Macedon Ranges joins 36 local councils to call on Australian government to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Council raises voice on nuclear weapons Midland Express 01/09/2020 Macedon Ranges has joined the call for the federal government to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
The council last week joined 36 local councils to pass a motion in support of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Cities for Peace Appeal.
Spearheading the move, Cr Annette Death was adamant that local government needed to consider the consequences of nuclear warfare and voice concern.
…….. Macedon Ranges doctor and Medical Association for Prevention of War member, Jenny Grounds, briefed the council in August on the impact nuclear war would inflict on local communities………… McEwen MP Rob Mitchell signed the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons pledge in 2018, and last week welcomed the council’s move.
“Labor in government will sign and ratify the ban treaty and has recommitted to act with urgency and determination to rid the world of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons,” he said. https://midlandexpress.com.au/latest-news/2021/09/01/macedon-ranges-shire-council-adds-voice-to-anti-nuclear-campaign/
Little chance for genuine community consultation on Napandee nuclear waste dump decision
MY COMMENTS
What is difficult about these legislative provisions is to know what they mean and why are they there
They are probably meaningless for it is only an invitation with no result to a very restricted group of persons.
I should have thought that if you had a right or interest in the nominated land then you would have been included in the formal nomination
The only persons with a right or interest may be Aboriginal peoples under customary or ancestral ownership
What’s the betting no one in Pitt’s group will have a proper answer or even knows what it means as it is extremely poor drafting
NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT 2012 as amended in 2021
There appear to be only very limited rights for community consultation underthe National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 as recently amended despite statements to the contrary
The problem under subsections (5) and (6) of section 10 of this legislation – and replicated for a subsequent situation by subsections (2) and (3) of section 18 – is that there is reference to only persons with a right or interest in the land
Regrettably this is rather vague and on black letter law extremely narrow in its context – what is the right or interest in the land ? with whom and how is the consultation process started ?
These provisions do not encompass or provide for the general community consultations claimed by virtue of the ultimate amendments to the legislation
In fact the community consultation process under the new legislation is extensively restrictive and does no credit to the senators claiming to have achieved a basis for considerable and comprehensive consultations before a ministerial declaration is made under the legislation.
It is certainly not the strong community consultation lauded as having beenachieved by the recently agreed amendments
Added to the seemingly lack of knowledge or simply ignorance of the technicalities and dangerous nature of nuclear waste and its proper management becomes unintentionally a rather toxic combination playing right into the current responsible minister’s hands.
It is unrealistic to rely on the progressive development of the facility for community consultations as obviously the minister will want to rush throughThe the facility’s establishment without any impediments or delays
Section 10(5) of original 2012 legislation reads
Division 4—Procedural fairness in relation to Minister’s declarations and
approvals
10 Procedural fairness in relation to Minister’s declarations and approvals
Section 10
Australia’s participation in America’s wars. Was it worth it?
War Powers: immense profits for arms dealers, incalculable losses for Australians,michael West Media,
By Tasha May|August 17, 2021
“Freedom’s always worth it,” said Scott Morrison. “What a waste,” said the father who had lost his son in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam. Tasha May totes up the immense cost of futile wars and the immense profits.
As Australians watched the Taliban take Afghanistan’s capital Kabul Sunday, many were left wondering why Australia spent two decades there.
If we draw a line back to Australia’s participation in foreign wars since we followed America into Vietnam in 1962, Afghanistan presents yet another conflict with far greater losses than anything gained. It begs the question of why the pattern keeps repeating itself, with yet more soldier and civilian lives lost, billions more dollars spent, without any greater foresight exercised before entering these conflicts?
As Adam Bandt, leader of the Greens has said, “the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all wars Australia got involved in with the Prime Minister exercising the powers as though they were a monarch. They didn’t even consult cabinet. All those invasions were disasters”.
These were the words Bandt shared with Parliament as he introduced a bill for war powers reform, requiring parliament’s approval before Australians are sent into armed conflict abroad. Yet it’s a reform that’s been introduced before, first by the Democrats in 1985 and 1988 and 2003, and then by the Greens in 2003 and 2014 and which Coalition and Labor governments have opposed.
While this most serious of decisions has continued to rest with the Prime Minister and his executives, where have their decisions led Australia and what has been achieved?
Michael West Media has summarised below the toll the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have taken on human lives, both solider and civilian, as well as heavy economic costs. Looking at the balance sheet, it’s clear only the defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BAE and Northrup Grumman come out as winners.
The Losses
The economic cost to Australia are in the billions of dollars………. [ excellent graph]
But of course that price tag is nothing compared to the millions of lives that have been lost, lives of Australian defence personnel and civilians. [graph]
The number of defence personnel killed does not even include the 500 veteran suicides in Australia since the start of the Afghanistan war.
The Winners
In the last 20 years, arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin’s value on the New York Stock Exchange has risen from $US33 to today over $US360. They have proudly called their technology “Afghanistan’s Eyes in the Sky.”
In the same period arms manufacturer Northrup Grumman have risen from $US40 on the NYSE to today to today over $US365. The company has supported unmanned aircraft systems in Afghanistan. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/war-powers-immense-profits-for-arms-dealers-incalculable-losses-for-australians/—
Defence hides Australia’s weapon sales to Israel amid war crimes investigation into Palestine,
The Australian Centre for International Justice joined with the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council to write a submission to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the feasibility of a free trade agreement (FTA) with Israel. The organisations said Australia should not negotiate an FTA but should instead impose an arms embargo on Israel and suspend defence cooperation and defence industry partnerships.
This call was echoed in a petition signed by 22,000 Australians and tabled in federal parliament last week. The petition demanded targeted sanctions, an arms embargo, an end to defence cooperation and an end to all Australian support for Israeli settlements.
Defence hides Australia’s weapon sales to Israel amid war crimes investigation into Palestine, https://www.michaelwest.com.au/defence-hides-australias-weapon-sales-to-israel-amid-war-crimes-investigation-into-palestine/ By Michelle Fahy Revolving Doors|August 16, 2021
Defence has elevated “opportunities for Australian companies” over human rights and transparency in weapons sales, as an investigation by Michelle Fahy reveals 187 permits for military exports to Israel.
The Defence Department approved 187 permits for military exports to Israel in the six years to March 31, according to figures released under Freedom of Information (FOI).
The figures prompted questions about the ethics of Australia approving the export of weapons, military technology and other military goods to Israel, given its large number of documented violations of international human rights law in Palestine over decades.
