Preparations for Australian involvement in a US-instigated war against China are proceeding steadily. Despite recent polls showing that a majority of the Australian people want to keep out of such a war and stay neutral, Australia’s subservient leadership continues to provide the US military with unimpeded access to our ports, airfields and military bases as they lock us ever more tightly into the US imperial war machine.

HMAS Stirling at Garden Island in WA is being extended to provide porting and maintenance facilities for US nuclear submarines and RAAF Tindal in the NT is being upgraded for the basing there of US fighters and B-52 bombers, some of which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. US controlled fuel, munitions and spare parts depots are being set up in Darwin and at Bandiana in Victoria, and Robertson Barracks in Darwin is being extended to accommodate increased numbers of US Marines stationed there, currently 2,500. These US war preparations are underpinned by the AUKUS Security Pact and the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement, the FPA.

In Michael West Media on 16 August, Michelle Fahy and Elizabeth Minter write that: ”AUKUS, in conjunction with the FPA, ensures that Australia’s navy, in particular, will be tightly integrated with the US navy for the purpose of fighting China, and that the two navies can operate as one from Australian ports and waters.”

Fahy and Minter point out that: “The FPA provides the legal basis for the extensive militarisation of Australia by the US. In short, it permits the US to prepare for, launch and control its own military operations from Australian territory”. They quote Defence Minister Richard Marles as saying recently that the “American force posture now in Australia involves every domain: land, sea, air, cyber and space”, that Australia’s military engagement with the US military would “move beyond inter-operability to inter-changeability” and Australia would “ensure we have all the enablers in place to operate seamlessly together, at speed”.

Writing in Pearls and Irritations on 17 August, former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans said of Australia’s plans to acquire nuclear-powered submarines: “The price now being demanded by the US for giving us access to its nuclear propulsion technology is, it is now becoming ever more clear, extraordinarily high. Not only the now open-ended expansion of Tindal as a US B-52 base; not only the conversion of Stirling into a major base for a US Indian Ocean fleet, making Perth now join Pine Gap and the North West Cape – and increasingly likely, Tindal – as a nuclear target; not only the demand for what is now described not as the inter-operability but the ‘inter-changeability’ of our submarine fleets. But also now the ever-clearer expectation on the US side that ‘integrated deterrence’ means Australia will have no choice but to join the US in fighting any future war in which it chooses to engage anywhere in the Indo-Pacific, including in defence of Taiwan.”

While the public has been largely kept in the dark about the US militarisation of Australia, some information has come to light due to the passage through Federal Parliament of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill, 2023, which has passed the first and second stages, has been subject to a Senate Inquiry and is proceeding to the final stage of approval. This Bill declares two areas of Australia as nuclear zones, Garden Island in WA and Osborne Naval Shipyard in SA. Garden Island is being upgraded at a cost to the Australian taxpayer of $8 billion for the porting and maintenance of UK and US nuclear submarines and the Osborne shipyard is being prepared for the construction of future Australian nuclear-powered submarines. The Bill will also enable the establishment of a nuclear waste facility at Garden Island.

In preparation for foreign and Australian nuclear-powered submarines berthing at Australian ports a civil authority, the Australia Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, has analysed the dangers of a radiation leak or accident in a nuclear zone and the emergency responses required. In what the ARPANSA refers to as a Scenario Reference Accident, all persons in the first danger zone, 600 metres around the accident site, would be evacuated and given iodine tablets to reduce the likelihood of thyroid cancer. In Zone 2, 2.8 kilometres around the accident site, all workers and local residents could be ordered to evacuate, with children being required to take iodine tablets. They could all be required to attend a decontamination centre for medical treatment. Because wind can extend the spread of toxic radiation, a 3rd Zone is defined as extending beyond 2.8 km and possibly up to 15 kilometres, depending on wind strength and direction; in this zone, residents could also face radiation hazards

ARPANSA sets the maximum radiation exposure for a civilian at 1 millisievert, although under this accident scenario the exposure can be legally increased to 50 millisieverts,  50 times that considered a maximum in other circumstances. ARPANSA goes further, describing the scenario of a catastrophic accident in which volunteers would be asked to help control the disaster in the knowledge that they could be exposed to a radiation intensity of 500 millisieverts, thereby putting their health at serious long-term risk.

