Antinuclear

Syria Today, Iran Tomorrow, and Inevitably China

 A US-backed terrorist organization fresh from overthrowing a US-targeted nation in the Middle East now vows to target China next.

The London Telegraph in a December 13, 2024 article titled, “Uyghur fighters in Syria vow to come for China next,” claims “a Uyghur militant group that helped to topple Bashar-al Assad has vowed to take the fight to China.”

Far from an exception, virtually all reports on the subject stem from either Adrian Zenz himself or reports published by US government-funded organizations including the Australian Strategic Policy Institute

New Eastern Outlook, Brian Berletic, December 19, 2024,  https://journal-neo.su/2024/12/19/syria-today-iran-tomorrow-and-inevitably-china/ 

The collapse of the Syrian government in mid-December 2024 represents a pivotal moment for U.S. geopolitical strategies in the Middle East and beyond.

This event aligns with longstanding objectives, including the subsequently planned disarming, division, and destruction of Iran and the toppling of the Iranian government, the possible eviction of Russian military bases in Syria, and the use of US-sponsored terrorist organizations utilized in overrunning Syria to export terrorism to other targeted nations both in the region and far abroad including both Russia and China.

Syria’s Collapse Was Long Sought After 

The US has repeatedly attempted to undermine and overthrow the government of Syria since at least as early as the 1980s. This most recent attempt began preparations as early as 2007 as revealed in a New Yorker article published that year titled, “The Redirection.”
Written by legendary journalist Seymour Hersh, the article admitted:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al-Qaeda*.

Also that year, the US State Department had already been training, equipping, and funding opposition groups to return to their nations across the Arab World and overthrow their respective governments as part of what would later be referred to as the “Arab Spring,” the New York Times would reveal in a 2011 article titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings.”

Following the initial protests of the 2011 “Arab Spring,” US-sponsored regime change quickly and deliberately turned violent before transforming into a multitude of armed conflicts – some of which involved overt US military intervention, including in Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

By 2012, a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report about US-sponsored regime change in Syria specifically, published by Judicial Watch, admitted that the so-called “Syrian” opposition consisted of Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda*. The report admitted that, “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition,” and that “if the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality,” and that “this is exactly what the supporting power of the opposition [the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey] want in order to isolate the Syrian regime.” 

It is very clear that the “Salafist principality” referred to the so-called “Islamic State.” While the West posed as intervening in Syria to eliminate the “Islamic State,” it was actually supporting and using it precisely to “isolate the Syrian regime,” just as the US DIA report noted.

Through a combination of sanctions, US-Israeli military strikes, US and Turkish military occupation including of Syria’s oil and wheat fields, Syria was slowly hollowed out and, as of December 2024, with Russia and Iran overextended elsewhere, finally toppled.

Next Target: Iran 

Most obviously, just as with the US-engineered overthrow of Libya in 2011, Syria will persist as a failed and divided state the US and its regional proxies used to export terrorism across the region toward what remains of Iran’s asymmetrical military power including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iranian-backed militias across Iraq.

Syria can now also be used as a staging ground for attacks on Iran itself, including via the use of Syria’s now unprotected airspace.

One crucial obstacle eliminated with the collapse of Syria’s government was the destruction of its military hardware, including a formidable integrated air defense network. Even as US-Turkish-backed terrorists advanced on Damascus, US-armed Israeli warplanes carried out 100s of airstrikes across the country, both eliminating the abandoned air defense systems themselves and a long list of targets those air defenses had long prevented Israel from striking.

The Times of Israel itself, in an article titled, “IDF sees chance for strikes on Iran nuke sites after knocking out Syria air defenses,” connected Israel’s targeting and destruction of Syrian air defenses with plans to then carry out direct strikes on Iran.

………………………………….now the Israeli air force “can operate freely across the country’s skies,” and will likely do so both as part of shaping chaos inside Syria itself as well as amid future strikes on Iran.

Far from simply exploiting recent, unexpected developments, the elimination of Syria as an ally of Iran was a long-standing prerequisite required and planned for before moving on to toppling Iran itself.

Such plans were published by US government and arms industry-funded Brookings Institution in its 2009 paper, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” noting specifically:

Israel may be more willing to bear the risks of Iranian retaliation and international opprobrium than the United States is, but it is not invulnerable and may request certain commitments from the United States before it is ready to strike. For instance, the Israelis may want to hold off until they have a peace deal with Syria in hand (assuming that Jerusalem believes that one is within reach), which would help them mitigate blowback from Hizballah and potentially Hamas. Consequently, they might want Washington to push hard in mediating between Jerusalem and Damascus.

Obviously, Israel’s recent war on Hezbollah and US-sponsored regime change in Syria has fulfilled this prerequisite – regime change achieved in Syria using many of the other methods listed in the 2009 Brookings paper focused on Iran including “supporting a popular uprising,” supporting [armed] minority and opposition groups,“airstrikes,” and “invasion.”  In fact, such methods are used over and over again against all nations targeted by the US for coercion and eventually regime change.

US-Sponsored Terrorism Targets China and “Chinese Projects/Embassies”

In addition to targeting Iranian-backed militias, Iranian-friendly governments, and Iran itself, the US has utilized terrorist organizations now in Syria against other adversaries abroad, including China. Many signs now indicate the US could redirect these terrorist organizations back toward China once again.

This includes the so-called, “Turkestan Islamic Party” (TIP) also known as the “East Turkestan Islamic Movement” (ETIM).

What is particularly troubling about TIP/ETIM is the fact that the US disingenuously removed it from its Foreign Terrorist Organizations list in 2020 specifically to provide it with wider and more overt support. DW in its article titled, “US removes China-condemned group from terror list,” would claim TIP/ETIM was removed as a terrorist organization by the US government, “because, for more than a decade, there has been no credible evidence that ETIM continues to exist.” 

This is demonstrably untrue considering the US Department of Defense admitted to having carried out airstrikes against the group in Afghanistan only 2 years prior to its delisting, NBC News would report.

