war, dropping them on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Despite indications that Japan was already seeking surrender, the bombs were deployed, not just to end the war, but as a geopolitical message to the world.

Many historians now consider the attacks to have been militarily unnecessary and politically motivated.

“You don’t stop a nuclear war by attacking countries that don’t even have nuclear weapons. You stop it by holding those with them accountable.”

US Militarism: A Global Record of Havoc and Misery

From Vietnam to Iraq, Libya to Syria, and coups in Latin America and Africa, the United States has caused immense suffering worldwide. Their justification – “freedom” and “democracy” – rarely materialises for the people left behind.

Australia’s uncritical support not only aligns us with this destruction, but it also makes us complicit.

A Foreign Policy True to Australia’s Interests

Uphold International Law, Not Just Alliances

Australia must reaffirm its commitment to the UN Charter, which permits the use of military force only in self-defence or with the approval of the Security Council. Unilateral aggression is illegal.

Prioritise Evidence Over Allegiance

Before expressing support for military action, the Australian Government must demand verifiable intelligence. Without proof, there should be no participation – military or moral.

Transparency About Pine Gap and Involvement

Pine Gap plays a critical role in US surveillance and drone strikes. Citizens have a right to know whether their country is taking actions that violate international law.

Leverage Our Dollar Sovereignty

Australia issues its own currency, meaning we are not financially dependent on any foreign state. We can afford to fund independent diplomacy, peace building, and humanitarian aid rather than militarism.

“We are not broke. We are not beholden. Let’s act like it.”

The Price of Following, The Power of Leading

For decades, Australia has marched in step with the United States, often at the cost of our principles, safety, and independence.

This time, we are supporting the US attack on Iran, a strike on a country accused of a crime without evidence, risking war, instability, and the lives of Australians abroad.

Yet, we have the means, through monetary sovereignty, public accountability, and diplomacy, to reject supporting the US attack on Iran and shape a better, more independent path. We need the political will to make the choice.

Q&A Section

Q1: Was Iran about to build a nuclear weapon?

A: The IAEA has confirmed Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, which is not weapons-grade. There is no verified evidence of an active nuclear weapons program.

Q2: Could Australia have refused to support the strike?

A: Yes. Australia is a sovereign nation that can choose an independent foreign policy. We were not compelled to support a strike, especially without legal backing.

Q3: What role does Pine Gap play in US operations?

A: Pine Gap is a joint US-Australia intelligence base. While our leaders avoid specifics, it’s widely known that Pine Gap supports surveillance and targeting data for US military operations, including drone strikes.

June 25, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Australia backs US strikes on Iran while urging return to diplomacy

Australia’s explicit expression of support for the strikes goes a step further than allies including the UK, Canada and New Zealand

By political reporter Tom Crowley ABC News 23 June 25

In short: 

Australia has given its support to US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities but has repeated calls for de-escalation to avoid a wider war.  

Penny Wong said Australia had not received a request for assistance and declined to speculate on how any request would be met.

What’s next?

A National Security Meeting was held in Canberra on Monday morning. 

Australia has given its support to US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities but has repeated calls for de-escalation to avoid a wider war. 

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Monday Australia was in favour of action to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon, echoing comments made earlier on Monday by Foreign Minister Penny Wong.

“The world has long agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent that. That is what this is,” the PM told reporters.

The government initially adopted a more cautious tone, declining to give its explicit support.

Senator Wong said Australia had not received a request for assistance and emphasised the US action was “unilateral” when asked whether Pine Gap, a shared military facility, had been engaged.

While the PM and foreign minister declined to speculate on the response to any such request, Mr Albanese said Australia was “deeply concerned” about the prospect of escalation, placing the onus on Iran.

“We want to see diplomacy, dialogue and de-escalation … Iran had an opportunity to comply, they chose not to and there have been consequences of that,” he said.

Earlier, Senator Wong cited a UN watchdog finding that Iran had acquired enriched uranium at “almost military level”.

“The key question for the international community is what happens next … It’s obviously a very precarious, risky and dangerous moment the world faces,” she said.

The National Security Committee, comprised of key ministers, met in Canberra this morning.

Australia’s explicit expression of support for the strikes goes a step further than allies including the UK, Canada and New Zealand, although all three countries have emphasised the risk of Iran gaining nuclear weapons.

