either the bitch or the suckeroo.....

America believes that it should run the world unchallenged in all dimensions of statehood.

Known as AUSMIN, the high-level talks between the United States and Australia are now underway in Washington on foreign policy and defence. Held annually since 1985 they are the cement which binds this habit of our being allies.

BY Mike Gilligan

It is time to talk frankly about the big picture behind these talks and understand that our independence is no longer welcome within them. Friends need to be candid.

From the outset of the alliance Australia has been a customer of the US war industry while also a useful idiot in providing token forces for US power application almost anywhere on the globe, whether the conflict was important to our interests or not. On no occasion did the conditions of the ANZUS treaty apply. On odd occasions we did reject the idiocy mantle. But mostly we just sucked up the body bags, while political leaders moved on and the RSL was replenished.

Australia is a second-rate ally, compared to European nations and Japan. When constructing its web of alliances after the war, America chose not to guarantee armed assistance for Australia if we are attacked. Yet in parallel with our idiocy, Australia has been astute enough to deal with this US ambivalence, by creating defences to protect ourself independently. It’s taken 40 years of single- minded defence policy and a couple of trillion dollars from taxpayers to get there. And the US encouraged Australia enthusiastically in the project, across many, many AUSMINs as we poured billions into its war merchandise.

What America Wants These Days

But these days the US prefers that we drop our self- reliance. Our independence is no longer welcome, distracting from America’s newest, biggest priority – containing a confected threat in China. America argues that Australia fighting as part of an “integrated deterrent” is in our interest. Never mind that we are strongly averse to being opened up to missile attack, for America. That is the elitism of US foreign policy at work, explained later.

But it is also because the US knows it is in trouble. It lacks the means to contain China. Its forward Defence Plan projects peanuts in new dollars for the Indo Pacific strategy. Hence we see intense effort into realigning the minds of disparate allies – Japan chiefly, maybe Korea, Phillipines and Australia. An unlikely lot, but needs must when it comes to useful geostrategic idiots. Such an alliance, largely self-funded, within American control has no parallel. The Cold War in Europe was financially the reverse- sustained by US funding, with European NATO allies failing perpetually to meet spending targets.

But why China, and why this gearing up now? Surely there’s room for negotiation over the underlying disputes.

Vast writings exist for those wanting to rationalise this issue. But put simply, America believes it should run the world unchallenged in all dimensions of statehood. The world should be unipolar. China has the potential to be another pole, and must be reduced, including by military pressure. This ethos is underpinned by brutal dogma. Reflecting on the Iraq war in 2005 Jim George outlined the influence of Leo Struss thus:

Strauss ..emphasises the re-invocation of strong nationalism and cultural unity in modern western societies; the value of a simple religious and philosophical morality, and (ultimately) of a ‘war culture’ as the basis of maintaining such unity; the use of maximum force by the Western democracies in the face of endemic threat; and of a more general ‘peace through strength’ approach to foreign policy by the US, the political and ideological leader of modern Western civilisation.

From Strauss too has come the notion that elite rule is crucial if post-Enlightenment liberalism is not to further threaten the (classical) democratic model of governance, and that the neoconservative elite has the right and indeed the obligation to lie to the masses in order that the ‘right’ political and strategic decisions be made and implemented. Hence, the use of the so-called ‘noble lie’ (“International Politics”, volume 42, 174–202).

Lie they did, about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Twenty million dead from the Iraq war. Today noble, obligatory lying is mainstream.

Layers of Idiocy

In Australia, layers of useful idiocy have risen around the proclaimed villainy of China. Our security prospects are evaluated by an intelligence structure that is beholden to US interests in subtle and persistent ways. How convenient for a hegemon is that, with the absence of transparency, of critical performance measurement and of comprehension of intelligence’s proper role in public administration?

Our war industry has alarm-mongering in its DNA, and the financial means and the access to promote skewed perspectives – via a willing media beholden entirely to the riches in advertising.

