The Road to War: latest film by David Bradbury
By Sandi KeaneMar 28, 2023, https://johnmenadue.com/the-road-to-war-latest-film-by-david-bradbury/?fbclid=IwAR3lvD8het8Z3qvYDpluqiSqJSvMP8KfDvzJZ26FS6xlMQ54bPTslzldOfA
As international tensions rise to a new level, with the Ukraine war passing its first anniversary and the Albanese Government set to announce its commitment of hundreds of billions of dollars to new weaponry, nuclear propelled subs, stealth bombers etc, The Road to War brings into sharp focus why it is not in Australia’s best interests to be dragged into an American-led war with China.
The Road to War is directed by one of Australia’s most respected political documentary filmmakers, David Bradbury. Bradbury has more than four decades of journalistic and filmmaking experience behind him having covered many of the world’s trouble spots since the end of the Vietnam war — SE Asia, Iraq, East Timor, revolutions and civil war in Central and South America, India, China, Nepal and West Papua.
“I was driven to make this film because of the urgency of the situation. I fear we will be sucked into a nuclear war with China and/or Russia from which we will never recover, were some of us to survive the first salvo of nuclear warheads,” says the twice Oscar-nominated filmmaker.
“We must put a hard brake on Australia joining in the current arms race as the international situation deteriorates. We owe it to our children and future generations of Australians who already face the gravest existential danger of their young lives from Climate Change,” says Bradbury.
There is general concern among the defence analysts Bradbury interviews in the film that Australia is being set up to be the US proxy in its coming war with China. And that neither the Labor nor LNP governments have learnt anything from being dragged into America’s wars of folly since World War II — Korea, Vietnam, two disastrous wars in Iraq and America’s failed 20 year war in Afghanistan which ripped that country apart, only to see the Taliban warlords return the country and its female population to feudal times.
“Basing US B52 and Stealth bombers in Australia is all part of preparing Australia to be the protagonist on behalf of the United States in a war against China. If the US can’t get Taiwan to be the proxy or its patsy, it will be Australia,” says former Australian ambassador to China and Iran, John Lander.
Military analyst, Dr Richard Tanter, fears the US military’s spy base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs, will be the first target of any direct confrontation between the US and Russia or China.
“The US military base at Pine Gap is critical to the US military’s global strategy, especially nuclear missile threats in the region. The generals in Moscow and Beijing would have it as a top priority on their nuclear Hit List,” says Dr Tanter whose 40 years of ground-breaking research on Pine Gap with colleague, Dr Des Ball, has provided us with the clearest insight to the unique role Pine Gap plays for the US. Everything from programming US drone attacks to detecting the first critical seconds of nuclear ICBM’s lifting off from their deep underground silos in China or Russia, to directing crippling nuclear retaliation on its enemy.
“Should Russia or China want to send a signal to Washington that it means business and ‘don’t push us any further’, a one-off nuclear strike on Pine Gap would do that very effectively, without triggering retaliation from the US since it doesn’t take out a US mainland installation or city,” says Dr Tanter.
“It’s horrible to talk about part of Australia in these terms but one has to be a realist with what comes to us by aligning ourselves with the US,” Tanter says.
“Studies show in the event of even a very limited nuclear exchange between any of the nuclear powers, up to two billion people would starve to death from nuclear winter,” says Dr Sue Wareham of the Medical Association for the Prevention of War.
“The Australian Government, Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and Minister for Defence, Richard Marles, have a serious responsibility to look after all Australians. Not just those living in cities. Were Pine Gap to be hit with even one nuclear missile, Health Minister Mark Butler would be hard pressed to find any volunteer nurses and doctors willing to risk their lives to help survivors in Alice Springs, Darwin and surrounding communities from even one nuclear missile hitting this critical US target,” says Dr Wareham.
Further information or interviews with David Bradbury: david@frontlinefilms.com.au
Media enquiries:
Sandi Keane: 0427 260 319 keanesandi@gmail.com, Twitter: @jarrapin
Omigawd! Nuclear zealot Jonathon Mead is to get his own little government department nuclear supergroup
While the exact contours, structure and mandate of the group are yet to take shape, the role of this new organisational arrangement bears examination. Driven by the complexities of nuclear technology, the group’s remit reaches outside conventional defence policy domains into areas such as education and industrial policy that are usually led by domestic policy agencies at the federal and state level.
