Tuesday 26th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

while waiting for them bloody subs....

The Australian economy is increasingly becoming a war economy. The PM talks of the economic benefits of weapons manufacture, and of how the military and a growing military-industrial-complex is almost a job creation scheme. The media works diligently to build and sustain a sense of fear. But even so, the warmongers of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and their stablemate, Strategic Analysis Australia (SAA) are not satisfied.

 

ASPI’s call for a militia – a step to military madness     By William Briggs

 

Anthony Bergin, a key figure in both organisations, has added fuel to the fire with a call to create a ‘national citizens’ militia.’ Bergin aired his views in a recent opinion piece in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. He uses the Defence Strategic Review’s flawed logic that ‘warning time’ before a direct attack is now ‘essentially zero’ to whip up an even greater sense of insecurity. Fear-mongering is the stock-in-trade for those who would have us engage in a war with an ‘enemy’ whose interests are patently not advanced by war.

The militia, we are told, would provide military training for those willing to defend our shores. It would occupy a space between conscription and the part-time army reserve. The ASPI author thinks that such an operation would be easy to ‘sell’ to the Australian public.

For many, the concept of manufacturing threat perceptions as an easy ‘sell’ might seem a little grotesque. What is being sold is the idea that a war is inevitable and acceptable. It is selling the idea that engaging in a national militia would be ‘interesting, real and rewarding.’ What is really being sold is a short-cut to the military, that would provide more fodder for war, but without the laborious need to provide a lucrative career-path, for young men and women.

He uses Ukraine as an example, although it might have better served his cause to have left that out of the equation. The most prominent of Ukraine’s militias is the Azov battalion. If he means these to be a model, then he has something to explain. The Azov militia is home to some of the more extreme right-wing and fascist elements in Ukraine. However, propaganda is propaganda and he believes no-one will notice such a minor issue.

Problems immediately spring to mind with the militia idea. We are expected to believe that this quasi-military force would have a role in defending Australia from an invading Chinese army. This invasion force must travel 7,500 kms to get here. This is something of a logistical difficulty, made worse by the fact that there are a number of countries that would have to be crossed first, or if coming by sea, manage to sneak past the assembled might of the world’s greatest naval fleet. If the invading hordes did manage this improbable and pointless task, they would arrive in the far north of Australia, where there could be all but no militia forces. Anthony Bergin and his fellow-thinkers will, no doubt get around these minor difficulties.

The call for militias has another aspect. This goes beyond the immediate and obvious one of training people to bear arms to repel a hypothetical invasion force. Bergin sees additional roles. He considers a place for an ‘air’ militia. Pilots would be co-opted to act as border surveillance guards. This sounds reasonable except for the fact that the armed forces already have rather sophisticated means at their disposal to detect any invasion fleet. The same might be said for his projected maritime militia.

The real motivation behind this plan is to engender a sense of fear and imminent threat. Threat, and promotion of threat perceptions is why ASPI exists. After all, 30 per cent of its budget comes from the government and the rest from the arms industries of the ‘free’ world. It hardly serves ASPI’s best interests not to build a threat scenario.

If a war is to be fought, and it appears imminent, if not inevitable, then it will not be fought on continental Australia. The horrible truth is that such a war would be devastating but especially devastating for the Chinese people. China is already ringed with US missile installations. These nuclear capable missiles, rather than troops or militias are the priority for Bergin, ASPI, the Australian government and its US ally.

As for China, its position has not changed since John Pilger interviewed a Chinese strategist in 2015. His words to Pilger remain clear. ‘We are not your enemy, but if you (in the West) decide we are, we must prepare without delay.’ China has been preparing. Its defence budget is growing but is still small in comparison with the United States. Its ‘preparations’ were and remain to ensure its security from an aggressive USA. Such a defensive position hardly requires war-mongers in Australia to talk of a further militarisation of society. A militia is not required. It is, after all ‘a military force that is raised from the civil population.’ This, necessarily implies a growing acceptance of a society marked at all stages by militarisation, economically, civilly; a highly propagandised society built on fear.

ASPI and SAA spokespeople are regularly featured in major media outlets in this country. They are tireless in their push to demonise an enemy that has no sinister designs on us. The work of people such as Bergin is to engender fear. From fear comes an acceptance of threat. This gives legitimacy to governments that actively promote a drive to war. Australia is facing real problems. Climate catastrophe, housing, health, cost of living, all require urgent attention. Do we need another military force?

https://johnmenadue.com/aspis-call-for-a-militia-a-step-to-military-madness/

 

FREEING JULIAN ASSANGE NOW WOULD BE A BETTER IDEA....

shovel experts....

