The global military-industrial-corporate-political-media complex has done a damn good job of taking attention away from the world’s genuinely serious danger – climate change.
Sometimes it takes a military man to tell us the truth.
As Australia gets ready to be USA’s proxy fighter in war against China, former Defence Force chief Admiral Chris Barrie said climate change posed a bigger risk to Australia than China’s rapid military build-up. Other Defence experts agreed on “climate change as an existential threat. It’s a much bigger threat to our national security than a potential fight with China “
The Defence expert went on to say – “This is about transparency and keeping people informed.”
There’s the problem.
Big business – the fossil fuel industries, the weapons industry, the bought politicians, the craven, subservient media (media often owned by fossil fuel interests anyway,) the frightened national media like BBC and ABC – all of them tout the myth about China planning to militarily attack other countries.
All of them, parrot-like, recite the mantra of the “global rules-based order” – what a beautiful invention of the global military-industrial-corporate-political-media complex. ( no doubt the fossil fuel and weapons industries in Russia and China promote the same kind of propaganda to boost themselves)
Does Admiral Barrie have a hope in hell of the Australian government being transparent about the genuine peril to Australia of global heating, the melting Antarctica, and all that is already ensuing from this?
I doubt that he will be heard, along with how many other intelligent military leaders world-wide, who would rather see action on climate change, than another pointless and wasteful war?
https://www.rt.com/news/574018-cia-spies-assange-firm/2 Apr 23, A private contractor installed microphones inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where the WikiLeaks co-founder lived, an El Pais investigation has found.
The CIA used private Spanish security company UC Global to secretly install microphones inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to monitor WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange, El Pais reported on Wednesday, citing the company’s internal communications.
UC Global was hired to provide security for the embassy. Assange, who was granted asylum by Ecuador at the time, resided in the diplomatic compound from 2012 to 2019, before he was forcibly removed by British police. The Spanish company’s alleged links to US intelligence agencies were first reported by El Pais in 2019.
According to the newspaper, UC Global founder and head David Morales first came into contact with the CIA in 2017. Around that time, Morales informed his employees that the company would have to provide a new American client named ‘X’ with remote access to the server that collected the data from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which was referred to as the ‘Hotel’.
“Regarding the Hotel work, I would like to offer our information collection and analysis capability to the American client,” Morales wrote in a September 2017 email. “We must… try to make it attractive and easy to interpret.”
The information shared reportedly included profiles of Assange’s visitors, including lawyers and diplomats, as well as cell phone data. Morales was quoted as saying in a chat message that “the people in control are our friends in the USA.”
One of microphones that Morales’ team secretly planted inside the embassy was hidden in the base of a fire extinguisher in order to listen in despite Assange’s habit of using a white noise machine to prevent surveillance, El Pais said. Stickers were attached to window corners to avoid vibrations and allow sound to be recorded through laser microphones. “I know it is of the utmost interest and that the USA wants to do it,” Morales reportedly wrote to his employees.
According to El Pais, UC Global’s work helped Washington foil a plan to sneak Assange out of the embassy in December 2017. Lenin Moreno, Ecuador’s president at the time, allegedly wanted to grant the WikiLeaks co-founder Ecuadorian citizenship and get him out of Britain in a diplomatic car.
Morales’ team reportedly recorded a conversation between Assange and Ecuadorian officials and then quickly sent it to the US. Washington responded by issuing an arrest warrant for Assange to Britain, which apparently prompted organizers to abort the plan.
In 2019, the Spanish authorities launched an investigation into Morales’ company and briefly detained him. He has since been released on bail.
ERA hopes to raise $369 million to continue rehabilitation of Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu The operator of a decommissioned uranium mine in Kakadu National Park is hoping to raise $369 million to continue paying for rehabilitation, with its current funds due to be exhausted by the end of September. Energy Resources Australia (ERA) has been trying to find enough money to return the Ranger uranium mine, 250 kilometres east of Darwin, to its pre-mining state, after operations shut in January 2020.
Senior Labor figures say a decision on where to put a future submarine base on Australia’s east coast is unlikely to be made until after the next federal election, insisting locking in a location is not an immediate government priority.