Now, the organization the US government claimed no longer exists, is in Syria and reported comprising an entire military unit alongside Hayat Tahrir al-Sham* (HTS), aiding in the recent overthrow of the Syrian government. HTS* is listed by the US as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, while TIP/ETIM is listed as a terrorist organization by the UN and even Washington’s close ally, the UK.

The London Telegraph in a December 13, 2024 article titled, “Uyghur fighters in Syria vow to come for China next,” claims “a Uyghur militant group that helped to topple Bashar-al Assad has vowed to take the fight to China.” 

A US-backed terrorist organization fresh from overthrowing a US-targeted nation in the Middle East now vows to target China next. The ability to do so is only possible with continued US government backing including training, weapons, and logistics via regional proxies including Türkiye, who prepared and incorporated the militants in the invasion force that toppled Syria’s government.

Short of fighting in China itself, the Telegraph in an accompanying video would note, “can TIP take the fight to China, home to the world’s largest military with 2 million active troops? It’s easier said than done. Still, TIP could target Chinese projects or embassies abroad.” 

The US already backs violent terrorism attacking Chinese projects and embassies abroad, including in Baluchistan, Pakistan and Myanmar. An army of well-trained, well-armed experienced terrorists fresh from the battlefield in Syria are poised to significantly escalate what is already a US war on China by proxy along the length of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and ultimately aimed at China itself.

It should be noted that TIP/ETIM and affiliated extremists carried out years of deadly terrorism within China’s western region of Xinjiang. The BBC in a 2014 article titled, “Why is there tension between China and the Uighurs?,” proudly listed the rampant violence Beijing at the time struggled to contain. When Chinese anti-terrorism efforts finally began to work, the BBC along with the rest of the Western media omitted any mention of separatist violence and depicted Chinese efforts to uproot extremism as “human rights abuses,” “coerced labor,” and even “genocide.”

No evidence exists of any systemic abuses, including either “coerced labor” or “genocide.” Even US government-funded organizations tasked with producing reports claiming to document such abuses bury admissions of a lack of evidence in the reports themselves.

One 2020 report titled, “Coercive Labor in Xinjiang: Labor Transfer and the Mobilization of Ethnic Minorities to Pick Cotton,” written by Adrian Zenz, a member of the US government-funded “Victims of Communism Memorial Fund,” admitted in its conclusion that, “in a system where the transition between securitization and poverty alleviation is seamless, and where the threat of extralegal internment looms large, it is impossible to define where coercion ends and where local consent may begin.” 

Far from an exception, virtually all reports on the subject stem from either Adrian Zenz himself or reports published by US government-funded organizations including the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) or US NED-funded fronts like the World Uyghur Congress, Uyghur Human Rights Project, Campaign for Uyghurs, and the Uyghur Transitional Justice Database Project.

While these organizations pose as “human rights” advocates, their websites overtly refer to China’s Xinjiang region as “East Turkestan*” (sometimes spelled East Turkistan), claiming it is “occupied” by China, and openly seek separatism from China as one of their central objectives – objectives underwritten by generous funding by the US government.

In other words, the US is backing deadly violence, political movements promoting separatism, and fronts attempting to depict the Chinese government’s reaction to all of the above as “human rights abuses,” which in turn is used to justify otherwise indefensible sanctions applied to Chinese companies attempting to do business anywhere the collective West exerts influence.

Defending Against Washington’s Superweapon 

While many are tempted to treat conflicts around the globe in isolation, the truth is the United States is pursuing a long-standing global policy of eliminating all rivals through persuasion, coercion, sanctions, US-sponsored sedition, terrorism, and military confrontation – by proxy and directly.

The fall of Syria and other nations like it contribute toward a more dangerous world where larger and more stable nations may be targeted, undermined, and toppled next.

The chaos that has followed US regime change in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, Libya, Ukraine, and now Syria this 21st century is just a small fraction of the instability, death, destruction, and destitution the entire globe faces should Washington continue prevailing in its geopolitical pursuits.

Among the most effective and so far unanswered weapons the United States government wields is its dominion over global information space and its global-spanning network of political interference and capture, centered around the National Endowment for Democracy and adjacent government and corporate-funded foundations.

Russian and Chinese military and economic power continues to rise, and both nations have successfully protected their respective information spaces. However, the US continues unopposed undermining nations along both Russia and China’s peripheries, successfully politically capturing nations and transforming them into political and even military battering rams against both targeted nations.

While China may have successfully uprooted US-sponsored extremism in Xinjiang, the US continues arming, backing, and promoting these same extremists out of China’s reach in recently decimated Syria. Through Washington’s control over information space outside of China, these terrorists are being presented as “freedom fighters” in much the same way the US has presented HTS despite being listed by the US State Department as actual terrorists.

Russia and China aid partner nations in the defense of their traditional national security domains – air, land, and sea – but have failed to export their own domestic success in securing a 21st century national security domain – information space. Should Russia and China succeed in doing this, Washington will be denied one of its last and most effective weapons used to sustain its global hegemony, making multipolarism inevitable rather than a mere possibility.

*-banned in Russia

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.

December 22, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Letter re: Canada selling fission Uranium to OZ.

Ken Collier, Subject: Canada allows sale of fission Uranium to Australian company
To: Justin Trudeau <justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca 21 Dec 24

Adding to the very evident dangers of nuclear power generally, a topic well-covered in previous correspondence from myself and many others (https://nuclearwastewatch.weebly.com/ ; https://wethenuclearfreenorth.ca/you-can-help/educational-materials/ ;  https://www.ccnr.org/index.html , I see further concerns.  The conditions set by Industry Canada about limiting Chinese funding are feeble, to be generous.  Anyone familiar with accounting techniques know how easy it is to side-step regulations and limits like those stated.  All that is needed is a slight change in categories of expenditure, say, from administration to sales, or exploration to promotion, or human resources to fees, to avoid the intent of the provisions about Chinese funding.

Surely approval from Investment Canada is not all that is needed to let this unwise sale go ahead.  Scientific, technical and environmental concerns should also be addressed.  In the best case, sales of fission Uranium should just not be allowed.