Opposition supports strike, Greens opposed

The Coalition supported the strikes on Sunday and also says it does not want further war, but has put the onus on Iran to negotiate peace.

“We want to see Iran come to the negotiating table to verify where that 400 kilos of enriched uranium is,” Andrew Hastie told ABC Radio National……………………………………..

Dave Sharma, a Liberal senator and former Australian ambassador to Israel, said the government’s response was “underwhelming and perplexing” on Sunday and that support for the strikes “should be a straightforward position for Australia to adopt”.

The Greens are against the strike, with defence spokesperson David Shoebridge calling Donald Trump a “warmonger” and demanding Australia clarify it will not get involved.

“You cannot bomb your way to peace … and the people who are always going to pay the price are the ordinary people on the street,” he said.

……………………………………………….. Five Eyes partners respond

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke to Mr Trump via phone, emphasising the “grave risk” of Iran’s nuclear program and placing the onus on Iran “returning to the negotiating table as soon as possible”, according to a readout of the call.

A joint statement from the UK, France, Germany and Italy urged Iran not to “take any further action that could destabilise the region” but did not include an explicit position on the strike.

The New Zealand government has “acknowledged” the strike, and called for diplomacy, Foreign Minister Winston Peters saying “ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying”.

Canadian PM Mark Carney said Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and that the US strike “was designed to alleviate that threat”, but stopped short of explicitly endorsing it and called for “all parties” to return to the negotiating table. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-23/australia-backs-us-strikes/105448088

June 24, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Why Richard Marles Backs the U.S. War Machine

Since becoming Defence Minister, Richard Marles has overseen a shift that aligns Australia more closely with U.S. military goals than ever before.

Richard Marles backs the U.S. military, not just with rhetoric, but with billions in public funds diverted from services Australians urgently need.

Richard Marles is a senior figure in the Labor Right, a faction increasingly indistinguishable from the Liberal Party on core issues such as defence, foreign policy, and trade.

20 June 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay  

Description

Richard Marles backs the U.S. military power on Australian soil. Discover how it risks our sovereignty, and what citizens can do to reclaim it.

Introduction – A Quiet Coup Over Australia’s Defence 

Location: Tindal, Northern Territory. Action: A U.S. B-52 bomber roars overhead. Thoughts: “Are we a launchpad for war?” Emotions: Unease, betrayal.

It’s 2025. As Defence Minister Richard Marles smiles beside a Pentagon official, another defence deal is signed. Few Australians notice. Even fewer understand its implications. Our government says it’s about ‘defending democracy.’ But whose democracy, and against what threat?

While China is still our biggest trading partner, we’re warned of its menace. Meanwhile, U.S. troops, bombers, and weapons quietly embed themselves deeper into our soil. This isn’t protection, it’s occupation by consent.

How did we end up here? And why is it that Richard Marles backs the U.S. military over Australia’s sovereign interests?

Problem: The Erosion of Australian Sovereignty

A Defence Strategy Written in Washington

Since becoming Defence Minister, Richard Marles has overseen a shift that aligns Australia more closely with U.S. military goals than ever before. The 2021 USFPI agreement expanded joint military operations.

Billions have since been given to help U.S. base upgrades in Darwin and Tindal, alongside hosting U.S. nuclear-capable planes.

This is yet another example of how Richard Marles backs the U.S. military agenda, prioritising American strategic interests over national independence.

“It’s not just alliance cooperation, it’s dependence,” says defence analyst Dr. Alison Broinowski.

The Permanent U.S. Footprint

• U.S. bases in Australia: Pine Gap, Robertson Barracks, and now expanded northern airfields. Ref: How US Military Bases in Australia Threaten Our Future & How to Remove Them
• Rotating forces: Thousands of U.S. Marines cycle through annually, training for potential regional conflicts.
• Infrastructure: Funded by Australian public money for U.S. strategic benefit.

Public Money, Private Empire

Under Marles’ leadership, defence spending reached 2.4% of GDP in 2024. That’s over $60 billion, more than education or climate resilience combined. But this isn’t public defence, it’s public subsidy for the U.S. military-industrial complex.