In May, Israel conducted a devastating military campaign against the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The bombardment lasted 11 days with the UN reporting more than 220 Palestinians killed, including 63 children, and thousands injured. At least 12 Israelis also died following indiscriminate rocket attacks by armed Palestinian groups.
There are Defence reports showing Australia has sent military exports to Israel from the early years of this century, but ties between the two countries have deepened in the past few years. Australia and Israel have recently expanded cooperation on national security, defence and cyber security. The two countries signed a defence industry cooperation agreement in October 2017. Eighteen months later, a new Australian Trade and Defence Office opened in West Jerusalem tasked with facilitating trade, investment and defence industry partnerships. Trade Minister Dan Tehan is also canvassing a free trade agreement with Israel.
“It is horrifying to learn that Australia is approving so many export permits to Israel – one of the most heavily militarised states in the world, which has been subjecting the Palestinian people to a brutal military occupation for over five decades,” said Rawan Arraf, Executive Director, Australian Centre for International Justice. “It’s highly likely then, that Australian goods are being used in aiding and abetting war crimes and crimes against humanity. We have a right to know what is being exported and to demand that it ends.”
Continue readingThe new push for a nuclear Australia
The government hasn’t wasted time in attempting to leverage nuclear energy’s supposed green credentials to shift public sentiment and open the door to overturning the moratorium.
A bomb in the basement’: The new push for a nuclear Australia, https://redflag.org.au/article/bomb-basement-new-push-nuclear-australia—Liz Ross, 20 July 2021
The Australian ruling class has long enthused about a nuclear-fuelled future. And as most of the rest of the world powers reduce their commitment to nuclear energy—Germany plans to shut down all of its nuclear plants by 2022, and only 16 percent of countries today have operational nuclear reactors—the Australian government wants to power up.
Australian governments have been nuclear supporters since the technology first emerged in the 1940s. The country had scientists involved in bomb research in the US during World War Two. During and after the war, in the wake of the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it readily responded to UK and US requests for uranium, primarily for nuclear weaponry.
In his book Australia’s Bid for the Atomic Bomb, Wayne Reynolds spells out in detail the nuclear ambitions of wartime Labor Prime Minister John Curtin, his successor Ben Chifley and Liberal Party Prime Minister of the 1950s and ’60s Robert Menzies. He writes that many major projects of the postwar years, such as the Snowy Mountains scheme, were undertaken with a view to Australia becoming a nuclear state.
In 1952 the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was established to develop and train a cohort of researchers and workers to support a future nuclear industry. Defence and security planning also foresaw a central role for nuclear—the Australian air force, for example, purchased F-111 fighter jets precisely because of their nuclear weapons capability. The vision was not of an Australian state armed with nuclear weapons for defence, but one that could use such weapons to enhance its position as a regional imperialist power.
The main thing that has prevented the development of a nuclear industry in Australia is the anti-nuclear campaign and strong opposition from unions in the 1970s and ’80s. This campaign pushed state and federal governments to implement a moratorium on nuclear energy that has held ever since.
In recent years, however, there have been growing calls for the question to be revisited. Today’s nuclear proponents have a fresh angle for their propaganda campaign: a newly discovered concern about climate change. Though the Australian government refuses to commit to zero-carbon goals and pours billions into coal and gas, the need for improved sustainability is suddenly front and centre when it comes to arguments for nuclear power.
The government hasn’t wasted time in attempting to leverage nuclear energy’s supposed green credentials to shift public sentiment and open the door to overturning the moratorium. In August 2019 Energy Minister Angus Taylor set up a parliamentary inquiry—led by the Standing Committee on Energy and Environment—into “the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia”.
The result was a foregone conclusion because the Liberals hold four out of seven seats on the committee, although its two Labor members and the independent Zali Steggall wrote dissenting reports. “The Australian government”, the inquiry found, “should further consider the prospect of nuclear technology as part of its future energy mix”, and “consider lifting the current moratorium on nuclear energy … for new and emerging nuclear technologies”.
Recent reports suggest the government may be preparing to make good on these recommendations. “Morrison ministers lay groundwork for nuclear energy election plan”, read the headline of a 22 June article by Australian national editor Dennis Shanahan. According to Shanahan, “The option of taking a proposal for nuclear power in Australia to the next election has been considered in cabinet-level discussions as pressure grows within the Morrison government to prepare for a nuclear energy industry”.
“The top-level political and policy discussions including Liberal and Nationals ministers involved the argument that the moratorium on nuclear energy could be lifted in the decades ahead to cut greenhouse gas emissions and replace reliance on fossil fuels.”
Plans for a nuclear-fuelled Australia must be opposed. Nuclear is the “fool’s gold” solution to the climate crisis. As environmental scientist Mark Diesendorf says, “On top of the perennial challenges of global poverty and injustice, the two biggest threats facing human civilisation in the 21st century are climate change and nuclear war. It would be absurd to respond to one by increasing the risks of the other. Yet that is what nuclear power does”.
“The top-level political and policy discussions including Liberal and Nationals ministers involved the argument that the moratorium on nuclear energy could be lifted in the decades ahead to cut greenhouse gas emissions and replace reliance on fossil fuels.”
Plans for a nuclear-fuelled Australia must be opposed. Nuclear is the “fool’s gold” solution to the climate crisis. As environmental scientist Mark Diesendorf says, “On top of the perennial challenges of global poverty and injustice, the two biggest threats facing human civilisation in the 21st century are climate change and nuclear war. It would be absurd to respond to one by increasing the risks of the other. Yet that is what nuclear power does”.
The real motivation for the push for nuclear energy in Australia remains the same as it was in the 1950s and ’60s: the potential to develop nuclear weapons. The government, of course, isn’t prepared to say the quiet part out loud. Others, however, have no such qualms.
In an article published in the Financial Review in April, Patrick Porter—a professor of international security and strategy at the University of Birmingham—said what many in the Australian military and political establishment are no doubt thinking. In the context of growing instability in the region and the possibility of a war between the US and China, Australia should at least “create the option” to build its own nuclear arsenal, becoming “a latent nuclear state, with a so-called ‘bomb in the basement’: the ability to swiftly generate a deployable atomic arsenal if the world turns more threatening”.
A nuclear-armed Australia would be a disaster for workers here and around the world. It’s time to recapture the spirit of the anti-nuclear campaign of the 1970s and ’80s. And once again, if we’re to win we’ll need workers and unions at the forefront. Recent statements opposing the nuclear industry by the Electrical Trades Union and the Victorian branch of the CFMEU provide an example that other unions should follow.
