Saturday 30th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

sold out.....

On 14 March, when the AUKUS nuclear powered-submarine details were revealed, I spent most of the day in the Emergency Department of a hospital in Brisbane, with a family member needing urgent medical care.

It took over 12 hours for my relative to get a bed in the ED and then several hours more before a doctor could see him. He was not given his regular medication – a potentially disastrous omission – because the nursing staff simply had no time to do so. They were rushed off their feet, with another 72 patients in Emergency to tend to at the same time.

 

The absurdities of AUKUSBy Marianne Hanson

 

These health professionals were obviously working under extremely difficult conditions with insufficient beds and a wholly inadequate number of staff. Not once did their attitude shift from friendliness and genuine care to one of disregard or contempt for their patients.

The live broadcast in the ED room’s television of our Prime Minister smiling with Joe Biden and Rishi Sunak, proudly announcing the spending of 368 billion dollars to acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines was, by contrast, rather sickening. It seemed a betrayal of those who voted Labor less than a year ago who wanted a new direction in foreign policy and especially an end to Australia’s involvement in America’s disastrous wars.

Like me, they hoped that a focus on the things that really threaten Australia – environmental catastrophe, the lack of public housing and a record number of homeless people, declining health and education provisions – would take precedence over the smug militarism which the Morrison government had embraced.

The submarines announcement, with its accompanying regalia and carefully staged photos seemed to me to be giving the finger to the Australian public. Unlike staff in the Emergency ward who stoically and cheerfully continued to help the people who needed their care, here was a scenario on an American beach showing these three men almost as Hollywood stars. I could not see any sense of genuine care for the ordinary people ‘doing it tough’ back home, and certainly no acknowledged consideration of how that obscenely high financial commitment could benefit everyday Australians. (By the way, that figure is more than twice the cost originally estimated for the submarines.)

I refuse to accept this spending without registering my protest, and I reject the ease with which we are expected to embrace this military madness. I am also disturbed by those who believe that the only response to a growing China is the acquisition of hugely expensive attack submarines designed to sail up to the Chinese coast and launch missiles onto its mainland.

Set aside for one moment my belief that the threat of China attacking Australia has been wilfully manufactured and inflated by vested interests in Australia. Set aside the hysterical response by the West to what is normal behaviour for a rising power determined to secure its influence in its near-abroad, and which wants to reunite with a territory that the US, Australia and most of the world already recognises as a one of its provinces. Set aside the point that while China’s human rights record might be shocking, so too is India’s, a state with which we are happy to align ourselves.

Those who are pushing for war with China often know nothing about the country, while the academics and diplomats who are China specialists have been ignored. But the thing I find most troubling is the limited imagination on how we should respond to, and work with, a rising power in our region, and the use of ridiculous tropes on why the only option is to plan for war.

For example, on the ABC’s Q and A program on 27 March discussing AUKUS, when Senator Jordon Steele-John aired what many Australians feel about AUKUS, the response from fellow-panellists was dismal. One panellist, who persistently interrupted him, demanded stridently, ‘So what would you do then, for our sovereignty, so our shipping lanes can be clear, so that we can interact with our Asian partners, and we can be free to conduct ourselves globally? What would you do to protect our sovereignty?!’

This nonsensical barrage came from a politician known to be very conservative, but as far as I can tell, she has no education or training in international affairs, strategic studies, or diplomacy. She may well be competent in her own field of expertise in domestic Indigenous issues, but this does not mean that her shouted ‘solutions’ for Australia’s international relations dilemmas – aired on national television – should be taken seriously. The outburst was another parroting of the ‘China threat’ with no understanding of the complexities of geopolitics; it also showed no awareness of the contested utility of these submarines for defending Australia or for keeping shipping lanes open.

Another pro-AUKUS panellist stated that Steele-John was ‘arguing for Australian isolationism’, against what he claimed was, ‘the single biggest military build-up we have ever seen since World War Two’. China certainly is undergoing a major military build-up, but this needs to be seen in the context of China as a rising power. (Such a statement also neglects the massive military build-ups conducted by other states since 1945.) China currently spends between $200-290 billion on defence, while the US spends around $800 billion. The US has around 790 bases around the world, including several close to China; China has two overseas bases.