This is precisely how Richard Marles backs the U.S. military, not just with rhetoric, but with billions in public funds diverted from services Australians urgently need.

The Manufactured ‘China Threat’

A Convenient Villain

There is no evidence that China poses a military threat to Australia. Defence intelligence reports confirm no plans for invasion or aggression. Yet headlines scream of ‘Chinese expansionism,’ fuelling fear and compliance.

Who Benefits?

• Weapons contractors profit from panic.
• U.S. hegemony is preserved through Australian complicity.
• Political careers thrive on appearing ‘tough on China.’

“The U.S. has surrounded China with 200+ military bases,” notes historian John Pilger. “China has none outside its borders. Who’s the aggressor here?”

Real Consequences for Australians

Story: Emily, a nurse in Perth, struggles to afford rent. Her hospital is understaffed. Meanwhile, Marles commits $368 billion for nuclear submarines, years away from delivery, if ever.

“Why do we always find money for war, but never for nurses?” Emily asks.

Because Richard Marles backs the U.S. military, while ignoring the suffering of frontline workers like Emily.

The Labor Right: A Party Captured by Foreign and Corporate Interests 

Richard Marles and the Rise of Labor’s Conservative Core

Richard Marles is a senior figure in the Labor Right, a faction increasingly indistinguishable from the Liberal Party on core issues such as defence, foreign policy, and trade.

Rather than upholding the Labor tradition of peace, workers’ rights, and democratic independence, the right faction embraces military alliances and market orthodoxy.

Their influence is evident in Labor’s full-throated support for AUKUS, Marles’ open enthusiasm for U.S. military integration is no coincidence – Richard Marles backs the U.S. military model as central to Labor’s right-faction ideology, and the suppression of internal dissent from more progressive voices within the party.

“Marles speaks more like a U.S. Pentagon spokesperson than an Australian minister,” notes a former Labor policy adviser.

How the Right Faction Is Reshaping Labor

This shift reflects how Richard Marles backs the U.S. military, pushing Labor further from its peace-promoting roots.

• 
  Suppresses internal debate on AUKUS, Palestine, and climate.
• Aligns with corporate donors, including arms manufacturers.
• Stifles progressive legislation, watering down meaningful reforms.

The result? A Labor Party that once represented workers and peace is now compromised and cautious, often at the expense of sovereignty and social justice.

A Peaceful, Sovereign Path Forward

Reclaiming Foreign Policy Independence

• End the U.S. military presence on Australian soil.
• Cancel or renegotiate treaties that erode autonomy.
• Prioritise diplomacy over deterrence.

Invest in Public Needs, Not Foreign Conflicts

Redirect defence billions to:

• 
  Fully fund Medicare.
• End homelessness.
• Provide free tertiary education.

Australia, as a sovereign nation with currency-issuing power, can fund peace just as easily as it funds war. The real limitation is a lack of political will, not a shortage of money.

Learn from Global Examples

• Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948. Today, it ranks among the world’s happiest and healthiest nations.
• Finland and Switzerland remain militarily neutral but are globally respected.

“We must stop being a staging post for other nations’ wars,” says Senator David Shoebridge.

Marles, the U.S., and Our Crossroads

For decades, Australia walked a delicate line, partner to the U.S., yet proudly sovereign. That line is vanishing.

Richard Marles has accelerated Australia’s subservience to U.S. military interests under the guise of strategic cooperation. But what we face is not defence, it’s deterrence at the cost of independence.

This is the inevitable outcome when Richard Marles backs the U.S. military without accountability or public consent.

And it’s happening with full ministerial approval, Richard Marles backs the U.S. military posture without public scrutiny or debate.

It’s time Australians asked: Who does our government really serve?

Q&A – Reader Questions Answered…………………………. https://theaimn.net/why-richard-marles-backs-the-u-s-war-machine/

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

US launches AUKUS review to ensure it meets Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda

By Brad Ryan and Emilie Gramenz in Washington DC, ABC News, 11 June 25

In short:

The US is reviewing the AUKUS security pact with Australia and the UK, which Australia is depending on to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.

A US defence official said it would ensure the pact met President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, as the US struggles to build enough submarines for its own fleet.

But Defence Minister Richard Marles said he was “very confident this [AUKUS] is going to happen” and it was only natural for the new US administration to review it.

