radiofree.asia

Category: Australia

  • China railway for Davao dream dashed as Marcos tilts towards the US

    By Kalinga Seneviratne in Davao, Philippines

    After being elected to the presidency in a landslide vote in June 2016, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte visited China in October and declared that his country was “realigning” its foreign policy to move closer to China.

    He was accompanied by 400 Filipino business executives and returned home with Chinese pledges of investments and loans worth $24 billion. One of those investments was to build a 1300km railway across the southern Mindanao Island with Chinese loans and technology.

    People on this long-neglected island eagerly waited for the railway, as Mindanao had never had a rail network.

    It would have given farmers an alternative way to transport their produce to markets and boosted tourism to the scenic mountainous island.

    The first stage of the project — a 103 km railway linking Tagum City to Digos City through Davao City — was supposed to be constructed by the second quarter of 2022. But this never materialised, and when Duterte left office in June 2022, the negotiations over the project’s funding were still ongoing.

    Building a railway across Mindanao has been a promise of successive presidents for almost 90 years, but no foreign donors have made the investments until the Chinese showed interest.

    On 28 June 2017, the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) approved the pesos 35.26-billion Mindanao Railway Project (MRP) Phase 1 Tagum-Davao-Digos Segment. Transport Undersecretary Rails Cesar Chavez said the construction would begin by the second quarter of 2018.

    “During Duterte’s time, he was leaning towards China, but now Marcos is leaning towards the US,” noted Councillor Pilar Caneda Braga of the Davao City Council in an interview with IDN. “All projects (with China) that have not taken off until now are cancelled”.

    While emphasising that the railway project is a national issue and not one the council should comment on, she did indicate that the railway was a welcome project for the city of over 1.6 million people.

    “During Duterte’s time, there were problems with loans and borrowings. It (negotiations) fizzled out,” she said.

    Reshaping foreign policy
    Duterte’s successor, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, is reshaping the country’s foreign policy and realigning the Philippines more closely with the US’s militaristic strategies in Asia. China has apparently lost interest in the project.

    The stumbling block is believed to have been the 3 percent interest China wanted on the loan they will make available to build the railway.

    In contrast, Japan announced this month that they would be lending $1 billion to the Philippines for the Metro Manila railway extension project at an interest rate of 0.1 per cent.

    Department of Transport Under-Secretary Jeremy Regino said on February 24 that the Mindanao rail project had been terminated. However, he added that they had not terminated negotiations with China, which was still ongoing.

    During a visit to Davao in February, President Marcos said that the Mindanao rail project has not been terminated.

    He has ordered the Transport and Finance departments to look at a hybrid model that could be funded via private investments and ODA (overseas development assistance). He added that private investors could build the railway, while rolling stocks and engines could be financed via ODA or vice versa.

    The mountain scenery close to Digos City
    The mountain scenery close to Digos City where the railway would promote tourism. Image: IDN

    It is believed that the US is also considering a funding model for the railways through its ODA mechanisms, perhaps in alliance with the Asian Development Bank, Japan, and possibly South Korea.

    ‘Debt trap’ narrative
    This would give the US enormous propaganda clout over China and help spread its China “debt trap” narrative further.

    The Dutertes are believed to be unhappy with Marcos’s strong tilt towards the US, which is antagonising China.

    Sebastian Duterte, the former president’s son, is Davao City Council’s mayor. He has recently made some critical comments about President Marcos’s policies.

    His elder sister is Sarah Duterte, the Vice-President of the Philippines, who garnered more votes than the president in the May 2022 elections.

    In July 2023, Duterte visited China in a private capacity and met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who called upon the former president to “play an important role” in promoting ties between their countries and resolving the territorial dispute in the South China Sea (which Manila refers to as the West Philippines Sea) amid Philippine’s growing military ties with the US.

    Upon his return, Duterte met Marcos to brief him on the visit.

    In January 2023, President Marcos made an official visit to China and, in a joint statement issued by the two neighbours said, Xi and Marcos had an “in-depth and candid exchange of views on the situation in the South China Sea, emphasised that maritime issues do not comprise the sum-total of relations between the two countries and agreed to appropriately manage differences through peaceful means”.

    Naval skirmishes
    However, throughout 2023, there have been skirmishes between Chinese and Filipino naval vessels and supply ships sailing to the Spratly Islands, which the Philippines considers as their territory.

    Amid this, Marcos has made a strong tilt towards the US, with the Philippine media backing his stance, which is focused on developing stronger defence ties between the two countries.

    But many countries across Asia are getting worried. In November 2023, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong cautioned Marcos when asked about rising tensions in the South China Sea during a regional forum in Singapore.

    He is reported to have asked Marcos: “Are you sure you (Filipinos) want to get into a fight where you will be the battleground?”

    Councillor Braga hinted at why the Filipinos welcomed Marcos’s stance when the same question was asked of her.

    “Generally, Filipinos are more inclined towards the US because many of our relatives are in the US, and we have been under American rule for several years. So, we have a better relationship with the US”, she said.

    “There have been some abuses in that relationship, but then America needs the Philippines vis-à-vis China. So, America is courting the Philippines using the EDCA. It is simple as that.”

    Defence cooperation
    EDCA is a defence cooperation agreement that allows the US to rotate troops into the Philippines for extended stays. Still, the US is not permitted to establish any permanent military bases.

    The agreement was signed in April 2014, coinciding with US President Baraka Obama’s visit to Manila, where he promoted his “pivot to Asia” strategy.

    Marcos recently agreed to allow US forces to access some six bases in northern Luzon, the closest point to Taiwan. China has threatened to mount pre-emptive strikes on these bases if provoked.

    Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken visited Manila for the second time in two years. China’s Global Times described the visit as a move by Washington to create an AUKUS-like clique in Asia aimed at China in the South China Sea.

    It said: “Blinken’s visit is seen by Chinese observers as partly to incite the Philippines to continue its provocations in the South China Sea and partly to pave the way for a summit of the US, Japan and the Philippines that is scheduled for April”.

    Manila’s waltzing with Washington is raising eyebrows in Southeast Asia, which needs a peaceful environment to prosper.

    During a visit to Australia to attend the ASEAN-Australia forum to mark 50 years of relations, Marcos made a passionate speech to the Australian Parliament seeking Canberra’s support — a staunch US ally — for his battle with China.

    But, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, speaking during a joint press conference at the forum with the Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, said: “While we remain … an important friend to the United States and Europe and here in Australia, they should not preclude us from being friendly to one of our important neighbours, precisely China.”

    He added: “if they have problems with China, they should not impose it upon us. We do not have a problem with China”.

    Kalinga Seneviratne is a correspondent for IDN is the flagship agency of the nonprofit International Press Syndicate. The article is published with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The AUKUS Cash Cow: Robbing the Australian Taxpayer

    Two British ministers, the UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps, paid a visit to Australia recently as part of the AUKMIN (Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial Consultations) talks.  It showed, yet again, that Australia’s government loves being mugged.  Stomped on.  Mowed over.  Beaten.

    It was mugged, from the outset, in its unconditional surrender to the US military industrial complex with the AUKUS security agreement.  It was mugged in throwing money (that of the Australian taxpayer) at the US submarine industry, which is lagging in its production schedule for both the Virginia-class boats and new designs such as the Columbia class.  British shipyards were hardly going to miss out on this generous distribution of Australian money, largesse ill-deserved for a flagging production line.

    A joint statement on the March 22 meeting, conducted with Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, was packed with trite observations and lazy reflections about the nature of the “international order”.  Ministers “agreed the contemporary [UK-Australian] relationship is responding in an agile and coordinated way to global challenges.”  When it comes to matters of submarine finance and construction, agility is that last word that comes to mind.

    Boxes were ticked with managerial, inconsequential rigour.  Russia, condemned for its “full-scale, illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine”.  Encouragement offered for Australia in training Ukrainian personnel through Operation Kudu and joining the Drone Capability Coalition.  Exaggerated “concern at the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”  Praise for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and “respect of navigation.”

    The relevant pointers were to be found later in the statement.  The UK has been hoping for a greater engagement in the Indo-Pacific (those damn French take all the plaudits from the European power perspective), and the AUKUS bridge has been one excuse for doing so.  Accordingly, this signalled a “commitment to a comprehensive and modern defence relationship, underlined by the signing of the updated Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Defence and Security Cooperation.”

    When politicians need to justify opening the public wallet, such tired terms as “unprecedented”, “threat” and “changing” are used.  These are the words of foreign minister Wong: “Australia and the United Kingdom are building on our longstanding strategic partnership to address our challenging and rapidly changing world”.  Marles preferred the words “an increasingly complex strategic environment”.  Shapps followed a similar line of thinking.  “Nuclear-powered submarines are not cheap, but we live in a much more dangerous world, where we are seeing a much more assertive region [with] China, a much more dangerous world all around with what is happening in the Middle East and Europe.”  Hardly a basis for the submarines, but the fetish is strong and gripping.

    With dread, critics of AUKUS would have noted yet another round of promised disgorging. Britain’s submarine industry is even more lagging than that of the United States, and bringing Britannia aboard the subsidy truck is yet another signal that the AUKUS submarines, when and if they ever get off the design page and groan off the shipyards, are guaranteed well deserved obsolescence or glorious unworkability.

    A separate statement released by all the partners of the AUKUS agreement glories in the SSN-AUKUS submarine, intended as a joint effort between BAE Systems and the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC).  (BAE Systems, it should be remembered, is behind the troubled Hunter-class frigate program, one plagued by difficulties in unproven capabilities.)

    An already challenging series of ingredients is further complicated by the US role as well.  “SSN-AUKUS is being trilaterally developed, based on the United Kingdom’s next designs and incorporation technology from all three nations, including cutting edge United States submarine technologies.”  This fabled fiction “will be equipped for intelligence, surveillance, undersea warfare and strike missions, and will provide maximum interoperability among AUKUS partners.”  The ink on this is clear: the Royal Australian Navy will, as with any of the promised second-hand Virginia-class boats, be a subordinate partner.

    In this, a false sense of submarine construction is being conveyed through what is termed the “Optimal Pathway”, ostensibly to “create a stronger, more resilient trilateral submarine industrial base, supporting submarine production and maintenance in all three countries.”  In actual fact, the Australian leg of this entire effort is considerably greater in supporting the two partners, be it in terms of upgrading HMAS Stirling in Western Australia to permit UK and US SSNs to dock as part of Submarine Rotational Force West from 2027, and infrastructure upgrades in South Australia.  It all has the appearance of garrisoning by foreign powers, a reality all the more startling given various upgrades to land and aerial platforms for the United States in the Northern Territory.

    The eye-opener in the AUKMIN chatter is the promise from Canberra to send A$4.6 billion (£2.4 billion) to speed up lethargic construction at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line.  There are already questions that the reactor cores, being built at Derby, will be delayed for the UK’s own Dreadnought nuclear submarine.  The amount, it was stated by the Australian government, was deemed “an appropriate and proportionate contribution to expand production and accommodate Australia’s requirements”.  Hardly.

    Ultimately, this absurd spectacle entails a windfall of cash, ill-deserved funding to two powers with little promise of returns and no guarantees of speedier boat construction.  The shipyards of both the UK and the United States can take much joy from this, as can those keen to further proliferate nuclear platforms, leaving the Australian voter with that terrible feeling of being, well, mugged.