The Aussie soldier has been called a DIGGER, during WW1 and WW2... And we know why... The mining industry from gold to lithium is about digging holes. The aussies are expert at digging holes. Even in the early 1900s, some future American president came to Aussieland to dig some holes.... Cartoon at top by Frank Dunne.... "I'll shoot the next ... [guy] ... who ask why they call us "Diggers.""

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

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

mining for the USA....

U.S. efforts to secure strategic mineral supply chains may squeeze China out of the Australian market with the Antipodean nation being used as a raw materials supplier like the days of the British empire, writes Tony Kevin.

 

By Tony Kevin

 

First, necessary context. The Global South is enthusiastically engaging with multipolarity, through BRICS, SCO, Belt and Road, new reserve currency systems etc. More and more, centuries of US/UK hegemonic control over global resources is being challenged, especially in Africa. More countries are abandoning exploitative Western resource deals, preferring China as a trading partner. The US, haunted by fear that China might lock up access to critical minerals essential to US military power, is searching for politically reliable supply chains at least risk of political disruption. Canada and Australia are top of the US wish list. Australia is one of the world’s foremost producers of critical minerals such as copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, and rare earths.

On 20 May in Tokyo, Biden and Albanese announced a new ‘Australia – United States Climate, Critical Minerals and Clean Energy Transformation Compact’. In a Joint Statement, the two leaders proclaimed climate and clean energy as ‘the third pillar of the Alliance’, alongside US-Australian defence and economic cooperation. (It is not clear which particular ’Alliance’ was being referred to here).

Under the sub-heading ‘Building Our Defence Capability’, the Joint Statement said:

‘The President plans to ask the United States Congress to add Australia as a “domestic source” [i.e., alongside Canada] within the meaning of Title III of the Defence Production Act. Doing so would streamline technological and industrial base collaboration, accelerate and strengthen AUKUS implementation, and build new opportunities for United States investment in the production and purchase of Australian critical minerals, critical technologies, and other strategic sectors.’

Australian mainstream media welcomed the Compact, highlighting its electorally popular climate and clean energy aspects. The strategic critical minerals content went almost unnoticed in the general Australian business community euphoria about truckloads of anticipated US investment.

But in Washington briefings and commentary, the Compact’s significance for US critical minerals supply chain concerns about China figured highly. The White House Briefing Room noted that both countries are determined to, within 12 months, identify concrete actions toward the Compact’s objectives. ‘Underscoring the central role of critical minerals’, Australia and the US are to establish a ministerial-level Australia-United States Taskforce on Critical Minerals, to be led by principals from the U.S. National Security Council and Australia’s Department of Industry, Science and Resources, with engagement from key stakeholders across industry and relevant government agencies. The Taskforce is intended to work with industry leaders to … promote responsible, sustainable, and stable supply of critical minerals. The leaders intend to … identify risks and market distortions that impact on critical minerals markets and consider mitigation options. 

Just six days later in Detroit, Australia’s Minister for Trade Don Farrell met with US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo for the second annual Australia-US Strategic Commercial Dialogue. Their Joint Statement welcomed the Dialogue ‘as a key bilateral mechanism to advance shared geoeconomic and commercial interests across the nexus of economic, foreign, and national security policy. They agreed to convene Australian and U.S. companies from across the critical minerals supply chain, including miners, processors, manufacturers, and investors at an event later in 2023.

To get behind the veiled language and understand what the US might be really pushing for here – to cut China out of the Australian critical minerals mining industry, and to lock up this vital strategic resource for exploitation by the US strategic defence sector as and when it wishes – an invaluable source is this commentary article by two Washington researchers that appeared in Australia on 24 July in ‘The Strategist’, an ASPI publication. This article sets out what look to be US ambit claims in the forthcoming fast-track discussions.

They are quite horrifying, in my view. The US aim is ‘to reduce US dependence on China, where various links in the critical mineral supply chain are heavily concentrated’. To do this, the US will invest heavily under the Compact in Australian critical minerals resources mining, but only under certain conditions:

The US should only fund Australian mines: not refineries. All refining beyond the minimum level of crude refining in order to economically ship minerals to US should be done in US.

The US should only fund Australian mines that produce minerals that are lacking in US and Canada, because ‘US critical-mineral supply chains are most secure when they are in or near the US and under friendly control. US taxpayer dollars should not be expended on distant mines when nearby mines are available’. This provision could make the proposal for funding Australian mines more palatable to Congress.

The US should allow companies to partner in a US-funded mine only if they are not owned in any way by foreign entities of concern, including all Chinese entities. The US should not fund Australian mines where Chinese entities can benefit financially or influence the project at the expense of US taxpayers. ‘To protect US national security, if an Australian company is seeking to participate in a US-funded mine in Australia, it should have to first divest any shares held by entities of concern’.

‘American companies should have a controlling interest in US-funded mines, so that the US government can enforce compliance with US regulations, such as blocking Chinese companies’ involvement or investment in the mine’. [Tony Kevin – and also to control decisions whether to mine or to lock the Australian resource up as a US strategic military reserve for the future]

‘Partnering with experienced Australian partners will also enable less experienced US companies to build valuable mining skills.’

‘The US should require that mined materials from Australia be refined by American companies in the US. The US should also require that the mined material have an end use in a strategic US sector like aerospace or transportation, not consumer electronics like televisions and mobile phones.’

‘The US should also require all companies participating in the mine to stop operating in China and selling their products to Chinese entities. Nor should the US allow companies to use earnings from a US-funded mine to support their operations in China or sales to Chinese entities.’

These are huge ambit claims, probably put up through ASPI to test the climate of opinion in Australia.

The authors conclude that the Compact is ‘a satisfactory starting framework for strengthening critical-mineral supply chains between the US and Australia. The stipulations attached to such an arrangement would help to ensure that US–Australia supply chains are diversified, protected from Chinese influence, and forged by a workforce in both countries.’

A leading Washington law firm endorsed the Compact as a ‘huge step forward ‘in expanding US proactive measures to secure supply of critical minerals and ‘hold out competitors’.

So – we will provide the critical minerals deposits and drive the trucks: the US will control and benefit from almost everything else in the supply chain, when and if the US chooses to develop it. And China will be kept out .

The two big risks to Australia here are, firstly, jeopardising whatever is left of our mining sector’s historic relationships of trust with our major mining market in China. Any Australian mining company currently selling to China could have its relationships and operations there crippled if it went into business with US mining companies on this basis. It is pure mercantilism, to put it bluntly – aimed at cutting out Chinese competition in a fair marketplace.

Secondly, the proposals set out in the ASPI paper for US-majority-owned mining companies to dictate and determine development of industry processing of critical minerals in Australia contradict Australian aspirations for economic sovereignty. They would put Australia firmly back in our place as a raw materials supplier to the Metropolis, and nothing more – as we were in British Empire days. This cries out for Paul Keating’s acerbic pen.

I have no confidence in the ability of the present Australian Government, dazzled by the US alliance, to manage these negotiations in our national interest – either commercially or strategically. I fear we will once again be exploited and entrapped by our great and powerful – and clever – friend.

https://johnmenadue.com/ripe-for-the-plucking/

 

"To be the enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be their friend is fatal..." said Henri Kissinger, now a centenarian and (alas) still involved in international politics. Ukraine discovered this with horror at the last NATO summit in Vilnius, where none of its strategic demands were met.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

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

 

little pratt?.....

Former US President Donald Trump has reportedly been accused of discussing sensitive information about the nation’s nuclear submarines while chatting with an Australian businessman at his Mar-a-Lago country club in Florida.

The conversation with billionaire Anthony Pratt occurred in April 2021, three months after Trump left office, and it allegedly included references to how many warheads US submarines carry and how close they can get to a Russian vessel without being detected, ABC News reported on Thursday. Pratt, who runs packaging company Pratt Industries, allegedly shared the information with more than a dozen Australian officials, as well as journalists and some of his employees, the outlet said, citing unidentified people familiar with the matter.

ABC conceded that it's not clear whether Trump’s comments about US submarines were accurate; nor did the outlet’s anonymous sources specifically claim that the information was classified. However, US prosecutors and FBI agents have interviewed Pratt at least twice this year about his conversation with Trump, and investigators urged the businessman not to spread the information any further because it was potentially sensitive.

The allegations were reported to US special counsel Jack Smith’s team of investigators. Smith is prosecuting Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents and has filed a separate indictment against the ex-president for trying to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election. The indictment on handling of classified documents didn’t include any allegations related to Trump’s conversation with Pratt.

Earlier this year, CNN aired a recording of Trump allegedly discussing US military secrets at his New Jersey country club. The outlet also reported in May that Trump had admitted to retaining a classified document detailing the US military’s plans for a potential attack on Iran.

Pratt, a Mar-a-Lago member, told investigators that he was trying to make conversation with Trump when he brought up US nuclear submarines. The billionaire suggested that Australia should start buying its submarines from the US. Trump responded by making claims about the capabilities of the US vessels. Pratt added that Trump didn’t show him any government documents.

The conversation came at a time when Australia was negotiating with President Joe Biden’s administration to buy US nuclear-powered submarines. The deal was completed earlier this year, with Australia agreeing to purchase three of the subs. Pratt said he told others about the conversation with Trump to show how he was advocating for Australia’s interests in the US.

A Trump spokesperson denied any wrongdoing on the former president’s part, ABC reported. The accusations concerning the conversation with Pratt lack “proper context and relevant information,”the spokesperson said.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/584192-trump-accused-discussing-us-submarine-secrets/

 

FLIMSY ACCUSATIONS ARE THE FARE OF THE DESPERATE DEEP STATE VIA CROOKED DEMOCRAT "PROSECUTURERS"....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

big blunder....

 

AUKUS: The greatest policy blunder By Mike Scrafton

 

Recent speculation about the regulatory obstacles to the AUKUS agreement add to the Congressional concerns over the industrial base’s capacity to deliver the Virginia class submarines and meet to USN’s force level targets. Moreover, hanging over all of America’s foreign policy positions going forward is the faltering support for foreign adventures and the prospect of another isolationist-leaning Trump Administration abandoning ‘bad deals.’  AUKUS remains bad policy.

The risks associated with the AUKUS project delivering value to Australia, as opposed to meeting American interests, should have been obvious to Defence officials and have been briefed to ministers. Yet Australia faces an inexplicable situation where the project is threatened by previously well-known hurdles to accessing sensitive military technology; hurdles known from long and bitter experience in acquiring military platforms and capabilities from America.

While it is not impossible that all the ducks will line up and the submarine fairy will deliver, the prospect of AUKUS turning out to be the greatest policy blunder in Canberra’s history is growing more likely.

Jeffrey Bialos, a former Clinton Administration deputy undersecretary of defence well versed in the regulatory framework in the State and Defence departments, has written that “the regulatory standards that would be ­required of Australia and Britain were so stringent that the countries wouldn’t agree to them and in practice co-operation couldn’t occur”. It’s not the hulls but “the essential technology co-operation related to [them] and Pillar II activities; [and] the rules effectively kill it”.

Under the existing International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulation and the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) rules there has arisen “a longstanding morass of complexity and bureaucracy that result in well-known barriers to cooperation with the United States’ closest allies”. The draft legislation currently before Congress is, in Bialos’ expert opinion, “largely be unworkable”.

Bialos is not alone in this view, with another expert observing ITAR is “the primary barrier to the dream of making AUKUS a near term reality” and noting the Biden Administration has not proposed “workable legislative proposals that would take aim at ITAR’s pitfalls [and] the few reforms the administration has offered so far have not been serious or implementable”.

Even progressing what is assessed by some experts as the inadequate, AUKUS legislation is subject to the Biden Administration meeting Congress’ concerns about the shortcomings in the submarine industrial base. Although the early 2030s are still some way in the future and there might be time to reform ITAR and FMS rules, but, given the massive changes in legislation and regulation required by Australia, the complex contractual arrangements to be negotiated, and the production and infrastructure investment required, a  decade is not very long.

The government messaging on the AUKUS project has been silent on the risks. If the project cannot escape the “ poison pill” of ITAR and FMS rules and the procurement collapses Australia will be left without a submarine capability mid-century.

Meanwhile named-storm Trump approaches Washington bringing unknown risks to not just AUKUS but global and alliance stability generally. Political risk is far harder to anticipate but has also been completely ignored.

To gamble with Australia’s defence because of an utter failure to consider the risks to the project’s success, or perhaps ignoring them, is already a fundamental failure in the policy process. Labor and Coalition leaders have been adamant that the AUKUS submarines are vital to Australia’s defence. To not be upfront with the Australian public about the gamble being taken is an unforgivable dereliction.

Whether or not one is a supporter of the AUKUS project, it is impossible not to see the shortcomings of the responsible ministers and officials as putting Australia’s security at the mercy of forces the government cannot affect. Collectively successive governments might have authored the greatest policy blunder in Australia’s history.

https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-the-greatest-policy-blunder/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....