And Australia has a thriving specialist security commentariat, hard to tolerate because they deceive for a dollar through opaque specialist language. Our think-tanks frame issues from the US perspective, and offer advice while ignoring our own interests wilfully. By example, ASPI is releasing a volume of essays recommending Australian priorities for the AUSMIN talks:

Australia needs the US to have protected force flow, mobility, logistics support and a full spectrum of capability options in the region, so that it can effectively undermine the confidence of the People’s Liberation Army in its ability to achieve a quick military victory far from US shores. Australia should look to AUSMIN to shape how our role and capabilities are integrated into US plans, and do so by being an active and credible participant (AUSMIN 2022: Integrated Deterrence).

Bloated abstract language like “integrated deterrence” conceals the US purpose of incrementally controlling our defence resources for its warring with China. No mention of Australia’s priorities, or of tension between US aims and our own interests. ASPI’s useful idiots are financed by other useful idiots further up the US war food chain wholly uninterested in Australia.

Time for Reflection in US Foreign Policy?

This is not to say that all is set in stone and minds are closed when American professionals address foreign and defence policy. Mearsheimer observes that if the rocky hegemonic journey has taught the US anything it is that “nationalism is more important than ideology. Nationalism is about self determination. Nations want to control their own fates and where sovereignty is concerned their political leaders are jealous gods” (The Great Delusion 2018). This truth is evidenced in the Australian context by our embracing the chance at defence self- reliance and nurturing it patiently to maturity. For that we have to be thankful to America.

Australia’s nationalism will not be diminished by US attempts to contrive security structures around China. Nor will Japan’s, Korea’s nor the Phillipines’. Most likely each State will fund its independent defence within loose sharing and consultative arrangements. How such an aggregation might turn out is the stuff we ought to be moving on, gradually. The hope is that America has learnt from its mixed success over decades of protecting its pile. Our nationalism will not be subordinate to an American fiat on China. Nor need it be.

Spare a thought for our Ministers in Washington. Beneath the bonhomie, they have the daunting duty to protect Australia’s interests from America’s unremitting elitism.

https://johnmenadue.com/ausmin-americas-elitism-could-bury-us/

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.................

By Gus Leonisky at 6 Dec 2022 - 8:16am
Gus Leonisky's blog
Login or register to post comments

bastard USA.....

BY Lee Camp

Syria has drifted from the headlines, but the U.S. is still stealing their oil, occupying large swaths of their land, and economically obliterating them.

This month, UN special rapporteur Alena Douhan came back from Syria and demanded an end to all sanctions imposed by US and its allies.

In her statement, Douhan said, “The economy is hostage to a protracted economic crisis with growing inflation and frequent devaluation of the national currency” – Basically, most Syrians can do nothing but hope to survive.

These are not fighters, these are not terrorists hurling grenades at Americans. These are completely regular people who spend every day trying not to die from American sanctions.

And you might say, “Well, that’s the Syrian government’s fault. Why don’t they just give the people what they need?”

But the Syrian government can’t help their people because the U.S. and our allies have made sure they can’t help their people. Washington has cut most Syrians off from the food, medicine and raw materials they need to live.

It’s tough to overstate how bad things are in Syria. According to Douhan, “90 percent of all Syrians today are forced to live below the poverty line with around 12 million grappling with severe food insecurity.”

We have proof that sanctions kill thousands, if not millions. They even cause immense death and suffering when done internally. When economic war is waged against a country’s own citizens, it has a different name. It’s called “austerity.”

A landmark study in 2017 found the conservative U.K. government committed “economic murder.” The study linked the country’s austerity programs to 120,000 deaths in just a few years. If that many people are murdered by cuts to welfare and healthcare, just imagine the number of deaths of innocent people caused by not even having clean water in Syria.

Similarly, a former UN rapporteur on human rights said in 2020 that American sanctions on Venezuela had killed 100,000 people.

Last year, the UN human rights council demanded an end to all unilateral sanctions. They said, “Punishment of ‘innocent civilians’ through government sanctions must end.”