    The post The AUKUS Cash Cow: Robbing the Australian Taxpayer first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The AUKUS Cash Cow: Robbing the Australian Taxpayer

    Two British ministers, the UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps, paid a visit to Australia recently as part of the AUKMIN (Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial Consultations) talks.  It showed, yet again, that Australia’s government loves being mugged.  Stomped on.  Mowed over.  Beaten.

    It was mugged, from the outset, in its unconditional surrender to the US military industrial complex with the AUKUS security agreement.  It was mugged in throwing money (that of the Australian taxpayer) at the US submarine industry, which is lagging in its production schedule for both the Virginia-class boats and new designs such as the Columbia class.  British shipyards were hardly going to miss out on this generous distribution of Australian money, largesse ill-deserved for a flagging production line.

    A joint statement on the March 22 meeting, conducted with Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, was packed with trite observations and lazy reflections about the nature of the “international order”.  Ministers “agreed the contemporary [UK-Australian] relationship is responding in an agile and coordinated way to global challenges.”  When it comes to matters of submarine finance and construction, agility is that last word that comes to mind.

    Boxes were ticked with managerial, inconsequential rigour.  Russia, condemned for its “full-scale, illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine”.  Encouragement offered for Australia in training Ukrainian personnel through Operation Kudu and joining the Drone Capability Coalition.  Exaggerated “concern at the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”  Praise for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and “respect of navigation.”

    The relevant pointers were to be found later in the statement.  The UK has been hoping for a greater engagement in the Indo-Pacific (those damn French take all the plaudits from the European power perspective), and the AUKUS bridge has been one excuse for doing so.  Accordingly, this signalled a “commitment to a comprehensive and modern defence relationship, underlined by the signing of the updated Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Defence and Security Cooperation.”

    When politicians need to justify opening the public wallet, such tired terms as “unprecedented”, “threat” and “changing” are used.  These are the words of foreign minister Wong: “Australia and the United Kingdom are building on our longstanding strategic partnership to address our challenging and rapidly changing world”.  Marles preferred the words “an increasingly complex strategic environment”.  Shapps followed a similar line of thinking.  “Nuclear-powered submarines are not cheap, but we live in a much more dangerous world, where we are seeing a much more assertive region [with] China, a much more dangerous world all around with what is happening in the Middle East and Europe.”  Hardly a basis for the submarines, but the fetish is strong and gripping.

    With dread, critics of AUKUS would have noted yet another round of promised disgorging. Britain’s submarine industry is even more lagging than that of the United States, and bringing Britannia aboard the subsidy truck is yet another signal that the AUKUS submarines, when and if they ever get off the design page and groan off the shipyards, are guaranteed well deserved obsolescence or glorious unworkability.

    A separate statement released by all the partners of the AUKUS agreement glories in the SSN-AUKUS submarine, intended as a joint effort between BAE Systems and the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC).  (BAE Systems, it should be remembered, is behind the troubled Hunter-class frigate program, one plagued by difficulties in unproven capabilities.)

    An already challenging series of ingredients is further complicated by the US role as well.  “SSN-AUKUS is being trilaterally developed, based on the United Kingdom’s next designs and incorporation technology from all three nations, including cutting edge United States submarine technologies.”  This fabled fiction “will be equipped for intelligence, surveillance, undersea warfare and strike missions, and will provide maximum interoperability among AUKUS partners.”  The ink on this is clear: the Royal Australian Navy will, as with any of the promised second-hand Virginia-class boats, be a subordinate partner.

    In this, a false sense of submarine construction is being conveyed through what is termed the “Optimal Pathway”, ostensibly to “create a stronger, more resilient trilateral submarine industrial base, supporting submarine production and maintenance in all three countries.”  In actual fact, the Australian leg of this entire effort is considerably greater in supporting the two partners, be it in terms of upgrading HMAS Stirling in Western Australia to permit UK and US SSNs to dock as part of Submarine Rotational Force West from 2027, and infrastructure upgrades in South Australia.  It all has the appearance of garrisoning by foreign powers, a reality all the more startling given various upgrades to land and aerial platforms for the United States in the Northern Territory.

    The eye-opener in the AUKMIN chatter is the promise from Canberra to send A$4.6 billion (£2.4 billion) to speed up lethargic construction at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line.  There are already questions that the reactor cores, being built at Derby, will be delayed for the UK’s own Dreadnought nuclear submarine.  The amount, it was stated by the Australian government, was deemed “an appropriate and proportionate contribution to expand production and accommodate Australia’s requirements”.  Hardly.

    Ultimately, this absurd spectacle entails a windfall of cash, ill-deserved funding to two powers with little promise of returns and no guarantees of speedier boat construction.  The shipyards of both the UK and the United States can take much joy from this, as can those keen to further proliferate nuclear platforms, leaving the Australian voter with that terrible feeling of being, well, mugged.

    The post The AUKUS Cash Cow: Robbing the Australian Taxpayer first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Australian group warns of new ‘arrests, torture’ in Papuan crackdown

    Asia Pacific Report

    An Australian solidarity group for West Papua today warned of a fresh “heavy handed” Indonesia crackdown on Papuan villagers with more “arrests and torture”.

    Joe Collins of the Australia West Papua Association (AWPA) gave the warning in the wake of the deployment of 30 elite rangers last week at the Ndeotadi 99 police post in Paniai district, Central Papua, following a deadly assault there by Papuan pro-independence resistance fighters.

    Two Indonesian police officers were killed in the attack.

    The AWPA warning also follows mounting outrage over a brutal video of an Indonesian Papuan man being tortured in a fuel drum that has gone viral.

    Collins called on the federal government to “immediately condemn” the torture of West Papuans by the Australian-trained Indonesian security forces.

    “If a security force sweep occurs in the region, we can expect the usual heavy-handed approach by the security forces,” Collins said in a statement.

    “It’s not unusual for houses and food gardens to be destroyed during these operations, including the arrest and torture of Papuans.

    “Local people usually flee their villages creating more IDP [internally displaced people]”.

    60,000 plus IDPs
    Human rights reports indicate there are more than 60,000 IDP in West Papua.

    “The recent brutal torture of an indigenous Papuan man shows what can happen to West Papuans who fall foul of the Indonesian security forces,” Collins said.

    “Anyone seeing this video which has gone viral must be shocked by the brutality of the military personal involved. 

    The video clip was shot on 3 February 2024 during a security force raid in Puncak regency.

    “The Australian government should immediately condemn the torture of West Papuans by the Indonesian security forces [which] Australia trains and holds exercises with.

    “Do we have to remind the government of Article 7of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? It states:

    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

    “As more Papuans become aware of the horrific video, they may respond by holding rallies and protests leading to more crackdowns on peaceful demonstrators,” Collins said.

    “Hopefully Jakarta will realise the video is being watched by civil society, the media and government officials around the world and will control its military in the territory.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Pros and Cons of Joining the Big League of Arms Exporters

    South Korea’s rapid rise as a defence manufacturer is resulting in increasingly tougher challenges to its export policy. Although China might be Asia’s top defence exporter, it is actually South Korea, a nation of 51.8 million citizens that lives under constant threat from its northern neighbour, which is dominating sales of Asian military equipment to […]

    The post The Pros and Cons of Joining the Big League of Arms Exporters appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • In debt and desperate, misled Vietnamese seek political asylum in Australia

    After four months in limbo about his refugee status and heavily in debt, Hung has some advice for anyone from Vietnam planning to work in Australia on a tourist visa:

    “If you are keen on coming to Australia, you’d better choose a legal way,” said the part-time laborer from Hanoi, who was duped into paying an immigration service company to apply for an entry visa on his behalf.

    “Arriving with a student or skilled labor visa is OK, but you should think twice about using a tourist visa,” he said.

    For years, Hung made ends meet in Hanoi on a monthly income of 10 million dong (US$400), but was unable to build any savings due to the high cost of living in Vietnam’s capital.

    After hearing stories of other Vietnamese landing good-paying jobs while visiting Australia, Hung, who spoke to RFA Vietnamese using a pseudonym due to security concerns, decided to travel the 5,000-odd kilometers (3,100 miles) southeast to try his luck.

    He hoped to earn a better salary Down Under – where minimum wage workers earn AU$70,000 (US$48,000) a year, or 14 times the average income in Vietnam – and save money to improve his living standard back home.

    Vietnamese who are unable to obtain work visas for Australia are eligible for a Work and Holiday Visa, which allows people to work while traveling in the country for up to one year.

    Applicants must be between the ages of 18 and 30, have no criminal record and provide evidence that they have completed at least two years of undergraduate study. They must also show that they can support themselves financially while in Australia and have attained a certain level of English proficiency.

    In debt and desperate

    Hung, who did not disclose his age, had no employer to sponsor a work visa and was unable to meet either the education or English proficiency requirements for a Work and Holiday Visa. But a Vietnamese immigration services company told him that he could legally work in Australia as a tourist.

    Australian tourist visas have a significantly lower barrier to obtain. They are good for three months and can be extended to a full year in special circumstances. However, entrants are not eligible to work during their visit.

    Unfamiliar with the application process, Hung took on debt to pay 100 million dong (US$4,000) – a substantial amount for the average Vietnamese laborer – to the immigration services company to handle his visa, as well as purchase an airline ticket, and he flew to Australia in July 2023.

    Hung had hoped to live and work in Australia for up to two years, to pay off what he had borrowed in getting there and to build wealth. Instead, by October, his tourist visa was about to expire and he had only accrued more debt while supporting himself for three months in a nation with a vastly higher cost of living.

    Increasingly desperate, Hung sought help from fellow Vietnamese through social media, and was advised to apply for an Australian Onshore Protection Visa (Subclass 866) as a political refugee, which would allow him to stay in Australia for longer and work legally.

    He paid someone AU$1,000 (US$650) to prepare his application, went to the local immigration department to be fingerprinted, and was granted a bridging visa (BVE 050) that allows him to lawfully reside in the country while awaiting a decision on his status.

    While Hung will be required to present evidence of his asylum claim, it is unclear when he will be called for an interview, due to the large backlog of applications.

    Topping the list for asylum seekers

    According to the Australian Department of Home Affairs, 2,905 Vietnamese nationals applied for the Australian Onshore Protection Visa in 2023, making them the largest ethnic group to do so and accounting for 12% of the total number of applicants.

    Vietnamese topped the list of asylum applicants in Australia, beating out Indians and Chinese, in each of the last five months of 2023, and ranked second in three other months last year.

    ENG_VTN_AsylumSeekersAUS_02232024.2.jpg
    Thai officers talk to Vietnamese and Cambodian refugee and asylum seekers in Bangkok, Aug. 28, 2018 after rounding up more than 160 who are believed to be at risk of persecution if they are returned to their homelands. Refugee applications to the Australian Embassy in Vietnam, also sent from Thailand and Australia, tend to increase after political upheavals, says one immigration attorney. (AP)

    Many of them end up in situations like Hung’s, nervously awaiting a verdict on their claim to learn whether they will be granted residential status or forced to return home.

    The bridging visa does not expire and grants holders the right to work and access a national health insurance assistance program so that they can receive medical care in Australia.

    However, if asylum status is denied, the bridging visa will be automatically canceled within 28 days, and the holder will be required to leave the country. Those denied status have the right to appeal the decision with an immigration court.