Canada clears Paladin’s $789 million Fission Uranium takeover, By ReutersDecember 18, 2024

• Paladin gets clearance from Investment Canada
• Canada conditions include no China funding
• Buyout opens way to North American markets

MELBOURNE, Dec 19 (Reuters) – Australia’s Paladin Energy (PDN.AX), opens new tab has received the final green light it needed from Canadian authorities to buy Fission Uranium (FCU.TO), opens new tab in a C$1.14 billion ($789.1 million) deal that cements is position as a major global producer, it said on Thursday.

Paladin got the clearance under the Investment Canada Act on Wednesday and said the deal under which it would acquire Fission’s advanced PLS project in Saskatchewan was expected to be completed by early January 2025.

The clearance comes as prices for the nuclear fuel surge on expectations of a demand spike as the energy transition unfolds. Shares fell 1.8% amid weakness in the mining sector.

The Canadian government in October stepped in to review the proposed tieup on national security grounds, raising concerns it may be derailed by the county that has become increasingly sensitive towards strategic resource firms being taken over by overseas buyers.

Paladin has agreed to several conditions Canada has attached to the merger including not to use any China-sourced finance for funding PLS, or to sell PLS’s uranium directly or indirectly to any China customers beyond China General Nuclear Power Group, which has an existing offtake agreement, it said.

Canada in July cracked down on big mining takeovers, saying it would only approve foreign buyouts of large Canadian firms involved in critical minerals production “in the most exceptional of circumstances.”The Canadian government in October stepped in to review the proposed tieup on national security grounds, raising concerns it may be derailed by the county that has become increasingly sensitive towards strategic resource firms being taken over by overseas buyers.

Paladin has agreed to several conditions Canada has attached to the merger including not to use any China-sourced finance for funding PLS, or to sell PLS’s uranium directly or indirectly to any China customers beyond China General Nuclear Power Group, which has an existing offtake agreement, it said.

Canada in July cracked down on big mining takeovers, saying it would only approve foreign buyouts of large Canadian firms involved in critical minerals production “in the most exceptional of circumstances.”

December 21, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Netanyahu and Australia

By Peter Henning, Dec 13, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/netanyahu-and-australia/?fbclid=IwY2xjawHIojtleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHUWJqNvizL8WHJZxYN7U779UH03pCltHRtwXoRrjUiF8YZ4f9tCoCURbqQ_aem_ZfzYMXvnUoiUkusIlGg3lANetanyahu has demonstrated that he has the complete measure of the Labor-Coalition political class, that he only has to snap his fingers and bark an order and they will all do his bidding and follow his instructions with alacrity.

Netanyahu’s direct intervention into the Australian political scene has been a complete success for him. He now knows that he can control the political agenda in Australia whenever he feels like it. He gained control of the narrative of the synagogue fire almost as soon as it occurred, all Labor-Coalition politicians hastily falling into genuflection at his command, some only being briefly tardy by suggesting maybe the police should investigate before conclusions were finalised.

No Australian prime minister has ever been subject to such a public attack by the head of a foreign government as that delivered by Netanyahu on 6 December, so it’s somewhat unprecedented to watch Albanese so wretchedly buckle at the knees and capitulate like he was a little boy pleading sorry for doing something wrong.

To briefly summarise Netanyahu’s success. It was interestingly a very rapid response to the destruction by fire of two of three buildings of the Adass Israel synagogue in Melbourne, a synagogue by the way whose congregants are decidedly apolitical, not actively Zionist in any way.

Not with standing this, Netanyahu brazenly excoriated “the federal government’s extreme anti-Israeli position” for “the reprehensible arson attack”, linking the synagogue fire to what he described as Australia’s “scandalous decision to support the UN resolution calling on Israel ‘to bring an end to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as rapidly as possible’, and preventing a former Israeli minister from entering the country”.

Netanyahu was immediately accepted by the pro-Likud Australian mainstream media as the man who should be in charge of Australian decisions, the vitriolic attack against the Albanese government reported as if Netanyahu was entitled to force his interpretation of events and allocation of responsibility as his essential unchallengeable prerogative, beyond question and to be endorsed as a matter of course.

Such is the level of grotesque obsequiousness now entrenched in the Australian political and media culture, that the direct intervention of Netanyahu in Australian affairs for his own political purposes is regarded not merely as acceptable but welcomed wholeheartedly, even by those he attacks, especially the increasingly out-of-depth, embarrassingly ignorant and easily manipulated prime minister.

Irrespective of the identity and motives of those who lit the fire, which are not known, the investigation has been quickly transformed into a “terrorism” incident by the police, which is exactly what Netanyahu sought to achieve, for it opened the door like magic to labelling any opposition to Israeli policies in relation to Palestinians anywhere, however criminal, as promoting “terrorism”.

It went like clockwork. We can expect to see bans against anti-genocide protests legislated post-haste, further clamps imposed on reliable information about Israeli atrocities, a strengthening of censorship and a McCarthyist-style “taskforce against antisemitism” designed to silence and destroy opposition to the annihilation of Palestinian society.

The extreme inability of Albanese to assert a strong voice as an Australian prime minister even against a man like Netanyahu, wanted for war crimes, is no longer surprising, but it is also not the right way to frame the terms of the relationship which now exists between the Australian political establishment – including the Dutton-led Coalition, not just Labor – and Netanyahu’s Likud party regime in Israel.

Consider that not once throughout the daily slaughter of Palestinians for more than a year have Albanese and Dutton spoken against it. Not once have they mentioned the wanton destruction of all places of worship in Gaza, whether Christian or Muslim, even when those places have been destroyed while (and because) civilian women and children in large numbers were seeking refuge in those places.

Their silence about massive atrocities contrasts sharply with their zeal to smear anti-genocide protesters as responsible for the synagogue fire, as abettors of “terrorism”. Even while Netanyahu was successfully imposing his will on Australia his own forces were killing Palestinians in Gaza in refugee camps, in tents and food-lines, as well as killing patients and staff in the Kamal Adwan hospital, not things that Albanese and Dutton regard as worthy of comment.

