AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

[neverfail]

What Australia - like most countries - needs is peace and the opportunity to do profitable trade with all its neighbours. Allying itself with the US will not provide that, as the US is an imperial power only interested in its power to submit all other countries. The need to show China that the US is the greatest power cannot bring peace to Asia and the western Pacific, so Australia should distance itself as much as possible from the US and establish a normal friendly relationship with China and all Asian countries. Having common roots with the US - the famous Anglo tribe - is completely irrelevant. There are plenty of Australians who have no connections with any of the anglophone countries, and they are very probably the most loyal Australians. They are a very important part of your future, and they are bound to shape it, not the remnants of the Anglo tribe. Poking China with the nuclear sub deal - which is only an excuse to have an American sub base in Australia - is a very dumb move, and Australians should reject it.

Sertorio,

You are likely aware by now that I am not well disposed to this AUKUS deal I have real doubts and misgivings about it. At present there is a firestorm of debate out here over it; not least within our governing party where a lot of rank and file members and even some members of parliament of the same party are not "sold" on the deal either.

Believe it or not it was not the Americans who pushed AUKUS on us but the previous Australian government led by Scott Morrison that actively proposed the deal to their American colleagues - probably after they got pissed off with the French in being too slow honouring an earlier contract to build a fleet of conventional subs for our navy. Had Donald Trump have still been US President he would likely have refused to share secret US nuclear propulsion technology even with a tried and proven ally like Australia. But president Biden was/is a president of a different persuasion and he saw fit to authorise the deal.

The trouble with the Australian Labor Party in Opposition was that it adopted the Morrison government's foreign policy simply for the politically expedient reason that it denied the government the opportunity to "wedge" them over it (i.e. to arouse controversy that could have lost Labor the nest election. So Labor got elected with a promise of "no change" to foreign policy - which was really a dumb move when looked at from the persepctive of the nations interests as distinct from their own partisan interests. Now in government they feel compelled to honour it.

I may add here that the current Prime Minister, Antony Albenese, is not noted as being a reflective individual. He does not think deeply about isues or about the long tern consequence of policy moves. But then his predecessor in office seems with hindsight to have been none too bright in that regard either.

In summary: we are in this impasse because we are led by dills who are incapable of thinking outside the box.

Sertorio, you are wrong in assuming that our defence and foreigtn poolicy ties with the US preclude us from " a normal friendly relationship with China and all Asian countries. None of them seem to hold our membership in the Western alliance against us and our trade and a range of other ties with our Asian neighbours are blossuming profusely. Even the PRC, even as it's government grumbles publically about the AUKUS subs (understandably) has so far neither threatened nor enacted any form of retalliation on us.

Thus far we have been able to have it both ways.

[neverfail]

The real cost of Australia’s AUKUS boondoggle

The stated goal is to build a defense-based manufacturing industry. But there is also a large element of old-fashioned pork barrelling involved.In particular, South Australia has nursed grievances over the shutdown of local car-making, centered in the state, following the withdrawal of federal government subsidies. The closure of the Osborne Naval Shipyard in north Adelaide would be politically “courageous” for any government.

the warning Australia could find itself at war with China in the next few years (over Taiwan) isn’t a persuasive argument for submarines that won’t be delivered until the 2030s.

Albanese’s Twitter account has published tweets extolling the economic benefits of the deal, but none about what the submarines will actually do to make Australians safer.

Perhaps, like previous submarine deals, this plan will be scrapped before consuming the stupendous sums of money now projected. But in the meantime, it will divert the Australian government from addressing urgent domestic problems.

Too few jobs created at too high a cost to the rest of the community - and it won't make Australia any safer.

Please God: even if we have to pay compensation to our US and British partners in this misadventure (as we did to the French over the previous submarine building fiasco), let this white elephant of a deal be scrapped before we have wasted too many more billions on it.

[cassowary]

The real cost of Australia’s AUKUS boondoggle

The stated goal is to build a defense-based manufacturing industry. But there is also a large element of old-fashioned pork barrelling involved.In particular, South Australia has nursed grievances over the shutdown of local car-making, centered in the state, following the withdrawal of federal government subsidies. The closure of the Osborne Naval Shipyard in north Adelaide would be politically “courageous” for any government.

the warning Australia could find itself at war with China in the next few years (over Taiwan) isn’t a persuasive argument for submarines that won’t be delivered until the 2030s.

Albanese’s Twitter account has published tweets extolling the economic benefits of the deal, but none about what the submarines will actually do to make Australians safer.

Perhaps, like previous submarine deals, this plan will be scrapped before consuming the stupendous sums of money now projected. But in the meantime, it will divert the Australian government from addressing urgent domestic problems.

Too few jobs created at too high a cost to the rest of the community - and it won't make Australia any safer.

Please God: even if we have to pay compensation to our US and British partners in this misadventure (as we did to the French over the previous submarine building fiasco), let this white elephant of a deal be scrapped before we have wasted too many more billions on it.

I think Putin has more to fear from his Russian enemies than the ICC.

[neverfail]

I think Putin has more to fear from his Russian enemies than the ICC.

What does this have to do with the topic under discussion, Cass?

[cassowary]

I think Putin has more to fear from his Russian enemies than the ICC.

What does this have to do with the topic under discussion, Cass?

Sorry, Neverfail. I posted it in this thread by mistake. It was for another thread.

[neverfail]

I think Putin has more to fear from his Russian enemies than the ICC.

What does this have to do with the topic under discussion, Cass?

Sorry, Neverfail. I posted it in this thread by mistake. It was for another thread.

I had a feeling that it must be something like that.

The non-responses I am getting now from other regular posters on this website suggests to me that the issue for now has exhausted itself as a topic of discussion. Well, that is understandable but out were I am it is far from finished. So as events unfold I intend from time to time post further reports on developments.

[neverfail]

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nation ... 5cskq.html

Long-term interoperability with the US Navy implies long-term political alignment with the US. Australia has placed a very big bet on two unknowns: that the US’s internal political stability and the US-led global order will endure into the 2070s. We don’t get to vote in US elections, however, and it is obvious that in recent years it has developed a sharply polarised domestic landscape and the prospect of democratic erosion. Australia must take out some form of political insurance in the event we find ourselves tied structurally to an illiberal, unreliable power that changes its stance from one administration to another – something radically different to the America we have long been used to.

Do you see the danger my country is placing itself in by allowing itself to become a captive of US policy?

I do not believe that either one of our two most recent governments thought that through.

[cassowary]

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nation ... 5cskq.html

Long-term interoperability with the US Navy implies long-term political alignment with the US. Australia has placed a very big bet on two unknowns: that the US’s internal political stability and the US-led global order will endure into the 2070s. We don’t get to vote in US elections, however, and it is obvious that in recent years it has developed a sharply polarised domestic landscape and the prospect of democratic erosion. Australia must take out some form of political insurance in the event we find ourselves tied structurally to an illiberal, unreliable power that changes its stance from one administration to another – something radically different to the America we have long been used to.

Do you see the danger my country is placing itself in by allowing itself to become a captive of US policy?

I do not believe that either one of our two most recent governments thought that through.

No I don’t see what you are so worried about. We have been buying US military hardware for decades. BUt we chart our own foreign policy which is to be friends with everybody. In the event of a war between Taiwan and China, we hope to stay out of it even if the US decides to protect Taiwan. They may not.

[neverfail]

No I don’t see what you are so worried about. We have been buying US military hardware for decades. But we chart our own foreign policy which is to be friends with everybody. In the event of a war between Taiwan and China, we hope to stay out of it even if the US decides to protect Taiwan. They may not.

Your country is (officially) a neutral, non-alligned one (even though one that leans somewhat Westward).Another difference is that Singapore does not have an adversarial system of democracy where competing factions vie with one another for voter support (and other kinds of political advantage over one another). Eagerness for power and influence mean that a lot of lies are perpetrated along the way.

(Contrary to your persistent belief Cassowary: the vice of a working adversarial democracy like ours is not that they drive the country into penury with electioneering bribes but rather in the quantity of lies, deception and hypocrisy involved in gaining and retaining power. And our one is relatively clean compared to the American one.)

But we have had a formal defence treaty with the United States since 1951. Though the treaty only calls upon the signaturies to CONSULT with one another should one be attacked by an (unnamed) third power. Only consult; there is nothing in it to legally oblige the United States to defend Australia should this country be invaded by a foreign third power.

That has not deterred Australian governments, especially those of the (moderate right) Liberal and National Party coalition from pretending otherwise. Lies!

The point made by the most recent link I quoted was that the USA, a deeply divided, polarised society may not, lacking adequate inner-cohesion, in future decades have the same degree of political stability at that which we have become used to. We will still need US backup and support for these subs even after we have them in the water and this will create a relationship of dependency that will turn our navy into an auxilliary part of the US Navy. If US politics in the coming decades degenerate into extremes accompanied by violence as I anticipate then Australia might find itself more at risk as an ally of the United States than from PRC ambition.
....................................................................................................................................

This raises a question in my mind. From your testamony in this and other discussions you seem to be rather laid back about the PRC in Singapore. Why is Singapore not lobbying to join the Western alliance? Is it because up there you do not have a political establishment that goes on scaremongering about 'the threat from the north' theme like branches of our one almost routinely do?

[cassowary]

No I don’t see what you are so worried about. We have been buying US military hardware for decades. But we chart our own foreign policy which is to be friends with everybody. In the event of a war between Taiwan and China, we hope to stay out of it even if the US decides to protect Taiwan. They may not.

Your country is (officially) a neutral, non-alligned one (even though one that leans somewhat Westward).Another difference is that Singapore does not have an adversarial system of democracy where competing factions vie with one another for voter support (and other kinds of political advantage over one another). Eagerness for power and influence mean that a lot of lies are perpetrated along the way.

True.

(Contrary to your persistent belief Cassowary: the vice of a working adversarial democracy like ours is not that they drive the country into penury with electioneering bribes but rather in the quantity of lies, deception and hypocrisy involved in gaining and retaining power. And our one is relatively clean compared to the American one.)

True again. Having a smaller population may mean a less complex and thus less competitive electorate. Therefore there is a lower need to tall lies. Or it could mean Australians are smarter and able to detect lies. So politicians know it’s difficult to get away with too many lies.

But we have had a formal defence treaty with the United States since 1951. Though the treaty only calls upon the signaturies to CONSULT with one another should one be attacked by an (unnamed) third power. Only consult; there is nothing in it to legally oblige the United States to defend Australia should this country be invaded by a foreign third power.

That has not deterred Australian governments, especially those of the (moderate right) Liberal and National Party coalition from pretending otherwise. Lies!

Since you don’t have a treaty that obliges the US to defend you in the event of an attack, it’s up to Australians to decide whether to join in should the US and PRC go to war. Buying their subs does not oblige Australians to fight any more than us buying F-35 ‘s from the US.

The point made by the most recent link I quoted was that the USA, a deeply divided, polarised society may not, lacking adequate inner-cohesion, in future decades have the same degree of political stability at that which we have become used to. We will still need US backup and support for these subs even after we have them in the water and this will create a relationship of dependency that will turn our navy into an auxilliary part of the US Navy. If US politics in the coming decades degenerate into extremes accompanied by violence as I anticipate then Australia might find itself more at risk as an ally of the United States than from PRC ambition.

In the same way, we need the US to provide our warplanes with spare parts, training and upgrades. That does not mean we will go to war with the PRC if Taiwan is invaded. I don’t even know if the US will intervene.

So stop worrying about the subs, Neverfail. Buying military hardware will not drag you into a war with China. In the first place, China may not invade. In the second place, the US may not help Taiwan. Finally, the Australian government of the day may decide to stay out.

Maybe some lying Australian politicians have fanned fears that buying the submarines will result in war with China.
.....................................................................................................................................

This raises a question in my mind. From your testamony in this and other discussions you seem to be rather laid back about the PRC in Singapore. Why is Singapore not lobbying to join the Western alliance? Is it because up there you do not have a political establishment that goes on scaremongering about 'the threat from the north' theme like branches of our one almost routinely do?

I think Singaporeans are generally an apathetic lot. We only want to make money. Some people have business interests in China. Others have business interests with the US or Taiwan. So leaning too strongly on one side or the other will upset some people.

When Australia announced their intention to acquire the nuclear subs, our PM reportedly told Scott Morrison that he was happy with the decision. Singapore is worried that the PRC will gain control of the South China Sea. Those subs will contribute to keeping the sea open to all.

I found this link:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pm-lee-welcom ... muWOxrxyej

SINGAPORE — Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has welcomed Australia’s assurance that its new defence pact with the US and the UK (AUKUS) aims to promote a “stable and secure” Asia Pacific amid China’s concerns that AUKUS could destabilise the region.

Speaking at the inaugural Asean-Australia summit, Lee noted at the virtual meeting on Wednesday (27 October) that the 10-member grouping and Australia have similar strategic outlooks, according to a report by CNA.

“Singapore welcomes new regional architecture formulations that support Asean centrality, deepen economic integration, and promote a stable and secure Asia-Pacific region and a rules-based order, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. We welcome Australia’s assurance that its AUKUS partnership with the US and UK will be consistent with these criteria,” Lee said.