How War Profiteers Manufacture Consent
How War Profiteers Manufacture Consent, Consortium News, August 13, 2021 Governments and war profiteers fund think tank reports that mass media then pass off as news, writes Caitlin Johnstone.By Caitlin Johnstone
“Think tank” is a good and accurate label, not because a great deal of thought happens in them, but because they’re dedicated to controlling what people think, and because they are artificial enclosures for slimy creatures. Their job, generally speaking, is to concoct and market reasons why it would be good and smart to do something evil and stupid.
And it works. Because of the efforts of warmonger-funded think tanks like the Lowy Institute, Center for a New American Security, and the profoundly odious Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), more and more Australian brains are being turned into soup by ridiculous propaganda narratives about China posing a meaningful threat to them.
CaitlinJohnstone.com One of the weirdest things about the mass media propaganda that manipulates the way people think, act and vote to maintain the status quo is that mainstream news outlets routinely cite the employees of think tanks that are sponsored by war profiteers and government powers as expert sources for their reports. And they just get away with it.
To pick one of nearly infinite possible examples, here in Australia the Murdoch press are currently citing a report generated through the funding of governments and weapons manufacturers to whip up public hysteria about the ridiculous fantasy that China might attack us.
The most egregious of these is a write-up from Sky News with the headline, “Lowy Institute report: China possesses ability to ‘strike Australia’ with long-range missiles, bombers.“
On social media Sky News is sharing this story with the even more incendiary caption “China now has the military arsenal to pose the greatest threat to the Australian mainland since World War II, experts warn.”
The “experts” in question are the Lowy Institute, named after its billionaire founder, which is funded by multiple branches of the Australian government including ASIO and the Department of Defence, by major financial institutions and by weapons manufacturers like Boeing.
The author of the Lowy Institute report is Thomas Shugart, himself an employee of the notorious Center for a New American Security, a Biden administration-aligned warmongering think tank that receives funding from top war profiteers Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, as well as the U.S. State Department and numerous other governments.
So, in summary, government agencies and war profiteers paid for a report which manufactures consent for their agendas among policymakers and the public, and mass media institutions passed this off as “news.”
And this is exactly what these think tanks exist to do: cook up narratives which benefit their immensely powerful and unfathomably psychopathic sponsors, and insert those narratives at key points of influence.
“Think tank” is a good and accurate label, not because a great deal of thought happens in them, but because they’re dedicated to controlling what people think, and because they are artificial enclosures for slimy creatures. Their job, generally speaking, is to concoct and market reasons why it would be good and smart to do something evil and stupid.
And it works. Because of the efforts of warmonger-funded think tanks like the Lowy Institute, Center for a New American Security, and the profoundly odious Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), more and more Australian brains are being turned into soup by ridiculous propaganda narratives about China posing a meaningful threat to them.
As The Conversation highlighted last month, a poll conducted by that same Lowy Institute claims that “only 16% of surveyed Australians [express] trust in China compared with 52% just three years ago,” that a “similar number of Australians think China will launch an armed attack on Australia (42%) as on Taiwan (49%),” and that “more Australians (13%) than Taiwanese (4%) think a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is likely sometime soon.”
Zombie Outbreak
You can understand why the Lowy Institute would want to show off numbers like that to potential sponsors, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they are entirely accurate; I’ve started conversations with complete strangers here in Victoria recently and seen them start babbling about how awful China is within a few minutes, completely out of the blue. It’s like watching a zombie outbreak in real time.
And this is of course entirely by design. Because of its useful geostrategic location in relation to China, Australia has been turned into a functional U.S. military/intelligence asset so crucial that multiple coups have been instituted here to ensure we remain aligned with the Pentagon against Beijing. You can’t have the locals meddling with the gears of your war machine with pesky little nuisances like the democratic process, so you’ve got to keep them aggressively propagandized.
This is why our consciousness is continually pummeled with think tank-manufactured narratives about China. An attention-grabbing headline about the big scary Chinese boogeyman will almost always be authored by a sleazy think tank denizen or be based on the work of one.
A few weeks ago 60 Minutes Australia ran an unbelievably hysterical segment branding New Zealand “New Xi-Land” because its government didn’t perfectly align with Washington on one particular aspect of its Cold War agenda, and it featured an interview with an Australian Strategic Policy Institute spinmeister as well as the actual ASPI office.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute is cited by mass media outlets around the world and is funded by, you guessed it, governments and war profiteers. According to APAC News’ Marcus Reubenstein, ASPI is funded by all the usual weapons manufacturers, by the U.S. State Department and other governments.
“ASPI has received funding from the governments of Britain, Japan and Taiwan as well as NATO,” Reubenstein writes. “Among its corporate supporters are global weapons makers Thales, BAE Systems, Raytheon, SAAB, Northrop Grumman, MDBA Missile Systems and Naval Group. Yet their contribution of over $330,000 last year is dwarfed by that of a handful of government departments and agencies.”
Media citation of warmonger-funded think tanks is common throughout the Western world. Government-sponsored imperialist spin factories like Bellingcat are routinely cited by the mainstream media, and those citations are leant credibility by the fawning puff pieces which those media institutions regularly churn out about the propaganda firm.
The fact that disguising statements by propagandists who are sponsored by governments and war profiteers is journalistic malpractice should be obvious to everyone in the world, and if media and education systems were doing their jobs instead of indoctrinating society into accepting the status quo, it would be. But propaganda only works if you don’t realize you’re being propagandized, and keeping people from realizing this is itself a part of the propaganda…
Make a fortune killing people and selling their bodies and you’d be remembered as the century’s worst monster. Make the same fortune selling the weapons used to kill the same number of people in wars you propagandized into existence and you’re a respected job creator.
Absolutely appalling. https://consortiumnews.com/2021/08/13/how-war-profiteers-manufacture-consent/
People of the Pacific condemn Talisman Sabre Military Exercises
9 Aug 21, Groups from the Pacific region condemn the recent military exercises in Australia as damaging to the environment, health and peace in the region.
After two weeks of high intensity combined forces training, the U.S. forward-deployed America Expeditionary Strike Group is moving again as Australia’s largest warfighting exercise, joint exercise Talisman Sabre 2021 (TS21), winds down.
On July 24, at the height of Talisman Sabre, representatives from Pacific nations including Australia, New Zealand, Guahan (Guam), Hawaii (USA), Japan, Rep of Korea, West Papua and the Philippines called for an end to Talisman Sabre – and all exercises in the Pacific.
Their statements of concern and commitment to collaboration for peace in the Pacific can be heard here.
TS21 saw 17,000 U.S., Australian and allied troops engaging in combined land, sea and air manoeuvres inland and along the Queensland coast.