Netanyahu’s interference was notable for revealing his utter contempt for the Albanese government. With an Australian election not far away it could be said that he seeks to influence the outcome in favour of the more Trump-aligned, and more hard-right Dutton, who he probably sees as more amenable to the Likud party project now in full swing to eliminate any possibility of the creation of a Palestinian state.

As Israeli finance minister Smotrich said after the fall of the Assad government in Syria, it is an opportune time for the Netanyahu government to “create facts on the ground that prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and remove this possibility from the agenda once and for all”, something which a Dutton administration in Australia would fully support.

The abject failure of the Australian political class to take a principled stance in full support of international law and conventions, and its failure to comply with directives from the ICJ and its distinct lack of support for the ICC’s arrest warrant of Netanyahu, due to its obsequious servility to the US, has now come full circle.

Just as Washington is the boss that actually allows Australia a little room to pretend to be an “independent nation” within its “rules-based order”, now it has been fully exposed that Tel Aviv is also the boss. And it’s a boss which won’t tolerate its Australian political pawns from deviating from the Likud Party agenda to silence all opposition to the creation of Eretz Israel encompassing all of Palestine, south Lebanon, the Golan Heights and other parts of Syria (as a minimum), which means the utter and complete destruction of Palestinian society in Gaza by any means whatsoever.

The Labor-Coalition political class will most certainly comply. The Asia-Pacific, including everyone from Indonesia to China, won’t forget or forgive. That’s Australia’s future. That’s the legacy of the Albanese-Dutton political class, whatever they might do in Canberra during the rest of their political careers.

December 18, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Will Donald Trump kill US-UK-Aussie sub defense deal?

The landmark defense agreement between the U.S, U.K. and Australia could be in jeopardy with the maverick Republican back in the White House.

Politico, December 9, 2024, By Stefan Boscia and Caroline Hug

LONDON — There are few issues on which we do not know Donald Trump’s opinion.

After thousands of hours of interviews and speeches over the past eight years, the president-elect has enlightened us on what he thinks on almost any topic which enters his brain at any given moment.

But in the key area of defense, there are some gaps — and that’s leading global military chiefs to pore over the statements of the president’s allies and appointees to attempt to glean some clues, specifically over the $369 billion trilateral submarine program known as AUKUS he will inherit from Joe Biden.

Trump does not appear to have publicly commented on the AUKUS pact — named for its contingent parts Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States — which would see the U.S. share technology with its partners to allow both countries to build state-of-the-art nuclear submarines by the 2040s.

This uncertainty has left ministers and government officials in London and Canberra scrambling to discover how the Republican is likely to view the Biden-era deal when he returns to the White House in January.

Two defense industry figures told POLITICO there were serious concerns in the British government that Trump might seek to renegotiate the deal or alter the timelines.

This is because the pact likely requires the U.S. to temporarily downsize its own naval fleet as a part of the agreement — something Trump may interpret as an affront to his “America First” ideology.

Looking east

There is hope in Westminster that Trump would be in favor of a military project which is an obvious, if unspoken, challenge to China.

The deal would see American-designed nuclear submarines right on China’s doorstep and would form a part of Australia’s attempts to bolster its military might in the Indo-Pacific.

When former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in September 2021 that the deal was not “intended to be adversarial toward China,” President Xi Jinping simply did not believe him.

The Chinese leader said AUKUS would “undermine peace” and accused the Western nations of stoking a Cold War mentality.

Mary Kissel, a former senior adviser to Trump’s ex-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, said “you can assume Trump two will look a lot like Trump one” when it comes to building alliances with other Western countries against China.

“We revivified the Quad [Australia, India, Japan and the U.S.], got our allies to bolster NATO funding and worked to prevent China from dominating international institutions,” she said.

However, the deal also forces the U.S. government to sell Australia three to five active Virginia attack submarines, the best in the U.S. Navy’s fleet, by the early 2030s as a stopgap until the new AUKUS subs are built.

Is America first?

This coincides with a time where there is a widely recognized crunch on America’s industrial defense capacity.

In layman’s terms, the U.S. is currently struggling to build enough submarines or military equipment for its own needs.

One U.K. defense industry figure, granted anonymity to speak freely, said there was “a lot of queasiness” in the U.K. government and a “huge amount of queasiness in Australia” about whether Trump would allow this to happen.

“There is a world in which the Americans can’t scale up their domestic submarine capacity for their own needs and don’t have spare to meet Australia’s needs,” they said.

“If you started pulling on one thread of the deal, then the rest could easily fall away.”

One U.K. government official played down how much London and Canberra are worried about the future of the deal, however.

They said the U.K. government was confident Trump is positive about the deal and that the U.S. was “well equipped with the number of submarines for their fleet.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

‘Everyone’s a winner

This attempted U.K.-China reset will likely be high on the list of talking points when Healey meets with his Australian counterpart Richard Marles next month in London for an “AUKMIN” summit.

The Australian Labor government, after all, has conducted a similar reset with the Chinese government since coming to power in 2022 after relations hit a nadir during COVID.

Also at the top of the agenda will be how to sell the incoming president on the AUKUS deal in a positive way.

A second defense industry insider said the British and Australian governments should try to badge the deal in terms that make it look like Trump has personally won from the deal.

“Everybody is worried about America’s lack of industrial capacity and how it affects AUKUS,” they said.

“He is also instinctively against the idea of America being the world’s police and so he may not see the value in AUKUS at all, but they need to let him own it and make him think he’s won by doing it.”………………………………………………………………………..

Pillar II

While the core nuclear submarine deal will get most of the headlines in the coming months, progress on the lesser-known Pillar II of AUKUS also remains somewhat elusive.

Launched alongside the submarine pact, Pillar II was designed to codevelop a range of military technologies, such as quantum-enabled navigation, artificial intelligence-enhanced artillery, and electronic warfare capabilities. 