Planning for Australia’s nuclear submarine ‘supergroup’ , 30 Mar 2023, |Hugh Piper, The Strategist,
“………. With the nuclear-powered submarines to be acquired under the AUKUS partnership, Australia has set itself perhaps the most ambitious public-procurement undertaking in its history. To match the scale of this venture, according to a report in The Australian, the submarine taskforce led by Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead will evolve and grow into a new ‘a stand-alone group inside Defence that will draw personnel from across the government’.
In public-service speak, a ‘group’ is usually the largest organisational unit in a federal government department, headed by a deputy-secretary-level public servant or a three-star military officer. That the submarine acquisition is being elevated to this level reflects the magnitude of the enterprise and the fact that it will become a permanent and dominant feature of the Australian defence organisation for decades to come.
Equally interesting, though, is the scope of this new group in Defence. The Australian described it as a multiagency group ‘responsible for all elements of the program, including safety, non-proliferation and regulatory measures, international engagement, education and training, industry development and project management’. Its head will have ‘a direct reporting line to Defence Minister Richard Marles’.
While the exact contours, structure and mandate of the group are yet to take shape, the role of this new organisational arrangement bears examination. Driven by the complexities of nuclear technology, the group’s remit reaches outside conventional defence policy domains into areas such as education and industrial policy that are usually led by domestic policy agencies at the federal and state level.
Defence will have to acquire new policy capabilities to tackle these issues—but also develop networks and institutional relationships with a much wider range of domestic stakeholders. Moreover, the government will need to decide the exact limits of Defence’s policy leadership. Education and industrial policy are, for instance, intrinsically linked to labour and innovation policy.
The reported scope of the group also includes policy domains and functions that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade would conventionally lead, namely international engagement and non-proliferation. For Defence instead to take leadership of these areas would mark a fundamental shift in the division of labour in Australian foreign policy.
………………………… There needs to be room for proper consideration of broader foreign policy equities within a structure that is unapologetically mission-focused on delivering defence capability. As the mixed reaction in the Indo-Pacific to AUKUS has demonstrated, Australia can’t assume an overall permissive environment for its strategic policy, so diplomacy is as vital to manifesting the submarines as building a nuclear industrial base. These risks are, however, manageable through effective governance.
…………..There’s also speculation that it could have its own budget line separate from the rest of Defence https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/planning-for-australias-nuclear-submarine-supergroup/
Aukus subs deal firms China support for Asean nuclear weapon-free zone
Beijing ‘willing’ to become first nuclear-armed state to sign treaty pledging to keep the weapons out of Southeast Asia
China’s efforts to woo its neighbours is a counter to US alliance building in the region, which now includes nuclear-powered submarines for Australia
Laura Zhou SCMP, 28 Mar 23
China is willing to sign a treaty making Southeast Asia a nuclear weapons-free zone, in Beijing’s latest effort to woo its neighbours and counter Washington’s decision to speed the sale of nuclear-powered submarines and technology to Australia.
Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang made the pledge at a meeting with Kao Kim Hourn, secretary general of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, in Beijing on Monday. It would make China the first major nuclear power to commit to the zone.
Asean secretary general Kao Kim Hourn (left) and Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang in Beijing on Monday. Photo: Xinhua
China is willing to sign a treaty making Southeast Asia a nuclear weapons-free zone, in Beijing’s latest effort to woo its neighbours and counter Washington’s decision to speed the sale of nuclear-powered submarines and technology to Australia.
Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang made the pledge at a meeting with Kao Kim Hourn, secretary general of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, in Beijing on Monday. It would make China the first major nuclear power to commit to the zone.
“China is willing to take the lead in signing the protocol to the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone treaty and advocate with Asean for solidarity and win-win cooperation to safeguard regional security and stability,” he said.
The treaty has been in force since 1997 and obliges the 10 Asean member states “not to develop, manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over nuclear weapons; station or transport nuclear weapons by any means; or test or use nuclear weapons”.