This year’s exercise marked many firsts, among them:
● The first year the ADF did not engage in Public Environment Report
● South Korea participating in Talisman Sabre for the first time, sending a destroyer. Japan, U.K., Canada, New Zealand also participated, with France, Germany, India and Indonesia present as observers.
● U.S. forward deployed Expeditionary Strike Group. America, part of the 7th Fleet, joining the exercise.
● The first use of U.S. Patriot missiles in Talisman Sabre – reportedly the first use in the Southern Hemisphere.
● First involvement of U.S.F-35B fighter jets and to integrate non-US aircraft into HIMARS system.
● First to use regional township of Hughenden and to activate RAAF Base RAAF Base Scherger in Queensland’s far north, Cape York near Weipa.
Robin Taubenfeld spokesperson for Friends of the Earth Australia and Pacific Peace Network member group said: “The Pacific Peace Network condemns Talisman Sabre. At this time of global health and climate crisis, there is no justification for ongoing investment in war or increased military activity. We call for the Pacific to be honoured for its name; rather than as a stage for sabre rattling, it should be a region of peace. ”
“2021 was a year for many notable firsts for Talisman Sabre. Though smaller in size, the exercise targeted a greater number of defence and non-defence areas and used more lethal firepower than previous exercises. If this is the down-sized version of Talisman Sabre, we are alarmed at what post-pandemic iterations of the exercise might bring.”
“2021 was the first year the ADF did not engage in the Public Environment Report (PER) process around the exercise, despite its spread into regional locations and numerous non-defence areas.”
The ramping up of firepower, the spreading of activity to Queensland’s northernmost region and the increased number of participating nations sends a clear message of U.S. allied strength to China.”
“With tensions mounting in the South China Sea, allied governments may spruik the benefits of interoperability with the U.S.”
“Many of their constituents and people around the Pacific, however, have grave concerns about the increasing presence of U.S. troops and the social and environmental cost of ongoing militarism in the region and want to see these exercises cancelled.”
For more information or interviews:
Robin Taubenfeld 0411118737 robin.taubenfeld@foe.org.au
Annette Brownlie 0431597256 Ipan.australia@gmail.com
On Hiroshima Day, the City of Newcastle reaffirms its commitment as a Nuclear Free Zone, supporting United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Hiroshima Day flag-raising reaffirms City’s commitment to Nuclear Free Zone, Mirage News, 8 Aug 21, City of Newcastle reaffirmed its long-held commitment to declaring the city a Nuclear Free Zone, raising the Hunter Peace Group and International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) flags in Civic Park in recognition of Hiroshima Day.
Observed each year on 6 August, 2021 marks the 76th anniversary of the devastating bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by US forces.
In support of ongoing efforts to raise awareness about the campaign toabolish nuclear weapons, the flags were flown alongside the Australian and Aboriginal flags to mark the historic anniversary.
It followed a Lord Mayoral Minute supported by City of Newcastle councillors in June, acknowledging the City’s long-standing history with local, national and international peace movements, dating back to 29 June 1982 when the City first declared Newcastle a Nuclear Free Zone under Lord Mayor Joy Cummings AM, and resolving to establish with Hunter Peace Group a dedicated Newcastle Peace Park at Tighes Hill Reserve, adjacent to Islington Park.
Peace parks exist in many cities across the country, including Adelaide, Hobart and Canberra, and more locally at Cessnock and Tanilba Bay.
Lord Mayor Nuatali Nelmes said the City of Newcastle was proud to support these efforts as a progressive city.
“The City of Newcastle has a long and proud history of activism against nuclear weapons, particularly as a city with a large working port,” Cr Nelmes said.
“Former Newcastle Lord Mayor Joy Cummings was a passionate advocate for the peace movement, inspiring strong community support and joining with Hunter Peace Group, trade unionists and activists to hold demonstrations on the importance of nuclear disarmament and protecting Newcastle as a Nuclear Free City and port.
I am honoured to uphold that mission today on behalf of the City, in which there is no place for nuclear weapons in modern society.”
Hunter Peace Group Secretary Lynda Forbes said the group was pleased to continue this important work with the City of Newcastle.
While ever there is nuclear testing being conducted across the globe, Hunter Peace Group believes it is important to continue to commemorate the anniversaries of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to draw public attention to the threat that nuclear weapons pose to communities throughout the world,” Ms Forbes said.
“Despite City of Newcastle supporting the United Nations’ Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2019, and advocating to the Federal Government in 2020, Australia is yet to sign and ratify the treaty, which came into force in January this year.
………..https://www.miragenews.com/hiroshima-day-flag-raising-reaffirms-citys-609135/
On the brink of a new nuclear arms race.
Ed. note. An intelligent article (for THE AUSTRALIAN, that is) with insights into the current nuclear arms race, and into why Australia should not aim to get nuclear weapons.
Still, the rest of the article goes on to praise the American war machine, and to advise Australians to stick with it. That is the sucking up to America thinking that we have come to know and love, from Murdoch’s THE AUSTRALIAN
Worrying signs we’re on the brink of a new nuclear arms race, THE AUSTRALIAN By ALAN DUPONT From Inquire rAugust 7, 2021
There are worrying signs the world is on the brink of a new nuclear arms race. A regional conflict between nuclear-armed states could escalate quickly into a destructive global crisis with catastrophic consequences.
Fear that a conflict between the US and China over Taiwan could go nuclear is shaping the government’s risk assessments, strengthening the case to upgrade our missile defences for critical defence installations and operationally deployed units of the Australian Defence Force………..
Although China’s arsenal is still dwarfed by those of the US and Russia, its nuclear breakout could double the number of its nuclear warheads. The expansion is part of a disturbing global trend that reverses the late Cold War momentum towards nuclear arms reductions. There are continuing tensions over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Tehran is inching its way towards becoming the 10th nuclear weapons state despite the Biden administration’s efforts to resurrect a nuclear deal abandoned by Donald Trump. And Russian military planners seem to believe it is possible to win a limited nuclear war in what has been dubbed an “escalate to de-escalate strategy”……….
The Cold War was fought in the shadow of nuclear Armageddon.
The 1962 Cuban missile crisis came perilously close to initiating an existential war that would have devastated the planet and killed more than 100 million Americans and Russians.
These estimates don’t include deaths from the long-term effects of radiation and the nuclear winter that would follow, blanketing the sun and causing massive crop losses and damage to the Earth’s ecosystem. A 1982 study calculated that if Europe, China and Japan were included, there would be 400 million to 500 million fatalities.