This same panellist went on to claim that ‘we’ve got two choices to China’s rise: we can respond to that, or not.’ The implication was that a military response – and AUKUS is a monumental military response – is seen as the only option we have. Otherwise, we can do nothing.

Such statements are ridiculous and display ignorance about the range of options which have long been available to states pursuing their security. What about diplomacy? What about the usual tools of statecraft, such as ongoing negotiations and deepening trade ties? (which still allows us to criticise human rights abuses; actually, this had been Australia’s approach to China for decades), Confidence and Security Building Measures to lessen the security dilemma? Working with our regional partners and organisations to deepen engagement and build mutual security assurances?

None of these gets a look-in in the rubbish that passes for meaningful debate on AUKUS.

A good strategist works to build regional and global peace and stability. This is not isolationism or naivety. Rushing into military options is foolish and those who are peddling this view seem unaware of what such a war would actually look like. Right now, China undoubtedly feels threatened by the United States’ actions and its military bases and this has only been compounded by AUKUS.

We need a sensible and considered approach to security politics, including a balanced and rational debate about how we should live and engage with China (noting again that China does not pose a threat to Australia’s national security, unless we persist in joining Washington’s plans for war). Defence decisions today have been captured by a select few who are in obeisance to the United States, in thrall to weapons corporations, and happy for Australia to become a US spearhead against China. There is no accountability or reflection about whether these decisions are the best option for Australia.

The nurses and doctors I spoke to in the Emergency Department were shocked that Canberra will spend $368 billion on eight submarines. I cannot blame them.

 

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/the-absurdities-of-aukus/

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

techos.....

China and America are battling it out in tech and China has an edge. A new report from ASPI reveals the reality of the China USA tech race. Let's break it all down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfygisbndek

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

a new word......

 

By Richard Whitington

 

Britain’s Oxford Dictionary and America’s Webster’s have moved quickly to shut down further nominations for the 2023 “Word of the Year”. They’ve declared “aukustrate” the unbeatable winner. Unsurprisingly, Australia’s Macquarie Dictionary found no reason to disagree, and fell into line.

The announcement followed the Global Public Relations Institute giving its Marx/Goebbels Award for the Propaganda Campaign of 2023 to the communications strategists behind AUKUS: the astonishingly well “orchestrated/aukustrated” push by northern hemisphere arms makers which commits Australia to spend $12 billion a year for the next 30 years on US/UK submarines.

A spokesperson for the Global PR Institute said the AUKUS/arms-dealers promoters had followed every good rule in the playbook:

  1. Persuade a struggling Liberal/Coalition PM (Scott Morrison) that his electoral prospects would be better served if he reneged on a submarine-supply contract with the inconsequential/hapless French, and switched instead to Australia’s more traditional allies – the US and UK.
  2. Have the Coalition Government advise the Labor Opposition of the decision less than 24 hours before it’s announced publicly, knowing that Labor will go along with it because they’re nervous about being seen as not completely committed to the US alliance (never mind what the ALP’s parliamentary party room and rank and file might have said, if asked).

Then, once Labor is elected….

  1. Prime the best-respected print media outlet in Australia to run a huge series on how China is about to start a war, including an invasion of Australia. For the series, assemble a panel of experts, including some who have clear links to a think tank funded by US interests and the Australian Government.
  2. A week or so later, schedule an exquisitely made-for-TV meeting at a naval base in the US, involving the US President and the UK PM, and Australia’s PM, for the biggest photo-op an Australian PM will ever enjoy on the world stage. Confirm submarines deal, with just enough detail to make it sound credible: “catching the wave of history”.
  3. Endure the inevitable criticism and scepticism, with well-prepared talking points. Switch easily from “This is to stop a Chinese attack on Australia,” to “This is to protect our sea lanes (in the South China Sea) for our export markets”. Include “This doesn’t commit us to be involved in a war over China’s claims to Taiwan”.
  4. Have a recruitment commercial ready to run on TV, a few days after the announcement, seeking people to build and crew the submarines (knowing they’ll be a little hard to find, given the US will veto anyone from the “suss” countries from which we draw many of our immigrants).