The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill, 2023 declares Garden Island in WA and Osborne in SA to be nuclear zones, areas in which the scenarios determined by ARPANSA, would apply. However, this Bill over-rides ARPANSA regarding radiation safety and instead establishes a military safety authority to assume responsibility for these nuclear zones; it is thus far unclear whether this military safety authority will apply the same radiation safety standards as ARPANSA or opt for a less strict standard and response.

The Bill also provides for regulated activities in nuclear waste management storage and disposal at AUKUS facilities in future nuclear zones, with Garden Island being designated as one of these nuclear waste management areas for low-level nuclear waste. However, Greens Senator David Shoebridge has found out that intermediate-level nuclear waste could also be dumped at this location. From 2027, both UK and US nuclear submarines will be regularly porting at Garden Island and discharging their nuclear waste there. Since it is the policy of the US not to confirm or deny whether their vessels and aircraft are carrying nuclear weapons, we could have nuclear-armed US submarines porting and receiving maintenance at Garden Island and then, in a war scenario, departing on hunter-killer operations, thus automatically involving Australia in such war operations and rendering us liable to retaliatory strikes.

The residents living near Garden Island and the Osborne Shipyard have not been advised of the ARPANSA risk analysis and emergency responses in relation to a nuclear radiation leak or accident or the establishment of a nuclear waste facility on Garden Island and so they have had no opportunity to ask questions or raise any opposition.

In the initial information released about AUKUS and nuclear submarine acquisition, it was proposed to establish an East Coast nuclear submarine port and maintenance facility. Two locations on the NSW coast were mentioned: one at Port Kembla and the other at Newcastle.

The very mention of this possibility has raised the ire of workers, trade unionists and local communities at Port Kembla and Newcastle, with very vocal and active protest movements opposing the establishment of such a port at both places.

Understandably, NSW residents have become very concerned, especially with the prospect of nuclear waste or radiation from a nuclear leak or accident impacting on their health.

Recently, the organisation “Mobilise against AUKUS and War” has been formed from a number of community organisations based in Sydney and nearby regions. This organisation has taken up NSW residents’ concerns and initiated an online petition to the NSW Legislative Assembly. It is currently open to NSW residents for their signatures and will remain open until 31 October.

The petition reads as follows: “Preventive measures to protect the people of NSW from the long-lasting toxic effects of nuclear radiation. The undersigned petitioners therefore ask the Legislative Assembly to pass legislation to ensure that there are:

• No nuclear submarine base(s) established in NSW
• No nuclear waste is stored or disposed of in NSW
• No visits of nuclear powered vessels, or nuclear weapons- capable vessels or aircraft, from any country, allowed in NSW ports or airfields

These measures are essential to prevent the people of NSW being exposed to the long-term health risks of toxic radiation which can occur through exposure to nuclear waste or radiation from leaks or accidents associated with the nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons on visiting vessels or aircraft.”

It would seem sensible for all Australian states to pass such legislation. While any one piece of legislation or any one protest action may not stop the US militarisation of Australia and the march to war, any action which can impede that process and keep us safe, is welcome.

Since the present stance of both major parties is based on unquestioning subservience to the US, only a united, broad-based and powerful movement of the Australian people can steer us away from the headlong rush to catastrophe towards which we are presently headed.

https://johnmenadue.com/the-dangers-of-aukus-the-fpa-and-nuclear-submarines/

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

There can be little doubt that Australia is entering the same kind of misinformation domain as the US. Just a few days ago, failed presidential hopeful Nikki Haley posted on X that UN Resolution 2758 doesn’t mention Taiwan.

Reading the resolution, it’s correct, the Island of Taiwan doesn’t get a mention, but that’s where the disinformation starts. What does get a mention is that the representatives of Chiang Kai-Shek would be expelled forthwith from the places they “unlawfully occupy” in the United Nations. The representatives of Chiang Kai Shek are the representatives of the Republic of China and the Republic of China is housed in Taiwan.