The UN statement continues, “The experts underscored that people in targeted countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran, sink into poverty because they cannot get essential services like electricity, housing, water, gas and fuel, let alone medicine and food.”

Watch the full report above to find out what the US actually wants in Syria.

https://scheerpost.com/2022/12/04/the-secret-reason-the-us-is-still-in-syria/

... AND THE US/NATO/EU/UK/ZION ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT RUSSIA STUFFING UP UKRAINE. THE DIFF IS THAT UKRAINE IS RUN AS A NAZI BATTLE-RAM AGAINST RUSSIA, WHILE THE SYRIANS HAVE DONE NOTHING TOWARDS ANYBODY EXCEPT BE INDEPENDENT OF THE US EMPIRE. THE BASTARD US EMPIRE THAGT HAS TRIED TO DESTROY SYRIA BY "SPONSORING THE DAESH TERRORISTS" RESENTS INDEPENDENCE — SEE AUSSIELAND AT TOP. THE DECEIT OF THE US EMPIRE IS BOUNDLESS.....

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..................

By Gus Leonisky at 6 Dec 2022 - 8:51am
Login or register to post comments

and Japan as well.....

Australia and the United States will integrate Japan into their joint military activities in Australia, a significant deepening of the relationship as the three nations work increasingly closely together to push back on China.

The US will also increase rotations of troops and military equipment in Australia to strengthen the alliance, US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin announced after meeting with Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong in Washington.

“That includes rotations of bomber task forces, fighters, and future rotations of US Navy and US Army capabilities,” Austin told reporters after the Australia-US Ministerial consultations.

“We will also expand our logistics and sustainment co-operation, and that will deepen our interoperability and create more agile and resilient capabilities while also continuing to find ways to further integrate our defence industrial bases in the years ahead.”

The US and Australia also agreed to “invite Japan to integrate into our force posture initiatives in Australia”, he said.

The meetings came at a crucial time, with the Albanese government preparing to unveil a sweeping review of the nation’s defence forces in March while also deciding on the model of nuclear-powered submarine it will acquire under the AUKUS pact.

Calling out Beijing for its “dangerous and coercive actions throughout the Indo-Pacific”, Austin promised the US would ensure the Australian Defence Force is equipped for the emerging strategic threats.

We “will not allow Australia to have a capability gap going forward”, Austin said, referring to the period between the end of the Collins Class submarine life cycle and the arrival of nuclear-powered submarines.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/japan-joins-us-and-australia-to-counter-china-s-dangerous-and-coercive-actions-20221207-p5c4ag.html

READ FROM TOP.

not declaring war would be a good start......

The senate hearing on War Powers Reform starts today. Of the over 100 submissions made to the government’s “Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making”, the most compelling come from Australian veterans themselves. Zacharias Szumer reports.

As far as can be surmised from the submissions, those who have experienced the horrors of war generally support war powers reform. However, some veterans in parliament remain opponents of major changes to the status quo.

Two Vietnam War veterans have called for further democratisation of the way Australia goes to war, saying that the “poor decisions and dire unintended consequences” of Australia’s involvement in foreign wars have led to “many veterans suffering moral injury” and a wider “loss of faith in the integrity of Government”. In their submission to the inquiry, John Phillips and Noel Turnbull state:

Australia’s involvement in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan was based on justifications which were expedient politically rather than militarily necessary” and in all three conflicts “the commitment, loss of life, ongoing costs and economic and social impacts far outweighed any perceived benefits.

“All commitments were the result of a Prime Minister alone making a decision – a captain’s call in effect – without proper reflection, debate or analysis of consequences,” say Phillips and Turnbull, who were both deployed to Vietnam. Turnbull was conscripted and served as an artillery officer and Phillips was a career infantry officer.

The two veterans said that “the direct and indirect impacts of moral injury on veterans are ultimately a significant cause of veterans’ mental health”, which had led to the “the enormous cost of treating and supporting veterans and their families”. This moral injury, Phillips and Turnbull write, had led to “profound feelings of guilt or shame —and in some cases a profound sense of betrayal and anger…” among some veterans.