    The chances of being awarded political asylum in Australia are fairly low. In 2023, the Australian Department of Home Affairs processed nearly 1,000 asylum applications, of which only 53, or 5.6%, were approved.

    The stakes are considerably higher for applicants who have fled persecution in Vietnam, where the one-party communist state brooks no dissent. Being forced to return home can often mean a jail sentence, or worse.

    ‘Extraordinary surge’ in applications

    Vietnamese-Australian immigration attorney Le Duc Minh told RFA that his law firm has helped many “genuine” Vietnamese political asylum seekers successfully apply for status in Australia.

    But he acknowledged that he regularly hears stories like Hung’s from people who ended up in debt after trying to work illegally in the country.

    “Some people simply ask me, ‘Please find a way for me to stay longer to earn money and pay off my debts. I borrowed hundreds of millions of dong in Vietnam to make this trip. I cannot go home empty-handed,’” he said.

    Minh said he was surprised by what he called an “extraordinary surge” in applications by Vietnamese for political asylum in Australia in the second half of 2023.

    He said that refugee applications tend to increase after political upheavals or government crackdowns on rights activists, but described last year as “very politically stable” in Vietnam. There were no mass demonstrations and most of the arrests were only of prominent activists and outspoken individuals on social media.

    Instead, Minh posited, last year’s surge was likely the result of “large-scale fraudulent activities” in Vietnam, including individuals and companies providing false information about work opportunities for foreigners in Australia in order to sell them forged documents and useless services.

    He cited an advertisement from one company claiming that applicants could take advantage of a program in Australia that would allow them to “take agricultural jobs without any expertise or English skills.”

    After arriving in Australia only to learn that they would be unable to work or pay off their debts, most feel that they have no other choice but to double down, with applying for political asylum as their only option to stay in the country.

    Supporting legitimate claims

    Immigration attorney Kate Hoang, the former president of Australia’s Vietnamese community, stressed that “not all asylum applicants [from Vietnam] are those who want to extend their stay.”

    Many, she said, were targeted by Vietnam’s government for speaking out about social injustices and were lucky just to have been able to travel to Australia to seek asylum at all.

    Hoang urged the Australian government to make changes to the way it processes asylum visas to prevent those without legitimate claims from exploiting the system.

    Meanwhile, Hung’s future remains uncertain as he awaits the ruling on his asylum application, and he has come to regret his journey to the southern continent.

    “I paid a huge amount of money to come here, so I now have no choice but to work hard to pay off my debts, and I’ll probably just have to return home with nothing to show for it,” he said. “If I could make the decision again, I would never have gone.” 

    Translated by Anna Vu. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ABC editorial staff call for content chief to resign over Gaza comments sacking

    Pacific Media Watch

    Editorial staff at Australia’s public broadcaster ABC have again registered a vote of no confidence in managing director David Anderson and senior managers over the handling of complaints by Israeli lobbyists.

    At a national meeting of members of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance this week, staff passed a resolution of no confidence in Anderson and all ABC managers involved in the decision to unfairly dismiss freelance broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf, MEAA said in a statement.

    The meeting was held in response to the Fair Work Commission hearings to determine Lattouf’s unfair dismissal claim after she had been sacked from her temporary job as host of ABC Sydney radio’s morning show in December.

    Staff have also called for ABC’s head of content, Chris Oliver-Taylor, to step down immediately for his role as the ultimate decisionmaker in the dismissal of Lattouf.

    “The mishandling of Antoinette Lattouf’s employment has done enormous damage to the integrity and reputation of the ABC,” said MEAA media director Cassie Derrick.

    “Evidence provided in the Fair Work Commission hearing about the involvement of David Anderson and Chris Oliver-Taylor in her dismissal has further undermined the confidence of staff in the managing director and his senior managers to be able to protect the independence of the ABC.

    ABC union staff call for the resignation of content chief
    ABC union staff call for the resignation of content chief Chris Oliver-Taylor over the dismissal of journalist Antoinette Lattouf. Image: Middle East Eye screenshot APR

    “The Lattouf case continues a pattern of ABC journalists, particularly those from culturally diverse backgrounds, lacking support from management when they face criticism from lobby groups, business organisations and politicians.

    “For these reasons, Chris Oliver-Taylor should be stood down immediately, while Mr Anderson must demonstrate he is taking the concerns of staff seriously to begin to restore confidence in his leadership.”

    Lattouf co-founded Media Diversity Australia (MDA) in 2017, a nonprofit agency which seeks to increase cultural and linguistic diversity in Australia’s news media.

    Her parents arrived in Australia as refugees from Lebanon in the 1970s.

    Lattouf was born in 1983 in Auburn, New South Wales. She attended various public schools in Western Sydney and studied communications (social inquiry) at the University of Technology Sydney.

    The full motion passed by ABC MEAA members on Wednesday:

    “We, MEAA members at the ABC, are outraged by the revelations of how ABC executives have disregarded the independence of the ABC, damaged the public’s trust in our capacity to report without fear or favour, and mistreated our colleague Antoinette Lattouf.

    “Staff reaffirm our lack of confidence in managing director David Anderson, and in all ABC managers involved in the decision to unfairly dismiss Antoinette Lattouf.

    “Chris Oliver-Taylor has undermined the integrity of the entire ABC through his mismanagement, and should step down from his role as Head of the Content Division immediately.

    “We call on ABC management to stop wasting public funds on defending the unfair dismissal case against Antoinette Lattouf, provide her and the public a full apology and reinstate her to ABC airwaves.

    “We demand that ABC management implement staff calls for a fair and clear social media policy, robust and transparent complaints process and an audit to address the gender and race pay gap.”

    An earlier statement expressing loss of confidence in the ABC managing director David Anderson
    An earlier statement expressing loss of confidence in the ABC managing director David Anderson for “failing to defend the integrity” of the broadcaster and its staff over attacks related to the War on Gaza on 22 January 2024. Image: MEAA screenshot APR

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Germany firms up deal for Australian-built Boxers

    The German parliament has passed a deal to acquire more than 100 8×8 Boxer Heavy Weapon Carrier Vehicles built by Rheinmetall Defence Australia at its Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence (MILVEHCOE) in Queensland, the Australian Department of Defence (DoD) announced on 21 March. The deal, which it calls “the single largest defence export agreement” in […]

    The post Germany firms up deal for Australian-built Boxers appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Censors Celebrated: Misinformation and Disinformation Down Under

    The heralded arrival of the Internet caused flutters of enthusiasm, streaks of heart-felt hope.  Unregulated, and supposedly all powerful, an information medium never before seen on such scale could be used to liberate mind and spirit.  With almost disconcerting reliability, humankind would coddle and fawn over a technology which would, as Langdon Winner writes, “bring universal wealth, enhanced freedom, revitalized politics, satisfying community, and personal fulfilment.”

    Such high street techno-utopianism was bound to have its day.  The sceptics grumbled, the critiques bubbled and flowed. Evgeny Morozov, in his relentlessly biting study The Net Delusion, warned of the misguided nature of the “excessive optimism and empty McKinsey-speak”, of cyber-utopianism and the ostensibly democratising properties of the Internet.  Governments, whatever their ideological mix, gave the same bark of suspicion.

    In Australia, we see the tech-utopians being butchered, metaphorically speaking, on our doorstep. Of concern here is the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023.  This nasty bit of legislative progeny arises from the 2019 Digital Platforms Inquiry conducted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).  The final report notes how consumers accessing news placed on digital platforms “potentially risk exposure to unreliable news through ‘filter bubbles’ and the spread of disinformation, malinformation and misinformation (‘fake news’) online.”  And what of television? Radio? Community bulletin boards?  The mind shrinks in anticipation.

    In this state of knee-jerk control and paternal suspicion, the Commonwealth pressed digital platforms conducting business in Australia to develop a voluntary code of practice to address disinformation and the quality of news.  The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation was launched on February 22, 2021 by the Digital Industry Group Inc.  Eight digital platforms adopted the code, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Twitter.  The acquiescence from the digital giants did little in terms of satisfying the wishes of the Morrison government.  The Minister of Communications at the time, Paul Fletcher, duly announced that new laws would be drafted to arm the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with the means “to combat online misinformation and disinformation.”  He noted an ACMA report highlighting that “disinformation and misinformation are significant and ongoing issues.”

    The resulting Bill proposes to make various functional amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) as to the way digital platform services work.  It also proposes to vest the ACMA with powers to target misinformation and disinformation.  Digital platforms not in compliance with the directions of the ACMA risk facing hefty penalties, though the regulator will not have the power to request the removal of specific content from the digital platform services.

    In its current form, the proposed instrument defines misinformation as “online content that is false, misleading or deceptive, that is shared or created without an intent to deceive but can cause and contribute to serious harm.”  Disinformation is regarded as “misinformation that is intentionally disseminated with the intent to deceive or cause serious harm.”

    Of concern regarding the Bill is the scope of the proposed ACMA powers regarding material it designates as “harmful online misinformation and disinformation”.  Digital platforms will be required to impose codes of conduct to enforce the interpretations made by the ACMA.  The regulator can even “create and enforce an industry standard” (this standard is unworkably opaque, and again begs the question of how that can be defined) and register them.  Those in breach will be liable for up to $7.8 million or 5% of global turnover for corporations.  Individuals can be liable for fines up to $1.38 million.

    A central notion in the proposal is that the information in question must be “reasonably likely […] to cause or contribute serious harm”.  Examples of this hopelessly rubbery concept are provided in the Guidance Note to the Bill.  These include hatred targeting a group based on ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability.  It can also include disruption to public order or society.  The example provided in the guidance suggests typical government paranoia about how the unruly, irascible populace might be incited: “Misinformation that encouraged or caused people to vandalise critical communications infrastructure.”

    The proposed law will potentially enthrone the ACMA as an interventionist overseer of digital content.  In doing so, it can decide what and which entity can be exempted from alleged misinformation practices.  For instance, “excluded content for misinformation purposes” can be anything touching on entertainment, parody or satire, provided it is done in good faith.  Professional news content is also excluded, but any number of news or critical sources may fall foul of the provisions, given the multiple, exacting codes the “news source” must abide by.  The sense of that discretion is woefully wide.

    The submission from the Victorian Bar Association warns that “the Bill’s interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services (who may rationally wish to avoid any risk of being labelled a purveyor of misinformation or disinformation).”  The VBA also wonders if such a bill is even warranted, given that the problem has been “effectively responded to by voluntary actions taken by the most important actors in this space.”

    Also critical, if less focused, is the stream of industrial rage coming from the Coalition benches and the corridors of Sky News, where Rupert Murdoch ventriloquises.  Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman called the draft “a very bad bill” giving the ACMA “extraordinary powers.  It would lead to digital companies self-censoring the legitimately held views of Australians to avoid the risk of massive fines.”  Sky News has even deigned to use the term “Orwellian”.

    Misinformation, squawked Coleman, was defined so broadly as to potentially “capture many statements made by Australians in the context of political debate.”  Content from journalists “on their personal digital platforms” risked being removed as crudely mislabelled misinformation.  This was fascinating, u-turning stuff, given the enthusiasm the Coalition had shown in 2022 for a similar muzzling of information.  Once in opposition, the mind reverses, leaving the mind to breathe.