It’s hard to get any clearer than that. But for those people who want to revise history, it’s always a good place to start at the beginning of any negotiation between two parties and, the first answer to the Taiwan question is when Mao, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger met to discuss normalising relations. The most difficult question to arise out of the normalisation was the position in relation to Taiwan. An island province, which had been agreed in the Cairo Declaration, would be returned to China after World War II, having been under years of Japanese, Dutch and Portuguese colonisation.

So, the wording that Nixon signed in a joint declaration, held in US archives, is very important. It states: “The Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China’s internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all US forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan.”

Some might argue that Nixon signed under duress. He needed China’s help to overcome Russia and he desperately wanted to extricate his country from the war in Vietnam that he had escalated into Cambodia and Laos without losing face. He knew what he had to do, he had to give China what it wanted, and he did so willingly.

Now, Australians are facing a revision of history, Australian Senate members of a US funded alliance called IPAC, the Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China have presented Australia’s Senate with a revision of the UN Resolution and a call to have it overturned.

There are two factors to consider here. One is that, if Australia wants to alienate its largest and most important trading partner, there is no better way to do so than entertain, at a parliamentary level, a process that will undoubtedly cross the only red line that China has indicated to the world – Taiwan is part of China, it is inseparable from China and it will be defended. Therefore, Australia risks two things: one is an increasingly reluctant trading partner which is certain to look for alternative markets, thus leaving Australia in increasingly difficult financial circumstances. Some may view that as a threat, but loss of business is the reality of upsetting your biggest client. The other problem is that it will cause instability in the region. Any claims that Taiwan does not belong to China will result in Beijing doing what it believes it must do to defend its sovereign territory.

If Australia is looking for these two conditions to occur, then this is a surefire way of achieving them. This situation is not helped by biased ABC reporting which fails to consider the alternative position, even to the point of amplifying this misinformation that it’s China attempting to change the position that has been held by the UN on Resolution 2758 since 1971. For the record, China has made no statement whatsoever to change the understanding of the resolution.

In fairness to Australia, it was one of the 35 countries to support the US stance and vote No to the resolution, but that doesn’t change the fact that 76 countries voted Yes and the UN, for all its flaws, is a democratic institution. Australia has no right now to enter the fray with a change of heart, especially one which is sponsored, supported and financially funded by regime change experts in the National Endowment for Democracy, the founding CEO of which is noted for admitting that much of what they do was done covertly by the CIA before they were founded. In other words, an admitted CIA cut-out organisation known for funding destabilisation.

It’s too early to tell what China’s reaction to this will be, but there is little doubt that one of the tools available to Beijing is very simple – to take its business elsewhere. Australia currently relies on China as the largest buyer of several important resources. iron ore being the largest by a long way. Total outgoing trade with China was more than $US120 billion in 2023 with a total of 41% of all exports going to China.

It’s easy for many Australians to suggest that “shared values” with the US mean they must side with that country, but realities make for a very different scenario. The US accounts for just 4.3% of Australia’s exports, no other country comes close, Japan is nearest with only 12% of Australia’s exports and declining. There isn’t another market for Australia to expand into; China is, by a long way, the most important market we have and we are poking it in the eye over what Paul Keating correctly calls “not a vital Australian interest”.

China has never expressed aggressive intentions towards Taiwan, it has repeatedly maintained it is prepared to wait, but will never rule out force to defend Taiwan if others feel they can take it away from the 1.4 billion people who view the island as a province which is and will always remain part of China.

This is what was agreed by Nixon in 1971, Carter in 1978 and Reagan in 1982. It was agreed by the United Nations and accepted by Australia in 1971. Researching back though, we see it all started to change in April this year; after more than 50 years since the resolution was passed, there are accusations that China is only now misinterpreting it. Yet China hasn’t made any statements. With NED support from Washington DC, Australia is rewriting history and Nikki Haley is amplifying it.

https://johnmenadue.com/rewriting-history-will-not-serve-australia-well/

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.