None of the five recognised nuclear-armed states – China, France, Russia, Britain and the US – has acceded to the treaty’s protocol, which implies a commitment not to use nuclear weapons within the zone or against any contracting state.
Chinese President Xi Jinping said in 2021 that Beijing was ready to sign the protocol – also known as the Bangkok Treaty – “at the earliest possible date”, just months after the US-led Aukus alliance with Australia and Britain was unveiled.
The latest pledge comes at a time when China is increasingly vigilant towards Aukus, which two weeks ago announced a pathway for Australia to acquire three, possibly five, US nuclear-powered submarines by the early 2030s.
In his meeting with Kao, Qin said China’s domestic and foreign policies had maintained “a high degree of stability and continuity”, according to a Chinese foreign ministry readout.
Qin said China’s policies would “inject more stability into regional peace and tranquillity, while providing more strong momentum for regional development and prosperity”………………….
Beijing is strongly opposed to Aukus and the Quad – a US-led partnership with Japan, India and Australia – which together form the centrepiece of Washington’s strategy of building alliances to contain China, in its view.
The Aukus announcement – which may pave the way for Canberra to eventually build its own attack submersibles – was described by Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin as “nothing but selfish”. The US, Australia and Britain “had gone further down a wrong and dangerous road”, he said.
The deal also intensified regional concerns in Southeast Asia. Hours after the announcement, Malaysia said it was important for all countries to refrain “from any provocation that could potentially trigger an arms race or affect peace and security in the region”.
Indonesia, another major power in Southeast Asia, urged Australia to comply with its non-proliferation treaty obligations, saying that it was the responsibility of all countries to maintain peace and stability in the region………………………….. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3215103/aukus-subs-deal-firms-china-support-asean-nuclear-weapon-free-zone
Russia Calls Out ‘Nuclear Weapons Hypocrisy’: US Has Tactical Nukes In 5 Non-Nuclear Weapon States
“For the last 60 years Washington has been playing a key role in NATO’s nuclear sharing missions by supporting deployment of its tactical nuclear weapons in five non-nuclear weapon states – Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey,“
BY TYLER DURDEN, ZERO HEDGE, WEDNESDAY, MAR 29, 2023
The Kremlin has blasted what a Russian official called the United States’ “vivid example of hypocrisy” as part of the latest war of words in the wake of President Putin’s announcing he has stationed tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus.
Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov on Tuesday called out Washington’s “extremely short memory” – given it “has long been systematically destroying the legal basis of bilateral relations in strategic sphere,” which is a reference to the collapse of multiple nuclear treaties of late, including ‘Open Skies’ and the INF Treaty in 2019. New START is also looking to come to an end at the rate things are going.
CBS recounts of what Putin said:
Russia has ratcheted up tensions with the West amid its ongoing war against Ukraine, with President Vladimir Putin saying Moscow will deploy “tactical nuclear weapons” in Belarus. The Russian leader said 10 fighter jets capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons — generally a reference to smaller weapons used for limited battlefield attacks, rather than larger, long-range “strategic” nuclear weapons — were already deployed in Belarus. ………..
In response, the US State Department condemned the Russian leader’s “irresponsible nuclear rhetoric,” and said that “no other country is inflicting such damage on arms control, nor seeking to undermine strategic stability in Europe.”
The scathing denunciation had been issued by US State Department representative Vedant Patel………………
Antonov underscored that the US has long stationed nuclear weapons not far from Russia: “For the last 60 years Washington has been playing a key role in NATO’s nuclear sharing missions by supporting deployment of its tactical nuclear weapons in five non-nuclear weapon states – Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey,” he said. Putin had days ago voiced a similar rationale… https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-calls-out-nuclear-weapons-hypocrisy-us-has-tactical-nukes-5-non-nuclear-weapon5-non-nuclear-weapon
US-NATO proxy war in Ukraine utilises space technology
The Global Network monthly space video this time reviews how space satellites are used by the US-NATO to target Russian-ethnic regions of the Donbass in eastern Ukraine and Russian military forces.