One Pillar II technology-sharing deal was struck on hypersonic missiles just last month, but expected progress on a range of other areas has not transpired.

Ambitions to admit Japan to the Pillar II partnership this year have also gone unfulfilled……………………………………………………………
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-aukus-kill-us-uk-aussie-sub-defense-deal/

December 11, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Trump, AUKUS and Australia’s Dim Servitors

November 22, 2024,  Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.com/trump-aukus-and-australias-dim-servitors/

There is something enormously satisfying about seeing those in the war racket worry that their assumptions on conflict have been upended. There they were, happily funding, planning and preparing to battle against threats imagined or otherwise, and there comes Donald Trump, malice and petulance combined, to pull the rug from under them again.

What is fascinating about the return of Trump to the White House is that critics think his next round of potentially rowdy occupancy is going to encourage, rather than discourage war. Conflict may be the inadvertent consequence of any number of unilateral policies Trump might pursue, but they do not tally with his anti-war platform. Whatever can be said about his adolescent demagogic tendencies, a love of war is curiously absent from the complement. A tendency to predictable unpredictability, however, is.

The whole assessment also utterly misunderstands the premise that the foolishly menacing trilateral alliance of AUKUS is, by its nature, a pact for the making of war. This agreement between Australia, the UK and the US can hardly be dignified as some peaceful, unprovocative enterprise fashioned to preserve security. To that end, President Joe Biden should shoulder a considerable amount of the blame for destabilising the region. But instead, we are getting some rather streaky commentary from the security wonks in Australia. Trump spells, in the pessimistic words of Nick Bisley from La Trobe University, “uncertainty about just what direction the US will go.” His policies might, for instance, “badly destabilise Asia” and imperil the AUKUS, specifically on the provision of nuclear–powered submarines to the Royal Australian Navy. On the last point, we can only hope.

The Australians, being willing and unquestioning satellites of US power, have tried to pretend that a change of the guard in the White House will not doom the pact. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong expressed a “great deal of confidence” that things would not change under the new administration, seeing as AUKUS enjoyed bipartisan support.

Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, is also of the view that AUKUS will survive into the Trump administration as it “strengthens all three countries’ ability to deter threats, and it grows the defence industrial base and creates jobs in all three countries.”

Another former ambassador to Washington, Arthur Sinodinos, who also occupies the role of AUKUS forum co-chair, has pitched the viability of the trilateral pact in such a way as to make it more appealing to Trump. Without any trace of humour, he suggests that tech oligarch Elon Musk oversee matters if needed. “If Musk can deliver AUKUS, we should put Musk in charge of AUKUS, and I’m not joking, if new thinking is needed to get this done,” advises the deluded Sinodinos.

The reasoning offered on this is, to put it mildly, peculiar. As co-head of the proposed Department of Government Efficiency, Musk, it is hoped, will apply “business principles” and “new thinking”. If the Pentagon can “reform supply chains, logistics, procurement rules, in a way that means there’s speed to market, we get minimum viable capability sooner, rather than later.”

These doltish assessments from Sinodinos are blatantly ignorant of the fact the defence industry is never efficient. Nor do they detract from the key premise of the arrangements. Certainly, if an anti-China focus is what you are focusing on – and AUKUS, centrally and evidently, is an anti-China agreement pure and simple – there would be little reason for Trump to tinker with its central tenets. For one, he is hankering for an even deeper trade war with Beijing. Why not also harry the Chinese with a provocative instrument, daft as it is, that entails militarising Australia and garrisoning it for any future conflict that might arise?

Whatever the case, AUKUS has always been contingent on the interests of one power. Congress has long signalled that US defence interests come first, including whether Australia should receive any Virginian class submarines to begin with.Trump would hardly disagree here. “Trump’s decisions at each phase of AUKUS cooperation will be shaped by zero-sum balance sheets of US interest,” suggests Alice Nason of the University of Sydney’s US Studies Centre rather tritely.

If Trump be so transactional, he has an excellent example of a country utterly willing to give everything to US security, thereby improving the deal from the side of Washington’s military-industrial complex. If there was one lingering, pathological complaint he had about Washington’s NATO allies, it was always that they were not doing enough to ease the burdens of US defence. They stalled on defence budgets; they quibbled on various targets on recruitment.

This can hardly be said of Canberra. Australia’s government has abandoned all pretence of resistance, measure or judgment, outrageously willing to underwrite the US imperium in any of its needs in countering China, raiding the treasury of taxpayer funds to the tune of a figure that will, eventually, exceed A$368 billion. Rudd openly acknowledges that Australian money is directly “investing into the US submarine industrial base to expand the capacity of their shipyards.” It would be silly to prevent this continuing windfall. It may well be that aspect that ends up convincing Trump that AUKUS is worth keeping. Why get rid of willing servitors of such dim tendency when they are so willing to please you with cash and compliments?

November 24, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Signing US/UK nuclear deal would shred Australia’s credibility: Turnbull

 https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/signing-nuclear-deal-would-shred-australia-s-credibility-turnbull-20241120-p5ks4h?fbclid=IwY2xjawGspttleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHb5X5cPHw6PdCE3rP-N54jdrutVvT-mWkcsS7deRQqwM8YD_oEYhNBKp3g_aem_pru2oS4ESkGlwsfKaEyzbA

Australia would kill its credibility internationally if it were to embrace domestic nuclear power to please key foreign allies, Malcolm Turnbull has warned, accusing the Coalition of gaslighting voters over power prices.

Amid a heated fight in parliament over a nuclear agreement signed by the United States and the United Kingdom at the COP29 talks in Azerbaijan this week, the former prime minister said Australia had distinct advantages on renewable energy and must make decisions in its national interest.

“The job of the Australian prime minister is to stand up for Australia and recognise Australia has distinct interests and distinct characteristics,” Mr Turnbull told The Australian Financial Review.

“Simply falling into line and being some sort of sycophantic copier of everybody else’s agendas doesn’t bring you in any respect.”

The former Liberal leader’s comments followed Britain and the US signing a deal for civil nuclear collaboration at the summit in Baku, part of plans to combine billions of dollars for research and development of new technologies.

