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

tepid public policies written in washington......

These days the politics in the Australian parliament is little more than puerile game-playing, echoing what goes on endlessly and tediously in the undergraduate political clubs in our universities. It’s all about organising and winning the numbers. It lacks an ethical core, resulting in the country being paralysed by the politics of ennui and hopelessness. Prime Minister Albanese seems all at sea when it comes to changing this depressing political culture.

 

By Allan Patience

 

The vast majority of Australia’s federal MPs are politically timid; they nervously dance around any substantial defence of their tepid public policies; they are noteworthy only for their cynical point-scoring. There is no oratorical passion or philosophical depth in parliamentary speeches. MPs are only noticeable for their nasty baying at Question Time. Governments baulk whenever confronted by a negative opinion poll or a critical media diatribe. Voters are turning their backs on this whole miserable charade. Democracy is in decline.

Consider some of the great twentieth century political leaders: Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr, for example. They each had a profound moral core driving their political agendas. This is not to say they were faultless as persons, but they certainly inspired millions across the world and implemented truly progressive reforms, often against huge odds. They understood that a moral vision – one that is underpinned by clearly articulated ethical values ­– is absolutely vital for achieving political progress.

It seems that Anthony Albanese is only skilled in timorous politics. Where is the moral core of his political agenda? He seems fearful of standing up to what is rapidly becoming the worst Opposition in Australian political history. He is running scared of the malevolent Murdoch media. He thinks voters don’t want radical public policies when in fact they are longing for inspiringly progressive changes to the governance of the country. They are longing for a morally inspiring leader.

Albanese’s most egregious ethical failure so far has been his embrace of the alliance with America. A morally astute prime minister would have flatly turned down the “invitation” to visit the White House in October. It was more an order than an invitation, underlining the Albanese government’s strategic failure to stand up for Australian sovereignty. Moreover, his alacrity in agreeing to be guest of honour at a formal White House dinner during the Washington visit is a grotesquely childish act for a Labor prime minister. It aligns with his ridiculous attendance at Charles III’s coronation along with a gaggle of hangers-on, at tax-payers’ expense.

If he must travel overseas again this year, it should be to Beijing. No one is in doubt that there are huge differences of view between Australia and China, culturally, politically, and strategically. But getting along as best we can with Beijing is the best, the only, way forward for this country, not kowtowing to Washington every time the Americans want to plant another military base (target) on our soil or call on us to purchase their cast-off submarines and other second-hand defence materiel.

The US trip is in grave danger of overshadowing his querulous contributions so far to the debate about the Voice to Parliament referendum. Has he actually given up on this vitally important issue? Is he surrendering to the Dutton Noalition? Why is he being so mealy-mouthed, so desultory, in the way he is engaging with voters across the nation in favour of the Yes case? The country urgently needs a prime minister in full throttle arguing for the Yes case, robustly exposing the lies and slurs – the deeply disgusting immorality – of the Coalition’s No case. He should learn how to do this by reading Martin Luther King Jr’s civil rights speeches.

In fact, the Yes case is contemporary Australia’s equivalent of America’s civil rights movement. Albanese needs to lead an ethically charged campaign up and down the country, right up to the day the referendum is held, articulating this very point. And his pusillanimous Cabinet colleagues should be with him all the way. (The exception is Linda Burney who has been a champion campaigner for the Yes case, but almost single-handedly among her political peers.)

The outcome of the referendum will determine Australia’s international reputation for many years to come. Are we a nation of white supremacists, or are we ready to begin truly “closing the gap”? The referendum will also shape how we think about ourselves as a nation? Are we a generous people, truly egalitarian, or are we a nation that is racially at odds with itself? Albanese just doesn’t seem to understand the Yes case’s moral import. He has no moral fire in his belly.

Meanwhile there are other major issues simmering at the margins of the government’s disappointing policy agenda but which should be centre stage. Comprehensive taxation reform is an urgent matter. Leading a campaign to completely overhaul the taxation system, to make it more progressive and ethically aligned should be at the top of Albanese’s and Chalmers’ agendas. These are profound moral matters, not simply financially rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Politics is as much about educating voters as it is about staying in power.