Elon Musk’s Space X company is deploying tens of thousands of Starlink satellites in Lower Earth Orbit (LEO). The parking lots in LEO are getting dangerously crowded. Scientists fear cascading collisions as a result.
| The Pentagon is using Musk’s Starlink satellites to provide surveillance and targeting information to the Ukrainian army. Whichever nation(s) control LEO enables them to have considerable advantage on the battlefield. China is responding by announcing it will launch 13,000 satellites into LEO in order to prevent the US-NATO from totally filling up the scarce orbital parking spaces.Danger exists as major powers compete for access and/or domination in space. A new United Nations space weapons ban treaty is needed now more than ever. |
|---|
Diana Rickard Submission – Australia’s nuclear bans reflect public rejection of the nuclear industry, and support for clean renewables
Submission No 74. against Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear
Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
Nuclear Power is not needed in Australia. Germany is decommissioning its last two nuclear reactors.
There is enough science and technology to provide reliable and sustainable renewable energy for
industrial and residential needs in Germany and in Australia, we have more than enough sunlight,
wind and water to provide clean and sustainable energy for our needs.
- Our legislative prohibitions reflect public and community concern over and rejection of
nuclear power and nuclear waste storage in Australia. - Australia does not need reactor meltdowns, fires and explosions as happened at
Chernobyl and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power site. We have inherited colonial
nuclear bomb testing sites and uranium processing sites that still need rehabilitating
costing billions of dollars and these weapon testing sites have caused sickness and
permanent disability to people caught up in their poisonis a disgrace that should not be
repeated. - There is still no permanent nuclear waste disposal facility operating anywhere in the
world for high-level nuclear waste generated by nuclear power reactors. - Uranium mined in Australia is used for failed nuclear reactors and weapons proliferation
overseas and the international safeguards system has not been funded anywhere near
what it would take to avoid or even monitor this. We should avoid further
contamination from dirty and dangerous nuclear power plants in Australia adding to this
problem. - Talk of AUKUS nuclear powered submarines and B52s carrying nuclear weapons while on
Australian soil makes me very uneasy that we could become a military target. The risk of
reactors becoming military targets (as has been the case with research reactors in the
Middle East on multiple occasions) remains a serious concern. - Many countries do not have clear and unambiguous rules governing nuclear power and
nuclear waste. This is despite the fact that inadequate regulation is widely accepted as a
main cause of the Fukushima disaster. In a country like Australia where a national motto
in the 1980s was ‘ Near enough is good enough’ followed by ‘Where the bloody hell are
you?’ hardly shows our commitment to clear, accountable and sustainable rules-based
governance on vital issues, does it? - If we remove prohibitions to nuclear power, we would then need significant reforms in
existing legislation not designed to deal with nuclear power. We would then need a
massive increase in government resources as well as recruiting an appropriately skilled
and capable workforce. - With resources concentrating on getting nuclear power right, essential resources to help
us tackle human-induced climate change, secure a national renewable energy policy and
deliver modern environmental protection legislation would be lost.
Australia is suffering massive infrastructure, livelihood and life loss due to climate change floods that
should be once in a hundred years but are happening regularly. Our environment is suffering
through massive landclearing by other than small, family farmers or miners.
We cannot trust our future to greedy people and foreign corporations with no care except to make
short-term profit even when it destroys our national interest and iconic environment.
Nuclear power plants are unsustainable, corporately owned and dirty. Renewable energy can
operate independently of large, asset-greedy business interest and can be installed on homes and in
small paddocks. Renewable energy belongs to the people and does not harm the environment as
surely as nuclear energy does. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
Jean M Christie -Submission – nuclear power is expensive, polluting, and too slow to be of any use to Australians
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 78
For several reasons, nuclear power is inappropriate for Australia. These are as follows.
Since 2010, nuclear power has actually become more expensive, rising in cost by 33%.
Nuclear power reactors produce waste, and Australia does not have a deep underground repository for
nuclear waste. At present, the residents of Kimba, South Australia, are engaged in a legal battle with the
Commonwealth of Australia, as they fight to protect their home from becoming a dumping ground for
nuclear waste generated in New South Wales.
The development of nuclear power is very time-consuming, and Australia lacks a workforce with the
necessary skills to do this.
