THE MURDOCH MEDIA IS PANICKING !

With all guns blazing and slashing swords of the EMPIRE, the Murdock camp is 100 per cent against ALBO and 100 per cent for DUTTON... For those who don't believe in 100 per cent cleaning/destructors of bacteria products, we will say 99.9....

This reminds us of a quote — and old one from Vladimir Lenin in 1901:

The role of a newspaper, however, is not limited solely to the dissemination of ideas, to political education, and to the enlistment of political allies. A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organiser. In this last respect it may be likened to the scaffolding round a building under construction, which marks the contours of the structure and facilitates communication between the builders, enabling them to distribute the work and to view the common results achieved by their organised labour. With the aid of the newspaper, and through it, a permanent organisation will naturally take shape that will engage, not only in local activities, but in regular general work, and will train its members to follow political events carefully, appraise their significance and their effect on the various strata of the population, and develop effective means for the revolutionary party to influence those events.'

HERE, INSTEAD OF NEWS PAPER READ MEDIA AND INSTEAD OF "REVOLUTIONARY" ONE NEEDS TO READ "REACTIONARY" OR FULL CANE-TOAD MAD TRUMPISM IN REGARD TO DUTTON AND HIS GANG OF BACKWARDS CONSERVATIVES (MISNAMED DECEITFULLY AS "LIBERALS").

SO, IN SYDNEY, THE MAIN BATTLE FOR THE DAILY MIRROR — ER, SORRY, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH — IS IN THE WEST, WHERE THE VOTERS ARE MORE FICKLE THAN THIS SUMMER (ENDED) WEATHER PATTERN... PLEASE VOTE FOR THE BLAND... 

AND THE MURDOCH MEDIA IS ALSO GUNNING FOR ROBIN HOOD — THE GREENS... THEY HATE THE FOREST AND LOVE DIGING YOUR GRAVES WITH MORE HOLES FOR GAS AND COAL... FOR THEM, EVEN DUTTON LACKS COURAGE TO BE A FULL-ON BASTARD THAT GIVES YOU POISON LOLLIES (PROMISES)....

PLEASE VOTE FOR THE LABOR BLAND...

READ FROM TOP.

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

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Mark Beeson

Donald Trump’s decision to eviscerate the Voice of America has alarmed allies and delighted notional foes. America’s supporters in Australia needn’t worry, though, there are still enthusiastic institutionalised defenders of the alliance.

Even before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, many people in Australia and elsewhere were convinced it was it was a disastrously ill-conceived and unnecessary folly that was certain to end badly. It wasn’t necessary to be a “security expert” to have reservations about the entire project. In fact, it may have been a distinct advantage not to be one of the specialists who shape American and Australian strategic policy given the uniformity of opinion that distinguishes such people. Needless to say, the Howard Government took no notice of the major protests that erupted in opposition to Australian participation.

America’s strategic policy during the presidency of George W. Bush was dominated by the so-called “neocons” who had long argued for a more muscular approach to foreign policy, but this doesn’t really explain why they were able to form a “coalition of the willing” with their more enthusiastic Anglosphere allies. Even the UK, which had wisely resisted being drawn into another equally unnecessary and unproductive conflict in Vietnam, was enlisted, on the basis of what we now know was very dubious, if not deliberately dishonest, “intelligence”.

In Australia’s case participation was inevitable. When has Australia not gone along with the US, no matter how irrelevant such a conflict was to this country’s uniquely favourable strategic circumstances? Such an outcome was even more likely, of course, when the prime minster of the time was John Howard. He had already used the attacks of 11 September to invoke the ANZUS treaty and justify Australia’s support of the US.

Embedding the alliance

And yet there was another, less obvious, but more enduring legacy of this period that continues to shape Australian perceptions of the US, which may be called upon to play a more prominent role given the increasingly destabilising presidency of Donald Trump. True, he hasn’t started a war thus far, but Australian public opinion has rapidly turned against him, to the point where Trump is seen as a greater threat to world peace than Xi Jinping or even Vladimir Putin.

The last time scepticism about the behaviour of our notional security guarantor plunged in this way, Howard stumped up $25 million to establish the United States Studies Centre, which one of its most influential supporters, the former Australian, Rupert Murdoch, said was designed to combat “anti-Americanism”. Given the unwavering support that the Murdoch press has offered to the alliance between the US and Australia, the USCC might seem redundant, but not only does the Sydney outpost continue its work, but it has been joined by another in Perth.

Indeed, the University of Western Australia also hosts its own champion of the alliance and militarism more generally, the Defence and Security Institute, which is designed to “build partnerships in defence and security research, policy, engagement, and education”. UWA is consolidating its unfortunate reputation for cozying up the defence industry (and the resource sector) while not welcoming critical thinking of a sort that would seem a prerequisite for those “seeking wisdom”, to quote its motto.

While the USCC has, at times, tried to present itself as a conventional centre of academic activity, and has been roundly criticised for its troubles by conservative critics, its loyalty to the alliance remains unchanged, no matter who is in the White House. Indeed, it proudly boasts that “solutions for the alliance” is one of its key goals. It even has a special initiative for “women in the alliance”, some of whom, like Geraldine Dooge, we might have hoped would know better. Still, it’s one in the eye for critics of the ABC’s alleged anti-Americanism.

Even the increasingly problematic, expensive and widely condemned AUKUS project enjoys enthusiastic support from the USCC, with one of its researchers assuring readers that it “will endure and continue to be Australia’s best bet”. More importantly, one of its most prominent staff members, Peter Dean, was the lead author on the influential 2023 Defence Strategic Review, which nominated AUKUS as a priority because “our Alliance with the United States will remain central to Australia’s security and strategy. The United States will become even more important in the coming decades”.

Some things never change

To be fair, the Review was written before Trump was re-elected, but this has not stopped the USSC from doubling down on its support for the alliance and spruiking the supposed economic benefits of the AUKUS project. Dean has even gone so far as to suggest that “AUKUS is better off under Donald Trump than it was under Joe Biden”. Given that Australia has just handed over a downpayment of $800 million with no guarantee that it will ever have anything to show for it, he may be right. After all, Trump can recognise a sucker when he sees one.

Trump may also be pleased about the continuing, largely uncritical support, the US receives from its influential supporters in Australia. And yet, as Binoy Kampmark argued in P&I, the USSC “should be treated for what it is: an agent of foreign interference and ideological meddling”. This is, after all, the way that the Confucius Institutes are treated, and they do nothing more than teach Mandarin and introduce people to Chinese culture. They have yet to produce a report that champions the strategic and business merits of closer ties with China, for example. That such a thing is literally unthinkable tells us much about how some ideas have become the incontestable conventional wisdom.

The limited nature of the policy debate in Australia leads to pointless and unnecessary participation in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. Thankfully, arguing for a more independent Australian foreign policy is not such an eccentric and lonely business as it was 20-odd years ago. Indeed, while the Australia Institute is not dedicated exclusively to critiquing relations with the US, it provides a home for a new generation of analysts who are not wedded to the alliance. Likewise, a number of prominent politicians and even former military personnel have made major criticisms of AUKUS, albeit long after they are in a position to do anything about it or the alliance more generally.

Nevertheless, ingratiating themselves with the US remains the default setting for Australia’s major political parties and the strategic elites that advise them; even when the White House is occupied by someone who plainly unfit for the office, and who has little understanding of, or sympathy with, the alliance relationships that have underpinned American hegemony since World War II. While more people seem to realise that there are tangible disadvantages to being an anxious, over-enthusiastic ally, not many of them have any influence over policy. Until Australia finds its own voice, that is unlikely to change.

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/04/__trashed-91/

MEANWHILE THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD WALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET...

READ FROM TOP.

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

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

ARE WE GOING TO FOLLOW AMERICA IF TRUMP ATTACKS (BOMBS) IRAN ON DUBIOUS REASONS THAT ARE MORE TRUMPED UP THAN THE "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" USED BY BUSHIT ON IRAQ? IS AUSTRALIA GOING TO HELP THIS INSANE DESIRE?

IS THIS THE PLAN COCKED UP BY THE PENTAGON, WHOEVER CAME IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN NOVEMBER 2024?.... DO THE AMERICANS LEARN ANYTHING? WHY DO THEY KEEP LOOKING AT THE WORLD THROUGH THEIR OWN ARSE?

WHY ARE WE "LENDING A HAND" THROUGH SECRET DEVIOUS AMERICAN BASES ON OUR SOIL?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JizDqVrX4Ko

READ FROM TOP.

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

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

SEE ALSO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pztlz2Tb93I

Joanne Wallis,  Rebecca Strating

The re-election of the Albanese Labor Government by such a wide margin should not mean “business as usual” for Australia’s security policy.

The global uncertainty instigated by US President Donald Trump means Australia’s security landscape is very different today from when Labor was first elected in 2022, or even when its  Defence Strategic Review was released in 2023.

As we argue in  our recent book, the Albanese Government faces increasingly difficult questions.

How can we maintain our crucial security alliance with the US while deepening partnerships with other countries that have reservations about US policy?

And, given Trump’s recent actions, how much can we continue to rely on the US and what are the potential costs of the alliance?

With a massive parliamentary majority, the new government has an opportunity for bold thinking on national security. This is not the time for Australia to keep its head down – we need to face the rapidly changing world with our heads held high.

Trump 2.0 is not the same as 1.0

We do not advocate Australia step away from the US alliance. We are also realistic that decades of defence procurement mean Australia is heavily reliant on US defence materiel (and its subsequent sustainment) for our security.

The deep interoperability between the Australian Defence Force and the US military is something alliance sceptics too readily gloss over: much Australian military capability cannot function without ongoing American support.

At the same time, many alliance advocates underestimate the impact of the new challenges we face. Some assumed a continuity between the first and second Trump administrations. However, we are not convinced the lessons learned from Trump 1.0 are still valid.

A key difference between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 is the effect of his move away from respecting international law.

For example, the US has  voted with Russia against UN Security Council resolutions condemning the Ukraine war, withdrawn from the  Paris Climate Agreement and  World Health Organisation, and damaged relations with  NATO allies, among many other actions.

As a  middle power, Australia has long relied on the “ rules-based order” to advance its foreign and strategic policy interests.

Even if “normal transmission” resumes under a new US president in 2029, we are concerned the Trump administration’s structural changes to the international order will not easily be wound back. American soft power has been decimated by cuts to the US State Department, USAID and international broadcasting services. This will also not be rebuilt quickly.

A second difference is there are few “ adults left in the room” in the Trump administration.

The advisers, who kept Trump in check during his first administration, have been replaced by loyalists less likely to push back against his ideas and impulses. This includes his long-held grievance that allies have been exploiting the US.

The Albanese Government needs to think more deeply about how to hedge against dependence on the US. This means investing in relations with other partners, especially in Asia and the Pacific, and working with them to promote the laws, rules and norms that maintain stability and predictability in global affairs.

An idealistic vision for the future

We are also concerned that many in the national security community base their policy recommendations on the assumption that war between the US and China is inevitable, and such a conflict could draw in Australia as America’s ally.

Rather, the Trump administration’s preference for “deals” opens the possibility the US and China might come to an arrangement that will affect  US presence and leadership in our region.

Australia may not be prepared for this. The new government must engage in more open discussion about how we would maintain our security if the US does pull back from the region or  makes decisions Australians don’t support.

As a start, we need to consider how Australia can better pursue  self-reliance within the alliance structure. We need a range of strategic options in the future that don’t rely on an outdated image of the US as a reliable partner.

This debate should be guided by what we call “ pragmatic idealism”.

Rather than accepting the way things are, the government and members of the national security community need to re-imagine how things can be.

We argue the Albanese Government should draw confidence from its thumping electoral win to articulate a politics of hope, opportunity and possibility for our future security. This needs to drown out the cynicism, passive acceptance and learned helplessness that often characterises Australian national security debates.

We are conscious that being “idealistic” is often dismissed as impractical, naïve “wishful thinking”. But the new government needs to demonstrate to Australians it has the courage to face the diverse, interlinked and complex security challenges we face – potentially on our own. These extend to issues such as cyber attacks, transnational crime and climate change.

Practical steps

As a first step, the Albanese Government urgently needs to commission an integrated National Security Strategy that considers all the  tools of statecraft Australia can use to respond to these challenges.

This means engaging more with partners in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In particular, Australia should consider investing more heavily in information programs and public diplomacy as the  US withdraws from this arena.

The government must also engage better with the public and be more transparent about its security options and decisions.

On AUKUS, for instance, the government must build its “ social licence” from the public to sustain such a massive deal across generations. Australians need to be better informed about — and consulted on — the decisions they will ultimately pay for.

This also includes being upfront with Australians about the need for greater  defence spending in a tumultuous world.

It is understandably tempting for the new Albanese Government to continue a “ small target” approach when it comes to the US. This has meant minimising domestic debate about the alliance that could undermine support for AUKUS and avoid risking the ire of a thin-skinned Trump.

But the government needs the courage to ask difficult questions and imagine different futures.

Republished from THE CONVERSATION, 5 May 2025

Disclosure statement

Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Defence, and the government of South Australia. She is a Senior Nonresident Fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Rebecca Strating receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/05/after-its-landslide-win-labor-should-have-courage-and-confidence-on-security-and-our-alliance-with-the-us/

THESE ARE WORDY WORDS, WAFTY WORDS THAT PROVIDE NO SOLUTION TO THE WAY WE SHOULD PADDLE...

READ FROM TOP.

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

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.