An early version of the British government’s statement announcing the deal said Australia would be among a number of other countries signing on. But the UK government conceded on Tuesday that Australia had been included in the statement erroneously.

The original statement, viewed by the Financial Review, said countries signing on would include Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, South Africa, China, Switzerland and Australia.

But the updated agreement, published online by UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, has the names of participating countries removed and says only that Russia will remain excluded because of its invasion of Ukraine.

A spokeswoman for Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who is representing Australia at the talks, ruled out any participation, noting Australia had no nuclear energy industry and a federal ban on nuclear power is in place.

The government said Australia would remain as an observer to the deal, and support scientists in other nuclear research fields.

In question time on Wednesday, Acting Prime Minister Richard Marles accused the Coalition of exaggerating the significance of the statement.

“Every expert out there makes it completely clear that what we are awaiting is a 20-year duration before we could reasonably expect to have nuclear energy in this country, were we to go down that path,” he said.

“Even then, all we are talking about is a contribution of 4 per cent to the electricity grid.

“What we are pursuing is policies in the here and now, which are being pursued around the world: firmed renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of energy, which is being brought online around the world.”

Mr Dutton accused the government of a stubborn refusal to consider nuclear, as countries including South Korea, Turkey and Nigeria had joined another pledge to triple global nuclear power by 2050. He said nuclear could “reduce emissions and deliver energy at a reasonable cost”.

Long a critic of Mr Dutton’s leadership, Mr Turnbull said nuclear would not complement renewable energy.

“That is nonsense. That’s gaslighting, quite frankly,” he said. “What complements renewables is something that is flexible. We have 4 million households in Australia. Over a third of all Australian homes have got solar panels on. It’s the highest percentage of solar household solar penetration in the world.”

Tom McIlroy is the Financial Review’s Canberra Bureau Chief based in the press gallery at Parliament House. He was previously the AFR’s political correspondent. Connect with Tom on Twitter. Email Tom at thomas.mcilroy@afr.com

Paul Smith edits the technology coverage and has been a leading writer on the sector for 20 years. He covers big tech, business use of tech, the fast-growing Australian tech industry and start-ups, telecommunications and national innovation policy. Connect with Paul on Twitter. Email Paul at psmith@afr.com

November 22, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Albanese government gives firm ‘no’ to joining UK-US agreement to advance nuclear technology

The Conversation, November 19, 2024, Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The Albanese government has been put on the spot by a new agreement – which it has declined to join – signed by the United Kingdom and the United States to speed up the deployment of “cutting edge” nuclear technology.

The original version of the British government’s press release announcing the agreement said Australia, among a number of other countries, was expected to sign it.

But the reference was removed from the statement.

The UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and the US deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk signed the agreement in Baku during COP29…….

A spokesperson for Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who is at the COP meeting, said: “Australia is not signing this agreement as we do not have a nuclear energy industry.

“We recognise that some countries may choose to use nuclear energy, depending on national circumstances.

“Our international partners understand that Australia’s abundance of renewable energy resources makes nuclear power, including nuclear power through small modular reactors, an unviable option for inclusion in our energy mix for decarbonisation efforts.”

Australia would remain as observers to the agreement to continue to support its scientists in other nuclear research fields, the spokesperson said………

In parliament, acting Prime Minister Richard Marles said for Australia to pursue a path of nuclear energy would add $1200 to the bills of each household in this country.

………………………Update: UK government seeks to clear things up

Later The Guardian reportred: “The UK government has conceded it made a mistake in including Australia in a list of countries that has signed up to a US-UK civil nuclear deal”. https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-gives-firm-no-to-joining-uk-us-agreement-to-advance-nuclear-technology-244041

November 22, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Trumped: $9B to US and UK shipyards … but why not make Australia make again?

The Government is shy on spending money on a steel works which they would have complete control over, in terms of success, but are happy to recklessly throw money at US shipyards.

Senator David Shoebridge: “The AUKUS submarine deal is a non-refundable $368 billion gamble on the goodwill of some future US President, and the US just elected Donald Trump. You only need to put these two facts side by side to realize what a disaster the whole thing is.”

by Rex Patrick | Nov 16, 2024,  https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-9b-to-us-and-uk-shipyards-but-wait-theres-more/

Make Australia Make Again?

The future of Whyalla’s steelworks is of vital national importance and should matter to all of us. It is critical to Australia’s manufacturing, construction and national security and resilience. 

Being frank, the steelworks are in dire straits. They are 60 years old and have been on a rocky road for well over a decade. Its blast furnace has been out of action for over six months now, and whilst there is some optimism that they will get it back up and running it will not change the fact that the steelworks have been in operation for some six decades.

In 2016 when the previous owner, Arrium, went into administration with $4 billion in debts, UK billionaire Sanjeev Gupta’s GFG Alliance bought the steelworks making lots of big promises for a bright future, but it was not to be. At the turn of the decade Greensill Capital, GFG’s financier, collapsed and there’s been trouble ever since.

As it stands, the future of the steelworks, and Whyalla, is in the hands of a court entangled foreign billionaire with a gaping chasm between his promises and delivery. Those promises of a 21st century industrial transformation look very much like ever receding mirages.

The Federal Government needs to have the SA Government bring matters to a head by putting GFG’s South Australian operations into administration (by calling for unpaid and overdue mining royalties), taking an equity stake in the steelworks alongside someone like BlueScope Steel, and investing the necessary billions to build a new green steel industry for Australia. 

It would be a part of Make Australia Make Again.

Make America Great Again!

Prime Minister Albanese’s focus is on investment in US industry, not Australian industry.

In September 2023 the Federal Government announced it was pouring $4.7 billion ($US3B) into the US submarine industrial base to assist the largest economy in the world get their submarine production rate up to 2.3 subs per annum (from the current rate of 1.4 subs).

Some $1.5 billion will be paid to the US this financial year, and $1.8 billion next financial year. The remaining $1.4B will follow thereafter.