Thus nuclear power is expensive, polluting, and too slow to be of any use to Australians.
Furthermore, nuclear power plants are rendered unsafe by the effects of climate change. These effects
include warming water sources, sea-level rise, storm damage, and drought. In military and terrorist events,
nuclear power plants are obvious targets, as malicious forces seek to cut off electricity supplies. In addition,
the electricity necessary to cool such reactors is also disrupted, and the risk of nuclear core meltdowns
increased. We are seeing this now in Ukraine, as Russia directs missile strikes at Ukrainian nuclear power
plants. Even in peacetime, risks are present, as demonstrated by the tragic nuclear meltdown and waste spill
in Fukushima, Japan, which has rendered surrounding areas uninhabitable.
Thus nuclear power is expensive, polluting, slow in availability, and very risky with regard to national
security. I urge politicians to support renewable energy, in order to protect the environment, and prevent
further climate disruption. . https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
The three big questions Australia’s leaders must answer about the Aukus deal
Gareth Evans, Guardian, 21 Mar 23,
The public has a right to know why we are making such a drastic shift in our defence strategy and spending, writes Australia’s former foreign minister
Love Paul Keating or loathe him, admire or abhor his invective, he has raised questions about the Aukus deal which are hugely important for Australia’s future and demand much more compelling answers than we have so far received from government ministers past or present.
The big three for me are whether, for all the hype, the submarines we are buying are really fit for purpose; whether an Australian flag on them really means we retain full sovereign agency in their use; and if it does not, whether that loss of agency is a price worth paying for the US security insurance we think we might be buying……………
is the Aukus fleet – on the brave assumption the vastly complicated acquisition program does not become the “goat rodeo” (fiasco) predicted by some respected US-based analysts – really our best buy? If the purpose of our new boats is to be a useful, albeit numerically marginal, add-on to US underwater capability in the South China Sea and around Taiwan, they can play that role well. But if their primary purpose is to prevent continental Australia – and our Indo-Pacific sea-lanes – from possible attack, it remains entirely legitimate to demand a detailed explanation as to how that task could be better performed by the Aukus fleet than the 20 or more sons-of-Collins we could buy for the same price, given that only three nuclear-propelled boats are likely to be on station at any given time.
The core issue is how comfortable we should be in so obviously shifting the whole decades-long focus of our defence posture away from the defence of Australia – which has always included a strong presence in our archipelagic north and, within a very considerable radius, the sea-lanes so crucial to our trade – toward a posture of distant forward defence. The case must be made, not just asserted.
The second big unanswered – or less than persuasively answered – question is whether, by so comprehensively further yoking ourselves to such extraordinarily sophisticated and sensitive US military technology, Australia has for all practical purposes abandoned our capacity for independent sovereign judgment. Not only as to how we use this new capability, but in how we respond to future US calls for military support.
There were assurances at the time of the first Aukus announcement by the US secretaries of state and defense that “there will be no follow on reciprocal requirements of any kind” and “no quid pro quo”. But in my own experience that is not quite the way the world – and American pressure – works………………..
When it comes to decisions to go to war, we have too often in the past, most notably in Vietnam and the Iraq war of 2003, joined the US in fighting wars that were justified neither by international law nor morality, but because the Americans wanted us to, or we thought they wanted us to, or because we wanted them to want us to…………………………
My last big question may be unanswerable for now, but should be getting far more attention. Just how much security has our devotion to the US and our ever-increasing enmeshment with its military machine, really bought us, should we ever actually come under serious attack?
While the Anzus treaty requires the US “to act” in these circumstances, it certainly does not require that action to be military. I am afraid that we should be under no illusion whatever that, for all the insurance we might think we have bought with all those past down-payments in blood and treasure and our “century of mateship”, the US – whoever is president – will be there for us militarily in any circumstance where it does not also see its own immediate interests under threat……………… https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/21/gareth-evans-the-three-big-questions-australias-leaders-must-answer-about-the-aukus-deal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Labor and union movement at odds over AUKUS nuclear submarine deal
The finalising of the $368bn AUKUS submarine deal has set up a potential clash between Labor and one of its most reliable allies.