Housing policy is also a matter of social justice. It’s not simply about economics; it’s about human wellbeing. So is health policy; a badly needed expanded public hospital and health services program is all about morality in public policy. Education is another vitally important ethical issue. Indeed, we should be hearing much more along these lines from what is actually turning out to be, if not a Morrison-lite government, then a Turnbull-lite government. Australia needs government policies that are first and foremost ethically grounded.

Of course these reforms necessarily raise the issue of where the funding will come from. So what about the government’s pathetic defence of the Stage 3 tax cuts? This is just weak-kneed political expediency. The immorality of those tax cuts should be driving Albanese’s opposition to them, not his feeble quibbling about past election “promises”. So too with issues like negative gearing and franking credits. These are deeply moral matters, not matters of political image making.

Nonetheless, there are some hopeful signs emerging in our politics. A new generation is beginning to make its presence felt with the voting public and in parliament. Younger voters are turning away from the mainstream parties in droves. In the parliament, glimmerings of this new generation’s potential are evident in Greens MP Max Chandler-Mather’s ethically astute stand on housing and rent policies, much to Albanese’s discomfort. David Pocock is also an inspiring representative in the Senate, along with most of the independents, all demonstrating that ethical politics is both possible and attractive for voters.

May there be many more of these excellent people come the next federal election!

https://johnmenadue.com/the-moral-emptiness-of-albaneses-politics/

 

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

 

sell-out.....

The Government’s abandonment of Australian sovereignty to the US through AUKUS and the Force Posture Agreement (FPA) enmeshes Australia in US war plans and endangers the peace in our region on which our national prosperity relies. It is up to you, ALP rank and file members attending the National Conference, 17-19 August, to stand up for Australia’s national interest. Will you defend Labor values?

 

By Bevan Ramsden

 

At a time when Australia faces no credible short term military threat to its territory or interests, the Albanese government has enthusiastically embraced the AUKUS Agreement. An agreement initiated under the Liberal Coalition government, which hyper-inflates a ‘China threat’, ties Australia into a military pact aimed at China, and binds Australia into following the military decisions of the US and UK.

This is against the best interests of the Australian people and places us in grave danger.

In addition:

  • The acquisition of nuclear-propelled hunter-killer submarines designed for distant deep- water operations and also initiated under the Liberal Coalition government has been further developed with a price tag of $368 billion over a period of three decades. These nuclear subs are designed, not for operation in defence of Australia’s shallow coastal waters, but for offensive operations in distant deep waters such as near the South China Seas and the Taiwan strait.
  • The ALP Government has approved the construction of a US Air Force ‘Squadron Operations Facility’ in Darwin, thus forfeiting control of foreign air-force operations within and from Australia, including the right to know whether aircraft in Australian airspace are carrying nuclear weapons.
  • The US has been given approval to pre-position US Army stores and materiel at Bandiana in Victoria as a precursor to longer term establishment of an enduring Logistics Support Area in Queensland designed to enhance interoperability and accelerate the ability to respond to so called ‘regional crises’. These stores and material are under US control as set out in the FPA.
  • The US has been given approval for American intelligence analysts to be embedded within Defence’s spy agency in Canberra establishing a Combined Intelligence Centre- Australia within Australia’s Defence Intelligence Organisation by 2024. This puts foreign spies inside Australia’s intelligence operations centre and ensures that the US can directly influence military intelligence reporting to the senior levels of the Australian government, apparently without clearance through the normal Office of National Intelligence channels.
  • Through Enhanced Maritime Cooperation there will be more and longer visits of US nuclear submarines to HMAS Stirling in WA from 2023. These visits are in preparation for Submarine Rotational Force-West involving UK and US nuclear submarines being berthed and serviced under the AUKUS Agreement.
  • The Americans have been given permission to conduct a “regular rotation” of US army watercraft as well as deploying a US Navy spy plane to conduct surveillance flights.
  • There has been approval for further expansion of the deployment of US forces to Australia including amphibious troops and maritime reconnaissance planes; these troops and planes are not under Australian government control but under the direct control of the US Indo-Pacific Command in Darwin.
  • The ALP government has through AUSMIN re-affirmed a joint commitment to operationalise the US-Australia military alliance including through Enhanced Force Posture Cooperation across land, maritime and air domains as well as through the Combined Logistics, Sustainment and Maritime Enterprise. They also agreed to Enhanced Space Cooperation as a new Force Posture Initiative to enable closer cooperation in this critical operational domain.
  • The ALP government has allowed the completion of huge fuel storage facilities for the US at East Arm, Darwin, with these facilities being under US control.
  • In addition to upgrading RAAF Tindal and Darwin the ALP government has approved the expansion and “hardening” against attacks of two other RAAF bases in the north, RAAF Scherger, near Weipa, and RAAF Curtin in WA. Both are at present so-called “bare bases” with runways and minimal facilities, but upgrades could include fuel storage, widening parking aprons to house bigger types of warplanes and protective bunkers for storing explosives.

This upgrading will service aircraft common to Australia and the US including F-35 Lightning’s, F/A 18 Super Hornet fighters and C-17 transports. Prior to the recently concluded AUSMIN 2023 talks, upgrades to RAAF Tindal were announced for basing up to six US B52 nuclear-capable long-range bombers.

Much of the sell-out of Australian sovereignty represented by these decisions is underpinned by the US-Australia FPA. The FPA has its origins in the ALP Gillard Government and was signed by the Abbott Liberal Coalition Government in 2014. The FPA states that: “United States Forces and United States Contractors have unimpeded access to and use of Agreed Facilities and Areas for activities undertaken in connection with this Agreement. Such activities may include: training, transit, support, and related activities; refuelling of aircraft; bunkering of vessels; temporary maintenance of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; temporary accommodation of personnel; communications; prepositioning of equipment, supplies, and materiel; deploying forces and material; and such other activities as the Parties may agree.”

The Albanese ALP government evidently has no problem with the craven sell-out of Australian sovereignty to the United States represented by the FPA and the decisions of AUSMIN 2023.

The Government’s abandonment of Australian sovereignty to the US through AUKUS and the FPA enmeshes Australia in US war plans and undermines the peace in our region on which our national prosperity relies.

It is up to you, ALP rank and file members attending the National Conference, 17-19 August, to stand up for Australia’s national interest.

As factional power brokers manoeuvre to stifle dissent, will you defend Labor values?

 

https://johnmenadue.com/the-alp-is-selling-our-sovereignty-to-the-united-states-will-you-resist/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE...............

 

bushmasters....

Russia showcased Ukraine 'war trophies' at an exhibition in capital Moscow. The exhibition in Moscow showcases captured west-supplied Ukrainian army weapons. The military hardware on display features a burned Australian-manufactured Bushmaster armoured vehicle, U.S.-manufactured M113 APC and a Swedish-manufactured CV90-40 IFV. Watch the video for more details.

Russia Displays Captured British, French & U.S. Artillery At Moscow Exhibition | Watch

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmGLwiHqzTY

 

 

 

 

MEANWHILE:

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/581323-ukraine-struggle-intercept-russian-missiles/

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/581291-shoigu-soviet-weapons-better/

 

Kiev could end up relinquishing some of its former territory in exchange for NATO membership, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s chief of staff, Stian Jenssen said at a debate on Tuesday. In his own statements on the issue, Stoltenberg has insisted that Kiev will set its own terms for “victory.”

“I think that a solution could be for Ukraine to give up territory, and get NATO membership in return,”Jenssen said at the debate, according to Norway’s VG newspaper. This discussion is already underway within NATO, he said, suggesting that it could be a “possible solution” to the conflict.

https://www.rt.com/russia/581322-ukraine-surrender-land-russia/

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE...............

 

the flipflopper....

“At the height of the Cold War, Prime Minister Menzies agreed to the British request for a permanent site to test nuclear weapons… This was a political decision by a government that was subservient to the British government, and today there are parallels, with the Australian government being once again subservient to the decisions of a foreign power.” “Our government is about to redefine us in the eyes of the world as willing backers of US militarism.” – Anthony Albanese, 2003.

 

The following is a series of extracts from The Hon. Anthony Albanese’s parliamentary speeches concerning the Iraq War, the US alliance and Australia’s sovereignty in 2002 and 2003.

 

10 February 2003

The end of the Cold War brought the prospect of international stability and peace. The world community had great hope for ending divisions and advancing the cause of common humanity. The vehicle for this was of course to be the United Nations—no longer hamstrung by a polarised geopolitical environment. Now as we enter the 21st century that earlier optimism has faded and the world community faces the very real prospect that religious differences will replace the political ideological battles of the past.

There are many brutal evil dictatorships in the world today and without question Saddam Hussein is one of them. The litany of his human rights violations against his own people have been extensively documented and include the use of chemical weapons, torture and a secret police force. While the evils of the Iraqi regime are indisputable, the question that we must ask ourselves is: does this justify Australia’s support for the new US foreign policy doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and should our armed forces be involved in its implementation? … In light of these facts, I do not believe it is in Australia’s national interest, particularly as we are only a medium-size power in a highly volatile region, to be joining any military action that would undermine the legitimacy and supremacy of international law. Any US-led military action not sanctioned by the United Nations would be illegal under international law.

Unfortunately, it is clear that John Howard has already given a commitment of support to the Bush administration, despite the overwhelming mood of public opinion and without the debate in this House having been completed. US officials are proclaiming that 12 nations have already signed up to a US led coalition of the willing. Nobody believes John Howard when he states that no final decision has been made. Back in October, the foreign minister told the New Zealand High Commissioner that Australia was not in a position, if the UN process broke down, to withdraw our ships and other presence from the Gulf. He was not wrong. Australia has already committed over 2,000 personnel—more than three times the commitment at the height of the 1991 Gulf War, which occurred after the invasion of Kuwait.

This commitment to war includes the SAS, Navy frigates, FA18 Hornets, Chinook troop lift helicopters, C130 Hercules transport aircraft, mine clearance teams and much more. And the Prime Minister would have us believe that no commitment has been made! John Howard is going to show all his peers at Canterbury High School that he was not a wimp after all. Just like the US President, he has never fought in a war but never misses a photo opportunity to be seen with those who bravely serve our nation. … There has been criticism of the emotion people have displayed during this debate. I contend there is no more important decision than whether or not this country goes to war. It is not surprising, therefore, that the debate has been emotional. One would be concerned had it not been thus. Not only does such a decision place the men and women of our armed services and those of other countries in harm’s way but it will also lead to the death and injury of tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of innocent Iraqi citizens. … If there is one lesson for the world community from September 11 and the Bali tragedy it is this: military power is not enough in the modern world—security can only be achieved by a victory of humane, democratic values. The international community must act in a manner that reduces terrorism, not inflames tension. There is something perverse about arguing that the cause of democracy is advanced through the use of our own weapons of mass destruction.

While I do recognise the importance of our cultural, political and economic relationship with the United States, I believe that we must continue to tell them that unilateralism can never be the basis of a satisfactory world model and that pre-emptive action should not involve the use of military power. The recent criticism by the US Ambassador of the right of Labor members to speak out, including the member for Werriwa, is an outrage. The US undermines its own advancement of democratic institutions if its representatives do not respect the right of elected members to state their views in the parliament of Australia. … I have written to my electorate outlining my views on this fundamental issue and received hundreds of supportive replies. I have received only one from someone who supported the war. I will be marching for peace with the Walk Against the War Coalition this Sunday from 12 noon at Hyde Park North with my state Labor colleagues Andrew Refshauge, Sandra Nori, Linda Burney and Virginia Judge and thousands of my constituents. I would not be at all surprised if more than 200,000 Australians join us this Sunday. I encourage Australians to vote with their feet and demonstrate that we believe that «Iraq» should be disarmed but this should occur under the auspices of the UN and in a peaceful manner.

I want to repeat a quote from Shakespeare that was in a letter sent to me this week:

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war, in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervour, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind …”

 

20 March 2003

Our government is about to redefine us in the eyes of the world as willing backers of US militarism. We had three nations meet in the Azores: the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain. We were not even invited to the meeting which determined that there would be war! The Prime Minister took a phone call and immediately said yes to President Bush, because we all know that that decision was made many months ago, before the predeployment of troops. We were not even at the meeting where the decision was made, and yet one of the nations which was at the meeting—Spain—is not sending troops to this war. Just three nations are sending troops: the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. What does that say about the sort of nation that we are? We are a multicultural nation, and yet here we are sending a message, particularly to the Islamic world, that we are a part of the old, white, Anglo-Christian order—and we have the President of the United States who invokes God in defending his government’s actions. I say that Islamic fundamentalism is a danger and a threat, but I also say that Christian fundamentalism is a danger and a threat. We should not be revisiting the Crusades, because that is how this war is being perceived by the international community. … Iraq does not represent a threat to Australia. We are, with this decision, supporting a pre-emptive strike, which changes forever the way that international politics works. The United Nations has been extremely damaged, not by its own actions but by the actions of the United States, the UK and Australia. There are alternatives to war.