The Government is shy on spending money on a steel works which they would have complete control over, in terms of success, but are happy to recklessly throw money at US shipyards.

Go figure!

Make Great Britain Great Again Too!

That’s not the end of the story though.

The British are in on this deal of a lifetime too. They’ve managed to pull $4.4B (£2.4 billion) over the next decade from Australian consolidated revenue.

There is no clawback on payment to the United Kingdom either.

Everyone must be feeling pretty chuffed in Groton, Connecticut, and Barrow-in-Furness, England.

But Wait, There’s More!

Whilst the Federal Government has been open about the totals, albeit with a little ‘encouragement’ from Green’s Senator David Shoebridge at Senate Estimates, there’s a dark secret being withheld from the Parliament and the public.

There’s more ‘shared’ cost to come.

FOI returns from the US Department of the Navy reveal that behind the scenes the three AUKUS government participants have been negotiating trilateral cost sharing principles to guide future cost sharing negotiations.

Whilst the Federal Government has been open about the totals, albeit with a little ‘encouragement’ from Green’s Senator David Shoebridge at Senate Estimates, there’s a dark secret being withheld from the Parliament and the public.

There’s more ‘shared’ cost to come.

FOI returns from the US Department of the Navy reveal that behind the scenes the three AUKUS government participants have been negotiating trilateral cost sharing principles to guide future cost sharing negotiations.

Senator David Shoebridge backed this in telling MWM, “Why on earth do cost-sharing principles need to be secret? Of course they should be made public.”

He went on to comment, “Once again, we get more transparency on AUKUS out of the US than Australia.“

“The one-sided secrecy is because the US has a whole lot less to be embarrassed about than Australia. They are the ones getting all our money after all.”

Transactional Trump

Transactional Trump

The approved appropriations in the US for enhancing their submarine industrial base through upgrades as well as recruitment and training of thousands of additional workers amount to $US14.7B. Australia adds another $US3B to that. But the total the US administration is seeking for this work is in the order of $US28.4B.

Of course, there is some quid quo pro in all of this with the Australia Government having committed to spending $8 billion upgrading HMAS Stirling near Rockingham to support the operations of UK and US nuclear powered submarines from 2027, and possibly Australian nuclear submarines from 2035.

There is a danger under the incoming Trump administration that the President will seek a greater contribution from Australia – just as he has demanded that members of NATO pull their weight. And it will be a case of having no choice but to pay, no matter the cost sharing principles negotiated, because our Defence Department simply has no Plan B.

Senator Shoebridge commented, “The AUKUS submarine deal is a non-refundable $368 billion gamble on the goodwill of some future US President, and the US just elected Donald Trump. You only need to put these two facts side by side to realize what a disaster the whole thing is.”

Ships and Steel

Meanwhile, as Australian money is being tossed around the US and UK like it’s free, Albanese is sitting on his hand on the issue of green steel manufacturing in Whyalla.

Anthony Albanese says he wants to revitalise manufacturing and Make Australia Make Again. But in this topsy-turvey world, he’s instead working to deliver on Donald Trump’s slogan to Make America Great Again.

November 16, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Australia US Alliance: Is It Time to Rethink Our Loyalty?

November 10, 2024, by: The AIM Network, By Denis Hay

Australia US alliance has costs. Learn how this impacts Australians and how reallocated funds could benefit citizens.

Introduction

Australia and the United States have been strategic allies for over seventy years. This Australia US alliance, often celebrated with the phrase “old allies and true friends,” is rooted in shared history and mutual defence agreements like the ANZUS Treaty.

However, many Australians are now questioning if the costs of this alliance—both in terms of military and economic impact—outweigh the benefits. This article explores the consequences of Australia’s allegiance to the U.S., the human costs of U.S. interventions, and how Australia’s financial resources might better serve its citizens’ social well-being.

1. The Costly Legacy of the Australia-U.S. Alliance

– Historical Overview: Australia US alliance began formally with the ANZUS Treaty in 1951. Through wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Australia has stood beside the U.S., incurring both financial costs and human losses.

– Casualty Estimates: The human toll of this alliance is staggering. The wars led by the U.S. have resulted in estimated casualties of over 200,000 American troops, 60,000 Australian troops, and millions of civilians globally. For instance, the Iraq War alone caused around 500,000 civilian deaths and displaced over 3 million people.

– The Refugee Crisis: The consequence of U.S.-led wars has been a refugee crisis affecting countless lives. Countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan have seen millions of citizens fleeing war zones, often with little support from Western nations. Australia’s involvement in these wars contributes to a moral responsibility for the refugee influx, yet the country struggles to support displaced persons adequately.

2. The Social Cost of Alliance-Bound Military Spending

– Military Expenditures at the Cost of Social Welfare: Australia’s defence budget has increased significantly, with estimates of $48.7 billion given in 2023. Much of this spending is tied to keeping military readiness to support the U.S. in conflicts. These funds could otherwise enhance healthcare, education, and housing for Australians.

Military funding without public transparency.

– Impact on Public Services: Redirecting even a part of the defence budget could fund initiatives like universal healthcare, improved mental health services, and housing for the homeless. For example, just 10% of the current defence budget could support building 10,000 public housing units annually or fund a significant expansion of mental health services for underserved communities.

– Consequences of Refugee and Displacement Crises: Australia’s participation in U.S.-led interventions indirectly contributes to refugee crises that strain social services and humanitarian aid. Public sentiment on immigration has also been affected, often creating divisive views within Australian society about who should be supported and who is viewed as a “burden.”

3. A Call for a More Independent and Socially Conscious Foreign Policy

Australia’s alliance with the United States has provided strategic support over the decades, yet many argue that it is time for Australia to pursue a foreign policy that is more reflective of its own interests, values, and the well-being of its citizens.

Despite growing public interest in a more independent, socially conscious approach, Australian governments have hesitated to diverge significantly from U.S.-aligned policies. This reluctance may stem from multiple factors:

1. Fear of Political and Economic Repercussions:
– Australian policymakers often cite strategic security concerns as a reason for adhering closely to U.S. foreign policy, fearing that any independence might jeopardize Australia’s access to American intelligence, technology, and defence resources.