Catie McLeod, news.com.au 28 Mar 23
The finalising of the $368bn AUKUS submarine deal has set up a potential clash between Labor and the peak union body over nuclear power.
Australian Council of Trade Unions president Michele O’Neil declared at the National Press Club on Tuesday that unions backed a “nuclear-free Defence policy”, at odds with the government’s plan to purchase and manufacture nuclear-powered submarines over the next 30 years.
Under the trilateral security agreement with the US and the UK, Australia will become the first non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear-powered submarines by seeking an exemption from the International Atomic Energy Agency………………………………………………….. https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/labor-and-union-movement-at-odds-over-aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal/news-story/b2c607ab41db26dd3883359fcd227b4e
The Road to War- Adelaide 6pm Wed 29 March – new Australian documentary by David Bradbury
The Road to War is a new film directed and produced by David Bradbury, one of Australia’s most respected political documentary filmmakers. Bradbury has more than four decades of journalistic and filmmaking experience having covered many of the world’s trouble spots since the end of the Vietnam war, including Southeast Asia, Iraq, East Timor, revolutions and civil war in Central and South America, India, China, Nepal and West Papua.
In The Road To War, Bradbury interviews former Australian diplomats and numerous defence experts and analysts – including John Lander, Hugh White, Richard Tanter – about AUKUS and its massive arms procurement policies, including the nuclear-powered submarines, as well as the deteriorating US relationship with China and the implications for Australia.
Michelle Fahy, who appears in the film, discusses the undue influence of the arms industry on government policy, revolving door appointments and the arms industry links of various former defence ministers, and the anti-China position of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) including the conflicts inherent in ASPI’s funding arrangements, which Michelle wrote about in 2021.
Bradbury, a twice Oscar-nominated filmmaker, says: “I was driven to make this film because of the urgency of the situation. I fear we will be sucked into a nuclear war with China and/or Russia from which we will never recover, were some of us to survive the first salvo of nuclear warheads.”
He continues, “We must put a hard brake on Australia joining in the current arms race as the international situation deteriorates. We owe it to our children and future generations of Australians who already face the gravest existential danger of their young lives from climate change”.
There is general shared concern among those experts Bradbury interviews in the film that Australia is being set up as a US proxy in a potential war with China.
For example:
“Basing US B52 and stealth bombers in Australia is all part of preparing Australia to be the protagonist on behalf of the United States in a war against China. If the US can’t get Taiwan to be the proxy, or its patsy, it will be Australia,” says John Lander, former deputy Ambassador to China (1974-6), first Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Iran (1985-8) and three times head of the China section of Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Military analyst, Dr Richard Tanter, fears the US military’s spy base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs, will be the first target of any direct confrontation between the US and Russia or China.
“The US military base at Pine Gap is critical to the US military’s global strategy, especially nuclear missile threats in the region. The generals in Moscow and Beijing would have it as a top priority on their nuclear Hit List,” says Tanter, whose 40 years of ground-breaking research on Pine Gap with colleague, Dr Des Ball, has provided the clearest insight into the unique role Pine Gap plays for the US.
“Should Russia or China want to send a signal to Washington that it means business and ‘don’t push us any further’, a one-off nuclear strike on Pine Gap would do that very effectively, without triggering retaliation from the US since it doesn’t take out a US mainland installation or city,” says Dr Tanter. “It’s horrible to talk about part of Australia in these terms but one has to be a realist with what comes to us by aligning ourselves with the US.”
Next screening: Adelaide, 6pm, Wednesday 29 March
The Adelaide screening is at the Capri Theatre. 6pm for drinks, screening at 7pm, followed by Q & A. Panellists include former SA Senator Rex Patrick along with filmmaker David Bradbury. Buy tickets online here.
Further screenings are being arranged for other cities and regional centres, including Canberra. Details TBA.
Inside the AUKUS machine: scrutinising the political links to defence contracts
there has not been nearly enough scepticism about the AUKUS deal from Australia’s major media players
Led by a prime minister with a penchant for fudging reality, the $368 billion AUKUS submarine deal leaves much unexamined.
DAVID HARDAKER, MAR 28, 2023 https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/03/28/inside-aukus-submarine-deal-political-links/
This is part one in a series. For the full series, go here.