After the close call in Cuba, a new doctrine emerged. Mutual assured destruction recognised that since the US and Soviet Union each had a comparable number of warheads neither could win a nuclear war. Any attempt to strike pre-emptively would be tantamount to suicide since the country attacked would have enough missiles left to annihilate the other.
MAD was satirised brilliantly by Stanley Kubrick in the memorable black comedy starring Peter Sellers as the US President’s eccentrically unhinged scientific adviser, Dr Strangelove………
The main concern after the Cold War break-up of the Soviet Union was that “loose nukes” might fall into the hands of terrorists untroubled by moral constraints and undeterred by the superior military power of nation-states. While still a problem, a bigger concern is the emerging second cold war between the US and its authoritarian challengers, Russia and China, which is eroding the trust essential for verifiable arms control agreements.
Most forms of bilateral arms control between the US and Russia have collapsed since the arms control agreements signed by Reagan and Gorbachev in the late 1980s. Beijing has resisted pressure to join new arms control talks, fearful of being locked into the position of a second-rate nuclear power since it has only a fraction of the nuclear weapons possessed by the US and Russia.
Other important drivers of the new nuclear arms race are Beijing’s determination to become a fully fledged nuclear power, Washington’s decision to modernise its nuclear forces and the development of smaller, stealthier and low-yield nuclear weapons.
The outcome of this race is less predictable and even more dangerous than before because there are more players, fewer constraints and greater potential for the proliferation of destabilising nuclear weapons technologies. Today’s nukes can be carried by an expanding list of delivery systems – from suitcases and artillery guns to cruise missiles and super-fast hypersonic missiles…….
Technological advances – notably the miniaturisation of nuclear warheads and advances in guidance systems, sensors and satellites – have increased the speed, accuracy and manoeuvrability of the latest missile classes.
They also have reduced warning times dramatically, encouraging hair-trigger “launch on warning” responses that make nuclear war more probable……………….
Trump ruffled feathers in Beijing and Moscow by proposing to spend $US1 trillion across the next 30 years upgrading all three elements of America’s nuclear triad (land, air and sea). His 2018 Nuclear Force Posture Review declared new warheads were necessary to maintain the viability of the US nuclear deterrent and to provide more flexibility for a range of plausible contingencies. These new warheads – low-yield variants of the missiles on its nuclear submarines and sea-launched cruise missiles – were heavily criticised as destabilising by Moscow and Beijing, as well as non-government organisations advocating for reductions in nuclear arms.
Despite branding Trump’s warhead initiative as a “bad idea” on the campaign trail and assuring NGOs the current arsenal “is sufficient”, Joe Biden has left intact Trump’s key initiatives and asked congress for a similar level of funding. This has drawn the ire of critics including progressives in his own party, who accuse Biden of expanding nearly all Trump’s programs and have vowed to fight his budget request.
Beijing’s historic nuclear shift must be seen against the background of a fragmenting international order. Confronted with the mega-challenges of the mutating Covid-19 pandemic and a warming planet, the last thing the world needs is a new nuclear arms race and a China determined to close a perceived [ perceived? it’s real] nuclear gap with the US. But that’s where we are headed……………
…….under pressure to develop our own nuclear weapons. But going down this path would be folly. Apart from stirring domestic controversy, a decision to develop nuclear weapons would be prohibitively expensive, alarm our neighbours and fly in the face of our commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. A handful of Australian nukes could never replace the protection afforded by the US nuclear guarantee………… https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/how-were-relearning-to-worry-about-the-bomb/news-story/422df1145c1965471987fb043bdf7769
Victoria’s Bayside Council call on Australian government to support the UN nuclear weapons ban treaty
Bayside Council supports nuclear prohibition,, https://www.miragenews.com/bayside-council-supports-nuclear-prohibition-601949/ 26 July 21, Bayside City Council has become the 11th Council in Victoria to join the call for the Australian Government to sign and ratify the United Nations (UN) Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
In a unanimous decision at the July 2021 Council Meeting, Bayside Councillors declared their support and are now calling on the Australian Government to sign the Treaty without delay.
Nuclear weapons pose a threat to communities throughout the world, and we believe all people, including our residents, have the right to live in a world free from this threat,” Mayor Cr Laurence Evans said.
“Any use of nuclear weapons, whether deliberate or accidental, would have catastrophic, far-reaching and long lasting consequences for people and the environment.”
Australia has not signed or ratified the Treaty, despite committing to pursue nuclear disarmament under the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
“It’s time for Australia to sign and get on the right side of history,” Cr Evans said.
Part of the Council resolution includes writing to the Foreign Affairs Minister, and the local Federal member of parliament, advising of Council’s support to the Treaty.
t was also resolved that Council will take steps to ensure that funds administered by Bayside City Council are not invested in companies that produce nuclear weapons.
Bayside City Council is the 11th Victoria Council to join the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) Cities Appeal- a global call from cities and towns in support of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
(ICAN) is a coalition of non-governmental organisations in 100 countries promoting the implementation of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Founded in Melbourne in 2007, ICAN was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize
US and Allies’ military machine – out of Afghanistan (where it’s needed) and into the Pacific – against its new enemy – The Great Barrier Reef
War games on despite pandemic, threat to Great Barrier Reef https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/war-games-despite-pandemic-threat-great-barrier-reef, Kerry SmithJuly 16, 2021 Lurking off the coast of China’s eastern seaboard now are three United States aircraft carrier battle groups (each with about 30 support vessels).
They will be joined by a British aircraft carrier group and Australian and Canadian warships as part of biennial military exercises, which start on July 18 and last until the end of the month.
Talisman Sabre 2021 (TS21) will involve a US expeditionary strike group from the USS America, the amphibious assault ship based at Sasebo Naval Base in Japan, and 17,000 Australian, US and foreign troops in combined land, sea and air war exercises.
According to Stars and Stripes, for the first time, there will be live-fire training: the US Army will fire a Patriot missile defense system from Shoalwater Bay in Queensland at a pair of drone targets on July 16.
This is within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and other environmentally and culturally significant areas.
The war games will also take place in Darwin in the Northern Territory and Evans Head, New South Wales.
All are thousands of kilometres away from their home base, and provocatively close to the new declared enemy — China.
Forces from Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea will take part and Australia-based personnel from India, Indonesia, France and Germany will observe.
Meanwhile, the ABC’s “defence correspondent” hyperventilated on July 14 that a solitary Chinese military ship, outside Australian territorial waters, poses a threat to national security.
The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) is concerned about both the war games and its impact on environmentally and culturally significant sites.
“TS21 will involve amphibious assaults, movement of heavy vehicles, use of live ammunition as well as the use of U.S. nuclear-powered and nuclear-weapon capable vessels,” IPAN spokesperson Annette Brownlie said.