The Pentagon is reviewing the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the US and the UK to ensure it aligns with President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, a US defence official told the ABC.

But Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident the pact would remain intact, and a review was a “perfectly natural” thing for a new administration to do.

The news follows US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent request for Australia to significantly boost its defence spending “as soon as possible”.

The US defence official said the review “will ensure the initiative meets … common sense, America First criteria”.

“As Secretary Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs,” the official said.

Under the AUKUS pact, Australia would be armed with nuclear-powered submarines at a cost of more than $350 billion.

Elbridge Colby, who is the under secretary of Defense for Policy and has voiced scepticism about AUKUS, is leading the review, according to the UK’s Financial Times.

Last August, Mr Colby tweeted he was an AUKUS “agnostic”.

“In principle it’s a great idea. But I’ve been very skeptical in practice,” he wrote, but added he’d become “more inclined based on new information I’ve gleaned”.

Mr Marles told ABC Radio Melbourne he was “very confident this [AUKUS] is going to happen”.

“The meetings that we’ve had with the United States have been very positive in respect of AUKUS,” Mr Marles said. “That dates back to my most recent meeting with Pete Hegseth in Singapore.”

……………………………………………. The Australian government paid the US almost $800 million earlier this year — the first in a series of payments to help America improve its submarine manufacturing capabilities.

………… Mr Hegseth met Defence Minister Richard Marles in Singapore, and said Australia needed to lift its defence spending.

Mr Trump himself has said little publicly about the AUKUS pact, and his criticisms of America’s traditional alliances have fuelled anxieties about its future in Canberra and London.

When a reporter asked Mr Trump about AUKUS in February, he appeared to be unfamiliar with the term, replying: “What does that mean?”…………………………..

Under “Pillar I” of the two-pillar AUKUS deal, the first submarine would arrive in Australia no sooner than 2032. It would be a second-hand US Virginia-class vessel.

The US would subsequently supply Australia with between three and five submarines, before Australia began building its own in Adelaide, modelled on British designs.

Mr Albanese was expected to meet Mr Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week. But that’s now in limbo after the US condemned Australia and several other countries that placed sanctions on two far-right Israeli ministers.

…………..Critics of the deal, including former prime ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Paul Keating, have long warned it is unfair and risky. “I’ve never done a deal as bad as this,” Mr Turnbull told Radio National earlier this year.

The Greens have proposed a “plan B” defence policy that would eventually see AUKUS cancelled.

There are also longstanding concerns around the US’s consistent failure to meet its own submarine-building targets to fully stock its military fleet…………………………………………….https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-12/aukus-pentagon-review-donald-trump-america-first/105406254

June 12, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

In Australia’s post-US future, we must find our own way with China

Hugh White, 2 June 25, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/02/australia-post-america-future-china

The Canberra establishment thinks we must depend on Washington more than ever in today’s hard new world. That misses a vital point, Hugh White writes in this Quarterly Essay extract.

Thanks to US regional strategic primacy, Australia has been virtually immune from the threat of direct military attack since the defeat of Japan in 1945. Now that is changing. In future it will no longer be militarily impossible for China to attack Australia directly. And not just China: other major regional powers, especially India and eventually perhaps Indonesia, will have the potential to launch significant attacks on Australia.

That does not mean we now face a serious threat of Chinese military attack. Today the only circumstance in which Australia could credibly find itself under attack from China would be if Australia joined the US in a war with China over Taiwan. Reports that Australia is a target of Chinese cyber and intelligence operations do not show that Beijing poses a military threat to us any more than our cyber and intelligence operations targeting China provide evidence that we pose a military threat to them.

It is harder to say whether China might become militarily aggressive towards us in future. We cannot assume that it will from its military buildup alone, because countries often expand their armed forces to defend themselves rather than to attack others.

But, equally, we cannot rule out the possibility that China might decide to use armed force against Australia in decades to come. Some aspects of China’s naval buildup, especially its sustained investment in aircraft carriers, which would have no useful role in a US-China war over Taiwan, suggest that it wants to be able to conduct long-range power-projection operations, which could encompass Australia.

Nonetheless, it does seem unlikely. For one thing, it is a little hard to imagine what China’s purpose might be in attacking Australia, given that we are not an easy country to invade. And if we get our defence policy right it should be possible for us to raise the cost to the point that it is not worth China’s while.