There is much about the AUKUS deal that is surprising — if not shocking.
There is the astronomical cost of $368 billion, double the most extravagant guesstimates made by experts before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s announcement in San Diego earlier this month.
There are the hurried circumstances in the run-up to the federal election — all done within 24 hours — in which the ALP opposition committed itself to the deal proposed by then prime minister Scott Morrison.
And there is the extreme secrecy that has surrounded AUKUS from its inception, with Morrison having orchestrated events on a need-to-know basis, only ever consulting those who had a direct interest in expanding Australia’s defence budget.
The AUKUS arrangement emerged from the final desperate days of one of Australia’s worst governments. It was led by a prime minister who had a habit of fudging reality and who secretly sought to accumulate the powers of five of his ministerial colleagues, without having a coherent rationale.
At the same time, there has not been nearly enough scepticism about the AUKUS deal from Australia’s major media players. Some have even been offended that former prime minister Paul Keating would raise serious questions, focusing more on the manner than the substance of what he said.
For these reasons, Crikey will be introducing a bit of sunlight — the best disinfectant — into the fetid corners of the AUKUS machine.
You don’t have to be a China stooge to question AUKUS, yet that is how much of the public debate has been conducted so far.
To begin our coverage, this week we report on the activities of two of the biggest political names from the Coalition’s decade in office. They are former treasurer Joe Hockey and former defence minister (and before that minister for defence industry) Christopher Pyne.
The two have one thing in common: they both leapt from public office directly into the lucrative world of defence industry and investment. In Hockey’s case, he ceased his role as Australia’s ambassador to the US on January 30 2020. ASIC records show that his consultancy, Bondi Partners (which relies on Washington contacts), was registered on January 29 2020.
In Pyne’s case, he ceased as defence minister and retired from federal Parliament in April 2019. Within a month, the Pyne & Partners business name was registered. The record shows that predecessor entities had been set up by a former Pyne staffer before Pyne retired. These moves are separate from Pyne’s work with consulting firm EY, which he began within weeks of leaving Parliament. Pyne’s work with EY, where the former defence minister advised on defence matters, led to a Senate inquiry into whether or not he had breached ministerial standards.
Pyne and Hockey aren’t the first from the political class to turn to the defence industries after leaving office. The political revolving door is well known.
Continue readingJan Wu – submission – renewables are very suitable for Australia, not dirty nuclear power
With solar and wind energy now well developed, we do not need to have
nuclear power, having one less problem of considering how to dispose the
nuclear waste one day.
the government should invest on solar power, since we have vast unused land in
the middle of the country, covered with sun, by using solar energy, we might be
also able to address our desertification problem as well. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
AUKUS is ‘going against’ Pacific nuclear free treaty – Cook Islands leader
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has joined a growing list of Pacific leaders to object to the $US250 billion nuclear submarine deal between Australia, United Kingdom and the United States (Aukus).
The Aukus project, which will allow Australia to acquire upto eight nuclear-powered submarines, has been widely condemned by proponents of nuclear non-proliferation.
It has also fuelled concerns that the submarine pact, viewed as an arrangement to combat China, will heighten geopolitical tensions and disturb the peace and security of the region, which is a notion that Canberra has rejected.
Brown, who is the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) chair, told Cook Islands News he was concerned about the Aukus deal because it is “going against” the Pacific’s principal nuclear non-proliferation agreement.
We’ve all abided by the Treaty of Rarotonga, signed in 1985, which was about reducing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear vessels,” he told the newspaper.
The Treaty of Rarotonga has more than a dozen countries signed up to it, including Australia and New Zealand.
But it is what it is,” he said of the tripartite arrangement.
“We’ve already seen it will lead to an escalation of tension, and we’re not happy with that as a region.”
Other regional leaders who have publicly expressed concerns about the deal include Solomon Islands PM Manasseh Sogavare, Tuvalu’s foreign Minister Simon Kofe, and Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu.
With Cook Islands set to host this year’s PIF meeting in October, Brown has hinted that the “conflicting” nuclear submarine deal is expected to be a big part of the agenda.