“These activities are incompatible with the protection of the environment and, in particular, the Great Barrier Reef.
“During Talisman Sabre 2013, the US jettisoned four unarmed bombs on the Great Barrier Reef when they had difficulty dropping them on their intended target, Townshend Island,” Brownlie said.
The objective of Talisman Sabre is to further integrate the Australian military with the US — now ranked among the world’s worst polluters.
IPAN said the ADF did not engage in a Public Environment Report process for TS21 and has yet to release an environmental assessment for the areas in which TS21 will take place.
However, the Department of Defence did produce an environmental awareness video for visiting troops that promotes the military use of the Great Barrier Reef. The video reminds troops to consider the reef and not to litter.
“Talisman Sabre is a threat to the reef and to the environment. Putting out a video is a completely inadequate response,” Brownlie said.
This comes as federal environment minister Sussan Ley is lobbying to keep the Great Barrier Reef off the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Committee’s “in danger” list.
Despite a global pandemic, about 1800 foreign military personnel have arrived in Darwin to participate.
Australia’s weapons lobby drumming up fear of nuclear attack by China, against all logic
Those in Australia beating the “drums of war” point to Taiwan as the flashpoint for the next major global conflict. To what end does a first strike on Australia achieve China’s goals in relation to Taiwan?
War with China: zero logic yet the weapons lobby has 42% of Australians believing it Michael West Media, by Marcus Reubenstein | Jul 16, 2021 Incredibly, a survey finds 42% of Australians believe China will attack Australia, this despite exports to China surging 36% over in the last six months, and despite there being no logical rationale for war with China, or an attack by China. Marcus Reubenstein analyses the ludicrous position of Australia’s China hawks and the mainstream media pushing their agendas.
“Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war.”
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Act 3, Scene 1
China is a rapidly growing economic power, seeking to exert considerable influence in its region and beyond. And like every great power it is a bully which tries to entice, cajole or intimidate other nations into adopting its view of the world.
How is this such a difficult concept for Australians to embrace?
Since Federation we’ve tied our fortunes to two great powers, the declining British Empire then the rising, and rising even more, US global hegemony……….
Who is threatening whom?
A new report from the Australia Institute begins with the following words:
“In April this year, Australians were warned by no less an expert than the former Minister for Defence, Christopher Pyne, that they may need to engage in a ‘kinetic’ war with China in the next five to ten years.”
Perhaps, in the realm of China policy, ‘no lesser expert’ better describes his authority on the subject.
The same Pyne, famously discussed his role as a defence industry consultant with EY whilst he was a sitting member of the Federal Cabinet, a matter which prompted a Senate investigation.
He still works for EY, sits on the board of defence contractor XTEC, is Chair of the Advisory Board of another defence contractor NIOA, and in June last year Arawa Capital announced him as Chair of its Advisory Board and Investment Committee for a fund investing in weapons systems.
In heralding that appointment Arawa specifically referred to the, still unsubstantiated, Scott Morrison announcement of a malicious cyber attack by an unnamed “state-based” actor. Arawa trumpeted Pyne has “unrivalled knowledge of the cyber, intelligence and national security landscape.”
With Pyne on board, Arawa said it “anticipates closing out the initial $50mil capital raising swiftly.” It transpired there was a swift “closing out”, ASIC records show six months later Arawa Capital Pty Ltd was deregistered as a company.
According to research from Michael West Media’s “Revolving Doors” series, Pyne’s numerous board memberships and consultancies put him in direct, or indirect, contact with more than a dozen weapons makers and contractors.
Clearly, talking up a war with China is of no financial benefit to these companies.
Why would China attack Australia?
Should Australia go to war with China in defence of Taiwan? is the title of the Australia Institute report and 42% of its six hundred respondents think China is poised to attack Australia.
How and why?
Those in Australia beating the “drums of war” point to Taiwan as the flashpoint for the next major global conflict. To what end does a first strike on Australia achieve China’s goals in relation to Taiwan?
If Australia has something China wants, it is many times cheaper and easier to buy it than to send your army half way around the world to steal it.
China’s current leadership is presiding over a great deal more diplomatic disasters than triumphs but, if nothing else, the Chinese are pragmatic.
Australia’s rabid China hawks will no doubt dismiss such assessments, saying China doesn’t need to deploy military assets it would simply launch a nuclear strike on a target—which they ignore is home to 1.2 million ethnically Chinese people.
My counter argument?
The policy wonks in Washington, who made you their lapdogs, didn’t throw you a bone because they thought you were smart, they threw you the bone because they knew you were dumb enough to catch it!
This survey’s inconvenient truth
The same number of respondents were polled in Taiwan and only a few more (49 percent) expressed fears of an attack from the mainland. Bear in mind the Taiwanese are of the same Han ethnicity as the majority of Chinese, who moved over from the mainland in the 1680s; the PRC has never given up its claim to what was once part of China; and the island sits just 161 kilometres off the coast of China.
That four in ten Australians should think Beijing—a mere 9,000 kilometres from Canberra—is gearing up for invasion is staggering.
Report author Allan Behm noted, “Given Australia and Taiwan’s historical and geographical differences, it is astounding that Australians could be more fearful than Taiwan in anticipating an attack from China.”
This anticipation is undoubtedly fuelled by Australia’s China hawks, all with close ties to US-funded research groups and patronage from US weapons makers.
However, they should not be too smug in thinking their “drums of war” are resonating.
73 percent of Australians regard the United States as an aggressive nation, while only six in ten Australians believe the US would come to our aid in the event of war with China.
Given Australia has followed the United States into 100 percent of its wars, that Australians would only rate America a 60 percent chance of leaping to our defence is a sobering statistic.
Totally at odds with Prime Minister Morrison and Foreign Minister Maris Payne’s unquestioned support of the US antagonism towards China, 75 percent of Australians think it is in our interests that China and the US “work together towards world peace”. Of concern to the spin merchants inside the government an even higher number of coalition supporters, 79 percent, think peace with China is a good idea.
Despite the US, and Morrison’s, rhetoric of Taiwan being a like-minded democracy of shared values, 76 percent of Taiwanese rate America as an aggressor. Should the US come to Taiwan’s aid in a war with China, only 18 percent of Taiwanese people think they would win.
How reliable are drummers?
By any sensible strategic logic, the dogs of war should remain in their box. Let the drums of war continue to drum up business for the China threat industry and their death-merchant patrons. …..
Military exercises put the Great Barrier Reef in danger
 | |||
15 July 2021, The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network is greatly concerned about the impact of current warfare exercises on environmentally and culturally significant sites, such as the Great Barrier Reef.
Talisman Sabre 2021 (TS21) is currently taking place in Australia and will see 17,000 Australian, U.S. and foreign troops engaging in combined land, sea and air manoeuvres.
Exercises as part of TS21 will take place along the Queensland and New South Wales coastline, within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as well as other environmentally and culturally significant areas.
TS21 will involve amphibious assaults, movement of heavy vehicles, use of live ammunition as well as the use of U.S. nuclear-powered and nuclear-weapon capable vessels. These activities are incompatible with the protection of the environment and in particular the Great Barrier Reef.
This year, the ADF did not engage in a Public Environment Report process for TS21 and has not publicly released an environmental assessment for the areas in which TS21 will take place.
However, the Department of Defence did produce an environmental awareness video for visiting troops that promotes the military use of the Great Barrier Reef. The video reminds troops to consider the reef and not to litter.
Annette Brownlie, Chairperson of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network: “Talisman Sabre is a threat to the reef and to the environment. Just putting out a video is a completely inadequate response to the active environmental management required to protect the vulnerable reef. Particularly as environment minister, Sussan Ley, is on an international lobbying campaign to keep the Great Barrier Reef off the UNESCO World Heritage Committee ‘in danger’ list.”
“The objective of Talisman Sabre is to integrate the Australian military further into the U.S. military, which is ranked among the world’s worst polluters and is the world’s greatest organisational consumer of oil.”
“Let us not forget that during Talisman Sabre in 2013, the U.S. jettisoned four unarmed bombs on the Great Barrier Reef when they had difficulty dropping them on their intended target, Townshend Island.”
Annette Brownlie, Chairperson of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network: “Talisman Sabre is a threat to the reef and to the environment. Just putting out a video is a completely inadequate response to the active environmental management required to protect the vulnerable reef. Particularly as environment minister, Sussan Ley, is on an international lobbying campaign to keep the Great Barrier Reef off the UNESCO World Heritage Committee ‘in danger’ list.”
“The objective of Talisman Sabre is to integrate the Australian military further into the U.S. military, which is ranked among the world’s worst polluters and is the world’s greatest organisational consumer of oil.”
“Let us not forget that during Talisman Sabre in 2013, the U.S. jettisoned four unarmed bombs on the Great Barrier Reef when they had difficulty dropping them on their intended target, Townshend Island.” IPAN Media Liaison: 0428 973 324 or ipan.australia@gmail.com
Maralinga nuclear bomb tests – British and Australian governments’ callous cruelty to First Nations people.
Australia’s Chernobyl: The British carried out nuclear tests on Indigenous land. It will never heal. https://www.mamamia.com.au/maralinga-nuclear-testing/ CHELSEA MCLAUGHLIN, JULY 5, 2021 For tens of thousands of years, the Aṉangu people lived on the warm, red earth of their country.
The land provided them with food, water and shelter as they travelled around an area we now know as outback Far North South Australia.
But after colonisation, they were moved off their land: forcibly removed, sent into missions across the region and displaced by train lines linking Australia’s east and west that impacted their water supply.
Much of the information around the tests was highly classified, and some information remains so.
For tens of thousands of years, the Aṉangu people lived on the warm, red earth of their country.
The land provided them with food, water and shelter as they travelled around an area we now know as outback Far North South Australia.
But after colonisation, they were moved off their land: forcibly removed, sent into missions across the region and displaced by train lines linking Australia’s east and west that impacted their water supply.
Much of the information around the tests was highly classified, and some information remains so.
Thirty per cent of the British and Australian servicemen who were exposed during these tests died of cancer, though a Royal Commission in 1984 was not able to reach a conclusion linking their health issues directly to the blasts.
Similarly, many locals died prematurely, went blind and suffered from illness that may have been linked to radiation.
British nuclear scientists, wanting to determine the long-term effects of the tests on Australia and its citizens, ordered the testing of dead Australian infants and children for radiation contamination.
Between 1957 and 1978 in hospitals around Australia, bones were secretly removed from 21,830 bodies. They were reduced to ash and sent away to be analysed for the presence of Strontium 90, a radioactive isotope produced by nuclear fission.
Unsurprisingly, none of the First Nations people of the region were told about the tests and many of the bones were taken without permission.
Associate professor Liz Tynan, the author of Atomic Thunder: The Maralinga Story, told Mamamia‘s The Quicky First Nations people were still in the area during the periods of testing, and this led to disastrous consequences.
Tynan said the Milpuddie family – Charlie, Edie, two kids and their dogs – were found by British service personnel in 1957, camped on the crater left by the bomb Marcoo soon after it had been detonated.
They were rounded up and most of the family, not Edie, but most of them, were given showers. Edie didn’t wish to have a shower,” Tynan explained.
“They were tested for radioactivity and the geiger counters did detect radioactivity, particularly on the young boy Henry. Anyway, there were rather insensitively treated I suppose, given showers, had clothes put on them and then take off down south to a mission.”
Their dogs were shot in front of them. Edie was pregnant at the time, and she later lost her child.
“It was a tragic story and indicative of the callous approach to Indigenous people that was displayed by both the British government and their officials that were conducting the tests, and by the Australian government as well,” Tynan said.
Following the testing, many Aṉangu people returned to the area, but the lands that had previously sustained and protected them were now poison.
We still don’t know the truth impact of the bombs at Maralinga, as well as nearby Emu Fields and the Montebello Islands off the coast of Western Australia.
“The South Australian Department of Health commissioned a fairly extensive study, [but] that study was hampered by the fact there was no base-line data from which to understand the general health of the population before the tests,” Tynan said.
The study did show an increase in various cancers, but most of the findings were inconclusive due to a lack of information. Indigenous Australians were not counted in the census at the time and there was very little known about the health of the populations.
In 1964, a limited cleanup of the Maralinga site, named ‘Operation Hercules’, took place.
A year after a 1966 survey into the level of contamination at the site, a second clean-up titled ‘Operation Brumby’ filled 21 pits with contaminated equipment and covered them with 650 tonnes of concrete.
Tynan said it was later found the survey data was drastically wrong, and the contamination was 10 times worse than thought.
It wasn’t until decades later, with the help whistleblowers and scientists, that the government began to realise the true, horrifying extent of the damage done to the land at Maralinga.
Under an agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and Australia in 1995, another clean-up took place. And while this was more thorough than the previous, it still came with issues.
Whistleblower Alan Parkinson, who wrote the 2007 book Maralinga: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up, exposed the unsatisfactory methods.