This all means that, while we should not ignore it, we should not allow the distant possibility of a Chinese military threat to dominate our thinking about China. There are many other dimensions to what is a very important, complex and ultimately inescapable relationship.

It is also a relationship of a completely unfamiliar kind. Other than our two great allies, Australia has never before encountered a country as large, as powerful, as influential in our region, as important to us economically, and with close heritage connections with such a large proportion of our population, as China.

Once we abandon the illusion that the US is going to manage China for us, we will realise that we have no choice but to find our own way. This will not be comfortable or easy. China is ruthless, demanding and completely transactional – though no more than other great powers. Over the past decade, in Canberra and around the country, exaggerated fears and a desire to stay in step with Washington have crowded out serious thinking about China itself and how the complex range of interests we have in our relationship with it can best be balanced. We have less deep expertise on China now than we had 30 years ago. That has to change.

Our second big task is to rethink our relationship with the US. In the decades before the mid-1990s, there was an assumption that – in a Whig-view-of-history way – Australia was gradually but ineluctably emerging from dependence to independence as we left our colonial and imperial past behind and embraced our Asian future. That died away around the time John Howard became prime minister in 1996, when it seemed to many people that the future was America’s, and that Australia’s future was to become ever more tightly entwined with it, strategically, economically and culturally.

This was the time when a US-Australia free trade agreement seemed both essential and sufficient to guarantee Australia’s economic future, and when America’s place as the world’s dominant military power seemed unchallengeable. The economic illusions of that era were soon overtaken by the hard realities of China’s rise but the strategic illusions have survived. Indeed, they were strengthened by the “war on terror” and have been intensified again by the rising fear of China. So we clung on and stopped imagining we could do anything else.

It is often said, for example, that the intelligence relationship is so close and so important to both sides as to be indissoluble. Don’t bet on that. US access to Pine Gap as a location for its satellite ground station is valuable but far from essential. Our access to US intelligence under the Five Eyes arrangements is very beneficial and, in some ways, irreplaceable, in that it provides intelligence we could not get in other ways. But that does not mean we could not get by without it. We certainly could.

As things get tough with Washington over the months and years ahead, there will be a temptation to try to placate Donald Trump and earn his favour by meeting his demands for increased defence spending, or by siding with the US in its economic war by cutting links with China.

There may be good reasons to increase defence spending but trying to buy Trump’s favour is not one of them. Likewise, that futile goal would in no way offset the many powerful arguments against joining a US-led anti-China economic coalition. There are no favours we can do Trump which will keep the US strategically engaged in Asia and committed to Australia’s defence.

We need to bear these cold realities clearly in mind as we think about our future relations with Washington. The first step is to recognise that the end of the alliance as we have known it for so long does not mean the end of the relationship. We have been close allies for so long that it is hard to imagine what other form our relationship might take.

But with careful management, a new, beneficial post-alliance relationship can evolve, just as our relations with Britain evolved after it withdrew from Asia in the late 1960s. We continued to have close and productive defence and security links, drawing some strength from our shared history together.

Singapore offers another instructive model. It is not a US ally but it has an excellent relationship with Washington, including deep defence links. We should aim for a post-alliance relationship like that with the US in the years ahead – and we should be building it now. That does not mean severing ties with Washington but it does mean changing the relationship fundamentally.

Above all, it means acknowledging that the security undertakings in Anzus can no longer be the foundation of our strategic policy, or of our relationship with the US. The Canberra establishment is shocked by any suggestion that we should walk away from the Anzus commitments. They think we can and must depend on the US more than ever in today’s hard new world.

But that misses the vital point. It is not Australia but the US that is walking away from the commitments it made in the Anzus treaty in very different circumstances 75 years ago. That was plain enough under Joe Biden. It is crystal clear today under Trump.

This is the lesson we must draw from Washington’s failure to defend Ukraine, from its crumbling position in Asia and from US voters’ decisive rejection of the old idea of US global leadership to which we still cling. Our best path now is to recognise this and start acting accordingly.

• Hugh White is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. This is an edited extract of Hard New World: Our Post-American Future, published in Quarterly Essay

June 2, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment