Down Under Australia - Underdog or pawn?

[Jones]

In 2017, Dan Andrews made the unpopular decision to sign Victoria up to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. Then during the covid lock downs, he implemented the harshest restrictions in Australia similar to, but maybe not as harsh as China. Given Victoria's ties to China, was there some suspicion that there would be a concentrated release of Sars Cov2 in Victoria?

Last week, Andrews went on a trip to China to meet with Xi Jinping and apparently media outlets were not allowed to attend and report on the meeting. There is this article in the Australian Financial Review from the Chinese perspective of the visit:

China welcomes Andrews visit, pledges deeper education ties

Tokyo/Melbourne | China has pledged to strengthen education ties with Victoria after Premier Daniel Andrews met senior officials during a trip to boost economic relations.

China’s Foreign Ministry, usually a regular critic of Australia, welcomed Mr Andrews’ four-day visit and said it hoped Australia would work with China to improve bilateral ties.

The Education Ministry confirmed Mr Andrews met Education Minister Huai Jinpeng in Beijing on Tuesday, and singled out Victoria as a popular destination for Chinese students.
“The two sides should strengthen co-operation in higher education, vocational education, special education, language teaching, and short-term mutual visits and exchanges between primary and secondary schools, strive for more practical results, and promote friendly public opinion between China and Australia,” the ministry said in a statement.
An update provided by Mr Andrews’ office on Wednesday said he held a “very positive” meeting with Mr Huai, and reinforced that Chinese students were safe and respected in Victoria.
“The minister indicated Chinese parents would be more likely to send their children to study in Victoria than other places,” the update claimed. It said the Mr Andrews would travel from Beijing to Nanjing on Wednesday.

Xi Jinping’s government is using an influx of foreign politicians and business leaders to China this week to promote the idea that its major trading partners are keen to re-engage despite rising tensions with the United States.

“This visit is not long, but it is a very important opportunity for us to impress our Chinese partners. This is not my first visit to China, and it won’t be the last time,” Mr Andrews was quoted as saying in the Shanghai Observer, which trumpeted the arrival of European executives in China this week as a vote of confidence in the country’s economy.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and federal Trade Minister Don Farrell are also expected to visit China this year. Assistant Trade Minister Tim Ayres and Fortescue Metals founder Andrew Forrest are in China this week attending the Boao Forum for Asia.

Thaw in diplomatic relations​

Meanwhile, China is sending Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Ma Zhaoxu to Australia next month in the latest sign that diplomatic relations between the two countries are thawing.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen will travel with French President Emmanuel Macron to China next month, US and European media reports said this week.

Victoria has about 42,000 Chinese students enrolled in higher education, and Mr Andrews said before his flight to Beijing on Monday night that he wanted to increase that by up to 20,000.

The trip by the Victorian premier, who in 2020 controversially signed up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, has been criticised by unions and the Victorian opposition.

Deputy Opposition Leader and trade and investment spokesman David Southwick said transparency was vital for Victorians to have confidence in our trading relationship with China.

“With Victoria heading for record debt levels and with major projects blowing out by over $30 billion, the Andrews Labor government needs to reassure Victorians that this isn’t simply about going to China with a begging bowl because they have run out of money,” Mr Southwick said.

Acting Premier Jacinta Allan argued the visit was a “business trip” rather than an “event trip”.

Mr Andrews’ four-day trip will be his seventh visit overall to China and his first since 2019. It is also the first visit to China by an Australian state or federal leader since the pandemic.

Apparently Victoria's agreement to the BRI was cancelled on Constitutional matters, yet Andrews seems to insistent on relations with China.

At the same time, articles are appearing on MSM this week predicting - for all predictions are worth - that Australia will be at war with China inside 3 years.

'Red Alert' report urges Australia to prepare for war with China in 3 years

As the above article states, given Australia's alliances with the US and NATO it will be difficult for Australia to avoid war with China if war is declared.

However, since Australia isn't in position to defend itself should war break out and given that many countries are presently over-extending themselves with the Ukraine situation, US and NATO probably isn't in the position to assist Australia if WWIII does break out. China seems to be better positioned to do that with it's military and Naval strength in the Pacific.

There's no doubt that things are getting tougher economically here, but so far not to the extent that is seen in UK and Europe. Is it just a slower more managed crash or is there something else going on by way of push back?

 

[Ryan]

Great thread, Jones. This is a very interesting question, especially in the context of AUKUS and the geopolitical manoeuvring of the US to prevent Australia escaping through the "frequency fence" around the empire.

It seems that China is making efforts to ensuring its strategic nuclear weapons are an appropriate deterrent to the US, with a reported buildup to 1,500 nukes based on US DoD estimates:

The Biden administration has found that China is dramatically expanding its nuclear capabilities. In an annual report released last November, the Pentagon estimated that China will triple its stockpile to 1,500 nuclear warheads by 2035.