Key points:
Labor says a decision on where to put a future east-coast submarine base is unlikely to be made before next election
Port Kembla appears to be the preferred option, though residents are wary of becoming a military target
Officials claim they are in no rush and the new base is “not needed” until the 2040’s
Last year former prime minister Scott Morrison announced Port Kembla as one of three potential options for a new naval facility to house Australia’s future nuclear-powered submarines, along with Brisbane and the NSW city of Newcastle.
The AUKUS agreement attempts developments that will shift Australia into a zone that will threaten the existence of Australia itself.
I am not merely thinking of the militarisation of Australia, although that is definitely one likely outcome. I also have in mind our way of life that, while still set in settler-colonial assumptions that give First Nations people no substantial value in Australian society, is relatively relaxed when compared with the way of life of people in the United States. Australia has not experienced the focus upon security that high-powered militarisation associated with nuclear weapons brings. This is the world our leaders are leading us towards.
I want to take up two lines of inquiry into Aukus in this brief article. Firstly AUKUS brings together three Anglo-settled countries – two examples of settler-colonial domination that date back two centuries and more. plus of course the original Anglo-source nation, the United Kingdom. This may seem like an insignificant reference to an aspect of European colonialism that has shaped the whole world for centuries. However, Anglo colonialism has a particular complexion. Here I am drawing in part on the book by James Belich, Replenishing the Earth, about the history of Anglo colonialism. It is well-known these days in anti-colonialism circles that the Anglo slavery pursued in the Caribbean by England was the worst form of slavery, with cruelty on a scale that makes slavery in the United States seem enlightened. Anglo colonialism is typified by relations of difference that deal with colonised peoples with a vengeance. It is noteworthy that Anglo-settled countries like Australia have not at all come to terms with the cultures that pre-existed them. All invading cultures find this difficult, but Anglo-based cultures, as Belich shows, are a special case. It is no coincidence that Adolf Hitler looked with admiration to the United States for its ‘handling’ of its First Nations ‘problem’—a form of extermination of the Native American population—in how to think about the treatment of Jews and Slavs in Europe. Anglo cultures’ commitment to freedom and democracy has a repellent underbelly of racism and cultural suppression, not to mention genocidal elimination.
Significant cultural reform is always difficult but clearly the Anglo-powers have made the decision, at a time when in many respects their backs are up against the wall, to stand and fight—not for their own territory, but against the emergence of China, which was itself on the humiliating receiving end of Anglo colonialism in the nineteenth century. AUKUS in a strong sense is a thumbing of the West’s nose at all the emerging powers in Asia—on racial grounds. They must toe the line.
This is surely a crisis for an Australia seeking in the first half of the twenty-first century to survive in our region. To survive here Australia has to change its spots profoundly. It needs a form of cultural regeneration, in significant combination with Australian First Peoples, to justify its presence outside of the strategies of colonial power. While cultural change is always slow and complex, it is Australia’s only hope of both flourishing and being accepted in this region. It is also crucial because our allies are, in any case falling apart.
While I think the Voice could be the first step towards a significant and substantial change, only a weak version of the Voice, suitable for photo opportunities and feel-good policy, will survive the reassertions of this new Anglo alliance. Australia combines an especially empty form of recognition of First Nations with the arrogance of a superior colonial presence, coloured only a little by multiculturalism, and all this in a region where it has no basic right to exist.
The AUKUS alliance represents an incapacity to flexibly adjust to an emerging situation in which a new world power has emerged, one that will not go away. It is deeply ironic that the United States has fostered this emergence by its global development strategies, just as it fostered its opponents in Afghanistan at an earlier time.
That China is a new superpower is a reality—not that being a superpower is good for China or for us. Like large bureaucracies, superpowers develop self-oriented agendas related to their size, and are not to be trusted. But linking up with the remnants of the old powers to resist emergence means that Australia has resorted to a last gasp Anglo-cultural alliance rather than enter a serious process of rethinking its social composition and its place in the world.
The second line of comment is about nuclear submarines, drawing on a piece that appears in Arena Quarterly, just publishe
I want to take up two lines of inquiry into Aukus in this brief article. Firstly AUKUS brings together three Anglo-settled countries – two examples of settler-colonial domination that date back two centuries and more. plus of course the original Anglo-source nation, the United Kingdom. This may seem like an insignificant reference to an aspect of European colonialism that has shaped the whole world for centuries. However, Anglo colonialism has a particular complexion. Here I am drawing in part on the book by James Belich, Replenishing the Earth, about the history of Anglo colonialism. It is well-known these days in anti-colonialism circles that the Anglo slavery pursued in the Caribbean by England was the worst form of slavery, with cruelty on a scale that makes slavery in the United States seem enlightened. Anglo colonialism is typified by relations of difference that deal with colonised peoples with a vengeance. It is noteworthy that Anglo-settled countries like Australia have not at all come to terms with the cultures that pre-existed them. All invading cultures find this difficult, but Anglo-based cultures, as Belich shows, are a special case. It is no coincidence that Adolf Hitler looked with admiration to the United States for its ‘handling’ of its First Nations ‘problem’—a form of extermination of the Native American population—in how to think about the treatment of Jews and Slavs in Europe. Anglo cultures’ commitment to freedom and democracy has a repellent underbelly of racism and cultural suppression, not to mention genocidal elimination.
Significant cultural reform is always difficult but clearly the Anglo-powers have made the decision, at a time when in many respects their backs are up against the wall, to stand and fight—not for their own territory, but against the emergence of China, which was itself on the humiliating receiving end of Anglo colonialism in the nineteenth century. AUKUS in a strong sense is a thumbing of the West’s nose at all the emerging powers in Asia—on racial grounds. They must toe the line.
This is surely a crisis for an Australia seeking in the first half of the twenty-first century to survive in our region. To survive here Australia has to change its spots profoundly. It needs a form of cultural regeneration, in significant combination with Australian First Peoples, to justify its presence outside of the strategies of colonial power. While cultural change is always slow and complex, it is Australia’s only hope of both flourishing and being accepted in this region. It is also crucial because our allies are, in any case falling apart.
While I think the Voice could be the first step towards a significant and substantial change, only a weak version of the Voice, suitable for photo opportunities and feel-good policy, will survive the reassertions of this new Anglo alliance. Australia combines an especially empty form of recognition of First Nations with the arrogance of a superior colonial presence, coloured only a little by multiculturalism, and all this in a region where it has no basic right to exist.
The AUKUS alliance represents an incapacity to flexibly adjust to an emerging situation in which a new world power has emerged, one that will not go away. It is deeply ironic that the United States has fostered this emergence by its global development strategies, just as it fostered its opponents in Afghanistan at an earlier time.
That China is a new superpower is a reality—not that being a superpower is good for China or for us. Like large bureaucracies, superpowers develop self-oriented agendas related to their size, and are not to be trusted. But linking up with the remnants of the old powers to resist emergence means that Australia has resorted to a last gasp Anglo-cultural alliance rather than enter a serious process of rethinking its social composition and its place in the world.
The second line of comment is about nuclear submarines, drawing on a piece that appears in Arena Quarterly, just published.
The AUKUS strategy seeks to assert massive power, especially surveillance in the Pacific, surrounding China. Nuclear submarines combined with surveillance are the main focus of this attempt to cripple what actually, as I see it, cannot be stopped, in a way similar to Paul Keating’s argument. AUKUS shifts the whole emphasis away from how we protect our independence to what is needed to contain China. For Australia this seems to mean we have to achieve interoperability with US weaponary and systems, with nuclear submarines a key aspect of this. It means Australia must take a first step into adopting nuclear technology, and its consequences. We should not be assured by those who claim that it will be the last step.
Much has been written about the dangers of nuclear power and weapons over the years, to the point where it seems many in the community are now blasé about it—unless radiation waste is to be placed next door to you. Part of what the nuclear industry and its supporters have done is to launch smaller scale tactical nuclear weapons and also small-scale nuclear power plants because both large-scale nuclear weapons and large-scale power plants have unmanageable consequences and poor public acceptance, either because of non-human-scale destruction or ridiculous costs, which only keep escalating.
No one, with the exception of some military strategists, favours nuclear war. The reasons are obvious. The level of destruction of atomic bombs steps beyond our capacity to comprehend: it steps into another realm, a post-human one. Even the seemingly more mundane questions associated with nuclear waste are on another scale because they cannot be effectively disposed. All around the world nuclear waste is piling up around nuclear power stations as well as ‘storage’ of used nuclear submarines components because the waste is not of this world. There is no solution to the waste question. Nuclear waste is killing us on an increasing scale, as exposed by Kate Brown in her book A Manual for Survival. Contrary to the findings of mainstream Western science, she argues that low-level radiation is a mass killer and a general source of ill health As one Russian scientist she quotes puts it: ‘Chronic radiation is a crime’, and chronic radiation is a process that Australia has just signed up for with its nuclear submarines, adding its contribution to the systemic decline of the Earth’s environment, at least one that is suitable for human habitation.
We need to give some focus to this because it is an embarrassment to the nuclear lobby, which they handle and largely get away with by resorting to silence. But nuclear waste is a contradiction that will not go away. All attempts at solutions have failed in every part of the world. This cannot be emphasised enough.
What sort of contradiction is this?
Like nuclear technology, nuclear waste is usually simply regarded as a special category of danger. But its special effects arise out of a social process that is usually ignored. And this is a disaster because that social process is transforming our world in unprecedented ways.
This new world first burst upon us in 1945, with the practical scientific triumph of the atomic bomb. It was not merely novel. It was a consequence of the practical/conceptual reconstructions in the early twentieth century we associate with Albert Einstein and his associates. It was not merely a new theory. It was a combination of abstract academic theory with practical technology in the real world that gave birth to technoscientific society and culture, most importantly through its systematic approach to the transformation of nature. As such, academic theory entered the world of production, as an alternative or supplement to the transformations performed by the working classes, in a way that has expanded exponentially ever since. For better or worse, our world has become increasingly composed socially of the intellectually-trained.
The novelty of nuclear technology is contained within this social approach. Scientific intellectuals now uncover deep levels of the natural world, levels never before encountered by human societies that turn out to be mysterious and unmanageable. Nuclear is not the only example but it is a key one that destroys whatever it touches.
This is the world we are now entering, and doing so with great enthusiasm. It is not only a question of nuclear war. It is just as much one of the levels of security needed when dealing with what we do not know how to control. Nuclear weapons have been ‘controlled’ by such monstrosities as the Cold War and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) strategies that give reason a bad name. And low-level radiation has been controlled by denial of any major effects, while the environment of Planet Earth deteriorates. As Brown remarks, ‘Western researchers are discovering, like Soviet scientists before them, that radioactive decay at low doses changes the way cells behave in subtle and life-changing ways’, laying the basis for ‘chronic radiation syndrome’.
AUKUS is a strategy that pursues these outcomes systematically, our leaders planning to leave submarine waste in the desert, once again to be dealt with by First Nations people, now to be permitted by the WA Labor government. Among other things, the crime of chronic radiation poisoning needs to be sheeted home to the powers that be, and in particular now, the Albanese government.
A group of leading defence figures is urging the Albanese government to release a secret report on the national security risks of climate change even though its contents may alarm Australians.
Former Defence Force chief Admiral Chris Barrie said climate change posed a bigger risk to Australia than China’s rapid military build-up, and it was crucial to inform the public about the security implications of warmer temperatures, rising sea levels and increased natural disasters.
Potential impacts included famines caused by global warming, conflicts over access to scarce resources and the mass migration of people to Australia from vulnerable Asia-Pacific nations in the coming decades.
“We are worried about the possible collapse of societies because of starvation, a lack of fresh water and shortages of food supplies,” said Barrie, a member of the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group.
Barrie said he understood the Office of National Intelligence (ONI) had delivered a landmark report on external climate risks to the government in December but a declassified version had not been released to the public.
“I expect it might contain things that are a bit scary, but we’re adults and we are up for it,” he said. “This is about transparency and keeping people informed.”
As the government prepares to spend up to $368 billion on nuclear-powered submarines over the next three decades under the AUKUS pact, Barrie said: “I see climate change as an existential threat.
“It’s a much bigger threat to our national security than a potential fight with China or some other conflagration. Only a nuclear war could be more catastrophic.”
Labor went to last year’s federal election promising to deliver a strategic climate security threat assessment and put ONI director-general Andrew Shearer in charge of the project soon after taking government.
Barrie said famine helped trigger the 1917 Russian Revolution and the phenomenon could recur in other countries in coming decades as a result of global warming.
Australia’s large land mass and relatively small population would make it an attractive destination for people displaced by climate change, he said.
The retired navy officer, who led the Defence Force from 1998 to 2002, said Australians living on flood plains and in bushfire zones should also be informed about the domestic threats posed by climate change, which are believed to be examined in a separate report by the Office of National Intelligence.
Spokespeople for the Office of National Intelligence and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet declined to comment on whether a public version of the report, which is based on classified information, would be released.
The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group, which includes retired air vice-marshal John Blackburn and the Department of Defence’s former head of preparedness and mobilisation, Cheryl Durrant, said nations such as the United States and United Kingdom had released public versions of similar reports on the national security risks of climate change.
The federal government had also released declassified reports on threats such as cyberattacks and COVID-19 to help inform the public, they said.
US President Joe Biden’s director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, has described climate change as an urgent national security threat, saying it was likely to increase global political instability in future decades.
Images captured by a robotic probe inside one of the three melted reactors at Japan’s wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant showed exposed steel bars in the main supporting structure and parts of its thick external concrete wall missing, triggering concerns about its earthquake resistance in case of another major disaster.
The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, has been sending robotic probes inside the Unit 1 primary containment chamber since last year. The new findings released Tuesday were from the latest probe conducted at the end of March. An underwater remotely operated vehicle named ROV-A2 was sent inside the Unit 1 pedestal, a supporting structure right under the core.
It came back with images seen for the first time since an earthquake and tsunami crippled the plant 12 years ago. The area inside the pedestal is where traces of the melted fuel can most likely be found. An approximately five-minute video – part of 39-hour-long images captured by the robot – showed that the 120-centimeter (3.9-foot) -thick concrete exterior of the pedestal was significantly damaged near its bottom, exposing the steel reinforcement inside. TEPCO spokesperson Keisuke Matsuo told reporters Tuesday that the steel reinforcement is largely intact but the company plans to further analyze data and images over the next couple of months to find out if and how the reactor’s earthquake resistance can be improved.
The images of the exposed steel reinforcement have triggered concerns about the reactor’s safety.
NSW plays host to half of the top ten performing wind farms, all of whom performed better than the Liddell coal generator about to close down. The post NSW hosts best performing wind farms as market keeps eye on Liddell coal closure appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Energy Efficiency Council’s Rob Murray-Leach on landmark report on new ways of thinking about the grid. Meanwhile, new NSW energy minister worries about lights going out. The post Energy Insiders Podcast: Smarter grid means a cleaner grid appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Lithium silicon sulfur battery pioneer Gelion urges federal government to focus on Australian tech as it develops national battery strategy. The post Gelion calls for national battery strategy to focus on Australian tech appeared first on RenewEconomy.
The Netherlands doesn’t have a plan, just an aspiration. They don’t have a schedule, just a notional target that is close enough to 2030 to sound good. They don’t have a budget, they have a number that they think that they can sell. There’s just so much failure inherent in this proposal that it’s like asking a flatland triangle to successfully build the Pyramid of Giza. Where to start?
As the data shows, 55 nuclear construction projects globally had cost overruns greater than 50%, and the average of those projects were 204% overruns, which is to say that they cost three times more than budgeted for.
The first bias and most evident here, is strategic misrepresentation, aka lying outright or obfuscating the likely truth in order to get something going. When equivalent projects are looked at, €5 billion is clearly a gross understatement of the real costs, but is also clearly the only number that the government believes it can sell.
Recently, the new coalition government of the Netherlands looked across its decarbonization portfolio, realized that it had failed to meet renewables targets, and so announced that it would build two nuclear power reactors with 1-1.6 GW capacity each. And the government is claiming that it will have them running in 2035, but has only outlined costs through 2030 of €5 billion ($5.5 billion).
The Netherlands’ plan does have a couple of things going for it. The country actually has a small, 50-year old, 485-MW nuclear reactor at Borssele, and they are apparently going to build the new reactors on the same site. They’ve also extended the life of the very old reactor, which has people understandably concerned. So they have operational experience with nuclear, albeit with a very different technology with considerably different operational characteristics, predating as it does most computerization of control systems.
They have already jumped through the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 28 or so major hoops. They already have the seven overlapping, somewhat concentric layers of security from international to internal site high-security areas in place and know what is required. The combination puts them ahead of countries that don’t have existing nuclear reactors, and ahead of projects attempting to site reactors in a new location.
What doesn’t the Netherlands have or know about these reactors?
They don’t know what technology they will use. Some reports say that they will stick with third-generation nuclear technology, which sounds conservative until you realize that Hinkley in the UK, Flamanville in France, Vogtle and Summer in the US, and Olkiluoto in Finland were all third generation AP1000s and European Pressurized Reactors (EPR), and all have suffered massive cost and budget overruns.
They don’t have any trained, certified, or security cleared design or construction resources. The requirements for nuclear design and construction resources are substantially higher than for wind, solar, and other generation options. High security clearances are required for a vastly greater percentage of nuclear construction resources than for other forms of electrical generation, especially as they’ll be doing construction on a running nuclear site. Many people in non-nuclear trades such as boilers, turbines, electricians, and the like who would be acceptable for a wind farm, solar farm, or hydro project will not pass the filters for nuclear projects. In fact, many utility-scale construction projects employ vast numbers of unskilled day laborers that they pick up off street corners at the beginning of the day and drop off again at the end.
They don’t have a significant nuclear engineering program in any of their universities. The nuclear chair in TU Delft retired a decade or so ago and was never replaced. There’s a professor of nuclear engineering at the school, Jan Leen Kloosterman, and he’s clearly excited by this opportunity and hoping that the chair will be re-established with him sitting in it per his public comments.
They have no one who has ever led and run the construction of a nuclear plant. The people who built Borssele are dead or retired to Spain or Portugal, one assumes.
They don’t have a primary contractor, and that’s much more of a problem than it was a decade ago. The three major countries that are building or attempting to build nuclear reactors in other jurisdictions are Russia, China, and France. Russia has made itself an international pariah and clearly wouldn’t pass basic security checks. China has been politically blackballed because it’s stopped being a cheap manufacturer of consumer goods and become instead a major economic competitor which has surpassed the US by several measures and is set to surpass it by most of the rest by 2035. And then there’s France, which has proven to Europe and the world that it is incompetent to build new nuclear reactors, and has had problems operating its own.
The Netherlands doesn’t have a plan, just an aspiration. They don’t have a schedule, just a notional target that is close enough to 2030 to sound good. They don’t have a budget, they have a number that they think that they can sell. There’s just so much failure inherent in this proposal that it’s like asking a flatland triangle to successfully build the Pyramid of Giza. Where to start?
Some 37 percent of the survivors of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster of 2011 still suffer from mental illness due to financial crisis, isolation, and drastic changes in living conditions, says a survey.
The survey results indicated that the victims suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD due to “anxieties about compensation and indemnification,” “unemployment” and “nuisances just by being an evacuee.” The survey was conducted by the Waseda Institute of Medical Anthropology on Disaster Reconstruction and the Disaster Relief Assistance Network Saitama, a citizens group, between January to April 2022 among 5,350 households, the Asahi Shimbun reported on April 3.
https://beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-winter-webinar/ The Samuel Lawrence Foundation is hosting its “First Friday” Zoom Event at 11:30 AM PST (2:30 PM EST), featuring Brian Toon, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder on:
“Nuclear Winter: The Environmental Consequences of a Nuclear Exchange.” The event is moderated by Professor Paul Dorfman, Chair of Nuclear Consulting Group, University of Sussex, UK. Professor Toon is a world renowned researcher on the environmental and climate consequences of nuclear war. Even a limited conflict between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, an exchange of 100 nuclear weapons, would have global climate changing consequences. Click here to register for the April 7th webinar.
Once again – this is miles too long. And also – sorry – too much about Australia. But, it’s a pivotal time – this AUKUS-nuclear submarine thing. And not just for Australia – as 3 anglophone nations team up in spreading nuclear weapons-grade technology for the first time – to a non-nuclear nation. All done – not with the consent of parliaments and people – just done with a stroke by the big boys. And all setting up for the next proxy war, Australia in the lead role? – against China.