The panel also noted the deft handling of potentially tricky issues, as the “aukustrators” successfully silenced:

  1. Any mention that the Port of Darwin is already leased to a Chinese corporation, courtesy of a local Coalition (NT) government unimpeded, at the time, by a federal Coalition government.
  2. Pesky questions about how having a few Australian submarines in the South China Sea would be able to stop China sending long range missiles to nuke the “joint US/Australian surveillance base” at Pine Gap, (near Alice Springs, NT) and Tindal Air Base (near Katherine in the NT): Australian mainland territory, effectively ceded to the US.
  3. Reference to Australia’s disastrous contract to purchase the F15 fighter-bombers from the US, to ensure it’s not used as a negative case history.
  4. Observations on the fact that all of the individuals/parties who lent themselves to this will be long gone (dead or retired) by the time the submarines program is meant to be finalised in the mid 2050s.

The panel noted the particular sophistication of the argument that the subs would be used to patrol the sea lanes around Australia’s largest trading partner, China, while identifying China, itself, as the biggest threat to the security of the very waters through which Australia/China imports/exports are carried.

 

You also may be interested in New language, new national future: Australia is now an AUKUState by Michael McKinley.

 

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/playbook-for-aukus-campaign-wins-coveted-award/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

kangaroorism.....

by Caitlin Johnstone

One of the many signs that Australia is nothing but an asset to the US military and intelligence services is the way its government has consistently refused to step in to protect the Australian citizen. Julian Assange of political persecution at the hands of the US empire.

In a new article titled “ Penny Wong works to dampen hopes of breakthrough in Julian Assange case" The Guardian quotes the Australian Foreign Minister, who said: " We do what we can, government to government, but there are limits to what this diplomacy can accomplish". Ms Wong answered the question whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had discussed thepress freedom case the most famous in the world with the US President and the British Prime Minister when he met them together two weeks ago.

Ms Wong refused to say if the head of her government had raised the issue with her supposed US and British counterparts, instead repeating the same line she's been bleating since Labor took power: the Assange case" dragged on long enough and should be closed ". If you listen carefully, this is not a statement in favor of releasing the WikiLeaks founder or blocking extradition, but simply an assertion that the case should be concluded quickly, to one way or another.

The statements were made in response to questions posed by Greens Senator David Shoebridge, who criticized the Labor government's "quiet diplomacy" approach to the Assange case.

"The idea that quiet diplomacy should be so silent that the government cannot tell the public or parliament if the prime minister has spoken to the president is bizarre" said Mr. Shoebridge.

Mr Wong told Mr Shoebridge that Australia was unable to intervene to protect the famous Australian journalist: “ As the Australian government, we are unable to intervene in legal or judicial proceedings in another country. ».

While Australia cannot force the US to end the political imprisonment and persecution of Assange for exposing US war crimes, it can of course take diplomatic action with his supposed ally in order to protect an Australian citizen. Even nations with which Australia has no form of alliance are vocally confronted in Canberra when imprisoning Australian citizens, such as Wong's statement released yesterday regarding China's detention of Chinese-Australian journalist Cheng Lei , in which the Minister of Foreign Affairs explicitly and unequivocally requests that “Ms. Cheng be reunited with her family”.

Just yesterday, Mr. Wong tweeted to demand justice for Ms. Cheng and for US journalist Evan Gershkovich, who was arrested in Russia for spying.

« It's been a year since Australian citizen Cheng Lei was tried behind closed doors in Beijing on national security charges Ms. Wong tweeted. " She still has not known the outcome of her trial. Our thoughts are with Ms. Cheng and her loved ones. Australia will continue to advocate for her to be reunited with her children ».

« Australia is deeply concerned about Russia's detention of Wall Street Journal Moscow correspondent Evan Gershkovich. We call on Russia to ensure access to consular and legal assistance “, tweeted Penny Wong a few hours later.