"One historic constraint on Beijing's arsenal has been a lack of fissile material to make new weapons," said Jacob Stokes, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for a New American Security think tank. "Russian shipments provide China with uranium that, with additional processing, could go into new nuclear warheads, thereby alleviating that constraint." [..]

The enriched-uranium transfer is "a pretty big deal," said Lyle Morris, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute and former country director for China in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, adding that it underscores how "close the two countries have become in the military and nuclear weapons spheres."

Brian Toohey has written an excellent article on the problems with Australia adopting US nuclear submarines:

Despite Defence Minister Marles apparently saying Australia will not participate in a war over Taiwan, Hugh White (ex- Dep Head Defence) says the US would never sell nuclear submarines to Australia without guarantees they will always be used in a US war. The reason is that these subs are taken from off its own line of battle. They are not additional submarines from the production line. Once again, Australian sovereignty does not exist in the sense of being able to use US weapons how we want to do after buying them.

Marles now says the nuclear subs are not for war, but to protect Australian merchant shipping. A leading economist Percy Allan points out there are 26,000 cargo ship movements to and from Australia each year. Nuclear subs have terrible maintenance problems and if we buy the expected three second hand Virginia Class attack subs from America, only one might be operationally available at any time and probably none.

One sub, let alone none, can’t protect 26,000 cargo shipping movements, but mainstream journalists swallow this nonsense.

Before his sudden conversion to pacifism, Marles wanted to deploy the nuclear subs off the Chinese coast to fire long-range cruise missiles into the mainland. This represents a return to the Forward Defence doctrine that failed in Singapore in 1942, and later in Vietnam. Arthur Calwell gave a magnificent anti-war speech in 1965. He was fully vindicated when the Vietnamese won a war against a horrendously destructive invasion that was a war crime. Now, Albanese effectively supports war.

With Labor now returning to the disastrous Forward Defence doctrine, it’s worth remembering the Coalition defence minister in 1969 Allen Fairhall scrapped this doctrine and cut military spending by 5%, while there were still 7,000 Australian troops in Vietnam. The Coalition then switched to the direct defence of Australia. Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating all embraced the defence of Australia, not forward defence. Keating also adopted a long sighted policy of seeking our security in Asia, not from it.

Later, in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Howard reverted to do America’s bidding in another war crime of aggression.

Australia’s best defence is it’s surrounded by water and a long way from China or India. There is no evidence either is a threat. If this changes for the worse, the Defence of Australia doctrine will come into its own.

Marles and Albanese will recklessly position nuclear subs off China. But that’s where China’s forces are concentrated. Because Marles and Albanese would be playing to China’s strengths, they would then be responsible for a disastrous military blunder when the subs are sunk.

It would be much better to play to our strengths, by defending the approaches to Australia by buying highly advanced, medium sized, submarines that are superior to nuclear subs.

Marles estimates his subs will cost up to $368 billion (realistically over $400b). As explained later, that includes the crazy decision to pay the UK to co-design 8 new submarines for Australia. This dwarfs the next highest defence acquisition —$17 billion for F-35 fighter jets.

The US Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service have an outstanding record for exposing appalling waste and incompetence in US submarine shipyards. One Virginia sub was tied up at a jetty for five years before it could be fixed. The US has a military budget of $US880, yet Albanese is donating $3 billion to help improve the shipyards.

Marles did not take the responsible ministerial step and commission a cost-effectiveness study of the options before splurging $400 billion. Australia could get ten superior conventional submarines for a total $10-$15 billion from Japan, South Korea or Germany that could deter any hostile ships approaching Australia from a couple of thousand kilometres away. Submerged drones and mines could also help at a low cost.

Japan’s new Taigei subs use highly advanced batteries that run silently for several weeks without needing to surface to charge the batteries. South Korean and German submarines are about to get much improved batteries. These new subs can run silently on hydrogen fuel cells as well as batteries.

Nuclear subs are easier to detect. When they go at high-speed, they make a detectable wake. Being much bigger, they have a stronger magnetic impression than suitable conventional boats.

Like other subs, nuclear ones have to come to the surface to stick up periscopes and radar and electronic warfare equipment. They produce an easily detected infrared signal due to the reactor constantly boiling water for steam engines to propel the subs. (Nuclear power does not propel the sub. Puffing Billy does.)

This government, largely unrecognisable for Labor values, is wasting $400 billion on dud submarines, when so many pressing needs such as global warming, social welfare, health, education, and affordable housing should take priority.

Another huge problem with nuclear subs is the government has rightly said it will take all the highly enriched uranium waste at end of the sub’s life, then safely store it. This requires the waste to be vitrified overseas and returned in thick drums for burying deep in stable dry underground rock formations for hundreds of years and heavily guarded. Each reactor weighs 100 tons and contains 200 kg of highly radioactive uranium. When used in nuclear power stations, uranium is enriched to about 5%, the same as for French and Chinese nuclear submarines and 20% for Russian. It’s 93% for ours, greatly exacerbating the disposal problem.

