Wednesday 27th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

leading australia in the direction of war.....

With AUKUS, the pride of politicians has become an obstacle to reaching the best solution to the ‘national security’ conundrum. In the end, it could be that ego-driven reluctance to shift from entrenched positions results in the Australian people being delivered a disaster.

 

AUKUS and the pride of politicians    By Nick Deane

 

For my own purposes, I have been keeping a record of articles I have read under the topic ‘AUKUS’. There are now some 300 such items on my spreadsheet – nearly all of them finding fault of one kind or another with this extraordinary project.

The criticisms deal with a wide variety of aspects (mainly focussed on the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines). To summarise a few, the AUKUS project:-

  • Leads Australia in the direction of war;
  • Has done damage to Australia’s international reputation;
  • Destabilises Australia’s immediate region;
  • Brings a nuclear industry with it;
  • Introduces the intractable problem of nuclear waste disposal;
  • Damages our relationship with our most important trading partner;
  • Causes a significant loss of sovereignty;
  • Is not good value for money;
  • Diverts resources away from social programs;
  • Will not be as effective as conventional submarines;
  • Is aggressive and not defensive, and
  • Will probably not come to fruition in any case.

Highly respected commentators, such as Hugh White, Paul Keating, Sam Roggeveen, Andrew Fowler, Rex Patrick and Clinton Fernandes, have all raised significant concerns. Meanwhile ‘civil society’ is also getting mobilised, with ‘anti-AUKUS’ groups springing up in all the major centres.

However, the proponents of AUKUS (and the mainstream media) appear content to ignore the valid, rational arguments being put forward against it. Indeed, industry-based conferences are going ahead as if there is nothing about to the project that needs to be questioned, and, no doubt, secret, military training programs are already well under way. Within the military-industrial establishment, the project is gathering momentum. Those in the military are excited by the prospect of controlling a new, highly lethal weapon, whilst those in the industry are attracted by the smell of the limitless funds being devoted to it.

It is disturbing to have to concede that rational argument appears to have little impact on AUKUS’s proponents. However there is an even more worrying aspect to add. That is the pride of politicians. For the longer the process continues, with all its secrecy and in the absence of meaningful debate at high levels, the harder it is for politicians to change course. Abandoning the project would already cause senior members of both major parties considerable ‘loss of face’. If it falls over (as some predict), or if opposition becomes a vote-winner at the next election, that ‘loss of face’ will be highly embarrassing. With AUKUS, the pride of politicians has thus become an obstacle to to reaching the best solution to the ‘national security’ conundrum. In the end, it could be that ego-driven reluctance to shift from entrenched positions results in the Australian people being delivered a disaster.

In an ideal, democratic society, voters and the politicians they elect appraise themselves of the ‘pros and cons’ of controversial matters and make decisions on a rational basis. If they do that in the case of AUKUS, it is surely doomed. Politicians beware!

"nukular" politics....

 

By David Speers

 

Australian politics looks positively mundane compared to what's been unfolding in the United States. 

There have been no game-changing moments here, let alone a whole series of head-spinning developments in recent weeks.

Still, there are some parallels on the issues driving discontent. Inflation, immigration and energy security are making life hard for incumbent governments in the United States, Australia and everywhere else.

These three issues are politically potent. Both Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton know it.

The prime minister's task is to demonstrate he has them all under control. The opposition leader is determined to show that the government has no idea what it's doing on any of them and has created an utter mess.

On inflation, next week's crucial quarterly figure will give some sense of whether we're at least on the right track. Having followed the rest of the world into higher inflation, the government is confident Australia is now following the — albeit bumpy — path back down. A result that shows otherwise would be politically poisonous.

On immigration, a modest ministerial reshuffle expected before parliament returns next month will give a clue as to Albanese's level of confidence or concern.

Departures possibly on the horizon

The prime minister isn't about to make any major changes to his frontbench. He sees stability as a virtue and his most senior ministers will remain in place. The old political adage that reshuffles create more enemies for a leader than friends is true, but denying deserving backbenchers an opportunity for promotion simply to keep the peace isn't necessarily a smart move either.

Vacancies created by ministers volunteering to move on are far preferable.

While no minister has yet publicly declared their intention not to recontest the next election, speculation has focused on Linda Burney, Brendan O'Connor and Mark Dreyfus.

Dreyfus has repeatedly insisted he's staying, both privately and publicly. Burney has too, despite last year's Voice referendum defeat.

The minister for Indigenous Australians recently told the Saturday Paper it was "absolutely" her intention to keep going beyond the election. "The fire is raging and my health is perfect," she said.

The prime minister will need to lay out his post-Voice plans for Indigenous Australians more broadly when he attends the Garma Festival at the end of next week.

Meanwhile, Brendan O'Connor, who has held a range of portfolios under the Rudd, Gillard and Albanese governments, is understood to be "contemplating" his future.

A tough call for the PM

It would be unusual for no one to go at the end of a parliamentary term.

The tougher call for the prime minister will be whether to keep, shift or drop Immigration Minister Andrew Giles. 