    The proposed bill on assessing, parcelling and dictating information (mis-, dis-, mal-) is a nasty little experiment in censoring communication and discussion. When the state decides, through its agencies, to tell readers what is appropriate to read and what can be accessed, the sirens should be going off.

    The post Censors Celebrated: Misinformation and Disinformation Down Under first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Under pressure, Australia reinstates some visas to Gazans fleeing genocide

    By A Firenze in Gadigal/Sydney

    Palestinians fleeing war-ravaged Gaza for safety in Australia were left stranded when the Labor government abruptly cancelled their visas.

    The “subclass 600” temporary visas were approved between last November and February for Palestinians with close and immediate family connections.

    Families of those fleeing Gaza, and organisations assisting Palestinians to leave Gaza, began to receive news of the visa cancellations on March 13.

    The number of people affected by the sudden visa cancellations was unclear, however there were at least 12 individuals who had had visas cancelled while in transit.

    The stories of those affected have been shared over social media. They included the 23-year-old nephew of a Palestinian-Australian, stranded in Istanbul airport for four nights after having his visa cancelled mid-transit, unable to return to Gaza and unable to legally stay in Istanbul.

    A mother and her four young children were turned around in Egypt, when their visas were cancelled, meaning they were unable to board an onwards flight to Australia.

    A family of six were separated, with three of the children allowed to board flights, while the mother and youngest child were left behind.

    2200 temporary visas
    The Department of Home Affairs said the government had issued around 2200 temporary subclass 600 visas for Palestinians fleeing Gaza since October 2023.

    Subclass 600 visas are temporary and do not permit the person work or education rights, or access to Medicare-funded health services.

    Israelis have been granted 2400 visitor visas during the same time period.

    The visa cancellations for Palestinians have been condemned by the Palestinian community, Palestinian organisations and rights’ supporters.

    The Palestine Australia Relief and Action (PARA) started an email campaign which generated more than 6000 letters to government ministers within 72 hours.

    Nasser Mashni, president of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), called on Labor to “follow through on its moral obligation to offer safety and certainty” to those fleeing, pointing to Australia’s more humane treatment of Ukrainian refugees.

    The Refugee Action Collective Victoria (RAC Vic) called a snap action on March 15, supported by Socialist Alliance and PARA.

    ‘Shame on Labor’
    David Glanz, on behalf of RAC Vic, said the cancellations had effectively marooned Palestinians in transit countries to the “shame of the Labor government which has supported Israel in its genocide”.

    Samah Sabawi, co-founder of PARA, is currently in Cairo assisting families trying to leave Gaza.

    She told ABC Radio National on March 14 about the obstacles Palestinians face trying to leave via the Rafah crossing, including the lack of travel documents for those living under Israeli occupation, family separations and heavy-handed vetting by the Israeli and Egyptian authorities.

    Sabawi said the extreme difficulties faced by Palestinians fleeing Rafah were compounded by Australia’s visa cancellations and its withdrawal of consular support.

    She also said Opposition leader Peter Dutton had “demonised” Palestinians and pressured Labor into rescinding the visas on the basis of “security concerns”.

    Labor said there were no security concerns with the individuals whose visas had been cancelled. It has since been suggested by those working closely with the affected Palestinians that their visas were cancelled due to the legitimacy of their crossing through Rafah.

    PARA said the government had said it had “extremely limited” capacity to assist.

    Some visas reinstated
    It is believed that some 1.5 million Palestinians are increasingly desperate to escape the genocide and are waiting in Rafah. Many have no choice but to pay brokers to help them leave.

    Some of those whose visas had been cancelled received news on March 18 that their visas had been reinstated.

    A Palestinian journalist and his family were among those whose visas were reinstated and are currently on route to Australia.

    Graham Thom, Amnesty International’s national refugee coordinator, told The Guardian that urgent circumstances needed to be taken into account.

    “The issue is getting across the border . . .  The government needs to deal with people using their own initiative to get across any way they can.”

    He said other Palestinians with Australian visas leaving Gaza needed more information about the process.

    It is not known how many other Palestinians are waiting for their visas to be reinstated.

    Republished from Green Left magazine with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Women in Defence Association Launches in Western Australia to Drive Outcomes for Women in the Defence Industry

    The Women in Defence Association (WiDA) has launched in Western Australia to drive outcomes on behalf of women in the defence industry. WiDA will provide a collective voice to lobby for accountability in representation, the gender pay gap, flexible working at various levels and gender equity. The free membership offers women a platform to expand […]

    The post Women in Defence Association Launches in Western Australia to Drive Outcomes for Women in the Defence Industry appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Tibetans protest Chinese foreign minister’s visit to Australia | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Cauldron Ferm Raises $6.25M in Series A to Fund Hyper-Fermentation Facility for High-Value Ingredients

    cauldron ferm
    5 Mins Read

    Australian hyper-fermentation company Cauldron Ferm has secured AU$9.5M ($6.25M) in Series A funding to build a large-scale facility to manufacture high-value ingredients through precision fermentation.

    A year after closing a large AU$10.5M ($7M) seed financing round, Cauldron Ferm has raised a further AU$9.5M ($6.25M) in its Series A round, which was led by Horizons Ventures, with participation from existing investor Main Sequence, alongside SOSV and In-Q-Tel (IQT).

    The startup’s manufacturing platform enables partners to produce high-value ingredients using precision fermentation in a continuous, more efficient process. It is the only business approved to manufacture precision-fermented protein ingredients at scale in Australia. The latest investment will enable the company to support “faster-than-expected customer growth, build robust proof cases around the application of its hyper-fermentation technology, and finalise partners and plans for a 500,000-litre facility”.

    “Precision fermentation is an amazing technology, because it enables bio-based production of a wide range of products with diverse applications,” said Horizons Ventures’ Chis Liu. “To date, the technology has been hamstrung by its costs compared to conventional production methods, but Cauldron’s unique solution significantly improves the competitiveness of precision fermentation both in capital and operating expenditure.”

    Continuous fermentation produces more proteins for cheaper

    michele stansfield cauldron
    Courtesy: Cauldron Ferm

    Founded in 2022, Cauldron’s hyper-fermentation tech is built on 35 years of R&D from Agritechnology, where co-founder and CEO Michele Stansfield worked for over a decade. In fact, the reason why its seed round was larger than the Series A is because it was used to buy out Agritechnology’s precision fermentation IP last year. The company’s tech involves a novel bioreactor design and proprietary growth medium formulation, which improve the economics of large-scale fermentation production by five times compared to the current industry standard.

    The key is that this technology can run continuous fermentation, compared to the short-term batch production that’s widely in use. The company has successfully run a 10,000-litre production system for protein ingredients continuously for eight months without any contamination or any “genetic drift” of microbes, which are two of the biggest challenges of running long-term fermentation. This was facilitated by approval from Australia’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulatory.

    This hyper-fermentation process allows the startup to outproduce batch systems that are five times larger with its smaller, cheaper bioreactors. It is currently operating out of a facility with a 25,000-litre fermentation capacity in Orange, New South Wales, but the latest capital injection will accelerate its plans for a 500,000-litre site. The longer-term plan is to build a large network of precision fermentation facilities globally for bio-based product manufacturing.

    “Cauldron has proven its precision fermentation at an industrially relevant scale, unlocking a significant decrease – between 30% and 50% – in the cost of goods for our customers vs traditional batch fermentation,” said Stansfield. “From biofuels and agriculture to cosmetics and chemicals, the opportunities are immense, and with the support of our incredible investors, we’re poised to capitalise on them.”

    Olivia Jones, director at IQT, said: “Food insecurity and competition among countries to control resources is a real risk. The technology Cauldron has created in enabling alternative ways of producing food, proteins, and materials on an industrial scale will be game-changing.”  

    Advancing Australia’s nascent precision fermentation sector

    precision fermentation facility
    Courtesy: Cauldron Ferm

    Cauldron is already working with global commercial partners through its current plant in Orange, but plans to raise more funds as part of a Series B round by the end of the year to fund the new facility. It will help the company offer dairy ingredients to food manufacturers that could eventually satisfy the growing demand for dairy proteins globally at a competitive price, according to Australian alternative protein think tank Food Frontier.

    “This development is not a new project or R&D experiment, it is a pathway to market success for Australia’s precision fermentation food companies who have needed access to larger facilities,” explained Food Frontier CEO Simon Eassom. “This not only opens the door for Australian food ingredient manufacturers, but also opens the door for Australia to exploit brand new industry growth and become a world leader in the precision fermentation field.”

    Po Bronson, general partner at SOSV and managing director of IndieBio, called Stansfield and Cauldron’s long-run fermentation prowess “unparalleled”. She added: “The benefits of the technology – the ability to continuously produce, up to 50% lower net unit costs, and 20% more output with 45% less capex – dismantle a major obstacle for the industry and position the company as a critical manufacturing partner for companies building a more sustainable future.”

    There are only a handful of precision fermentation companies in Australia and New Zealand, including Eden Brew, Daisy Lab and All G Foods. So while it’s still a young industry, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation – Australia’s science agency – forecasts that it will reach a value of $1.45B by the end of the decade.

    Food Frontier believes Cauldron’s new infrastructure will only go on to help the country’s sector realise this potential, noting that if Australia has enough capability and capacity, international manufacturers will have the option of sourcing ingredients from down under.

    “Food ingredients made from precision fermentation might be new now, but they will become the norm around the world for producing foods using dairy proteins and fats without the animal to improve performance and flavour in milk derivatives, cheeses, and products like plant-based meats,” said Eassom. “Cauldron Ferm has enabled the path forward for producing ingredients made from precision fermentation to be cheaper to use in food production than their animal-based counterparts and meet future protein demand in a much more environmentally sustainable way.”

    The post Cauldron Ferm Raises $6.25M in Series A to Fund Hyper-Fermentation Facility for High-Value Ingredients appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Hundreds stage Sydney ‘die-in’ to protest massacres in Gaza

    By Wendy Bacon in Sydney

    Twenty-four weeks of city marches and a five-week vigil outside the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s electoral office in Marrickville have taken pro-Palestinian protests against Israel’s war on Gaza to an unprecedented level.

    In a new development, hundreds of protesters joined in a street theatre performance outside Albanese’s electorate office on Friday evening to highlight their horror at massacres of Palestinian citizens by Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in Gaza.

    Over 31,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, including many shot by the IDF while seeking care in hospitals, food from aid trucks or fleeing IDF bombing.

    Senator Mehreen Faruqi
    Senator Mehreen Faruqi (right) at the protest . . . Image: Wendy Bacon

    The street theatre protest was part of an ongoing 24-hour-a-day peaceful vigil that has been going now for five weeks. There is no shortage of volunteers.  A minimum of 6 people are present at any one time with around 200 people visiting each day.

    When City Hub attended twice last week, frequent toots from passing cars indicated plenty of public support.

    At 6.30 pm on Friday, sirens and rumblings could be heard along Marrickville Road sending a signal to scores of protesters dressed in white to lie down on the pavement. They were then sprinkled with red liquid.

    As the sirens quietened, a woman’s voice rang out: “War criminals, that is what our government is. They are not representing the people . . . We will not stop until our government ends every single tie with Israeli apartheid.