I recently asked Australia’s principal nuclear safety organisation, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency about how such waste could be safely stored. It refused to answer. Perhaps it was intimidated by Defence.

Marles exacerbated the problem by saying the waste uranium would be stored “on” defence land. It can’t be stored safely on top of the land. It must be stored deep underground. He’s not dealing with low-grade hospital nuclear waste.

Neither the US or the UK has a high-level underground nuclear waste repository. They could easily pressure Australia into securing their waste from their nuclear subs reactors here.

It seems likely the burial site will be on land in central Australia that is important to Australia’s indigenous population. Whatever happens, it is essential there is no repeat of the way the indigenous people were wilfully exposed to radiation during and after the British nuclear tests in the 1950s and 60s in Australia’s south and central desert areas.

As well as the radiation spread by fallout from atmospheric tests, a much worse danger was the 22.2 kilos of plutonium spread by other trials conducted on the surface and blown on the wind at Maralinga. The secret goal was to develop triggers for British hydrogen bombs. One kilo of plutonium contains over 16 billion times the international standard for the maximum possible permissible body burden in humans. It has a half life of 24,000 years. It, and other radiation, was particular dangerous to aborigines wandering around the testing and trial sites.

Two Native Patrol officers complained they were given the impossible task of ensuring aboriginal people were kept out of danger over vast areas. Journalists Paul Malone and Howard reported that the head of the British weapons research establishment responded to the complaint by saying the officers showed “a lamentable lack of balance . . . apparently placing the affairs of a handful of natives above those of the British Commonwealth of Nations”.

The secret AUKUS pact gives the UK another chance to display its values about nuclear issues and Australia. It doesn’t even meet its own nuclear standards. The nuclear HMS Dreadnought began service in 1960 and retired in 2020. Instead of being dismantled as required, it remains in a dock over 40 years later. Its nuclear fuel has been removed, but this is not the case for nine others that have retired. These are stored on water at Plymouth, where numerous accidents have occurred involving submarines still in service.

Many journalists put great faith in intelligence briefings from right wing ideologues and others about the alleged threat from China. They claim Keating can’t say anything of value because he hasn’t received an intelligence briefing in decades. On the contrary, this is a distinct advantage.

Keating’s detractors should pay a lot more attention to the role intelligence played in the illegal invasion of Iraq. The recent 20th anniversary of the invasion, led by George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard, reminded us that this act of aggression was solely justified by phoney intelligence. Howard falsely claimed that at the time of the invasion his government “knew” Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He knew no such thing. Thanks largely to the much-disparaged weapons inspectors, Iraq certainly didn’t have any. Yet Howard falsely said they were “capable of causing destruction on a mammoth scale”.

Many Australian journalists now rely on purported intelligence and propaganda for their flimsy claims about Chinese acts of aggression, which barely rank alongside the death and destruction wrought by the US, aided by Australia over decades. Chinese journalists also rely excessively on government sources, but they should not be a model.

The White House engaged in a blatant act of propaganda when unveiling the plan for Australia to get nuclear submarines. It claimed, “For over 60 years, the UK and the US have operated more than 500 naval nuclear reactors . . . without incident or adverse effect on human health or the environment.” In fact, two US nuclear submarines, the Thresher and the Scorpion, sunk during that period with the loss of all lives. Mainstream Australian journalists have not shown any concern about this staggering falsehood. Key White House staff must have known it was a lie. What advice Albanese got from Andrew Shearer, a key intelligence adviser, is not publicly known.

By the time Australia’s new nuclear submarines arrive around 2050, sanity may have prevailed and peace broken out. Meanwhile, advances in sensor technology and computing power will probably make nuclear subs relatively easy to detect and destroy. Bang goes $400 billion.

This is an edited version of a talk I gave to a zoom meeting on March 26, organised by the Australian Anti-AUKUS Committee.

Aside from those few exceptional politicians who speak up against Australia's foreign policy decisions (eg. former PM Paul Keating, Senator Jordon Steele-John, and a few others) it seems the disastrous deal is moving ahead with little opposition, although one other interesting item of note is former PM Kevin Rudd's appointment as Ambassador to the United States.