INDIGENOUS ISSUES. An obnoxious clause in Canada’s draft Act for Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
Despite insisting that Julian Assange has been held captive for too long, the Albanese Government still won’t intervene while the AUKUS pact keeps us in lockstep with the U.S., writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.
THE SHAM that is the Julian Assange affair, a scandal of monumental proportions connived in by the AUKUS powers, shows no signs of abating. Prior to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assuming office in Australia, he insisted that the matter dealing with the WikiLeaks publisher would be finally resolved. It had, he asserted, been going on for too long.
Since then, it is very clear, as with all matters regarding U.S. policy, that Australia will, if not agree outright with Washington, adopt a constipated, non-committal position. “Quiet diplomacy” is the official line taken by Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, a mealy-mouthed formulation deserving of contempt.
‘“Quiet diplomacy” to bring Julian Assange home by the Albanese Government is a policy of nothing. Not one meeting, phone call or letter sent.’
Kellie Tranter, a tireless advocate for Assange, has done sterling work uncovering the nature of that position through Freedom of Information requests over the years:
‘They tell a story – not the whole story – of institutionalised prejudgment, “perceived” rather than “actual” risks and complicity through silence.’
The story is a resoundingly ugly one. It features, for instance, stubbornness on the part of U.S. authorities to even disclose the existence of a process seeking Assange’s extradition from the UK, to the lack of interest on the part of the Australian Government to pursue direct diplomatic and political interventions.
Former Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop exemplified that position in signing off on a Ministerial Submission in February 2016 recommending that the Assange case not be resolved; those in Canberra were ‘unable to intervene in the due process of another’s country’s court proceedings or legal matters, and we have full confidence in UK and Swedish judicial systems’. Given the nakedly political nature of the blatant persecution of the WikiLeaks founder, this was a confidence both misplaced and disingenuous.
The same position was adopted by the Australian Government to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), which found that same month that Assange had been subject to ‘different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth Prison which was followed by house arrest and his confinement at the Ecuadorean embassy’.
The Working Group further argued that Assange’s ‘safety and physical integrity’ be guaranteed, that ‘his right to freedom of movement’ be respected and that he enjoy the full slew of ‘rights guaranteed by the international norms on detention’.
At the time, such press outlets as The Guardian covered themselves in gangrenous glory in insisting that Assange was not being detained arbitrarily and was merely ducking the authorities in favour of a “publicity stunt”.
The conduct from Bishop and her colleagues did little to challenge such assertions, though the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) did confirm in communications with Tranter in June 2018 that the Government was ‘committed to engaging in good faith with the United Nations Human Rights Council and its mechanisms, including the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’. Splendid inertia beckoned.
The new Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Stephen Smith, has kept up that undistinguished, even disgraceful tradition: he has offered unconvincing, lukewarm support for one of Belmarsh Prison’s most notable detainees. As the ABC reports, he expressed pleasure “that in the course of the next week or so, he’s agreed that I can visit him in Belmarsh Prison”. (This comes with the usual qualification: that up to 40 offers of “consular” support had been previously made and declined by the ungrateful publisher.)
The new High Commissioner is promising little:
“My primary responsibility will be to ensure his health and wellbeing and to inquire as to his state and whether there is anything that we can do, either with respect to prison authorities or to himself to make sure that his health and safety and wellbeing is of the highest order.”
Assange’s health and wellbeing, which has and continues to deteriorate, is a matter of court and common record. No consular visit is needed to confirm that fact. As with his predecessors, Smith is making his own sordid contribution to assuring that the WikiLeaks founder perishes in prison, a victim of ghastly process.
As for what he would be doing to impress the UK to reverse the decision of former Home Secretary Priti Patel to extradite the publisher to the U.S., Smith was painfully predictable:
“It’s not a matter of us lobbying for a particular outcome. It’s a matter of me as the High Commissioner representing to the UK Government as I do, that the view of the Australian Government is twofold. It is: these matters have transpired for too long and need to be brought to a conclusion, and secondly, we want to, and there is no difficulty so far as UK authorities are concerned, we want to discharge our consular obligations.”
Former Australian Senator Rex Patrick summed up the position rather well by declaring that Smith would be far better off, on instructions from Prime Minister Albanese, pressing the current UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman to drop the whole matter. Even better, Albanese might just do the good thing and push U.S. President Joe Biden and his Attorney-General Merrick Garland to end the prosecution.
Little can be expected from the latest announcement. Smith is a man who has made various effusive comments about AUKUS, an absurd, extortionately costly security pact appropriately described as a war-making arrangement. The Albanese Government, having placed Australia ever deeper into the U.S. military orbit, is hardly likely to do much for a publisher who exposed the war crimes and predations of the Imperium.
Even among Australia’s roll call of opinionated former prime ministers, Paul Keating stands out—not least for his unmatched ability to dress down those who oppose him. But few thought he would ever turn this skill on his own political party, the Australian Labor Party, which finally seized government in 2022 after a decade in the wilderness. That was until last week, when Keating publicly condemned the AUKUS defense pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for signing it.
That tripartite deal, details of which were announced with fanfare just two days earlier, was “the worst international decision by an Australian Labor government” since conscription was attempted during World War I, Keating said during an appearance at Australia’s National Press Club. The decision to purchase nuclear-powered submarines—at a cost of up to 368 billion Australian dollars ($245 billion)—would invariably draw Australia into any potential conflict between the United States and China, he warned.
No words were minced: “Signing the country up to the foreign proclivities of another country—the United States, with the gormless Brits, in their desperate search for relevance, lunging along behind is not a pretty sight.”
Another former prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull of the Liberal Party, also chimed in with concerns, though he put them slightly more delicately.
…………….Turnbull has questioned whether the use of U.S. submarines—employed as a stopgap until British-designed, Australian-built subs are complete—could compromise Australia’s sovereignty. ……………….
Sam Roggeveen, the director of the international security program at the Sydney-based Lowy Institute, told Foreign Policy that his sovereignty concerns regarding AUKUS stretch beyond personnel. “When you build a weapon system that is almost specifically designed to operate thousands of kilometers to our north, and which is perfectly suited to fighting a military campaign against China,” he said, “then at the final moment when the call comes from the White House—‘Will you take part in this war, or won’t you?’—it will be very difficult, almost impossible, for Australia to say no.”
………… Should this relationship continue to devolve, AUKUS could prove “very dangerous” to Australia, dragging the country into a conflict between the two great powers. Ultimately, more debate was needed about the deal, he said, particularly because Australia will bear all of its cost and risk………………………………………………………….
“Many rank-and-file [Labor] members would and do agree with Keating’s criticism, if not all aspects of his argument,”said Chris Wallace, a political historian and professor at the University of Canberra. And some local branches, the bedrock of the party, have recently been pushing back against the deal.
Similarly, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which was founded in Australia in 2007, warned that AUKUS posed “both a major proliferation risk and could be seen as a precursor to Australia acquiring nuclear weapons.” The organization said the purpose of the submarines was, clearly, “to support the [United States] in a war in northeast Asia. Whether with China, North Korea or Russia, there is an alarming risk of any such war escalating to use of nuclear weapons.”
Recent polling suggests the Australian people may also be coming around to Keating’s point of view. Leading pollster Essential found this month that the public’s belief that AUKUS would make Australia more secure has fallen to just 40 percent, down from 45 percent when the pact was first announced back in 2021. On the question of the nuclear-powered submarines in particular, Essential reported that 55 percent of people surveyed either thought the purchase was unnecessary or too expensive.
…………………………………. “There is no rational basis for the Albanese government facilitating the withering expense of nuclear submarines,” Keating wrote, “other than to suit and comply with the strategic ambitions of the United States—ambitions which slice through Australia’s future in the community of Asia, the basis of our rightful and honourable residency.”
The backlash to the recent announcement, from adversaries and allies alike, Wallace said, should prompt the Albanese government to go back to the drawing board and actually vet whether the deal—including the procurement of submarines powered by weapons-grade uranium—was the best option for Australia. “Instead, the government made the announcement first and expected everyone to back in behind it,” she said. “They were dreaming.”
Antinuclear 