They join other former servicemen and MPs Rex Patrick, Andrew Wilkie and Bob Katter in calling for reform to war powers, where one person decides to take Australians to war.

Phillips and Turnbull recommend that a parliamentary vote on military deployments should be required, with limited powers remaining “with the Prime Minister and the Executive only in national emergencies where there is a direct threat to Australia”. According to the two, there hasn’t been any direct threat to the nation in any of the wars we have been involved in since the Korean War in the early 1950s.

Other veterans have also made submissions to the inquiry supporting war powers reform. Richard Jones, who served 20 years in the Royal Australian Navy, writes:

Those sent to war, and their loved ones, should be able to do so in the knowledge that this action has the backing of the majority of the Parliament, and that there are clear political and diplomatic goals.

“If the Government of the day is unwilling or unable to make its case to the Parliament before committing Australian personnel to overseas conflicts, I believe this would demonstrate questionable morality and legality of the intended action,” he adds.

A submission made by Retired Major Cameron Leckie similarly argues that “Australia’s long-term best interests are best served by a legislative requirement for both houses of the Parliament to vote on the decision to commit to armed conflict overseas prior to any deployment of troops.”

“The current system,” Leckie writes:

….is fundamentally undemocratic and can lead to sub-optimal decision making that is not in the national interest with the potential for long-term negative (and potentially disastrous) consequences both for the country and for members of the ADF.

Leckie served in the Australian Army from 1995 to 2019 and was deployed on three operations, earning a Silver Commendation as the Executive Officer of the 1st Signal Regiment. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of Australians for War Powers Reform, and has previously spoken in favour of reform.

People who went to Iraq are still suffering the ill-effects of that and will probably continue to do so for the rest of their lives, so at the very least the parliament should be making those decisions,” said Leckie in a recent radio interview.

Other veterans support reform

Leckie’s name was among 158 other veterans who signed an open letter to the parliament on ANZAC Day this year, urging politicians to “change Australian law so that our armed forces cannot be sent to an overseas conflict without the approval of our parliament.”

The current arrangements have “not done justice to those who have served in the past and will not do so to those who may be called on to serve in future,” reads the letter.

That letter also had the backing of former Navy Admiral Chris Barrie, who served as Defence Force Chief between 1998 and 2002. Barrie recently reiterated his support on ABC radio, saying that he supports “the basic notion of having the parliament decide to send Australian troops to a war or conflict in other countries.”

Other veterans have previously spoken up in support of reform. In 2016, Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy, who finished a 37-year military career with six years as Chief of Army, wrote that:

it is time for a bill to be enacted requiring parliamentary approval before the ADF is deployed.

“We trust [parliament] with a whole range of important economic, health and social policy issues – why not the decision to go to war?” Leahy questioned in the Quarterly Essay.

Peter Hayes, a former RAAF group captain and Vietnam War veteran, is also an advocate for reform. “Resolving a decision to go to war against a foreign adversary is indeed a matter of national interest most worthy of the parliament’s undivided attention,” Hayes recently told MWM,

According to Hayes, who has also previously served as Director of Information Warfare at Australia’s Air Command Headquarters, executive control had “failed utterly” in sending Australian troops to Iraq. “History has also revealed serious defects in the decision to commit Australian forces to war in Vietnam, to Afghanistan, to Syria, not to mention other secret clandestine intelligence collection operations in the post-WW2 period,” he added.

Parliamentary veterans divided

Three other servicemen and current or former federal parliamentarians—Bob Katter, Rex Patrick and Andrew Wilkie—are also supportive of a greater role for the parliament. Wilkie, who served in the ADF for 21 years, has also made a submission to the inquiry, reiterating his support for war powers reform.

https://michaelwest.com.au/reform-say-vets-who-know-the-horrors-of-war-yet-most-politicians-say-status-quo/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..................

By Gus Leonisky at 9 Dec 2022 - 2:40pm
Login or register to post comments

Primary links

Search

Recent comments

Democracy Links

Member's Off-site Blogs