Meanwhile, leaders from around the world are converging on China (including Elon Musk), to meet with Xi and other high-level state representatives in the wake of all kinds of news about the disintegration of the US dollar and banking system:

The U.S. Is Exploring Measures to Safeguard Bank Deposits if Crisis Grows

Now, in the midst of the banking crisis, U.S. regulators have started exploring measures to guarantee all...

watcher.guru

Indonesia Transitioning Away from Visa and Mastercard, Introducing New Payment System

The bank of Indonesia is set to begin transitioning away from Visa and Mastercard, introducing a new payment system

watcher.guru

Russia to Use Chinese Yuan for Trade Settlements With Asia, Africa, Latin America

The president went on to add his country is in favor of using the yuan in settlements between Russia and the countries of Asia, Africa...

watcher.guru

FED Chair Jerome Powell Talks Continued Inflation Fight, Says the "Banking System is Safe"

Following another interest rate hike, FED chair Jerome Powell talks the continued inflation fight, and says "the banking system is safe,"

watcher.guru

US Banking “Turmoil” Can’t Be Contained - Moody’s Alerts

Moody's, one of the Big Three credit-rating agencies, warns that the growing danger surrounding the banking system might..........

watcher.guru

Kenya to Buy Oil Using Local Currency Instead of US Dollars

In this article you can read about Kenyan and Saudi Arabian agreement on ditching dollar in oil trade

sputniknews.com

French Authorities Raid 5 Major Banks in €100 Billion Fraud Investigation

French Authorities have raided 5 major banks, including international bank HSBC, in a €100 billion fraud investigation

watcher.guru

Banking Crisis Is “Not Over Yet” - President Joe Biden Says

Joe Biden mentioned earlier today that his government had taken every measure to resolve the financial...........

watcher.guru

China Completes LNG Gas Trade with Chinese Yuan, Ending US Dollar Reliance for Energy Trades

China and France have completed a LNG gas trade using the Chinese Yuan, thus ending the reliance on the US dollar for energy trades

watcher.guru

Saudi Arabia Enters Trade Alliance with China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Four Central Asian Nations

Saudi Arabia has taken steps to join a trade alliance alongside China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and four central Asian nations

watcher.guru

China and Brazil to Settle Trade in Their Own Currencies

Is the US dollar losing its privileged status as the world's reserve currency? Both Brazil and China have....

watcher.guru

ASEAN Considers Dropping U.S. Dollar, Euro, Yen, Pound for Settlements

In a recent meeting in Indonesia, ASEAN Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors discussed how to slash down the dependence...

watcher.guru

And then of course, we have these two prognostications by the C's:

Q: (Joe) What are the chances of China invading Taiwan in the near future?
A: High.

Q: (Regulattor) How possible is a direct confrontation between the U.S. and China in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?

A: There might be a kerfuffle, but it will be quickly quelled.

It would behoove Australia to act extremely prudently in regards to the global realignment of power into multipolarity that is already proceeding apace. When the dust settles, there will be a new set of rules written for Oceania, and whether Australia wants to merely adapt to what is handed down or to be a co-author of those rules, will likely determine their economic and strategic prospects for decades to come. And regardless of how that plays out, whatever new alliances are shaped will face the challenges of current Earth Changes that herald the "cosmic intentions" of an entirely new Reality altogether.

Given the current level of rhetoric from the media and government though, impending events are likely to cause some serious disillusionment before there's any chance for sober decisions to be made.

 

[Jones]

It seems that China is making efforts to ensuring its strategic nuclear weapons are an appropriate deterrent to the US, with a reported buildup to 1,500 nukes based on US DoD estimates:

China has also built 7 artificial islands in the South China Sea since 2013. Hadn't heard anything about this until someone I know went on a holiday to China and the flight path was over one of these islands.

Fortified South China Sea artificial islands project Beijing’s military reach and power, say observers

• Filipino photographer brings fresh attention to island bases which analyst says act as ‘unsinkable aircraft carriers’ for PLA to hunt submarines
• But experts also see outposts as vulnerable to foreign forces during a conflict and challenges of isolation and distance from mainland China.

China has further fortified its artificial islands in the South China Sea, with more buildings, radars and aircraft hangars to help project power across the Indo-Pacific, analysts said.


Images taken by Philippines-based photographer Ezra Acayan revealed docks, radars, airports, military camps and large aircraft hangars on the seven Chinese artificial islands.


The photos, released by Acayan on social media last week, also showed multi-storey buildings, paved roads, sports fields, and basketball and tennis courts.

Buildings and structures are seen on the artificial island built by China on Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands, which are known in China as the Nansha Islands. Photo: Ezra Acayan/Getty Images.
A refuelling KJ-500H aircraft was pictured on the taxiway of Fiery Cross Reef. The KJ-500 is China’s third-generation airborne early warning and control aircraft capable of enhancing monitoring in the South China Sea. It is the type of aircraft that has been sent on long-range patrols of the East China Sea and operations in the Taiwan Strait in the past.
One photo on Mischief Reef showed two Type 22 catamaran missile boats, which incorporate stealth features and can carry up to eight YJ-83 subsonic anti-ship missiles.


These boats reportedly chased away Philippine news crews who tried to monitor Chinese movement in the region last year, according to Philippine media reports. The photographer also captured an image of one medium-sized medium-range Y-8 transport aircraft in a hangar on Mischief Reef.
The Y-8, which has been continuously upgraded and produced, is a popular transport aircraft with many variants. The hangar where the Y-8 was stationed can shelter aircraft against hot, humid and high salinity environments but its construction does not appear strong enough to defend against enemy strikes.