 

18 September 2002

Of course, as other speakers have commented, there is no doubt that September 11 last year was an incredibly significant event in all our lives. What is important is that appropriate lessons are learnt and that the world moves forward from that horrific terrorist act. I believe one of the lessons of September 11 is that military power is not enough in the modern world; security can be achieved only by a victory of humane, democratic values. The talk and rhetoric coming from the government on this issue has changed substantially over recent months. It was only a short time ago that, because of the Labor Party’s principled and consistent position on this issue, the Minister for Foreign Affairs accused the Leader of the Opposition of talking like Saddam Hussein. Now, I am pleased that more rational debate has replaced that simplistic rhetoric, because Australia—and indeed the world—has nothing to benefit from war.

 

23 October 2003

Letter to US President George W. Bush, signed by 41 Labor politicians, including Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong, outlining why Labor opposed the Iraq War. According to a 4 November 2003 speech by Albanese, this letter was presented to Bush during the President’s visit to Australia.

“The friendship between our countries is longstanding and deeply felt. We have a great deal in common, particularly our commitment to democracy. We retain our commitment to the ANZUS alliance. That’s why we feel it’s important for you to understand why so many Australians opposed the war on Iraq. .. .The ALP firmly believes that international conflict should, wherever possible, be dealt with peacefully and through international co-operation under the auspices of the United Nations. When all attempts for a peaceful resolution have been exhausted, United Nations sanction is vital if force is to be used. … What is to prevent other countries from following the example of our attack on Iraq, and arguing the right to preventative self-defence? Why shouldn’t North and South Korea attack each other using the template we developed in Iraq? Or India and Pakistan? The precedent we have set is a very dangerous one, and there is every indication that the world will become less safe, not more, because of our actions. … Our own government knew of this increased risk before the war and refused to tell the Australian people.”. …

 

Albanese referenced the letter in a 4 November 2003 parliamentary rebuke to the Greens, which appears to have been aimed at the Greens’ heckling of Bush during his October 2003 address to the Australian parliament.

 

25 March 2003

Maralinga Nuclear test Sites

It is with a considerable sense of sadness that I respond to the statement of the Minister for Science on the Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee report, Rehabilitation of former nuclear test sites at Emu and Maralinga. In 1954, at the height of the Cold War, Prime Minister Menzies agreed to the British request for a permanent site to test nuclear weapons. Seven atomic bombs were detonated at Maralinga during 1956 and 1957, and a number of trials were undertaken, codenamed with very pleasant names: Kittens, Tims, Rats and Vixen. This was a political decision by a government that was subservient to the British government, and today there are parallels, with the Australian government being once again subservient to the decisions of a foreign power. Just as today the result of the decision to enter a war in Iraq has very negative consequences for our national sovereignty, certainly in the fifties the subservience that the Menzies government showed to its British masters had dire consequences for Australia. The Vixen trials were particularly ruthless, scattering radiotoxic plutonium over the desert to simulate accidental damage done to nuclear weapons from fire, explosion and accidental detonation. It appears that most of the contamination of the soil was the result of smaller, often clandestine trials rather than due to A-bombs. … In 1951 the Menzies government invited the British government to undertake nuclear testing on Australian soil, and the people whose land they were to destroy were not taken into account.The minister today made the same mistake.

 

Editors’ note: These statements were made by Anthony Albanese as the ALP opposed Australia’s participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq by the United States. Twenty years on, what does Anthony Albanese now believe?

https://johnmenadue.com/our-government-is-about-to-redefine-us-as-willing-backers-of-us-militarism-anthony-albanese-2003-pic-albo/

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE...............