“The name Pacific means peace, so to have this increase of naval nuclear vessels coming through the region is in direct contrast with that,” he said.
“I think there will be opportunities where we will individually and collectively as a forum voice our concern about the increase in nuclear vessels.”
Brown said “a good result” at the leaders gathering “would be the larger countries respecting the wishes of Pacific countries.”
“Many are in opposition of nuclear weapons and nuclear vessels,” he said.
“The whole intention of the Treaty of Rarotonga was to try to de-escalate what were at the time Cold War tensions between the major superpowers.”
This Aukus arrangement seems to be going against it,” he added.
Alan Hewett submission to Senate Nuclear Inquiry- Nuclear power could only delay Australia’s transition to clean renewable energy.
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 92
The federal Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources expects 69% renewable
supply to the Australian National Electricity Market by 2030. The Albanese Labor government’s
target is 82% renewable supply by 2030.
South Australia has already reached 67% renewable supply and will comfortably meet the target of 100% net renewable supply by 2030.
Nuclear power could not in any way facilitate Australia’s energy transition ‒ it could only delay the
transition and make it more expensive and contentious
Nuclear power would unnecessarily introduce risks of catastrophic nuclear accidents and military or terrorist attacks. It would inevitably bequeath future generations with streams of high-, intermediate- and low-level
nuclear waste. We urge all politicians and political parties to focus on the transition to a lowcarbon economy and to reject nuclear power because it is too slow, too expensive, too dangerous, and those promoting it are mostly the same people trying to slow and derail the transition to a low-carbon economy. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
Michele Kwok Submission – nuclear power is not clean -it’s polluting at every stage.
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 80
It’s concerning that nuclear energy is viewed as clean energy and as a solution to climate crisis.
Every stage of the production pollutes.
Uranium poses high risk in ground water contamination, currently a subject of concern all over the world due
to related severe health problems to humans, as groundwater is the main drinking water source in remote
communities.
Nuclear energy is very expensive compared to wind and sun energy Every power reactor construction project in Western Europe and the US over the past decade has been a disaster: True costs have exceeded company and government estimates by $10 billion or more for all these projects, and delays range from 7 to 13 years. Unsurprisingly, few new reactors are being built.
There is no viable means to manage nuclear waste.
Overall, not economical, too risky and the negative impacts on health should be a concern for us all. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
1.This month.
Zoom webinar – “Nuclear Winter: The Environmental Consequences of a Nuclear Exchange.”
April 7th at 11:30 am PST / 2:30 pm EST
Nuclear Winter: The Environmental Consequences of a Nuclear Exchange”
Join us for an informative webinar with renowned atmospheric scientist, Professor Brian Toon, as he discusses the environmental risks and global impacts of a nuclear war. Despite the potential damage caused by the blast from even small nuclear weapons, many countries continue to invest in and expand nuclear arsenals. Professor Toon will provide a scientific assessment of civilian fatalities, agricultural failures, climate concerns, and complications with food supply that would follow any international nuclear conflict. We need to plan how to prevent nuclear conflict and avoid catastrophe. Politicians and military planners must be made aware of global climate and agricultural complications that would ensue. Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from, and engage in, this vital conversation
The Road to War brings a sharp focus to why it is not in Australia’s best interest to be dragged into a war with China which will almost inevitably go nuclear very quickly. The filmmaker has interviewed some of Australia’s senior foreign policy analysts who have vast experience behind them in analysing what really is going on here as the United States rattles its sabres with China. And sets us up to be its proxy, like the poor Ukranians have been fed into the Meatgrinder. So America can remain the Top Dog. The Road to War reveals how the United States through its spy base at Pine Gap and by stationing six nuclear capable B52 bombers in the Top End (without permission from the traditional owners) is making Australia a prime nuclear target if the current war of words suddenly melts down into full scale war.
The Road to War shows the implicit connection between Carbon emissions (the US military uses a whopping 70% of America’s annual petroleum to move its armies and vast War Machine around the globe to its 800+ military bases..but under a loophole wangled at Kyoto, the US military does not have to report its C02 annual emissions). The Road to War starts screening at selected cities and regional centres in March. See the trailer end for details.
Antinuclear 