On a corner of Cuarteron Reef, weapon systems similar to the Type H/PJ-26 76mm naval gun and H/PJ-13B defence gun – along with several soldiers - were seen on the top of two towers which provide basic anti-sea and anti-air firepower, and would serve as the last line of defence in a confrontation.


In the same image of Cuarteron Reef, a large radar similar to the SLC-7 three-dimensional early warning radar was seen on the ground. The anti-stealth radar could detect and track multiple targets and was capable of resisting saturation attacks, Chinese state media reported last year. On Subi Reef, objects similar to trucks were seen being put on the runway, possibly aimed at preventing foreign aircraft from forcibly landing on the island.
Two medical landing pads – with a red cross painted on a white square pad – could be seen on both Mischief Reef and Fiery Cross Reef. However, there was no visible human presence nearby.


“Looking at the images, the first thing that strikes me is that there’s not a lot of activity occurring in these bases. Clearly there are people there, but most of the images suggest a quiet rather than bustling or busy military base. Some of the structures also look in a state of disrepair,” said Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
“Having said that – clearly the Chinese have made some progress in terms of making the bases a bit more hospitable,” Davis said, referring to the appearance of more trees on the islands.


“In terms of tactical use, these bases allow the PLA Air Force to forward deploy in a crisis to prepared bases, fully equipped with hardened aircraft shelters and other supporting infrastructure, for operations into the South China Sea.


“I think they also act as unsinkable aircraft carriers for the Chinese air force and navy’s anti-submarine warfare platforms to hunt submarines in the area.”
However, Davis said it was not known how well these bases would survive in a real war.


He said they could be used strategically to contest the transit of another state’s aircraft and vessels “potentially under declaration of an air defence identification zone, or more seriously, a blockade”. Brad Martin, a retired US Navy officer and a senior policy researcher at the US think tank Rand Corporation, echoed Davis’ views.
“The PLA having a presence on these islands expands its ability to conduct surveillance, potentially threaten shipping, and even reduce warning time should it decide to take military action against the Philippines or [another] littoral state.”


Martin, too, believed the strategic advantage offered by the island bases might be offset by their vulnerability during a conflict.


“The islands must be resupplied and reinforced, and the PLA might find that a challenge,” he said.
China has built seven artificial islands in the South China Sea, creating more than 1,000 hectares (2,470 acres) of new land since 2013, according to the CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. And such moves have heightened fears among rival South China Sea claimants, such as Vietnam and the Philippines.


However, despite the islands being militarised, a Chinese military magazine has openly highlighted their weaknesses because of their considerable distance from the Chinese mainland, their small size and the multiple routes from which they could be attacked.

In the face of that sort of preparation, it feels as though AUKUS is too little too late and seems like a token measure that Australia is going to 5 subs over the next 15 years or so to back up a flailing UK and US.

 

[Jones]

Western Australian premier Mark McGowan has also planned a trip to China on April 17th. This time the media will be travelling with him.

Not a secret visit’: WA Premier plans trade trip to ‘reconnect’ with China

West Australian Premier Mark McGowan will lead a five-day trade mission to China to reconnect with the state’s largest trading partner – and unlike his Victorian counterpart, he’s taking the media.

Beginning on April 17, the first trade mission since the start of the coronavirus pandemic will include high-level meetings with key central government and industry leaders in energy, resources, science and innovation, international education and aviation.

The Premier will visit China this month.CREDIT:KERRY FAULKNER

“WA’s economic relationship with China is crucial to the strength of our local economy, supporting thousands and thousands of local WA jobs,” the premier said on Sunday.

“Developed over several decades, our economic relationship with China is a mutually fruitful one.
This mission is a great opportunity to reconnect with Chinese leaders – from government to industry – and progress new trade and investment opportunities in a range of sectors.”

Led by iron ore and other resources, WA accounted for more than half of Australia’s total trade in goods with China in 2021-22, worth $143.6 billion.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews last week courted controversy by announcing he would travel to China the day before his flight.

Journalists were not invited on his six-day trade mission to Beijing and the Jiangsu and Sichuan provinces, resulting in multiple protests by media outlets. A spokesman for McGowan confirmed WA media representatives had been invited and would be travelling with the Premier.
“[It is] certainly not a secret visit,” the spokesman said.

A key feature of the WA mission will be the premier’s fifth annual WA-China Strategic Dialogue on April 19, when up to 30 key business leaders from across Australia and China will gather in Beijing to discuss investment and trade opportunities.

Industries represented at the dialogue will include mining and resources, renewable energy, advanced manufacturing, financial services and banking as well as primary industries, the government said.

McGowan has travelled to China before as premier, including Shanghai in April 2019 and Beijing in 2018.
Meanwhile, NSW Premier Chris Minns said he had no plans to join his state counterparts and visit the global superpower, saying he was elected last week on domestic issues.

“Delegations are not a major priority for the NSW government,” he told Sky News on Sunday.