    ‘We’ll not stop . . .’
    “We will not stop until the ethnic cleansing has ended. Palestinian voices need to be heard. Palestinian voices must be amplified.”

    Greens Deputy Leader Senator Mehreen Faruqi attended the action. Before the “die-in”, she responded to Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s announcement earlier in the day that Australia will resume funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

    Last week, Senator Faruqi called on Wong urgently to restore the funding. “It has been 43 days since the morally corrupt government made the inexcusable decision to suspend aid funding to UNRWA despite the minister admitting she hadn’t seen a shred of evidence,” she tweeted.

    Along with some other Western governments, the Albanese government suspended UNRWA funding when Israel circulated a reportedly “explosive” but secret dossier outlining alleged links between Hamas and UNRWA staff. This happened shortly after the International Court of Justice found that Israel is “plausibly” committing genocide.

    The dossier alleged that UNRWA members were involved in the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023.  After analysing the documents, Britain’s Channel 4 concluded that the dossier provided “no evidence to support the explosive claim that UN staff were involved in terror attacks”.

    Recently, UNRWA accused Israel of torturing UNRWA staff to get admissions. On Friday, the European Union’s top humanitarian official Janez Lenarcic said that neither he nor anyone at the EU had been shown any evidence.

    In “unpausing” the aid, Wong provided no evidence about what the government knew when it suspended aid and what it now claims to know about the allegations. Speaking at Friday’s protest, Senator Faruqi said she welcomed the restoration of  funding but, “just as they restored the funding, they paused the visas of Palestinians en route to Australia while they were mid-air. How cruel and how inhumane can this Labor government get? Just as you think that there are no further depths that they can get to, they show us that they can.” (Late on Sunday, there were reports that the visa decision may be reversed.)

    Unprecedented protest
    While protests outside Prime Minister’s offices are not unusual, a 24-hour protest for more than a month has never happened before.

    Given the length of the protest, it is remarkable that there has been almost no media mainstream coverage. City Hub conducted a Dow Jones Factiva search which revealed one report on SBS and a mention in The Guardian. (The search engine does not cover commercial radio.)

    The weeks long, 24 x 7 protest in the heart of the Prime Minister’s own electorate has remained hidden from most of the Australian public and international audiences.

    Prime Minister Albanese has not responded to requests for meetings with organisers who include Palestinian families who have been his constituents for many years. City Hub has spoken to protest organisers who say that despite repeated requests, they have received no response from the Prime Minister. The office is now closed to the public which means people are unable to deliver letters or make inquiries.

    Protesters sit down in Market Street

    The Marrickville protest
    The ongoing 24-hour sit-down Marrickville protest. Image: Wendy Bacon

    The ongoing 24-hour sit-down Marrickville protest is an extension of the broader protest movement in which thousands of protesters marched on Sunday for the 24th week in a row. Similar protests have been happening in Melbourne and other cities. Again, although there have been bigger protests at times, the regularity of protests attended by thousands each week is unprecedented in Australian history.

    Protests on this scale did not happen even during the Vietnam War era in the 1970s.

    Last week, protesters marched from Hyde Park down Market Street completely filling several blocks of Sydney’s busiest shopping area. Their chant “Ceasefire Now’ reverberated around the streets. It was accompanied by drummers, some of them children.

    Some protesters briefly took their demonstration to a new level by staging a brief sit-down in Market Street. The area was filled with Sunday shoppers who watched as protesters chanted, “While you’re shopping, bombs are dropping.”

    The Prime Minister’s office has been contacted for comment. When a response is received, this article will be updated.

    Wendy Bacon was previously professor of journalism at the University of Technology (UTS). She spoke at the rally about the lack of media coverage of pro Palestinian protests. She will write about this in a future article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • China’s top diplomat visits Australia, pushes stable relations | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • China’s top diplomat visits Australia, pushes stable relations

    In a possible sign that often frosty relations are warming, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi met counterpart Penny Wong in the Australian capital Canberra on Wednesday. It’s the highest level meeting between the two countries since 2017.

    Wong pushed for the removal of tariffs on wine, rock lobster and meat products imposed in 2020, but didn’t shy away from raising rights concerns.

    “As you would expect, I raised Australia’s concerns about human rights including in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong,”  Wong told a post-meeting news conference. 

    “I expressed our serious concern about unsafe conduct at sea, our desire for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and in our region.”

    Wong also raised the case of Yang Hengjun, the Australian writer who was convicted of spying and given a suspended death sentence in February.

    “Australians found the sentence imposed shocking,” Wong told reporters.

    “We will not walk away from our advocacy for Dr Yang Jun.”

    The meeting paves the way for a visit to Australia by Chinese Premier Li Qiang, planned for the middle of this year. Both foreign ministers said the plans are “on track.”

    Wang earlier visited New Zealand where he met his counterpart Winston Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.

    Edited by Taejun Kang. 


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Mike Firn for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Nuclear submarines may never appear, but AUKUS is already in place

    By Paul Gregoire in Sydney

    One year since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese went to San Diego to unveil the AUKUS deal the news came that the first of three second-hand Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines supposed to arrive in 2032 may not happen.

    Former coalition prime minister Scott Morrison announced AUKUS in September 2021 and Albanese continued to champion the pact between the US, Britain and Australia.

    Phase one involves Australia acquiring eight nuclear-powered submarines as tensions in the Indo-Pacific are growing.

    Concerns about the submarines ever materialising are not new, despite the US passing its National Defence Bill 2024 which facilitates the transfer of the nuclear-powered warships.

    However, the Pentagon’s 2025 fiscal year budget only set aside funding to build one Virginia submarine. This affects the AUKUS deal as the US had promised to lift production from around 1.3 submarines a year to 2.3 to meet all requirements.

    Australia’s acquisition of the first of three second-hand SSNs were to bridge the submarine gap, as talk about a US-led war on China continues.

    US Democratic congressperson Joe Courtney told The Sydney Morning Herald on March 12 the US was struggling with its own shipbuilding capacity, meaning promises to Australia were being deprioritised.

    Production downturn
    Courtney said that the downturn in production “will remove one more attack submarine from a fleet that is already 17 submarines below the navy’s long-stated requirement of 66”.

    The US needs to produce 18 more submarines by 2032 to be able to pass one on to Australia.

    After passing laws permitting the transfer of nuclear technology, the deal is running a year at least behind schedule.

    Greens Senator David Shoebridge said on X that “When the US passed the law to set up AUKUS they put in kill switches, one of which allowed the US to decide not [to] transfer the submarines if doing so would ‘degrade the US undersea capabilities’”.

    Pat Conroy, Labor’s Defence Industry Minister, retorted that the government was confident the submarines would appear.

    The White House seems unfazed; it would have been aware of the problems for some time.

    Meanwhile the USS Annapolis, a US nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) has docked in Boorloo/Perth.

    AUKUS still under way
    Regardless of whether Australia acquires any nuclear-powered vessels, the rest of the AUKUS deal, including interoperability with the US, is already underway.

    Andrew Hastie, Liberal Party spokesperson, confirmed that construction at HMAS Stirling will start next year for “Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West)”, the permanent US-British nuclear-powered submarine base in WA, which is due to be completed in 2027.

    SRF-West includes 700 US army personnel and their families being stationed in WA. If the second-hand nuclear submarines do not materialise, the US submarines will be on hand.

    SRF-West may also serve as an alternative to the five British-designed AUKUS SSNs, slated to be built in Kaurna Yerta/Adelaide over coming decades.

    Australia respects the Pentagon’s warhead ambiguity policy, meaning that any US military equipment stationed here could be carrying nuclear weapons: we will never know.

    Shoebridge said on March 13 he was entering a hearing to decide where the AUKUS powers can dump their nuclear waste. Local waste dumps are being considered, as the US and Britain do not have permanent radioactive waste dumps.

    The waste to be dumped is said to have a low-level radioactivity. However, as former Senator Rex Patrick pointed out, SSNs produce high-level radioactive waste at the end of their shelf lives that will need to be stored somewhere, underground, forever.

    ‘Radioactive waste management’
    The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, tabled last November, allows for the AUKUS SSNs to be constructed and also provides for “a radioactive waste management facility”.

    The Australian public is spending US$3 billion on helping the US submarine industrial base expand capacity. An initial US$2 billion will be spent next year, followed by $100 million annually from 2026 through to 2033.

    The Pentagon has budgeted US$4 billion for its submarine industry next year, with an extra US$11 billion over the following five years.

    The removal of the Virginia subs, and even the AUKUS submarines from the agreement, would be in keeping with the terms of the 2014 Force Posture Agreement, signed off by then prime minister Tony Abbott.

    As part of the Barack Obama administration’s 2011 “pivot to Asia”, the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement allows for 2500 Marines to be stationed in the Northern Territory.

    It sets up increasing interoperability between both countries’ air forces and allows the US unimpeded access to dozens of “agreed-to facilities and areas”.

    These agreed bases remain classified.

    US takes full control
    However, as the recent US overhaul of RAAF Base Tindall in the NT reveals, when the US decides to do that it takes full control.

    Tindall has been upgraded to allow for six US B-52 bombers that may be carrying nuclear warheads.

    US laws that facilitate the transfer of Virginia-class submarines also make clear that as Australia is now classified as a US domestic military source this allows the US privileged access to critical minerals, such as lithium.

    Paul Gregoire writes for Sydney Criminal Lawyers where a version of this article was first published. The article has also been published at Green Left magazine and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Nuclear submarines may never appear, but AUKUS is already in place

    By Paul Gregoire in Sydney

    One year since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese went to San Diego to unveil the AUKUS deal the news came that the first of three second-hand Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines supposed to arrive in 2032 may not happen.

    Former coalition prime minister Scott Morrison announced AUKUS in September 2021 and Albanese continued to champion the pact between the US, Britain and Australia.

    Phase one involves Australia acquiring eight nuclear-powered submarines as tensions in the Indo-Pacific are growing.

    Concerns about the submarines ever materialising are not new, despite the US passing its National Defence Bill 2024 which facilitates the transfer of the nuclear-powered warships.

    However, the Pentagon’s 2025 fiscal year budget only set aside funding to build one Virginia submarine. This affects the AUKUS deal as the US had promised to lift production from around 1.3 submarines a year to 2.3 to meet all requirements.

    Australia’s acquisition of the first of three second-hand SSNs were to bridge the submarine gap, as talk about a US-led war on China continues.

    US Democratic congressperson Joe Courtney told The Sydney Morning Herald on March 12 the US was struggling with its own shipbuilding capacity, meaning promises to Australia were being deprioritised.

    Production downturn
    Courtney said that the downturn in production “will remove one more attack submarine from a fleet that is already 17 submarines below the navy’s long-stated requirement of 66”.

    The US needs to produce 18 more submarines by 2032 to be able to pass one on to Australia.

    After passing laws permitting the transfer of nuclear technology, the deal is running a year at least behind schedule.

    Greens Senator David Shoebridge said on X that “When the US passed the law to set up AUKUS they put in kill switches, one of which allowed the US to decide not [to] transfer the submarines if doing so would ‘degrade the US undersea capabilities’”.

    Pat Conroy, Labor’s Defence Industry Minister, retorted that the government was confident the submarines would appear.

    The White House seems unfazed; it would have been aware of the problems for some time.

    Meanwhile the USS Annapolis, a US nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) has docked in Boorloo/Perth.