The plan had been to treat several thousand tonnes of debris contaminated with plutonium by a process called situ vitrification. Against the advice of Parkinson, the government extended the contract of the project manager, even though that company had no knowledge of the complex process of vitrification.
Parkinson was let go from the project.
The government and the project manager then embarked on a hybrid scheme in which some pits would be exhumed and others treated by vitrification. After successfully treating 12 pits, the 13th exploded and severely damaged the equipment. The government then cancelled the vitrification and simply exhumed the remaining pits, placed the debris in a shallow pit and covered it with clean soil.
Parkinson told The Quicky another, complete clean-up of Maralinga could take place, but it was unlikely because of the cost and the courage it would take to admit the previous attempts were insufficient.
Around the same time as the 90s clean up was the Australian government push for a nuclear waste dump to be located nearby.
Fearing even further poisoning of their country, First Nations woman Eileen Wani Wingfield co-founded the Coober Pedy Women’s Council to campaign against the proposal.
The plan was eventually abandoned, but has popped up again in many forms over the decades. Currently, the Coalition is amending a bill that could see a site set up near Kimba.
Glen Wingfield, Eileen’s son, has spent his life working and learning from his parents’ tireless campaign for protection of their country.
The theme of NAIDOC Week 2021 is Heal Country! but as Wingfield told The Quicky, much of the Aṉangu lands in and around Maralinga are beyond healing.
“A lot of the Aboriginal communities that live in and around that area, they just will not and do not go back near that country. I think that’s a word, healing, that we can’t use in the same sentence with that area.”
Tynan agreed, saying there are parts of the area that will be uninhabitable for a quarter of a million years.
“There are parts of the site that you can’t go to, that are still very dangerous,” she said.
“The real problem at Maralinga was the plutonium which was detonated in a series of trials… The particular type of plutonium they used, plutonium 239, has a half-life of 21,400 years which takes hundreds of thousands of years for that radioactivity to diminish.”
Wingfield said the broken connection between these people and their lands is “just downright disgraceful and horrible”.
“No amount of conversation will ever cover what’s been done for people in and around. The lasting effects of health issues on people have been passed through people who were there to generational abnormalities… I think when you talk compensation and stuff, I don’t think we’ll ever get close.”
Need for a USA”no first use” of nuclear weapons policy – the concern of regional U.S. allies
In our lead article this week, Van Jackson makes a compelling case for the United States to establish a no-first use policy on nuclear weapons. This would entail a pledge from Washington that its nuclear arsenal would not be used as a means of warfare except in the event that it was first subject to a nuclear attack by an adversary. While there is already some momentum behind such a policy amongst Democrats, Biden has taken no concrete steps towards implementing it and it has yet to be legislated by Congress.
No-first use nuclear policy. https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/07/05/no-first-use-nuclear-policy/ Author: Editorial Board, ANU, 5 July 21,
Since the election of Joe Biden in 2020, much of the world has breathed a collective sigh of relief as we have witnessed what appears to be a return to ‘pre-Trump normalcy’ in the United States. One of the greatest foreign policy challenges that faces the Biden administration, however, is recovering US credibility in Asia, which was severely undermined by his predecessor Donald Trump.
From the standpoint of US allies in the region, a concerning aspect of Trump’s rise to the presidency was his loose talk about nuclear weapons and apparent openness to utilising them against adversaries. While most allies have long emphasised the immense benefits of the US security guarantee and its attendant nuclear umbrella, Trump’s rise to power rendered alliance relationships potential liabilities.
These concerns among allies in the region were significantly elevated in 2017, when Trump began to entertain the prospect of launching a pre-emptive — albeit non-nuclear — strike against North Korea. He supposedly even went so far as to order an evacuation of US servicemen and their families from Seoul — an injunction that was ultimately not carried out by US officials in South Korea. His apparent willingness to engage in conflict with a nuclear-armed North Korea was reinforced rhetorically as he threatened ‘fire and fury’ against Kim Jong-un’s regime.
These developments had US allies (and non-allies alike) in the region beleaguered by the prospect of nuclear war in the region. Their concerns were reinforced by Trump’s predilection to appoint family members — with little to no foreign policy expertise — as official advisors. The notion that a US-initiated conflict with North Korea, entailing probable commitment by American allies, might be informed in part by the likes of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner was a severe indictment of alliance management.
The election of Joe Biden allayed some of the concerns of US allies. But the fact that Trump received over 70 million votes in the election and may run again for president in 2024 means that his tenure cannot be easily viewed as an unfortunate aberration.
What can Biden do during his presidency to restore confidence among American allies in the region, and restore US credibility in the aftermath of the Trump administration?
In our lead article this week, Van Jackson makes a compelling case for the United States to establish a no-first use policy on nuclear weapons. This would entail a pledge from Washington that its nuclear arsenal would not be used as a means of warfare except in the event that it was first subject to a nuclear attack by an adversary. While there is already some momentum behind such a policy amongst Democrats, Biden has taken no concrete steps towards implementing it and it has yet to be legislated by Congress.
Jackson outlines three common arguments that are cited against a non-first use nuclear policy: China, Russia and North Korea would never believe in the veracity of no-first use declarations; it would encourage uncertainty among adversaries as to whether the United States could use nuclear weapons against them; and there would also be concerns among American allies about the implications of a no-first use policy for US extended nuclear deterrence and Washington’s ability to deter threats on their behalf.
Yet Jackson argues that, ‘ … the world is no longer unipolar. The old bargain — Washington does arms-racing so allies don’t — makes no sense in a world where US politics is depressingly awry. Allied nuclear proliferation poses its own risks, but it may be a better alternative to US nuclear preponderance and presidential first-use launch authority’.
As the region becomes increasingly volatile, a policy of US restraint on the use of nuclear weapons has acquired new urgency. The advent of the Biden administration has done little to alleviate US–China tensions; Biden’s China policy so far appears to be a continuation of that of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, prospects of a cross-Strait crisis continue to rise and progress on the denuclearisation of North Korea remains elusive. These political tensions have been aggravated by economic destabilisation in the region that has been fuelled by the COVID-19 crisis.
These developments have spawned new concerns about conflict and the role of US alliances in the region. Some analysts believe that such conflict would have potential to evolve into nuclear war. Given that the US-led alliance network is premised on the maintenance of regional peace and security, it behoves Washington to clarify that it will not employ first use of nuclear weapons.
This is important for the Biden government. It is also important for the future US administrations that could see the likes of Trump with a finger back on the nuclear button.
The EAF Editorial Board is located in the Crawford School of Public Policy, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University.
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 