“We want to see more international students on the ground in NSW but I believe I can do that on the ground here in this state.”

 

[Jones]

Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has also now also announced a visit to China in November.

As Mark McGowan says in the above, China is Australia's biggest trading partner, so it could be that maintaining ties with China is worth the risk of having sanctions imposed by US and other NATO members.

 

[Ryan]

An interesting article by Heather Smith, President of the Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA):

Reconciling the Australian National Interest - Australian Institute of International Affairs

We are at a unique time in world history. This is a period of unprecedented turbulence stemming from a confluence of events that we have not witnessed in the past three-quarters of a century.

www.internationalaffairs.org.au

Reconciling the Australian National Interest​

By Heather Smith PSM FAIIA

We are at a unique time in world history. This is a period of unprecedented turbulence stemming from a confluence of events that we have not witnessed in the past three-quarters of a century.

We are in uncharted waters, and worse, as United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres noted this year at Davos, we are “plagued by a perfect storm on a number of fronts.” As some have said, we are living in a “polycrisis,” where the pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, geostrategic competition, entrenched inflation, supply chain management, and a myriad of international problems are all connected. We used to think of “complex interdependence” as a pathway to peace. If all nations had to rely on each other for solutions, there was more incentive to cooperate peacefully.

That doesn’t now seem to be the case. Within such a connected environment, problems also become more complex. In an environment characterised by a lack of strategic trust, solutions to international problems will be harder to arrive at, and they will need to reflect a wider range of perspectives. Unfortunately, there is today little faith in common solutions negotiated through a globalised international system.

For its part, Australia is being pushed and pulled by the interrelated forces of deglobalisation and the ongoing distributive backlash; geostrategic competition and the struggle against authoritarianism; the digital revolution and techno-nationalism; and energy transformation and decarbonisation of the global economy. This new world is deeply at odds with Australia’s history, where Australia has benefitted from a sustained period of globalisation and peace between major powers.

In this new world, Australia will need to be clear-eyed about its national interests. In its simplest form, the national interest should be about ensuring security, prosperity, and social cohesion of the nation and its people, today and into the future. But different sections of Australian society place different weights and priorities in terms of security, prosperity, and social cohesion. And there is no shared understanding of the costs the Australian people are prepared to pay to achieve each.

It is time for Australia to adopt a national interest strategy, or at the very least a national statement that brings together an integrated and balanced understanding of the national interest, incorporating security, economic, and societal interests. Such a strategy would help bring clearer policy frameworks to decision-making by better connecting the principles that guide domestic economic interests – competitive markets, robust institutions, and a focus on social wellbeing – with the principles that underpin national security: interests, values, identity, and history.

While an ambitious objective, such a strategy will only succeed if there is a recognition that public input is crucial. Especially in a vibrant democracy like Australia, it should be a truism that you cannot have a national strategy, or even a plan for national security, without engaging the nation.

Indeed, the era when strategic policy was pursued behind closed doors has passed. The threats we face, and the difficult choices our elected leaders will have to make on our behalf, call for more, not less public discussion because of the profound inter-generational implications.

When Allan assumed the National Presidency of the AIIA in 2017, he spoke to three types of public opinion dealing with foreign affairs: interest groups who seek to advance a cause they believe in; the interested generalists who keep themselves informed; and the general public who, short of war, terrorist threats, and consular cases, have little interest in foreign policy.

If think tank polling of the Australian public is anything to go by, an informed national discussion is needed on what is in Australia’s national interest because of the inevitable trade-offs it now faces. Lowy Institute polls point to the societal contradictions. While Australians’ trust in China has fallen sharply, and most Australians see the alliance with the US as making Australia safer, more than three quarters of those surveyed in 2022 also believe that the alliance with the US makes it more likely Australia will be drawn into a war in Asia that would not be in Australia’s interests.

And in a world that has been deglobalising since the global financial crisis, seven in ten Australians saw globalisation as being good for the nation. Eight in ten saw free trade as being good for living standards. But if Australians were asked to prepare the national budget, Lowy Institute polling suggests most would prioritise spending on health, education, and social welfare over foreign and defence policy issues. And at a time when there has already been a commitment to increase outlays, only slightly over half say defence spending should be increased.

My own interpretation of these seemingly conflicting perspectives is that while the Australian public intuitively understand that Australia will almost always align with the US in a crisis, they also wish to have, and exercise, strategic manoeuvrability, and that at times Australia will need to choose its own path. Like most in the region, they want a strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific where countries can make their sovereign choices and are not forced to choose sides.

In terms of economic interests, Australians should also pause to reflect upon the consequences as the US seeks to technologically contain China, and China seeks to build a self-sufficient and war-resilient economy, and the implications of that for the region and beyond. It signals to others the price each is willing to pay to safeguard their interests.