    AUKUS still under way
    Regardless of whether Australia acquires any nuclear-powered vessels, the rest of the AUKUS deal, including interoperability with the US, is already underway.

    Andrew Hastie, Liberal Party spokesperson, confirmed that construction at HMAS Stirling will start next year for “Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West)”, the permanent US-British nuclear-powered submarine base in WA, which is due to be completed in 2027.

    SRF-West includes 700 US army personnel and their families being stationed in WA. If the second-hand nuclear submarines do not materialise, the US submarines will be on hand.

    SRF-West may also serve as an alternative to the five British-designed AUKUS SSNs, slated to be built in Kaurna Yerta/Adelaide over coming decades.

    Australia respects the Pentagon’s warhead ambiguity policy, meaning that any US military equipment stationed here could be carrying nuclear weapons: we will never know.

    Shoebridge said on March 13 he was entering a hearing to decide where the AUKUS powers can dump their nuclear waste. Local waste dumps are being considered, as the US and Britain do not have permanent radioactive waste dumps.

    The waste to be dumped is said to have a low-level radioactivity. However, as former Senator Rex Patrick pointed out, SSNs produce high-level radioactive waste at the end of their shelf lives that will need to be stored somewhere, underground, forever.

    ‘Radioactive waste management’
    The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, tabled last November, allows for the AUKUS SSNs to be constructed and also provides for “a radioactive waste management facility”.

    The Australian public is spending US$3 billion on helping the US submarine industrial base expand capacity. An initial US$2 billion will be spent next year, followed by $100 million annually from 2026 through to 2033.

    The Pentagon has budgeted US$4 billion for its submarine industry next year, with an extra US$11 billion over the following five years.

    The removal of the Virginia subs, and even the AUKUS submarines from the agreement, would be in keeping with the terms of the 2014 Force Posture Agreement, signed off by then prime minister Tony Abbott.

    As part of the Barack Obama administration’s 2011 “pivot to Asia”, the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement allows for 2500 Marines to be stationed in the Northern Territory.

    It sets up increasing interoperability between both countries’ air forces and allows the US unimpeded access to dozens of “agreed-to facilities and areas”.

    These agreed bases remain classified.

    US takes full control
    However, as the recent US overhaul of RAAF Base Tindall in the NT reveals, when the US decides to do that it takes full control.

    Tindall has been upgraded to allow for six US B-52 bombers that may be carrying nuclear warheads.

    US laws that facilitate the transfer of Virginia-class submarines also make clear that as Australia is now classified as a US domestic military source this allows the US privileged access to critical minerals, such as lithium.

    Paul Gregoire writes for Sydney Criminal Lawyers where a version of this article was first published. The article has also been published at Green Left magazine and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Nuclear submarines may never appear, but AUKUS is already in place

    By Paul Gregoire in Sydney

    One year since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese went to San Diego to unveil the AUKUS deal the news came that the first of three second-hand Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines supposed to arrive in 2032 may not happen.

    Former coalition prime minister Scott Morrison announced AUKUS in September 2021 and Albanese continued to champion the pact between the US, Britain and Australia.

    Phase one involves Australia acquiring eight nuclear-powered submarines as tensions in the Indo-Pacific are growing.

    Concerns about the submarines ever materialising are not new, despite the US passing its National Defence Bill 2024 which facilitates the transfer of the nuclear-powered warships.

    However, the Pentagon’s 2025 fiscal year budget only set aside funding to build one Virginia submarine. This affects the AUKUS deal as the US had promised to lift production from around 1.3 submarines a year to 2.3 to meet all requirements.

    Australia’s acquisition of the first of three second-hand SSNs were to bridge the submarine gap, as talk about a US-led war on China continues.

    US Democratic congressperson Joe Courtney told The Sydney Morning Herald on March 12 the US was struggling with its own shipbuilding capacity, meaning promises to Australia were being deprioritised.

    Production downturn
    Courtney said that the downturn in production “will remove one more attack submarine from a fleet that is already 17 submarines below the navy’s long-stated requirement of 66”.

    The US needs to produce 18 more submarines by 2032 to be able to pass one on to Australia.

    After passing laws permitting the transfer of nuclear technology, the deal is running a year at least behind schedule.

    Greens Senator David Shoebridge said on X that “When the US passed the law to set up AUKUS they put in kill switches, one of which allowed the US to decide not [to] transfer the submarines if doing so would ‘degrade the US undersea capabilities’”.

    Pat Conroy, Labor’s Defence Industry Minister, retorted that the government was confident the submarines would appear.

    The White House seems unfazed; it would have been aware of the problems for some time.

    Meanwhile the USS Annapolis, a US nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) has docked in Boorloo/Perth.

    AUKUS still under way
    Regardless of whether Australia acquires any nuclear-powered vessels, the rest of the AUKUS deal, including interoperability with the US, is already underway.

    Andrew Hastie, Liberal Party spokesperson, confirmed that construction at HMAS Stirling will start next year for “Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West)”, the permanent US-British nuclear-powered submarine base in WA, which is due to be completed in 2027.

    SRF-West includes 700 US army personnel and their families being stationed in WA. If the second-hand nuclear submarines do not materialise, the US submarines will be on hand.

    SRF-West may also serve as an alternative to the five British-designed AUKUS SSNs, slated to be built in Kaurna Yerta/Adelaide over coming decades.

    Australia respects the Pentagon’s warhead ambiguity policy, meaning that any US military equipment stationed here could be carrying nuclear weapons: we will never know.

    Shoebridge said on March 13 he was entering a hearing to decide where the AUKUS powers can dump their nuclear waste. Local waste dumps are being considered, as the US and Britain do not have permanent radioactive waste dumps.

    The waste to be dumped is said to have a low-level radioactivity. However, as former Senator Rex Patrick pointed out, SSNs produce high-level radioactive waste at the end of their shelf lives that will need to be stored somewhere, underground, forever.

    ‘Radioactive waste management’
    The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, tabled last November, allows for the AUKUS SSNs to be constructed and also provides for “a radioactive waste management facility”.

    The Australian public is spending US$3 billion on helping the US submarine industrial base expand capacity. An initial US$2 billion will be spent next year, followed by $100 million annually from 2026 through to 2033.

    The Pentagon has budgeted US$4 billion for its submarine industry next year, with an extra US$11 billion over the following five years.

    The removal of the Virginia subs, and even the AUKUS submarines from the agreement, would be in keeping with the terms of the 2014 Force Posture Agreement, signed off by then prime minister Tony Abbott.

    As part of the Barack Obama administration’s 2011 “pivot to Asia”, the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement allows for 2500 Marines to be stationed in the Northern Territory.

    It sets up increasing interoperability between both countries’ air forces and allows the US unimpeded access to dozens of “agreed-to facilities and areas”.

    These agreed bases remain classified.

    US takes full control
    However, as the recent US overhaul of RAAF Base Tindall in the NT reveals, when the US decides to do that it takes full control.

    Tindall has been upgraded to allow for six US B-52 bombers that may be carrying nuclear warheads.

    US laws that facilitate the transfer of Virginia-class submarines also make clear that as Australia is now classified as a US domestic military source this allows the US privileged access to critical minerals, such as lithium.

    Paul Gregoire writes for Sydney Criminal Lawyers where a version of this article was first published. The article has also been published at Green Left magazine and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Australia’s Strategic Defence Review Divergence

    The military rise of the People’s Republic of China has been rapid, even though warning signals have existed for years. Such strategic competition has required Australia to conduct a serious makeover of its defence via its Defence Strategic Review (DSR), published earlier this year on 24 April. Canberra trumpeted the fact that this is the […]

    The post Australia’s Strategic Defence Review Divergence appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • World’s first AI Act passes final hurdle

    The world’s first legislative regime on the use and development of AI has passed its final hurdle in the European Parliament, three months after it received provisional agreement. The greenlight comes as the Australian government considers introducing exemptions from local regulatory scrutiny if AI technologies are already comply with tough regimes in other jurisdictions. The…

    The post World’s first AI Act passes final hurdle appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • ‘Who is the superpower? The US or Israel?’ Al Jazeera on the absurdity of airdrops in Gaza

    Pacific Media Watch

    The United States’ airdrops of aid into Gaza are a textbook case of cognitive dissonance on the part of the US administration — dropping food while continuing to send Israel bombs with which to pulverise Gaza, reports Al Jazeera’s The Listening Post.

    And, says the media watch programme presenter Richard Gizbert, the gulf between what is happening on the ground and the mainstream media’s reportage continues to widen.

    Gizbert criticises the airdrops, what he calls the “optics of urgency, the illusions of aid”.

    “An absurd spectacle as the US drops aid into Gaza while also arming Israel,” he says.

    Gizbert critically examines the Israeli disinformation strategy over atrocities such as the gunning down of at least 116 starving Gazans in the so-called “flour massacre” of 29 February 2024 — first denial, then blame the Palestinians, and finally accept only limited responsibility.

    “The US air drops into the Gaza Strip are pure theatre. The US has been supplying thousands of tonnes into the Gaza Strip — but those have been high explosives,” says Mouin Rabbani, co-editor of Jadaliyya.

    “And then to claim that somehow it is ameliorated by 38,000 meals ready to eat is quite obscene to put it politely.

    “People have compared these scenes to The Hunger Games and for good reason.”

    ‘Who is the superpower?’
    Australian author Antony Loewenstein, author of The Palestine Laboratory, says: “When I saw the US drop food, my first response was really anger; it was horror that this is apparently the best the US can do.


    Absurd Aid Air Drops in Gaza.   Al Jazeera’s The Listening Post, 9 March 2024

    “Who is the superpower here? Is it the US or Israel? There is no place that is safe. There is no place where you can find reliable food, where people can get shelter.

    “Gazans are exhausted, angry and scared, and do not buy this argument that the US is suddenly caring about them by airdropping a handful of food.”

    “People have compared these scenes to The Hunger Games and for good reason.

    Contributors:
    Laura Albast — Fellow, Institute for Palestine Studies
    Mohamad Bazzi — Director of NYU’s Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies
    Antony Loewenstein — Author, The Palestine Laboratory
    Mouin Rabbani — Co-editor, Jadaliyya

    On Our Radar:
    Since Israel launched its assault on Gaza, the war has been a delicate subject for Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. The war has led to censorship of news coverage and suppression of public protest. Meenakshi Ravi reports.

    Israel’s cultural annihilation in Gaza
    The Listening Post has covered Israel’s war on Gaza through the prism of the media, including the unprecedented killing of Palestinian journalists. But there is another level to what is unfolding in Gaza: the genocidal assault on Palestinian history, existence and culture.

    Featuring:
    Jehad Abusalim – Executive director, The Jerusalem Fund

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Activist criticises Western feminist ‘silence’ on Palestine’s brave women

    By Peter Boyle in Gadigal Sydney

    Jana Fayyad, a Palestinian activist, had some sharp words about “the silence of Western feminists” at International Women’s Day, asking in her address to the Palestine rally in Sydney last Saturday: “Are you only progressive until Palestine?”

    No Palestinian speaker had been asked to address the annual protest the previous day and Fayyad did not mince her words.

    “Save your corporate high teas, your bullshit speeches, your ridiculous and laughable social media posts on this International Women’s Day!” she said.

    “We don’t think of Margaret Thatcher or Ursula Von der Leyen or Hillary Clinton.

    “We think of Besan [Helasa], we think of Dr Amira al Assori, we think of Hind Khoudary —  we think Plestia [Alaqad], we think of Lama Jamous.

    “We think of the women that we honour — the women in Gaza.

    “And beyond the women of Gaza, we think of Leila Khaled and Hanan Ashrawi and Fadua Tuqan and Amira Hass and Dr Mona el Farrah — the women at the forefront of Palestinian liberation.”

    She said considering that 9000 women had been “slaughtered by the terrorist state of Israel”, the silence of Western feminists had been deafening.

    “The silence has been deafening — the silence on the 15,000 children slaughtered; the silence on the sexual assault and the rape that woman in Gaza have been subjected to; the silence on the horrific conditions that 50,000 pregnant women face having to do C-sections without anesthesia; and the silence on the mothers having to pick up their children in pieces,” Fayyad said.

    “The silence is deafening!”

    “Where is your feminism?” she asked.

    “I don’t see it anywhere! I don’t hear of it! Where are your voices? Or are you only progressive until Palestine?”

    Republished from Green Left with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ‘The Forever War’ – ABC Four Corners reports on the assault on Gaza

    Pacific Media Watch

    The War on Gaza will be etched in the memories of generations to come — the brutality of Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack, and the ferocity of Israel’s retaliation.

    In this Four Corners investigative report, The Forever War, broadcast in Australia last night, ABC’s global affairs editor John Lyons asks the tough questions — challenging some of Israel’s most powerful political and military voices about the country’s strategy and intentions.

    The result is a compelling interview-led piece of public interest journalism about one of the most controversial wars of modern times.

    Former prime minister Ehud Barak says Benjamin Netanyahu can’t be trusted, former Shin Bet internal security director Ami Ayalon describes two key far-right Israeli ministers as “terrorists”,  and cabinet minister Avi Dichter makes a grave prediction about the conflict’s future.

    Is there any way out of what’s beginning to look like the forever war? Lyons gives his perspective on the tough decisions for the future of both Palestinians and Israelis.


    ‘The Forever War’ – ABC Four Corners.      ABC Trailer on YouTube

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Matters of Revenue: Meta Abandons Australia’s Media Stable

    It was praised to the heavens as a work of negotiated and practical genius when it was struck.  The then Australian treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, had finally gotten those titans of Big Tech into line on how revenue would be shared with media outlets for using such platforms as supplied by Facebook and Google.

    Both companies initially baulked at the News Media Bargaining Code, which led to a very publicised spat between Facebook and the Morrison government.  For a week in February 2021, users of Facebook in Australia were barred from sharing news.  A number of government agencies, trade unions, media groups and charities found the restrictions oppressive.

    Amendments were eventually made to the Code to make matters more palatable to the tech behemoths, notably on the arbitration mechanism and their algorithmic use of ranking news.  Revenue sharing agreements with various media outlets were struck, most notably with members of the standard stable, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and News Corp.  With a degree of perversity, traditional news publications could now receive revenue for using free sharing platforms, having failed to address their own stuttering revenue models.  (The fall in advertising revenue has been particularly punishing.)

    With a jackal’s glee, Rupert Murdoch could claim to have made a fiendish pact with Facebook to prop up parts of his ailing News Corp empire, leaving Facebook’s pproach to surveillance capitalism unchecked and uncritiqued.

    Such agreements on sharing news were always conditional on continued approval by Facebook, which is now operating under the rebrand of Meta.  Various countries have similarly tried to compel digital platforms to pay for news content that they permit, freely, to be shared.  It is also clear that Meta is particularly keen to deprecate them and eventually let them lapse.

    In February, a statement from Meta made it clear that these arrangements would not be renewed.  “The number of people using Facebook News in Australia and the US has dropped by over 80% last year.  We know that people don’t come to Facebook for news and political content – they come to connect with people and discover new opportunities, passions and interests.”

    Such jaw dropping observations would have surprised users who have foolishly made Facebook a central pitstop in their news journey – and what counts as “news” in the narrow, arid world of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.  But according to Meta, news made up less than 3% of what people saw on their Facebook feed in 2023.

    Meta’s public declaration of intent threatens various media companies with significant loss.  In Australia, Nine Entertainment, Seven West Media and News Corp risk losing between 5 and 9% of net profit.

    The entire field of revenue sharing between the digital platforms and media groups has been opaque.  The Australian Financial Review managed to obtain two summaries of agreements signed by the Australian Network Ten, owned by Paramount, and Facebook, shedding some light on negotiation strategies.  For the social media giant, videos are all the rage, and one of the summaries notes the insistence by Facebook that Network Ten share 18,000 videos on its platform while threatening termination of its contract in the event it was taken to arbitration.

    The Albanese government, through Communications Minister Michelle Rowland and Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones, described Meta’s decision to halt paying news outlets “a dereliction of its commitment to the sustainability of Australian news media.”  But to have assumed it ever had such a commitment was surely naïve to begin with.

    Michael Miller, Executive chairman of News Corp Australia, could not resist his own flourish of disingenuous exaggeration.  “If content providers were farmers Meta would steal their crops and demand their victims thank them for the privilege.”  Meta’s refusal to pay for news would create “shockwaves for Australia, our democracy, economy and way of life”.  The vital question here is what, exactly, are these agreements doing?

    For one thing, the Bargaining Code, which never stipulated how the money would be used, has done nothing to enliven a media scape that remains imperially confined to a handful of providers.  A conspiracy of convenience arose between one set of giants furnishing the digital platforms, with another of giants claiming to provide the news.  Smaller outlets have had little say in these arrangements.  Facebook, for instance, showed no interest in reaching revenue sharing arrangements with the SBS broadcaster or The Conversation.  And to consider such representatives as News Corp sterling examples of democratic protection is a view not only misplaced but deserving of ridicule.

    The ABC’s Managing Director, David Anderson, has at least admitted that funding obtained through its arrangements with Meta has been useful in supporting 60 journalists.  News Corp, Nine Entertainment and Seven News Media have been less than forthcoming, ever keen using the shield of commercial confidentiality.  In terms of employees, Nine Entertainment reported a fall in the number of employees from 5254 at the end of the 2022 financial year to 4753 at the end of 2023.  “It is likely,” suggests Kim Wingerie in Michael West Media, “that the A$50 million or more they receive annually from Meta and Google is used predominantly to prop up their net profit.”

    Meta’s promise to abandon agreements reached with the media hacks is no reason to be gloomy.  The company’s loathing of privacy, its delight in commodifying the data of its users, and its insistence on tinkering with human behaviour, make it a continuing societal menace.  Governments and news outlets would do far better in critiquing and challenging those aspects, rather than taking revenue that seems to silence the critical instinct.

    The post Matters of Revenue: Meta Abandons Australia’s Media Stable first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Watching the Neighbours

    With political tension rising around the world, airborne special mission aircraft have arguably never been more important. Asia-Pacific states facing Chinese pressure on their South China Sea interests are continuing to enhance their air capabilities. This includes the acquisition of special mission aircraft whose various roles include airborne early warning and control (AEW&C), intelligence, surveillance […]

    The post Watching the Neighbours appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • The Campaign to Free Assange: Reflections on Night Falls

    The town hall meeting is the last throbbing reminder of the authentic demos.  People gather; debates held.  Views converge; others diverge.  Speakers are invited to stir the invitees, provoke the grey cells.  Till artificial intelligence banishes such gatherings, and the digital cosmos swallows us whole, cherish these events.

    And there was much to cherish about Night Falls in the Evening Lands: The Assange Epic, part of a global movement to publicise the importance of freeing WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, who remains in the forbidding confines of Belmarsh Prison in London.  Held on March 9 in Melbourne’s Storey Hall, it was a salutatory minder that the publisher’s plight has become one of immediate concern.  Worn down by judicial process and jailed by a US surrogate power, he faces a vicious political indictment of 17 charges focused on the Espionage Act of 1917 and one on computer intrusion.  A UK High Court appeal on the matter of extradition hangs in the balance.

    The thematic nature of such events can be challenging.  One should never be too gloomy – and in Assange’s case, be it in terms of health, torture, injustice and pondered attempts by US intelligence officials to take his life or kidnap him – there is much to be gloomy about.  Bleakness should be allowed, but only in modest, stiff doses.  Try, as far as you can, to inject a note of encouraging humour into proceedings.  Humour unsettles the tyrannically inclined, punctures the ideologue’s confidence.  Then reflect, broadly, on the astonishing legacy on the subject and ask that vital question: Where to now?

    The sessions, superbly steered through by Mary Kostakidis (“Try to avoid lengthy preambles to your questions, please”), covered a fanned out universe: the nature of “imperial law” and extra-territorial jurisdiction; the stirring role of WikiLeaks in exposing state atrocities; the regenerative tonic Assange had given to an ungrateful, envious Fourth Estate; the healthy emergence of non-mainstream media; and the tactics necessary to convince politicians that the publisher’s release was urgently warranted.

    Two speakers were spear-sharp on both the legacy of Assange and what had to be done to secure his release.  The Greek former finance minister and rabble-rousing economist, Yanis Varoufakis, was encouraging on both scores.  A picture of pugilistic health, Varoufakis pondered “what Julian had taught” him.  People forget, Varoufakis reminded his audience, Assange’s genius as one of the original cypherpunks, able to build a website that has managed to weather hacking storms and stay afloat in treacherous digital waters.  Whistleblowers and leakers could be assured of anonymous contributions to the WikiLeaks website.

    He was also impressed by the man’s towering, almost holy integrity.  As much as they disagreed, he recalled, “and as much as I wanted to throttle the man”, he brimmed with intellectual self-worth and value.  On the subject of revealing his sources, quite contrary to the spirit and substance of the US indictment, Assange was scrupulous to a fault.  To betray any would endanger them.

    Most movingly, Varoufakis reflected on his own intellectual awakening when reading Assange’s meditations on the internet; how it might, just might, fracture the imperium of information guarded so closely by powerful interests.  Finally, the common citizenry would have at their disposal the means of returning the serve on spying and surveillance.  The digital mirror would enable us to see what they – the state operatives, their goons and their lickspittle adjutants – could see about us.  This was as significant to Varoufakis as George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, books he read with some anxiety during the days of Greece’s military junta.

    On the nature of power – in this case, the menace posed by the US imperium – Australia had to be break free and embrace non-alignment.  With characteristic flavour, Varoufakis characterised Washington’s exertion of influence over its satellite states as that of a mafia gang: “They manufacture insecurity in order to sell protection.”  It was a brilliant formulation and goes to the centre of that infantile desire of Australian policy makers to endorse AUKUS, a dangerous military compact with the US and the UK that will mortgage the country to the sum of A$368 billion.

    Even assuming that this arrangement would remain in place, those in the nation’s capital, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, had to ask the fundamental question on Assange.  “Make it a condition of AUKUS that Assange returns to Australia,” insisted Varoufakis.  “And the powerful will respect you even if you disagree with them.”  To date, the PM had been a sore disappointment and hardly likely to be respected, even by the near comatose US President Joe Biden.

    Virility, however, may be returning.  That theme was evidenced in the sharp address from Greg Barns, a seasoned barrister and campaign strategist who has been involved in the WikiLeaks journey since 2012.  While drawing attention to the outrageous assertion of extra-territorial jurisdiction by Washington to target Assange, he saw much promise in the political dawn in Canberra.  A few years ago, he would never have envisaged being in a room where the Australian Greens leader, Adam Bandt, would be seated next to a fossil fuel advocate and Nationals senator, Matthew Cannavan.  “Beside Mr Green sat Mr Coal.”  Their common purpose: Assange’s release and the termination of a state of affairs so unacceptable it is no longer the talk of academic common rooms and specialist fora.

    For the audience and budding activists, Barns had sound advice.  Pester local political representatives.  Arrange meetings, preferably in groups, with the local member.  Remind them of the significance of the issue.  “Make it an alliance issue.”  There is nothing more worrying to a backbencher than concerned “traffic” through the electoral office that suggests a shift in voter sentiment.  “I will bet good odds that the treatment of Assange has made it into party room discussions,” declared Barns with certitude.

    In closing, Assange’s tireless father, John Shipton, washed his audience with gentle, meditative thoughts.  Much like a calming shaman, he journeyed through some of the day’s themes, prodding with questions.  Was AUKUS a bribe?  A tribute?  A payment for knowledge?  But with optimism, Shipton could feel hope about his son: “Specks of gold” had formed to stir consciousness in the executive.  Those in power were at long last listening.

    The post The Campaign to Free Assange: Reflections on Night Falls first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Another “mass bleaching event” is destroying the Great Barrier Reef biodiversity wonder

    Friday 8 March brought another devastating development in the ongoing biodiversity crisis. Authorities in Australia have warned that a catastrophic “mass bleaching event” is unfolding on the country’s famed Great Barrier Reef.

    Great Barrier Reef fading

    Bleaching – a process where corals expel algae living within their tissues – occurs when ocean temperatures are too high over a prolonged period. Specifically, this happens when underwater temperatures are more than 1°c warmer than the long-term average. As a result, this turns the once-vibrant corals a shade of sickly white.

    While the bleached corals aren’t dead, the process puts stress on these vital organisms and leaves them vulnerable. Rapidly warming seas therefore threaten Australia’s spectacular reef system, home to thousands of marine species.

    Often dubbed the world’s largest living structure, the Great Barrier Reef is a 2,300 kilometre (1,400 mile) expanse of tropical corals that house a stunning array of biodiversity.

    However, repeated mass bleaching events – exacerbated by the climate crisis – have threatened to rob the tourist drawcard of its wonder.

    In a statement, environment minister Tanya Plibersek said:

    We know the biggest threat to coral reefs worldwide is climate change. The Great Barrier Reef is no exception. We need to act on climate change. We need to protect our special places and the plants and animals that call them home.

    The damaging mass bleaching event is the seventh since 1998. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef previously suffered mass coral bleaching in 1998, 2002, 2016, 2017, 2020 and 2022. Now, following aerial surveys of 300 shallow reefs, government scientists have confirmed the latest catastrophic event is underway.

    The Australian Reef Authority said it would need to conduct further surveys to assess the severity and extent of bleaching.

    Climate crisis heating up the stakes

    The news comes as global average sea surface temperatures set new, alarming records. The European Union’s climate modelling service Copernicus recorded the highest global sea surface temperature of 21.06°c this February. It topped the previous record high in August 2023 of 20.98°c.

    According to official monitoring, ocean temperatures along the Great Barrier Reef have also approached record levels in the past few weeks.

    Head of oceans at World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Australia Richard Leck said it was likely that masses of coral would die if ocean temperatures did not cool rapidly in the coming weeks. Leck said:

    This bleaching event is unfolding in an area where corals have not been previously exposed to these extreme temperatures

    Moreover, he emphasised that the climate crisis was “putting tremendous pressure” on the Great Barrier Reef.

    On top of this, Leck added that the current bleaching event followed similar setbacks in the Northern Hemisphere in 2023. In these cases, mass bleaching caused major coral mortality in other key reef biodiversity hotspots of Florida and the Caribbean.

    Rich nations are the culprit

    Despite this, there is some cause for hope. Some species of bleached coral have proven remarkably resilient and can recover if ocean temperatures cool. Despite this, professor Terry Hughes, one of Australia’s foremost coral reef scientists, said bleaching events were now happening so frequently that reefs were struggling to recover.

    He told AFP that:

    The reef is no longer capable of recovering to the mix of coral species and the sizes of corals that were there 20 years ago. The irony is that the corals that are now prevalent on most parts of the Great Barrier Reef are fast growing and rapidly regain cover, but the kicker is that they are heat sensitive and are less tolerant to the next inevitable bleaching event.

    Hughes said the heat stress had increased in the past few days and would likely worsen in the coming two weeks.

    As the Canary previously detailed, the fossil-fuel-driven climate crisis is largely to blame for the increasing frequency of marine heatwaves. At 1.5°c of warming, scientists have projected that over 90% coral reefs could die.

    Naturally, this makes efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions ever more urgent. However, governments across the world are failing to take anything like the necessary action on climate. Instead, rich nations have been doubling down on climate-wrecking expansion of fossil fuels.

    Great Barrier Reef: hiding the truth

    The fate of the reef has been a recurrent source of tension between the Australian government and the United Nations’ World Heritage Committee.

    Specifically, the World Heritage Committee has threatened to put the reef on a list of “in danger” global heritage sites. However, Australia has fought the move that would likely damage its allure for international tourists.

    In 2016, the Australian government lobbied the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to remove the Great Barrier Reef from a key climate report on World Heritage sites.

    Then, in 2021, it once again intervened with another crucial UNESCO report. This time, it blocked a recommendation in the report calling for countries to limit global heating to 1.5°c. In particular, the original report argued for this to protect World Heritage sites from the worst impacts of the climate crisis.

    Of course, like other rich nations, Australia has also been routinely bulldozing efforts to phase-out fossil fuels. On top of this, the country sits among the worst polluters.

    In other words, Australia’s game plan is to hide that its natural wonder is dying, rather than tackle the underlying cause. This latest mass bleaching event shows that the stakes for this beguiling biodiverse ecosystem soar ever higher, as temperatures continue to rise. The Great Barrier Reef could soon become one of rampant extractive capitalism’s tragic ecological casualties.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse.

    Feature image via Acropora/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1200 by 900, licensed under CC BY 3.0

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Australia eyes new frigates under ambitious new shipbuilding plan

    East Asian frigates have been identified by the Australian government to be considered as possible general-purpose designs to replace the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)’s ageing Anzac-class frigates, according to an independent study it had commissioned. According to the recently released report, titled Independent Analysis of Navy’s Surface Combatant Fleet, the Australian government asserted that it […]

    The post Australia eyes new frigates under ambitious new shipbuilding plan appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Why have Albanese and other politicians been referred to the ICC over Israel’s war on Gaza?

    ANALYSIS: By Donald Rothwell, Australian National University

    In an unprecedented legal development, senior Australian politicians, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, have been referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigation into whether they have aided or supported Israel’s actions in Gaza.

    The referral, made by the Sydney law firm Birchgrove Legal on behalf of their clients, is the first time any serving Australian political leaders have been formally referred to the ICC for investigation.

    The referral asserts that Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and other members of the government have violated the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty that established the ICC to investigate and prosecute allegations of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

    Specifically, the law firm references:

    • Australia’s freezing of aid to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the aid agency that operates in Gaza
    • the provision of military aid to Israel that could have been used in the alleged commission of genocide and crimes against humanity
    • permitting Australians to travel to Israel to take part in attacks in Gaza
    • providing “unequivocal political support” for Israel’s actions in Gaza.

    A key aspect of the referral is the assertion, under Article 25 of the Rome Statute, that Albanese and the others bear individual criminal responsibility for aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission (or attempted commission) of alleged crimes by Israel in Gaza.

    At a news conference today, Albanese said the letter had “no credibility” and was an example of “misinformation”. He said:

    Australia joined a majority in the UN to call for an immediate ceasefire and to advocate for the release of hostages, the delivery of humanitarian assistance, the upholding of international law and the protection of civilians.

    How the referral process works
    There are a couple of key questions here: can anyone be referred to the ICC, and how often do these referrals lead to an investigation?

    Referrals to the ICC prosecutor are most commonly made by individual countries — as has occurred following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 — or by the UN Security Council. However, it is also possible for referrals to be made by “intergovernmental or non-governmental organisations, or other reliable sources”, according to Article 15 of the Rome Statute.

    The ICC prosecutor’s office has received 12,000 such referrals to date. These must go through a preliminary examination before the office decides whether there are “reasonable grounds” to start an investigation.

    The court has issued arrest warrants for numerous leaders over the past two decades, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and his commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova; former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir; and now-deceased Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

    Why this referral is unlikely to go anywhere
    Putting aside the merit of the allegations themselves, it is unlikely the Australian referrals will go any further for legal and practical reasons.

    First, the ICC was established as an international court of last resort. This means it would only be used to prosecute international crimes when courts at a national level are unwilling or unable to do so.

    As such, the threat of possible ICC prosecution was intended to act as a deterrent for those considering committing international crimes, as well as an incentive for national authorities and courts to prosecute them.

    Australia has such a process in place to investigate potential war crimes and other international crimes through the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI).

    The OSI was created in the wake of the 2020 Brereton Report into allegations of Australian war crimes in Afghanistan. In March 2023, the office announced its first prosecution.

    Because Australia has this legal framework in place, the ICC prosecutor would likely deem it unnecessary to refer Australian politicians to the ICC for prosecution, unless Australia was unwilling to start such a prosecution itself. At present, there is no evidence that is the case.

    Another reason this referral is likely to go nowhere: the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, is currently focusing on a range of investigations related to alleged war crimes committed by Russia, Hamas and Israel, in addition to other historical investigations.

    Given the significance of these investigations – and the political pressure the ICC faces to act with speed – it is unlikely the court would divert limited resources to investigate Australian politicians.

    Increasing prominence of international courts
    This referral to the ICC, however, needs to be seen in a wider context. The Israel-Hamas conflict has resulted in an unprecedented flurry of legal proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s top court.

    Unlike the ICC, the ICJ does not deal with individual criminal responsibility. The ICJ does, however, have jurisdiction over whether countries violate international law, such as the Genocide Convention.

    This was the basis for South Africa to launch its case against Israel in the ICJ, claiming its actions against the Palestinian people amounted to genocide. The ICJ issued a provisional ruling against Israel in January which said it’s “plausible” Israel had committed genocide in Gaza and ordered Israel to take immediate steps to prevent acts of genocide.

    In addition, earlier this week, a new case was launched in the ICJ by Nicaragua, alleging Germany has supported acts of genocide by providing military support for Israel and freezing aid for UNRWA.

    All of these developments in recent months amount to what experts call “lawfare”. This refers to the use of international or domestic courts to seek accountability for alleged state-sanctioned acts of genocide and support or complicity in such acts. Some of these cases have merit, others are very weak.

    As one international law expert described the purpose:

    It’s […] a way of raising awareness, getting media attention and showing your own political base you’re doing something.

    These cases do succeed in increasing public awareness of these conflicts. And they make clear the desire of many around the world to hold to account those seen as being responsible for gross violations of international law.The Conversation

    Dr Donald Rothwell, professor of international law, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.