Now guess how many times Penny Wong has tweeted the word “Assange”?

Answer: zero.

What is the reason for this discrepancy? Why is the Australian Foreign Secretary publicly demanding that China release Cheng Lei and return her to her children, without demanding the same from the United States for Julian Assange? Julian Assange also has children, and he has been imprisoned for four times longer than Cheng Lei – more than ten times longer if you count the period of arbitrary detention at the Ecuadorian embassy in London before his arrest . Why does the Australian government step in more to defend an Australian journalist in China than to defend an Australian journalist who is fighting extradition to a country we are supposedly allied with and posing as the ringleader of the order international rules-based?

The answer is that Australia is not a real country. It is an American colony. It's a giant US military base with kangaroos.

This is why the Albanian government's “quiet diplomacy” to release Assange is so quiet that it cannot be said to exist.

Regular readers may recall that the last time we reported on an interaction between Senators Wong and Shoebridge, the former condescendingly dismissed the latter's efforts to find out whether the Australian government would allow the US military to introduce nuclear weapons in the country. Mr. Wong angrily replied to Mr. Shoebridge that the United States had a permanent 'neither confirm nor deny' position regarding where it keeps its nuclear weapons, and that the Australian government understood and respected this position.

We are so under the thumb of Washington that we are not even allowed to know if there are American nuclear weapons in our country, and our own government cannot even defend its own citizen when he is persecuted. for doing good journalism.

Add to that the fact that Australia has been pressured into an AUKUS pact that makes us far less secure, that it has a hostile relationship with China that harms its own economic and security interests, that it has hosted a US nuclear intelligence site that makes her a nuclear target and that the US is staging outright coups against our government whenever its elected leaders threaten US strategic interests, and it becomes apparent that our so-called “country” is actually just a US aircraft carrier that is the size of a continent.

Which would be bad enough if those bastards weren't pushing us to play a leading role in World War III. We need to start fighting our subservience to the US empire and the Pentagon puppets within our own government as if our lives depended on it, because it very clearly does.

source: Caitlin Johnstone via The Sam la Touch Blog

 

 

READ MORE:

https://en.reseauinternational.net/laustralie-nest-pas-une-nation-cest-une-base-militaire-etatsunienne-avec-des-kangourous/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON AGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

 

myopic war...

 

By Cameron Leckie

 

Historically, it used to be clear when one country was at war with another. Not so today. Indeed, that is one of the Department of Defence’s objections to war powers reform, where it stated in its submission to the Armed Overseas Conflict Inquiry that “the growth of grey-zone activities and offensive operations in the space and cyber domains [challenge] traditional concepts of ‘conflict.’“

Another type of conflict is the proxy war. Proxy wars are “when a major power instigates or plays a major role in supporting and directing a party to a conflict but does only a small portion of the actual fighting itself” according to Daniel Byman, foreign policy editor of the Brookings Institution’s Lawfare blog. Byman argues that the United States uses proxy wars to reduce the cost to itself; “Locals fight, and die, so Americans do not have to.”

It is increasingly clear that the war in Ukraine is a proxy war with the United States, NATO and the European Union using Ukraine as their proxy to “weaken Russia.” Without, at least officially, engaging in combat with Russian forces, the Western powers have armed, equipped, supplied and trained the Ukrainian military, both in the lead up to the current war and in the years prior. Additionally they are providing command and control functions including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, that has likely directly contributed to the deaths of Russian service personnel, Ukrainian tactical successes such as its Khariv offensive, and Ukrainian drone/missile strikes within Russia. Finally, the Western powers have imposed unprecedented sanctions (that have largely boomeranged) on Russia and attempted, with minimal success outside the West, to isolate it diplomatically.

The Ukrainians are dying in large numbers, so that Westerners do not have to (at least to this point). Retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor, a combat veteran and senior adviser within the Trump administration estimates that the Ukrainian military has already lost over 150,000 soldiers killed, with eight Ukrainian soldiers being killed for every Russian soldier. Whilst it is difficult to know the real numbers, given Russia’s clear dominance in firepower (both in quantities of weapon systems and rates of ammunition expenditure) and its slow methodical approach, as fighting in and around Bakhmut demonstrates, it appears reasonable to assume that many more Ukrainians soldiers are being killed than Russian.

Despite the proxy war in Ukraine posing no threat to Australia’s national security, the Government (under both the leadership of Prime Ministers Morrison and Albanese) has actively supported this proxy war. This has included:

  • The provision of military equipment including Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles, M113 armoured personnel carriers and M777 howitzers.
  • The deployment of a 70 person training team (Operation KUDU) to the United Kingdom to train Ukrainian soldiers.
  • The provision of $665 million in support to Ukraine, of which $475 million is military assistance.
  • Placing numerous sanctions on Russia.
  • Diplomatic manoeuvring such as at the annual UN General Assembly vote on Russia’s annual non-binding Resolution ‘against the glorification of Nazism.’ Traditionally Australia has abstained but in 2022 we voted against this resolution and pushed through an amendment to the draft (note that the majority of nations, 105 votes, voted in favour of the resolution, with 52 nations against the resolution and 15 abstentions).

Based on the aforementioned actions, and rhetoric of the Australian Government, it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that we are a party to the proxy war in Ukraine.

Whilst these actions have bi-partisan support, it is also clear there has been no debate in the Parliament on Australia’s decision to enter into a proxy war.

Superficially this may not appear to be an issue. After all the war is a long way geographically from Australia, and no Australian Defence Force personnel are coming home in body bags.

But on deeper reflection it is clear that we have, without any apparent thought for the consequences, entered into a conflict that may very well seriously harm Australia’s interests.

Some of these consequences include:

  • The opportunity cost to Australia. More than half a billion (and counting) has been spent on Ukraine that could have been used to address dozens of domestic issues from natural disaster responses to our struggling healthcare system.
  • Australia’s support to the proxy war is extending the conflict and will increase both the total number of Ukrainian casualties and how much territory it loses. Numerous reports indicate that Ukraine came close to a negotiated outcome to the conflict with Russia in April 2022, an outcome that then United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson is alleged to have prevented. Is extending this conflict, and all its inherent trauma, for Ukraine’s benefit? Or the West’s broader geopolitical objectives?
  • The proxy war is, as I have argued elsewhere, leading to a transfer in the balance of global power from the West to the Eastern world – an outcome inimical to Australia’s interests given our current alliances and allegiances.
  • Our reputation in the region. Very few of the countries in our region have been supportive of the Western sanctions and other actions against Russia. We could, in the increasingly likely outcome that Russia ‘wins’ this conflict, find ourselves an outlier isolated in our region.
  • The potential rise of far-right extremism in Australia. Virtually every major Western media organisation and human rights group had reported on the influence and power of neo-Nazis in Ukraine prior to the commencement of the war. Marise Payne as Foreign Minister even cancelled a former Australian soldiers passport as he was planning to fight with the ‘notoriously neo-Nazi’ Azov Battalion. We are now warned of the growing threat of far-right extremism in Australia whilst ignoring that we are supporting a country with a widely known problem with this ideology. Perhaps there is a link between our unquestioning support to Ukraine and this growing threat?

For Australians for War Powers Reform, the demand that the Parliament should vote on the deployment of Australian troops should remain as our number one priority.

However, it is also clear that a legislated requirement for a parliamentary vote on armed overseas conflict is insufficient. As Australia’s involvement in the Ukraine proxy war demonstrates, current proposals for war powers reform do not cover circumstances where Australia can become party to a conflict without the physical deployment of troops in a conflict zone. Proxy wars can be a slippery slope towards real war and as described above can have significant negative consequences.

Involvement in any overseas conflict, whether directly or indirectly, is too important to be left to the whim of executive government. With there being no debate, or vote, in the Parliament on the potential consequences of Australia being a party to the current proxy war, we have sleepwalked into another disastrous conflict. It is time for Australia to do better!

 

First published in Australians for war powers reform January 30, 2023

 

https://johnmenadue.com/is-australia-currently-at-war/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....