It also shows Australia urgently needs guardrails to prevent further escalation toward military conflict, and to mitigate the inevitable spillover effects of unilateral economic policies and policies to foster collective resilience. Policymakers should take heed of the IMF’s recent sobering analysis of the costs of geoeconomic fragmentation for trade, investment, and financial flows. Australians should expect growth to be lower, slower, and more unequal. For Australia, threading this needle of unilateral and collective resilience will be particularly difficult given its dependence on well-functioning, transparent global markets that have underwritten Australia’s prosperity.

Adam Tooze recently said in the context of this polycrisis that “no one is outside the current conjecture. There are different vantage points, with different perspectives, but no single point and no single theory that encompasses our reality.” In these turbulent times, disagreement on economic, foreign, and strategic policy issues is to be expected. But it seems that recently many experts have been talking past one another.

The national security narrative has become dominant, muscular, and all-encompassing, along the lines of “don’t you understand the magnitude of the threat.” The civilian narrative is “we need sovereign capability to ensure our resilience.” However, there has yet to be a national conversation as to the trade-offs that will be needed as Australia builds resilience at home and abroad, and a sustained focus on deterrence. This will test the social license as to what is sustainable. [..]

 

[Voyageur]

An interesting article by Heather Smith, President of the Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA):

Indeed, the era when strategic policy was pursued behind closed doors has passed. The threats we face, and the difficult choices our elected leaders will have to make on our behalf, call for more, not less public discussion because of the profound inter-generational implications.

On MindMatters, Helen, from down under, speaks (she spoke on many things) at one point of her time as legal council to Australian MP's, and looks to the problem of lobby and policy. She makes solid points, which seems to be the same affliction wherever one looks, yet so expansive now in Australia:

MindMatters: Industrialized Rome and Wrong 'un Politicians - with Helen Dale -- Sott.net

Helen Dale, lawyer and award-winning author of 3 novels, including The Hand that Signed the Paper, writes at Law & Liberty and Not On Your Team, But Always Fair. Her two-novel series Kingdom of the Wicked is an alternative history of...

www.sott.net

 

[Ryan]

she spoke on many things

You're not kidding. I watched that interview on 1.5x speed.

 

[987baz]

great video thanks @Voyageur I missed that episode.

and yes , wow what a journey, so many things and so fast haha, might check out her novels too, loved her Aussieisms too

 

[Jones]

In her response to ex PM Paul Keatings attack on AUKUS, Foreign Affairs minister Penny Wong seems like she will be speaking in favour of a multi-polar world:

‘We want to avert war’: Penny Wong counters Paul Keating’s AUKUS attacks

Australia cannot rely on diplomacy alone to avoid a catastrophic war in the Asia-Pacific and needs to bolster its defence force to deter potential aggressors and promote peace in the region, according to Foreign Minister Penny Wong.

In a speech to the National Press Club on Monday, Wong will defend the strategic rationale behind the AUKUS pact after former prime minister Paul Keating savaged the government’s planned acquisition of a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines and Wong’s performance as the nation’s top diplomat in a fiery press club appearance last month.

Wong will use the speech to outline a set of principles for how Australia can help “avert war and maintain peace, and more than that, how we shape a region that reflects our national interests and our shared regional interests”.

“By having strong defence capabilities of our own, and by working with partners investing in their own capabilities, we change the calculus for any potential aggressor,” Wong will say according to speech notes provided by her office.

“We must ensure that no state will ever conclude that the benefits of conflict outweigh the risks. This is fundamental to assuring the safety and security of our nation and our people.”

Keating used his press club appearance to deride the government’s plan to spend up to $368 billion on a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines as the “worst international decision by an Australian Labor government” since World War I, deriding both Wong and Defence Minister Richard Marles as “seriously unwise”.

In a bid to calm any lingering concerns about AUKUS in the Labor base following Keating’s intervention, Wong will say that Australia’s “foreign and defence policies are two essential and interdependent parts of how we make Australia stronger and more influential in the world”.

“And together, they make it harder for states to coerce other states against their interests through force or the threatened use of force,” she will say.

“Together, they contribute to the strategic balance of power that keeps the peace in our region.”

Wong previously said that Keating’s views on China and other foreign policy questions “belong to another time”.

Wong’s speech comes amid further signs of a thaw in the Australia-China trade relationship and a week before the government is expected to release its response to the defence strategic review, a sweeping examination of the nation’s military assets.

The government last week dropped its World Trade Organisation case against Beijing’s tariffs on Australian barley, paving the way for the restrictions to be lifted in the coming months.

Wong will say the strategic competition between China and the United States in the Asia-Pacific “is more than great power rivalry and is in fact nothing less than a contest over the way our region and our world works”.

“It’s clear to me from my travels throughout the region that countries don’t want to live in a closed, hierarchical region where the rules are dictated by a single major power to suit its own interests,” she will say.

“It is also clear that countries want a region that is peaceful and stable. And that means sufficient balance to deter aggression and coercion, balance to which more players, including Australia, must contribute if it is to be durable.

“A balance where strategic reassurance through diplomacy is supported by military deterrence.”

She will say Australia’s focus “needs to be on how we ensure our fate is not determined by others, how we ensure our decisions are our own. How we live in a region where no country dominates, and no country is dominated.”

In his first interview since the AUKUS details were announced, navy chief Mark Hammond defended the submarine plan, telling The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age: “We are vulnerable to the interruption and disruption of sea lines of communication and seabed infrastructure, and we’ve seen both of those play out in the Ukraine conflict.

“That should bring it home to all of us that in the current deteriorating strategic environment, we need to take appropriate measures to mitigate against risks in the maritime domain in particular.”

Let's see how that goes down.

 

[Ryan]

Of note: Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu was in Australia last week for high level government talks.

'There can be no doubt it's significant': Chinese and Australian officials meet for high-level talks

Ma Zhaoxu, the vice minister of foreign affairs, met with DFAT secretary Jan Adams in Canberra to discuss topics the countries rarely see eye-to-eye on.

www.abc.net.au

Australia has reiterated the importance of stabilising relations with China after a rocky past few years by discussing a wide range of issues during a "significant" meeting with the most senior official from China's Foreign Affairs Ministry on Wednesday.

Key points:​

• Ma Zhaoxu was the highest level Chinese official to visit Australia in six years
• He discussed human rights, strategic competition and trade with DFAT secretary Jan Adams
• The statement did not directly mention AUKUS, which China has said will fuel an arms race

Ma Zhaoxu, the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and a former ambassador to Australia, met with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) secretary Jan Adams in Canberra to discuss topics the two countries rarely see eye-to-eye on, including human rights and strategic competition.

"The talks covered a range of bilateral and international topics, including trade, consular, human rights, strategic competition, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine," DFAT said in a statement.

"Secretary Adams reiterated that it was in the shared interests of Australia and China to continue on the path of stabilising the bilateral relationship."

James Laurenceson, director of the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney, said it was promising to see the two sides discussing a diverse and often contentious range of topics.

"There can be no doubt it's significant. I mean, this is the highest level Chinese official to visit Australia in more than six years. I think that that tells you quite a lot," he said.

"The fact that the talks occurred at the level of senior officials, rather than political leaders, has significance because it's the officials that are tasked with the nuts and bolts of resolving some of the challenges."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1647710628835119104

Let's see how that goes down.

I haven't found a transcript yet, but the full speech is here.

So far, it seems that Paul Keating wasn't impressed, but his position does look like it lacks some nuance. Wong could have been much more overtly supportive of the US than she was, and avoiding a conflict in Taiwan is essentially opposing US policy at this point.

Paul Keating accuses Penny Wong of ‘platitudes’; she says he’s ‘diminished his legacy’

The latest vitriolic exchange reflects the long-running policy animosity between the two, particularly Keating’s hostility to Wong over the issue of China

theconversation.com

Former foreign minister and NSW premier Bob Carr seems to be siding with Wong:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1647876731972485120

And this is interesting: apparently Warren Buffet has divested his shares of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1647850417555144704

 

[Jones]

Wondered what Wong's position was on the Ukraine situation and it seems she drank the kool-aid on that one - Russia bad. Haven't yet come across an Australian politician that is prepared to be a dissenting voice on that claim.

Something else of interest - Mark McGowan is now suggesting that all state premiers and chief ministers go to China for trade talks, and Albanese is open to that. McGowan has even apparently suggested holding National Cabinet in China.

Premier calls for National Cabinet to be held in Beijing

 

[Jones]

Bit of history of National Cabinet as I remember it from the coronavirus thread :

National Cabinet was formed in 2020 to deal with covid response. Such cabinets are usually only formed during war time. Initially ScoMo thought that deliberations and decisions of National Cabinet should be secret and exempt from FOI requests, however it was deemed that in this instance that National Cabinet was not legally formed and so could not claim exemption. Later a bill was tabled in parliament in an attempt to change the law around secrecy and exemption from FOI's but that bill was not passed into law. A new National Cabinet was not formed when Albanese was voted in, he just moved new members into the existing Cabinet structure.

 

[Ryan]

Wondered what Wong's position was on the Ukraine situation and it seems she drank the kool-aid on that one - Russia bad. Haven't yet come across an Australian politician that is prepared to be a dissenting voice on that claim.

There are a very few. Senator Gerard Rennick made an excellent speech to the Senate on the topic last year. Too bad more aren't following his example.

Ukraine - it is time to use diplomacy, not weapons - Senate Speech 25.10.22

If the carnage and human tragedy of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have taught us anything, it's that everyday people are made to suffer at the hands of elites who lack the empathy to understand the tr

rumble.com

 

[Jones]

Topher Field has started a new news platform called AussieWire. Looks like it will be a mix of national and international topics and seems as though it aims to be independent.

Here's the intro video:

9mins

And the first episode:
45mins.