He's been in the opposition's sights ever since the High Court NZYQ ruling in November, which led to the release of more than 150 former detainees, including some who had committed serious offences and went on to re-offend.

Dutton, a former home affairs minister himself, wants to project strength. He's not going as far as Donald Trump in pledging mass deportations, but he is promising deep cuts to immigration (without yet explaining how he would deliver the cuts) and suggesting the released detainees could somehow be locked back up through a tougher application of preventative detention orders, even if this leads to more High Court challenges.

The opposition leader says if the prime minister doesn't sack Giles completely he will have failed a "test", revealing he's "weak and out of touch".

Giles, for his part, says he's "very happy doing the work I'm doing". This might seem a little hard to believe given the year he's had, but the point is the immigration minister doesn't want to go anywhere. He's close to the prime minister and presumably has some inkling by now whether he's headed for the chop.

Albanese knows immigration is an issue that's hurt the government. But he may not want to concede any failure by sacrificing Giles, who he thinks has done a good job despite some difficult High Court rulings.

Battle lines set on energy

On energy, the battle lines are set. Albanese isn't about to shift his minister, Chris Bowen, or his ambitious plans for renewables and storage. The government is confident it can win on this issue, given Dutton has now gone nuclear.

The opposition leader, however, is showing equal confidence he can convince Australians that the (so far unknown) cost and length of time it will take to build nuclear reactors at seven sites will all be worth it. He's visited businesses this week near where he's proposed to build nuclear plants in Queensland and New South Wales.

While Dutton didn't do any sort of "street walk" with the cameras, he insists there's "a lot of support" to replace aging coal plants with nuclear.

He's already talking up the well-paid jobs he says would eventually come with nuclear reactors. "We know in a small modular reactor scenario, about 650 jobs are required in that circumstance," he said yesterday in Muswellbrook. Given SMRs remain a "developing" technology, and large-scale plants employ around 700 people on average, this is an estimate at best. Nuclear jobs do, however, tend to pay more than coal jobs.

The two sides of politics in Australia will slug it out over inflation, immigration and energy between now and the election, whenever that is.

They'll be closely watching how these issues play out over the coming months in the US, even if the policy proposals and political vitriol here are nowhere near as extreme.

David Speers is National Political Lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-25/three-issues-albanese-dutton-look-to-the-us/104138228

 

READ FROM TOP.

end of the world.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qpDINQOORc

INTERVIEW: The end of the world as we know it

 

The summer of 2026 may be the last summer we have on this planet, says Scott Ritter. We have created the conditions for nuclear war with Russia...

 

READ FROM TOP...

AUKUS setbacks....

Submarine boss predicts AUKUS project will be slow, expensive and suffer setbacks

 

BY Andrew Greene/ABC

In short:

Australia's Submarine Agency boss told an international defence conference the path to AUKUS will be drawn-out and challenging.

Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead called for patience in seeing the deal through despite all its forthcoming setbacks. 

What's next? 

Discussions are ongoing about how payment contributions will work between the three players, especially if commitments fall flat.

The admiral in charge of running Australia's massive nuclear-powered submarine project has warned the AUKUS endeavour will suffer setbacks and he appealed for "strategic patience", as the expensive, decades-long project gets underway.

Addressing the Indian Ocean Defence and Security conference in Perth, Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) boss Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead claimed AUKUS was already "shifting the military balance of power" in the region but said much more work needed to be done.

"We have a long road ahead, we do need strategic patience; developing these high-end apex capabilities necessary for effective deterrence is not easy, is not quick, nor is it cheap," he told the conference on Thursday.

"There will be setbacks, but we need to have the confidence to see this through a generational commitment.

"The progress made already and the commitment of all involved demonstrate that we as a nation have what it takes to deliver on this ambitious program."

Earlier, the United Kingdom's visiting naval chief said it was "not unreasonable" that Australian taxpayers were already giving the British government almost $5 billionto improve his country's submarine industrial base.

In March, the Albanese government confirmed it would contribute $4.6 billion to UK industry for design work on the new SSN-AUKUS fleet and to expand a Rolls-Royce plant that builds the nuclear reactors that will eventually be installed into the submarines.

Under the tri-nation agreement, the federal government is providing a similar contribution to the United States to help improve the US's submarine industrial base before it begins to deliver second-hand Virginia-class boats to Australia.

"The reactor itself is not going to be built here in Australia, so it's not unreasonable to expect and ask Australia to make some of the up-front investment that allows the United Kingdom to then build the reactor house," British Admiral Ben Key said.

"But this returns back and then think of the opportunity the other way, that for us in the United Kingdom, you've then got a nuclear submarine operating capability here in Australia that is of benefit to us in the long run as well.

"I know Australians are warm, welcoming, decent but not always entirely generous people – I'm sure that there will be a point in the future when we will be asked to put our hand into our pocket but that will be for our benefit as well."

The British Sea Lord said he was comfortable at the level of funding being provided because "a lot of work was going on" across the three AUKUS capitals to look at the balance of the AUKUS payments.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-25/aukus-project-will-be-slow-expensive-and-suffer-setbacks/104144054

 

READ FROM TOP.