– Economically, a close alliance with the U.S. bolsters trade relations and provides access to powerful American markets. For some politicians, the potential economic fallout of alienating a significant trading and security partner outweighs the call for a more independent stance.

2. Lack of Political Courage and Vision:

– Some critics argue that the Australian government lacks the courage to challenge established norms or take bold steps toward an independent foreign policy. This lack of vision may stem from a longstanding alignment with U.S. interests that has become entrenched in Australia’s political and diplomatic culture.

– Breaking away from such a powerful ally requires a willingness to redefine national priorities, a path that requires courage, strategic foresight, and often a willingness to face criticism from powerful interest groups invested in maintaining the alliance.

3. Disconnect from Public Opinion:
– Surveys show that Australians increasingly favour a more balanced, socially conscious approach to foreign policy, especially as they see the domestic impact of military spending and U.S.-influenced policies. However, successive Australian governments have often ignored this sentiment, raising questions about whether the government genuinely prioritizes the public’s voice in its decisions…………………………..

4. Influence of External Powers and Lobbying:
– Australian foreign policy decisions are also influenced by lobbying from powerful industries, including defence contractors and political think tanks with ties to the U.S. These entities often push for policies that favour a strong alliance with the U.S., as it aligns with their economic and strategic interests.

– The cumulative effect of these influences can stymie efforts for a more independent policy path, effectively sidelining the public’s desire for a foreign policy that prioritizes social well-being and peaceful diplomacy.

In summary, Australia’s reluctance to adopt a more independent, socially conscious foreign policy is a combination of economic dependency, political caution, and a systemic disconnect from the will of the people.

For Australia to shift toward a foreign policy that truly serves its citizens, it would require not only a realignment of political priorities but also a renewed commitment to placing the public’s interests and values at the heart of its foreign relations.

1. The Historical Basis of Australia-U.S. Relations and Its Human Cost……………………………………………….

2. Australia’s Position on U.S. Leaders and Policies

– Unquestioned Loyalty: Australian leaders often affirm support for U.S. presidents and foreign policies without critical evaluation. This approach reflects a hesitancy to challenge U.S. decisions even when they conflict with Australia’s best interests.

– Impact on Australian Sovereignty: The uncritical acceptance of Australia US alliance policies can undermine Australia’s autonomy. For example, Australia’s alignment with U.S. policies on China has strained trade relationships, affecting vital economic sectors like agriculture, tourism, and education. The result is a compromise of national interests to support a symbolic “alliance.”

3. U.S. Military Interventions, Global Casualties, and the Refugee Crisis

– Scope of U.S.-Led Wars: The U.S. has been involved in conflicts worldwide, from the Middle East to Latin America and beyond, often resulting in widespread devastation. These conflicts have had lasting impacts, including millions of civilian deaths and widespread destruction.

– The Refugee Crisis and Australia’s Responsibility: Australia’s support for U.S. interventions creates a moral obligation to help refugees from war-torn countries. However, current refugee policies fall short, leaving many displaced people without adequate support or protection. Accepting more refugees from conflict zones would reflect Australia’s commitment to international human rights and fulfill part of its alliance-driven responsibility.

4. Australia’s Role as a Supporting Partner and Its Consequences

– Participation in Conflicts and Reputational Impact: Australia’s involvement in U.S. wars affects its international reputation, often casting the country as a secondary player rather than an independent, neutral voice in global politics. This alignment can make Australia appear complicit in conflicts driven by U.S. interests, compromising its image as a peaceful nation.

– Economic and Social Impact on Australians: By aligning with U.S. defence priorities, Australia diverts significant public money to defence spending, reducing resources for vital services. Citizens bear the costs through reduced access to affordable healthcare, housing shortages, and an underfunded education system. The pressure to conform to U.S. policies, especially in the Indo-Pacific, risks escalating regional tensions that could directly affect Australians.

5. The Opportunity Cost: How Reallocating Military Spending Could Benefit Australians……………………………………………………………..

Rethinking Australia’s Foreign Policy Approach for the Future

As global dynamics shift, Australia faces a critical juncture in deciding how to position itself on the world stage. A key element of this decision lies in its relationship with China, a rapidly growing economic and political power in the Indo-Pacific region.

While the Australia US alliance has historically shaped much of Australia’s foreign policy, the rise of China presents an opportunity for Australia to pursue a balanced, independent approach that prioritizes regional stability and mutual benefit.

1. China’s Role as Australia’s Major Trading Partner:……………………………………….

2. Promoting Regional Stability and Security:
– As a dominant power in the Indo-Pacific, China’s influence on regional security is substantial. Building a constructive, diplomatic relationship with China could position Australia as a mediator and stabilizer within the region, promoting dialogue over conflict.

– With rising tensions between the U.S. and China, Australia has a unique opportunity to champion a foreign policy that values peace, cooperation, and shared interests, rather than one that escalates division. This approach would reduce the risk of Australia being drawn into potential conflicts that do not serve its national interests.

3. Economic and Diplomatic Benefits of Non-Alignment:………………………….

4. Preparing for a Multipolar World:
– The global power landscape is shifting from U.S.-led dominance to a multipolar world where countries like China, India, and emerging economies play a larger role. For Australia, recognizing and adapting to this reality is crucial for staying relevant and resilient in the international arena…………………………….

Conclusion

Australia US alliance has served strategic purposes in the past, but as global dynamics shift, it’s vital to reassess whether the benefits of this alliance outweigh the costs. The loss of lives, the displacement of millions, and the diversion of public money from critical social services highlight the urgent need for a foreign policy that prioritizes Australia’s long-term interests and humanitarian values.

By adopting a more independent stance, Australia could enhance the social well-being of its citizens and contribute to a more peaceful, stable global community. https://theaimn.com/australia-us-alliance-is-it-time-to-rethink-our-loyalty/

November 10, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

What from Trump? | The West Report

November 8, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment