The Victorian Greens have demanded an independent inquiry into Australian police tactics and alleged excessive use of force today against antiwar protesters at the Land Forces expo in Melbourne.
State Greens leader Ellen Sandell said her party had lodged a formal protest to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC).
“We have seen police throw flash grenades into crowds of protesters, use pepper spray indiscriminately, and whip people with horse whip,” she also said in a X post.
“These are military-style tactics used by police against protesters who are trying to have their say, as is their democratic right.”
Police used stun grenades and pepper spray and arrested 39 people as officers were pelted with rocks, manure and tomatoes in what has been described as Melbourne’s biggest police operation in two decades, reports Al Jazeera.
The Victorian Greens and I have demanded an independent inquiry into Victoria Police tactics and excessive use of force at the Land Forces protests in Melbourne today. pic.twitter.com/p8iLU073S0
The Land Forces expo protest. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot
The pro-Palestine protesters, also demanding a change in Canberra’s stance on Israel’s war in Gaza, clashed with the police outside the arms fair.
Thousands picketed the Land Forces 2024 military weapons exposition. Australia has seen numerous protests against the country’s arms industry’s involvement in the war over the past 11 months.
Protesting for ‘those killed’ in Gaza
“We’re protesting to stand up for all those who have been killed by the type of weapons [in Gaza] on display at the convention,” said Jasmine Duff from organiser Students for Palestine in a statement.
About 1800 police officers have been deployed at the Melbourne Convention Centre hosting the three-day weapons exhibition. Up to 25,000 people had previously been expected to turn up at the protest.
Two dozen people were reported as requiring medical treatment, said a Victoria state police spokesperson in a statement.
Demonstrators also lit fires in the street and disrupted traffic and public transport, while missiles were thrown at police horses.
However, no serious injuries were reported, according to police.
Deputy Greens leader backs protesters
In a speech to the Senate, the deputy federal leader of the Greens, Senator Mehreen Faruqi, offered her solidarity to “the thousands protesting in Melbourne today to say no to the business of war”.
Australian Greens Deputy Leader Senator Mehreen Faruqi . . . [Australia’s] Labor government is complicit in genocide”. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot“[The governing] Labor tries to distract and deflect, but there is no deflection. So long as we have defence contracts with Israeli weapons companies, the Labor government is complicit in genocide, so long as you refuse to impose sanctions on Israel, this Labor government is complicit in genocide, and there are no excuses for inaction,” she said.
“The UK has suspended some arms sales to Israel. Canada today is halting more arms sales to Israel.
“What will it take for [Australia’s] Labor government to take action against the apartheid state of Israel?”
Police used stun grenades and pepper spray and arrested 39 people at today’s Land Forces expo in Melbourne, Victoria. Image: V_Palestine20
The ADF uses VBS for virtual simulation and image generation across multiple programs. Bohemia Interactive Australia (BIA) is pleased to announce that the Australian Army has renewed the Australian Defence Force (ADF) VBS3 enterprise software support agreement with BIA for the twelfth consecutive year. The ADF uses VBS to prepare for operations through serious gaming […]
With similar Israel divestment motions having been passed at City of Sydney and Canterbury/Bankstown Councils, many had expected the motion to pass in what is supposed to be one of the most progressive areas of Sydney. Wendy Bacon reports on what went wrong.
INVESTIGATION: By Wendy Bacon
Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and the West Bank is tearing apart local councils in Australia, on top of the angst reverberating around state and federal politics.
Inner West Labor Mayor Darcy Byrne has doubled down on his attack on pro-Palestinian activists at the council’s last election meeting before Australia’s local government elections on September 14.
‘Byrne’s attack echoes an astro-turfing campaign supported by rightwing and pro-Israel groups targeting the Greens in inner city electorates.’
READ MORE: Other articles by Wendy Bacon
With Labor narrowly controlling the council by one vote, the election loomed large over the meeting. It also coincided with a campaign backed by rightwing pro-Israeli groups to eliminate Greens from several inner Sydney councils.
In August, Labor councillors voted down a motion for an audit of whether any Inner West Council (IWC) investments or contracts benefit companies involved in the weapons industry or profit from human rights violations in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The motion that was defeated had also called for an insertion of a general “human rights” provision in council’s investment policy.
With similar motions having been passed at City of Sydney and Canterbury/Bankstown councils, many had expected the motion to pass in what is supposed to be one of the most progressive areas of Sydney.
It could have been a first step towards the Inner West Council joining the worldwide BDS (boycotts, disinvestments and economic sanctions) campaign to pressure Israel to meet its obligations under international law.
MWM sources attest that the ructions at Inner West Council are mirrored elsewhere in local government. This from Randwick in Sydney’s East:
Randwick Council: MWM source
Global to grassroots
Last week, Portland Council in Maine became the fifth United States city to join the campaign this year, while the City of Ixelles in Belgium announced that it had suspended its twinning agreement with the Regional Council of Megiddo in Israel.
When the Inner West motion failed, some Palestinian rights campaigners booed and shouted “shame” at Labor councillors as they sat silently in the chamber. The meeting, which had nearly reached its time limit of five hours, was then adjourned.
Byrne’s alternative motion was debated at last week’s meeting. It restates council’s existing policy and Federal Labor’s current stance that calls for a ceasefire and a two-state solution.
This alternative motion was passed by Labor councillors, with the Greens and two Independents voting against it. Both Independent Councillor Pauline Lockie and Greens Councillor Liz Atkins argued that they were opposing the motion because it did not do or change anything.
The Mayor spent most of his speaking time attacking those involved with protesting at the August meeting. He described their behaviour as “unacceptable, undemocratic and disrespectful”. There is no doubt that the behaviour at the meeting breached the rules of meeting behaviour at some times.
But then Byrne made a much more shocking and unexpected allegation. He said that the “worst element” of the behaviour was that “local Inner West citizens who happened to have a Jewish sounding name, when their names were read out by me because they’d registered . . . to speak, I think all of them were booed and hissed just because their names happened to sound Jewish.”
News Corp propaganda This claim is deeply disturbing. If true, such behaviour would definitely be anti-semitic and racist. But the question is: did such behaviour actually happen? Or does this allegation feed into Byrne’s misleading narrative that had fuelled false News Corporation reports that protesters stormed the meeting?
In fact, the protesters had been invited to the meeting by the Mayor.
This reporter was present throughout the meeting and did not observe anything similar to what the Mayor alleged had happened.
Later in the meeting, the Mayor repeated the allegation that the “booing and hissing of people” based “on the fact that they had a Jewish sounding name constituted anti-semitism”.
Retiring Independent Councillor Pauline Locker intervened: “Sorry, point of order, That isn’t actually what happened. . . . It wasn’t based on their Jewish name.”
But Bryne insisted, “That’s not a point of order — that is what happened. It is what the record shows occurred as does the media reportage.”
Other councillors also distanced themselves from Byrne’s allegation. Independent Councillor John Stamolis also said that although he could not judge how the Mayor or other Labor councillors felt on the evening, he could not agree with Byrne’s description or that it described what other councillors or members of the public experienced on the evening.
Greens Councillor Liz Atkins said that there were different perceptions of what happened on the night. Her perception was that the “booing and hissing” was in relation to support for the substance of the Greens motion for an audit of investments rather than an attack on people who spoke against it.
She also said that credit should be given to pro- Palestinian activists who themselves encouraged people to listen quietly.
Fake antisemitism claims Your reporter asked Rosanna Barbero, who also was present throughout the meeting, what she observed. Barbero was the recipient of this year’s Multicultural NSW Human Rights Medal, recognising her lasting and meaningful contribution to human rights in NSW.
She is also a member of the Inner West Multicultural Network that has helped council develop an anti-racism strategy.
“I did not witness any racist comments,” said Barbero.
Barbero confirmed that she was present throughout the meeting and said: “I did not witness any racist comments. The meeting was recorded so the evidence of that is easy to verify.”
So this reporter, in a story for City Hub, took her advice and went to the evidence in the webcast, which provides a public record of what occurred. The soundtrack is clear. A listener can pick up when comments are made by audience members but not necessarily the content of them.
Bryne has alleged speakers against the motion were booed when their “Jewish sounding’ names were announced. Our analysis shows none of the five were booed or abused in any way when their names were announced.
There was, in fact, silence.
Five speakers identified themselves as Jewish. Four spoke against the motion, and one in favour.
Two of the five were heard in complete silence, one with some small applause at the end.
One woman who spoke in favour of the motion and whose grandparents were in the Holocaust was applauded and cheered at the end of her speech.
One man was interrupted by several comments from the gallery when he said the motion was based on “propaganda and disinformation” and would lead to a lack of social cohesion. He related experiences of anti-semitism when he was at school in the Inner West 14 years ago.
At the conclusion of his speech, there were some boos.
One man who had not successfully registered was added to the speakers list by the Mayor. Some people in the public gallery objected to this decision. The Mayor adjourned the meeting for three minutes and the speaker was then heard in silence.
The speakers in favour of the motion, most of whom had Palestinian backgrounds and relatives who had suffered expulsion from their homelands, concentrated on the war crimes against Palestinians and the importance of BDS motions. There were no personal attacks on speakers against the motion.
In response to a Jewish speaker who had argued that the solution was peace initiatives, one Palestinian speaker said that he wanted “liberation”, not “peace”.
Weaponising accusations of anti-semitism to shut down debate Independent Inner West Councillor Pauline Lockie warned other councillors this week about the need to be careful about weaponising accusations of race and anti-semitism to shut down debates. Like Barbero, Lockie has played a leadership role in developing anti-racism strategies for the Inner West.
There are three serious concerns about Byrne’s allegations. The first concern is that they are not verified by the public record. This raises questions about the Mayor’s judgement and credibility.
The second is that making unsubstantiated allegations of antisemitism for the tactical purposes of winning a political argument demeans the seriousness and tragedy of anti-semitism.
Thirdly, there is a concern that spreading unsubstantiated allegations of anti-semitism could cause harm by spreading fear and anxiety in the Jewish community.
Controversial Christian minister The most provocative speaker on the evening was not one of those who identified themselves as Jewish. It was Reverend Mark Leach, who introduced himself as an Anglican minister from Balmain. When he said that no one could reasonably apply the word “genocide” to what was occurring in Gaza, several people called out his comments.
Given the ICJ finding that a plausible genocide is occurring in Gaza, this was not surprising.
Darcy Byrne then stopped the meeting and gave Reverend Leach a small amount of further time to speak. Later in his speech, Reverend Leach described the motion itself as “deeply racist” because it held Israel accountable above all other states.
Boos for Leach In fact, the motion would have added a general human rights provision to the investment policy which would have applied to any country. Reverend Leach was booed at the conclusion of his speech.
One speaker later said that she could not understand how this Christian minister would not accept that the word “genocide” could be used. This was not an anti-semitic or racist comment.
Throughout the debate, Byrne avoided the issue that the motion only called for an audit.
He also used his position of chair to directly question councillors. The following exchange occurred with Councillor Liz Atkins:
Mayor: Councilor Atkins, can I put to you a question? I have received advice that councillor officers are unaware of any investment from council that is complicit in the Israeli military operations in Gaza and the Palestinian territories. Are you aware of any?
Atkins: No. That’s why the motion asked for an audit of our investments and procurements.
Mayor: I’ll put one further question to you. The organisers of the protest outside the chamber and the subsequent overrunning of the council chamber asserted in their promotion of the event that the council was complicit in genocide. Is that your view?
Atkins: I don’t know. Until we do an audit, Mayor . . . Can I just take exception with the point of view that they “overran” the meeting? You invited them all in, and not one of them tried to get past a simple rope barrier.
Byrne says it’s immoral to support a one-party state During the debate, Byrne surprisingly described support for a one-state solution for Israel and Palestinians as “immoral”. He described support for “one state” as meaning you either supported the wiping out of the Palestinians or the Israelis.
In fact, there is a long history of citizens, scholars and other commentators who have argued that one secular state of equal citizens is the only viable solution.
Many, including the Australian government, do not agree. Nevertheless, the award-winning journalist and expert on the Middle East, Antony Loewenstein, argued that position in The Sydney Morning Herald in November 2023.
Mayor in tune with Better Council Inc campaign All of this debate is happening in the context of the hotly contested election campaign. The Mayor is understandably preoccupied with the impending poll. Rather than debating the issues, he finished the debate by launching an attack on the Greens, which sounded more like an election speech than a speech in reply in support of his motion.
Byrne said: “Some councillors are unwilling to condemn what was overt anti-Semitism”.
This is a heavy accusation. All councillors are strongly opposed to anti-semitism. The record does not show any overt anti-semitism.
Byrne went on: “But the more troubling thing is that there’s a large number of candidates running at this election who, if elected, will be making foreign affairs and this particular issue one of the central concerns of this council.
“This will result in a distraction with services going backwards and rates going up.”
In fact, the record shows that the Greens are just as focused on local issues as any other councillors. Even at last week’s meeting, Councillor Liz Atkins brought forward a motion about controversial moves to install a temporary cafe at Camperdown Park that would privatise public space and for which there had been no consultation.
Labor v Greens Byrne’s message pitting concern about broader issues against local concerns is in tune with the messaging of a recently formed group called Better Council Inc. that is targeting the Greens throughout the Inner West and in Randwick and Waverley.
Placards saying “Put the Greens last”, “Keep the Greens Garbage out of Council” featuring a number of Greens candidates have gone up across Sydney. Some claim that the Greens are fixated on Gaza and ignore local issues.
Better Inc.’s material is authorised by Sophie Calland. She is a recently graduated computer engineer who told the Daily Telegraph that “she was a Labor member and that Better Council involves people from across the political aisle — even some former Greens.”
She described the group as a “grassroots group of young professionals” who wanted local government officials to focus on local issues.
“We believe local councils should concentrate on essential community services like waste management, local infrastructure, and the environment. That’s what councils are there for — looking after the needs of their immediate communities.”
On Saturday, Randwick Greens Councillor Kym Chapple was at a pre-poll booth at which a Better Council Inc. campaigner was handing out material specifically recommending that voters put her last.
Chapple tweeted that the Better councilwoman didn’t actually know that she was a councillor or any of the local issues in which she had been involved.
“That does not look like a local grassroots campaign. It’s an attempt to intimidate people who support a free Palestine. Anyway, it feels gross to have someone say to put you last because they care about the environment and local issues when that’s literally what you have done for three years.”
She then tweeted a long list of her local campaign successes.
Never Again is Now astroturf campaign
In fact, the actual work of distributing the leaflets is being done by a group spearheaded by none other than Reverend Mark Leach, who spoke at the Inner West Council meeting. Leach is one of the coordinators of the pro-Israel right-wing Christian group Never Again is Now.
The group is organising rallies around Australia to campaign against anti-semitism.
Reverend Mark Leach works closely with his daughter Freya Leach, who stood for the Liberal Party for the seat of Balmain in the 2023 state election and is associated with the rightwing Menzies Institute. Mark Leach describes himself as “working to renew the mind and heart of our culture against the backdrop of the radical left, Jihadist Islam and rising authoritarianism.
Leach’s own Twitter account shows that he embraces a range of rightwing causes. He is anti-trans, supports anti-immigration campaigners in the UK and has posted a jolly video of himself with Warren Mundine at a pro-Israeli rally in Melbourne.
Mundine was a No campaign spokesperson for the rightwing group Advance Australia during the Voice referendum.
Leach supports the Christian Lobby and is very critical of Christians who are campaigning for peace.
Anti-semitism exists. The problem is that Reverend Leach’s version of anti-semitism is what international law and human rights bodies regard as protesting against genocidal war crimes.
For #NeverAgainisNow, these atrocities are excusable for a state that is pursuing its right of “self-defence”. And if you don’t agree with that, don’t be surprised if you find yourself branded as not just “anti-semitic” but also a bullying extremist.
As of one week before the local government election, the Never Again is Now was holding a Zoom meeting to organise 400 volunteers to get 50,000 leaflets into the hands of voters at next Saturday’s local election.
This may well be just a dress rehearsal for a much bigger effort at the Federal election, where Advance Australia has announced it is planning to target the Greens.
Wendy Baconis an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at UTS. She has worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is not a member of any political party but is a Greens supporter and long-term supporter of peaceful BDS strategies. Republished from Michael West Media with the author’s permission.
With similar Israel divestment motions having been passed at City of Sydney and Canterbury/Bankstown Councils, many had expected the motion to pass in what is supposed to be one of the most progressive areas of Sydney. Wendy Bacon reports on what went wrong.
INVESTIGATION: By Wendy Bacon
Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and the West Bank is tearing apart local councils in Australia, on top of the angst reverberating around state and federal politics.
Inner West Labor Mayor Darcy Byrne has doubled down on his attack on pro-Palestinian activists at the council’s last election meeting before Australia’s local government elections on September 14.
‘Byrne’s attack echoes an astro-turfing campaign supported by rightwing and pro-Israel groups targeting the Greens in inner city electorates.’
READ MORE: Other articles by Wendy Bacon
With Labor narrowly controlling the council by one vote, the election loomed large over the meeting. It also coincided with a campaign backed by rightwing pro-Israeli groups to eliminate Greens from several inner Sydney councils.
In August, Labor councillors voted down a motion for an audit of whether any Inner West Council (IWC) investments or contracts benefit companies involved in the weapons industry or profit from human rights violations in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The motion that was defeated had also called for an insertion of a general “human rights” provision in council’s investment policy.
With similar motions having been passed at City of Sydney and Canterbury/Bankstown councils, many had expected the motion to pass in what is supposed to be one of the most progressive areas of Sydney.
It could have been a first step towards the Inner West Council joining the worldwide BDS (boycotts, disinvestments and economic sanctions) campaign to pressure Israel to meet its obligations under international law.
MWM sources attest that the ructions at Inner West Council are mirrored elsewhere in local government. This from Randwick in Sydney’s East:
Randwick Council: MWM source
Global to grassroots
Last week, Portland Council in Maine became the fifth United States city to join the campaign this year, while the City of Ixelles in Belgium announced that it had suspended its twinning agreement with the Regional Council of Megiddo in Israel.
When the Inner West motion failed, some Palestinian rights campaigners booed and shouted “shame” at Labor councillors as they sat silently in the chamber. The meeting, which had nearly reached its time limit of five hours, was then adjourned.
Byrne’s alternative motion was debated at last week’s meeting. It restates council’s existing policy and Federal Labor’s current stance that calls for a ceasefire and a two-state solution.
This alternative motion was passed by Labor councillors, with the Greens and two Independents voting against it. Both Independent Councillor Pauline Lockie and Greens Councillor Liz Atkins argued that they were opposing the motion because it did not do or change anything.
The Mayor spent most of his speaking time attacking those involved with protesting at the August meeting. He described their behaviour as “unacceptable, undemocratic and disrespectful”. There is no doubt that the behaviour at the meeting breached the rules of meeting behaviour at some times.
But then Byrne made a much more shocking and unexpected allegation. He said that the “worst element” of the behaviour was that “local Inner West citizens who happened to have a Jewish sounding name, when their names were read out by me because they’d registered . . . to speak, I think all of them were booed and hissed just because their names happened to sound Jewish.”
News Corp propaganda This claim is deeply disturbing. If true, such behaviour would definitely be anti-semitic and racist. But the question is: did such behaviour actually happen? Or does this allegation feed into Byrne’s misleading narrative that had fuelled false News Corporation reports that protesters stormed the meeting?
In fact, the protesters had been invited to the meeting by the Mayor.
This reporter was present throughout the meeting and did not observe anything similar to what the Mayor alleged had happened.
Later in the meeting, the Mayor repeated the allegation that the “booing and hissing of people” based “on the fact that they had a Jewish sounding name constituted anti-semitism”.
Retiring Independent Councillor Pauline Locker intervened: “Sorry, point of order, That isn’t actually what happened. . . . It wasn’t based on their Jewish name.”
But Bryne insisted, “That’s not a point of order — that is what happened. It is what the record shows occurred as does the media reportage.”
Other councillors also distanced themselves from Byrne’s allegation. Independent Councillor John Stamolis also said that although he could not judge how the Mayor or other Labor councillors felt on the evening, he could not agree with Byrne’s description or that it described what other councillors or members of the public experienced on the evening.
Greens Councillor Liz Atkins said that there were different perceptions of what happened on the night. Her perception was that the “booing and hissing” was in relation to support for the substance of the Greens motion for an audit of investments rather than an attack on people who spoke against it.
She also said that credit should be given to pro- Palestinian activists who themselves encouraged people to listen quietly.
Fake antisemitism claims Your reporter asked Rosanna Barbero, who also was present throughout the meeting, what she observed. Barbero was the recipient of this year’s Multicultural NSW Human Rights Medal, recognising her lasting and meaningful contribution to human rights in NSW.
She is also a member of the Inner West Multicultural Network that has helped council develop an anti-racism strategy.
“I did not witness any racist comments,” said Barbero.
Barbero confirmed that she was present throughout the meeting and said: “I did not witness any racist comments. The meeting was recorded so the evidence of that is easy to verify.”
So this reporter, in a story for City Hub, took her advice and went to the evidence in the webcast, which provides a public record of what occurred. The soundtrack is clear. A listener can pick up when comments are made by audience members but not necessarily the content of them.
Bryne has alleged speakers against the motion were booed when their “Jewish sounding’ names were announced. Our analysis shows none of the five were booed or abused in any way when their names were announced.
There was, in fact, silence.
Five speakers identified themselves as Jewish. Four spoke against the motion, and one in favour.
Two of the five were heard in complete silence, one with some small applause at the end.
One woman who spoke in favour of the motion and whose grandparents were in the Holocaust was applauded and cheered at the end of her speech.
One man was interrupted by several comments from the gallery when he said the motion was based on “propaganda and disinformation” and would lead to a lack of social cohesion. He related experiences of anti-semitism when he was at school in the Inner West 14 years ago.
At the conclusion of his speech, there were some boos.
One man who had not successfully registered was added to the speakers list by the Mayor. Some people in the public gallery objected to this decision. The Mayor adjourned the meeting for three minutes and the speaker was then heard in silence.
The speakers in favour of the motion, most of whom had Palestinian backgrounds and relatives who had suffered expulsion from their homelands, concentrated on the war crimes against Palestinians and the importance of BDS motions. There were no personal attacks on speakers against the motion.
In response to a Jewish speaker who had argued that the solution was peace initiatives, one Palestinian speaker said that he wanted “liberation”, not “peace”.
Weaponising accusations of anti-semitism to shut down debate Independent Inner West Councillor Pauline Lockie warned other councillors this week about the need to be careful about weaponising accusations of race and anti-semitism to shut down debates. Like Barbero, Lockie has played a leadership role in developing anti-racism strategies for the Inner West.
There are three serious concerns about Byrne’s allegations. The first concern is that they are not verified by the public record. This raises questions about the Mayor’s judgement and credibility.
The second is that making unsubstantiated allegations of antisemitism for the tactical purposes of winning a political argument demeans the seriousness and tragedy of anti-semitism.
Thirdly, there is a concern that spreading unsubstantiated allegations of anti-semitism could cause harm by spreading fear and anxiety in the Jewish community.
Controversial Christian minister The most provocative speaker on the evening was not one of those who identified themselves as Jewish. It was Reverend Mark Leach, who introduced himself as an Anglican minister from Balmain. When he said that no one could reasonably apply the word “genocide” to what was occurring in Gaza, several people called out his comments.
Given the ICJ finding that a plausible genocide is occurring in Gaza, this was not surprising.
Darcy Byrne then stopped the meeting and gave Reverend Leach a small amount of further time to speak. Later in his speech, Reverend Leach described the motion itself as “deeply racist” because it held Israel accountable above all other states.
Boos for Leach In fact, the motion would have added a general human rights provision to the investment policy which would have applied to any country. Reverend Leach was booed at the conclusion of his speech.
One speaker later said that she could not understand how this Christian minister would not accept that the word “genocide” could be used. This was not an anti-semitic or racist comment.
Throughout the debate, Byrne avoided the issue that the motion only called for an audit.
He also used his position of chair to directly question councillors. The following exchange occurred with Councillor Liz Atkins:
Mayor: Councilor Atkins, can I put to you a question? I have received advice that councillor officers are unaware of any investment from council that is complicit in the Israeli military operations in Gaza and the Palestinian territories. Are you aware of any?
Atkins: No. That’s why the motion asked for an audit of our investments and procurements.
Mayor: I’ll put one further question to you. The organisers of the protest outside the chamber and the subsequent overrunning of the council chamber asserted in their promotion of the event that the council was complicit in genocide. Is that your view?
Atkins: I don’t know. Until we do an audit, Mayor . . . Can I just take exception with the point of view that they “overran” the meeting? You invited them all in, and not one of them tried to get past a simple rope barrier.
Byrne says it’s immoral to support a one-party state During the debate, Byrne surprisingly described support for a one-state solution for Israel and Palestinians as “immoral”. He described support for “one state” as meaning you either supported the wiping out of the Palestinians or the Israelis.
In fact, there is a long history of citizens, scholars and other commentators who have argued that one secular state of equal citizens is the only viable solution.
Many, including the Australian government, do not agree. Nevertheless, the award-winning journalist and expert on the Middle East, Antony Loewenstein, argued that position in The Sydney Morning Herald in November 2023.
Mayor in tune with Better Council Inc campaign All of this debate is happening in the context of the hotly contested election campaign. The Mayor is understandably preoccupied with the impending poll. Rather than debating the issues, he finished the debate by launching an attack on the Greens, which sounded more like an election speech than a speech in reply in support of his motion.
Byrne said: “Some councillors are unwilling to condemn what was overt anti-Semitism”.
This is a heavy accusation. All councillors are strongly opposed to anti-semitism. The record does not show any overt anti-semitism.
Byrne went on: “But the more troubling thing is that there’s a large number of candidates running at this election who, if elected, will be making foreign affairs and this particular issue one of the central concerns of this council.
“This will result in a distraction with services going backwards and rates going up.”
In fact, the record shows that the Greens are just as focused on local issues as any other councillors. Even at last week’s meeting, Councillor Liz Atkins brought forward a motion about controversial moves to install a temporary cafe at Camperdown Park that would privatise public space and for which there had been no consultation.
Labor v Greens Byrne’s message pitting concern about broader issues against local concerns is in tune with the messaging of a recently formed group called Better Council Inc. that is targeting the Greens throughout the Inner West and in Randwick and Waverley.
Placards saying “Put the Greens last”, “Keep the Greens Garbage out of Council” featuring a number of Greens candidates have gone up across Sydney. Some claim that the Greens are fixated on Gaza and ignore local issues.
Better Inc.’s material is authorised by Sophie Calland. She is a recently graduated computer engineer who told the Daily Telegraph that “she was a Labor member and that Better Council involves people from across the political aisle — even some former Greens.”
She described the group as a “grassroots group of young professionals” who wanted local government officials to focus on local issues.
“We believe local councils should concentrate on essential community services like waste management, local infrastructure, and the environment. That’s what councils are there for — looking after the needs of their immediate communities.”
On Saturday, Randwick Greens Councillor Kym Chapple was at a pre-poll booth at which a Better Council Inc. campaigner was handing out material specifically recommending that voters put her last.
Chapple tweeted that the Better councilwoman didn’t actually know that she was a councillor or any of the local issues in which she had been involved.
“That does not look like a local grassroots campaign. It’s an attempt to intimidate people who support a free Palestine. Anyway, it feels gross to have someone say to put you last because they care about the environment and local issues when that’s literally what you have done for three years.”
She then tweeted a long list of her local campaign successes.
Never Again is Now astroturf campaign
In fact, the actual work of distributing the leaflets is being done by a group spearheaded by none other than Reverend Mark Leach, who spoke at the Inner West Council meeting. Leach is one of the coordinators of the pro-Israel right-wing Christian group Never Again is Now.
The group is organising rallies around Australia to campaign against anti-semitism.
Reverend Mark Leach works closely with his daughter Freya Leach, who stood for the Liberal Party for the seat of Balmain in the 2023 state election and is associated with the rightwing Menzies Institute. Mark Leach describes himself as “working to renew the mind and heart of our culture against the backdrop of the radical left, Jihadist Islam and rising authoritarianism.
Leach’s own Twitter account shows that he embraces a range of rightwing causes. He is anti-trans, supports anti-immigration campaigners in the UK and has posted a jolly video of himself with Warren Mundine at a pro-Israeli rally in Melbourne.
Mundine was a No campaign spokesperson for the rightwing group Advance Australia during the Voice referendum.
Leach supports the Christian Lobby and is very critical of Christians who are campaigning for peace.
Anti-semitism exists. The problem is that Reverend Leach’s version of anti-semitism is what international law and human rights bodies regard as protesting against genocidal war crimes.
For #NeverAgainisNow, these atrocities are excusable for a state that is pursuing its right of “self-defence”. And if you don’t agree with that, don’t be surprised if you find yourself branded as not just “anti-semitic” but also a bullying extremist.
As of one week before the local government election, the Never Again is Now was holding a Zoom meeting to organise 400 volunteers to get 50,000 leaflets into the hands of voters at next Saturday’s local election.
This may well be just a dress rehearsal for a much bigger effort at the Federal election, where Advance Australia has announced it is planning to target the Greens.
Wendy Baconis an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at UTS. She has worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is not a member of any political party but is a Greens supporter and long-term supporter of peaceful BDS strategies. Republished from Michael West Media with the author’s permission.
Between tomorrow and Friday, the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre (MCEC) will host a weapons bazaar that ought to be called “The Merchants of Death”.
The times for these merchants are positively bullish, given that total global military expenditure exceeded US$2.4 trillion last year, an increase of 6.8 percent in real terms from 2022.
“The Land Forces 2024 International Land Defence Exposition is the premier platform for interaction between defence, industry and government of all levels, to meet, to do business and discuss the opportunities and challenges facing the global land defence markets.”
The website goes on to describe the Land Defence Exposition as “the premier gateway to the land defence markets of Australia and the region, and a platform for interaction with major prime contractors from the United States and Europe”.
At the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre in 2022, the event attracted 20,000 attendees, 810 “exhibitor organisations” from 25 countries, and ran 40 conferences, symposia and presentations.
From 30 nations, came 159 defence, government, industry and scientific delegations.
Land Forces 2024 is instructive as to how the military-industrial complex manifests. Featured background reading for the event involves, for instance, news about cultivating budding militarists.
Where better to start than in school?
School military ‘pathways’
From August 6, much approval is shown for the $5.1 million Federation Funding Agreement between the Australian government and the state governments of South Australia and West Australia to deliver “the Schools Pathways Programme (SPP)” as part of the Australian government’s Defence Industry Development Strategy.
The programme offers school children a chance to taste the pungent trimmings of industrial militarism — visits to military facilities, “project-based learning” and presentations.
Rather cynically, the SPP co-opts the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) aspect of government policy, carving up a direct link between school study and the defence industry.
“We need more young Australians studying STEM subjects in schools and developing skills for our future workforce,” insisted Education Minister Jason Clare. It is hard to disagree with that, but why weapons?
There is much discontent about the Land Forces exposition.
Victorian Greens MP Ellen Sandell and federal MP for Melbourne Adam Bandt wrote to Premier Jacinta Allan asking her to call off the arms event.
The party noted that such companies as Elbit Systems “and others that are currently fuelling . . . Israel’s genocide in Palestine, where 40,000 people have now been killed — will showcase and sell their products there”.
Demands on Israel dismissed
Allan icily dismissed such demands.
Disrupt Land Forces, which boasts 50 different activist collectives, has been preparing.
Defence Connect reported as early as June 4 that groups, including Wage Peace — Disrupt War and Whistleblowers, Activists and Communities Alliance, were planning to rally against the Land Force exposition.
The usual mix of carnival, activism and harrying have been planned over a week, with the goal of ultimately encircling the MCEC to halt proceedings.
Ahead of the event, the Victorian Labor government, the event’s sponsor, has mobilised 1800 more police officers from the regional areas.
Victorian Police Minister Anthony Carbines did his best to set the mood.
“If you are not going to abide by the law, if you’re not going to protest peacefully, if you’re not going to show respect and decency, then you’ll be met with the full force of the law.”
Warmongering press outlets
Let us hope the police observe those same standards.
Warmongering press outlets, the Herald Sun being a stalwart, warn of the “risks” that “Australia’s protest capital” will again be “held hostage to disruption and confrontation”, given the diversion of police.
Its August 15 editorial demonised the protesters, swallowing the optimistic incitements on the website of Disrupt Land Forces.
The editorial noted the concerns of unnamed senior police fretting about “the potential chaos outside MCEC at South Wharf and across central Melbourne”, the context for police to mount “one of the biggest security operations since the anti-vaccine/anti-lockdown protests at the height of covid in 2021–21 or the World Economic Forum chaos in 2000”.
Were it up to these editors, protesters would do better to stay at home and let the Victorian economy, arms and all, hum along.
The merchants of death could then go about negotiating the mechanics of murder in broad daylight; Victoria’s government would get its blood fill; and Melbournians could turn a blind eye to what oils the mechanics of global conflict.
The protests will, hopefully, shock the city into recognition that the arms trade is global, nefarious and indifferent as to the casualty count.
Dr Binoy Kampmark lectures in global studies at RMIT University. This article was first published by Green Left and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.
More than two in five Australians are reducing meat or don’t eat it at all, with health a major consumption driver. But taste and price remain key challenges for plant-based meats.
Australians are cutting back on meat due to health and price concerns, but adoption of plant-based meats remains low, and their taste is a big reason why.
One in five (21%) of citizens are ‘meat reducers’ – people who are eating less meat but don’t identify as flexitarians – making it the most popular diet in the country, according to a 2,000-person survey conducted by Toluna for think tank Food Frontier.
Respondents were asked to choose from 13 different dietary patterns – 10% said they were vegetarian, 7% flexitarian, and another 5% vegan, meaning that 42% of Australians are either reducing meat or not consuming it at all.
Courtesy: Food Frontier
This year, a quarter of respondents have reduced their meat consumption, while 12% are planning to do so, and 2% have eliminated it altogether. The top three reasons for this were health concerns (61%), budgetary constraints (54%), and climate change (37%) – the latter is a welcome surprise, given the country has one of the largest climate denial rates in the world.
“The cost-of-living crisis may be affecting meat consumption,” suggests Food Frontier CEO Simon Eassom. “Over the past four years, the importance of budget as a motivator for reduced meat consumption has increased significantly, rising from 40% in 2021 to 54% in 2024.”
Plant-based meat needs a taste kick
Courtesy: Food Frontier
The dietary drivers in Australia remain similar across the spectrum. For example, 54% of meat reducers said they were doing so for health, 28% also picked medical reasons, and a third (34%) pointed to climate concerns. In the same vein, flexitarian diets are driven by health considerations (58%), medical reasons (34%) and environmental worries (24%).
Similar to the results in 2021, 79% of Australians go meat-free at least one day a week, with a quarter (24%) doing so for three to four days.
But while meat reduction is popular, plant-based analogues to meat still have some way to go – only 35% of Australians have tried these products (up from 25% three years ago), and just 16% eat them regularly.
Australians are most attracted by plant-based meats’ health benefits (53%). Nearly half (45%) enjoy their taste, 38% recognise their environmental advantages, and 36% do so for ethical reasons. However, this is in contrast with the 70% and 54% of Australians who chose health and environment, respectively, as reasons for liking meat analogues.
Courtesy: Food Frontier
But these products have low repeat purchase rates, with only 22% of Aussies saying they’d buy them again. Poor taste was cited as a barrier by 46% (down from 52% in 2021), followed by their high price (37%, versus 39% three years ago) – this is despite the price premium of plant-based meats narrowing from 49% in 2020 to 33% last year, according to Food Frontier’s 2023 State of the Industry report.
That study also revealed that plant-based meat sales in Australia increased by 47% between 2020 and 2023, with per capita consumption up by 28%.
Meanwhile, 28% of Australians buy both plant-based meats and traditional plant proteins like tofu and lentils, and one in five prefer the former because they don’t know how to cook the latter.
Milk analogues popular in Australia, but climate connection remains low
Courtesy: Food Frontier
Mirroring global trends, plant-based milk seems to be the leader in Australia’s alternative protein space, with two in five respondents (41%) having tried these analogues, and a third (34%) drinking them on the regular.
A similar number of consumers (36%) are likely to repurchase plant-based milk after trying it, the higher among the rest of the foods in the survey. Meanwhile, more consumers have tried vegan ice cream (37%) and would buy them again (25%) compared to meat analogues. But vegan cheese leaves a lot to be desired – only 13% who’ve bought it would do so again.
“The study also aimed to understand Australians’ perceptions of climate change contributors and how these considerations are influencing their dietary choices,” said Eassom. Agriculture makes up 13% of Australia’s emissions, and at least 66% of this comes from livestock farming.
But while 66% of Australians realise that fossil fuels contribute to climate change, less than half said so for food waste (45%) and animal agriculture (44%). And when asked what actions they take to reduce their impact on the planet, 76% noted that they recycle – by far the most popular act. Only 22% and 16% have been cutting out meat and dairy, respectively, to fight the climate crisis.
Courtesy: Food Frontier
“It appears that some Australians are making a connection between animal agriculture and climate change; however, from a list of perceived key contributors to climate change, animal agriculture was selected by the least number of study participants,” said Eassom.
“This would indicate that, despite growing awareness amongst some consumers, more than half of Australians are either unaware or not concerned about the relationship between food production and climate change.”
The survey also looked at Aussie attitudes towards pet food, finding that consumers are split on their willingness to change their furry friends’ diets. More pet owners would buy wet pet food with ethically raised meat (49%) or minimal animal ingredients (44%) than products with no animal inputs (38%).
“That pet owners are interested in switching to other foods as long as they are nutritionally sufficient demonstrates a market for sustainable and innovative pet food options, mirroring the growing interest in diverse protein sources in human diets,” Eassom said. “In response to this, we are seeing a number of companies exploring alternative proteins, including cultivated meat, in pet food production.
Pro-Palestinian anti-war activists in Australia have protested in Melbourne, disrupting a defence expo set to open on Wednesday.
Protesters gathered yesterday in front of companies connected to weapons manufacturing across Melbourne as police were called to prevent an escalation of the events, according to 7News Melbourne.
Many police cars and units were visible in front of company buildings to prevent an escalation of the protests.
Protests are expected to move across the city to different areas ahead of the Land Forces Military Expo on Wednesday, with more than 25,000 participants, potentially one of the biggest in the country in decades.
On Sunday, Extinction Rebellion activists blocked Montague Street near the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre where the expo is being held.
Pro-Palestinian protesters in Australia have been urging the government to impose sanctions on Israel for its genocidal war on Gaza.
Israel has continued a devastating military offensive in the Gaza Strip since an attack by Hamas resistance forces on October 7, 2023, despite a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire.
More than 40,000 Palestinians have since been killed, mostly women and children, and more than 91,700 wounded, according to local health authorities.
As the Israeli war enters its 12th month, vast tracts of Gaza lie in ruins amid a crippling blockade of food, clean water, and medicine.
Israel has also intensified its attacks on the Occupied West Bank in recent weeks, killing at least 692 Palestinians.
Extinction Rebellion disruption
Formed in 2018, Extinction Rebellion has employed disruptive tactics targeting roads and airports to denounce the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, reports Al Jazeera.
However, since the war on Gaza, they have also taken a strong position on the fighting and have called for an immediate ceasefire.
“If we believe in climate and ecological justice, we must seek justice in all forms. The climate and ecological emergency has roots in centuries of colonial violence, exploitation and oppression,” the UK-based group said in a statement in November.
Australian startup Carbonaught has received financing from Better Bite Ventures for its low-emission agriculture tech, which sequesters carbon, fixes nitrogen and increases production through basalt.
Carbonaught, an Australian agtech startup turning rocks into carbon-sequestering fertilisers, has obtained fresh capital from Singaporean VC firm Better Bite Ventures.
The investment (whose sum is undisclosed) is part of the latter’s First Bite financing scheme for climate-tackling food startups at different stages, from idea and early prototyping to validation.
Carbonaught’s technology taps enhanced rock weathering, a technique that accelerates chemical reactions between rocks, water and air by spreading ground rocks like basalt onto surfaces. This helps remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in rocks.
While weathering is a natural process that has happened for millions of years, startups like Carbonaught are speeding up the process to bring benefits to the planet, farmers, as well as the carbon market, enabling “a system where all parties win”.
This is also why Better Bite Ventures has backed the Queensland-based company. “We are looking forward to seeing the team helping make enhanced rock weathering a core part of the global agricultural system, and in the process taking a real bite out of fertiliser emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide,” said Simon Newstead, founding partner at the VC firm.
The farming potential of enhanced rock weathering
Carbonaught founders Andrew Pedley and James Lyons | Courtesy: Carbonaught
When it rains, the water combines with the carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere to form carbonic acid. As it falls on mountains and farmland, the gas mineralises after interacting with the rocks and soil, and is stored as solid carbonate.
But enhanced rock weathering makes this process dramatically faster. It is becoming increasingly popular as a climate solution, with a host of players including InPlanet, Undo, Vesta, Eion and Lithos Carbon.
For Carbonaught – founded in 2021 by CEO Andrew Pedley and CTO James Lyons – this involves using crushed pieces of basalt that increase the contact between the rain and the rock, and therefore weathering.
The carbonic acid melts the basalt to release nutrients like calcium, phosphorus, magnesium and potassium, helping plants grow and reducing the acidity in soil. The process also absorbs carbon dioxide permanently to form stable carbon minerals.
According to Carbonaught, a 25-tonne basalt carpet using standard farming machinery, will break down and release 500 kgs each of phosphorus and potassium, and 2,000 kgs each of calcium and magnesium.
Its process offers three emissions reduction paths. The first involves replacing up to half of conventional synthetic fertiliser use with higher nitrogen-fixing efficiency. Then there’s permanent carbon removal, which is enabled by soil inorganic carbon that transforms atmospheric CO2 into stable carbonate minerals.
And finally, Carbonaught also helps with non-permanent carbon removal, with the release of essential nutrients creating conditions like increased soil PH to promote microbial growth and the accumulation of soil organic carbon.
Carbonaught overcomes key obstacles in weathering tech
Courtesy: Carbonaught
Farmers have reaped the benefits of volcanic ash for centuries, allowing them to lower their dependency on fertilisers. But there have been several roadblocks keeping enhanced rock weathering from widespread adoption.
Connecting mines and quarries with farmers, growers and end buyers is a complex exercise, while trustworthy measurement and verification schemes are lacking. That has made it hard to prove that the effects are fast and large enough to justify farmers adopting the practice.
Carbonaught’s platform aims to solve these challenges, with a platform that opens the door for the efficient sourcing and distribution of crushed basalt, provides modelling and application guidance for farmers on-site, and carries out deep measurement and verification to validate soil health and emissions benefits. It also has a marketplace to connect growers of these low-emission crops to buyers.
This offers benefits to everyone. Rock providers get a new revenue stream; farmers get better yields, soil health, and savings on costly fertilisers; and buyers get verified low-carbon products. And the accelerated nature of the process keeps things financially viable.
Carbonaught is deploying its technology in trials in Australia and the US. In the former, it’s implementing its weathering technique on a sugarcane farm, as well as banana plantations and orange orchards, while helping validate its potential on an avocado and macadamia farm.
The startup’s prospects were recognised by the Queensland government too, which awarded it an A$74,800 ($50,000) grant earlier this year as part of its Ignite Spark funding scheme.
Fertilisers are one of five focus areas in the latest round of Better Bite Ventures’ First Bite scheme, which also involves rice production, palm oil, cocoa and coffee, and food waste. In June, it invested in Singapore-based ag-fintech AgriG8, which is helping Asian farmers reduce methane emissions from rice production.
Disclaimer: Green Queen founder and editor-in-chief Sonalie Figueiras is a Venture Partner at Better Bite Ventures.
Power should only ever be vested carefully, and certainly not in the hands of mining magnate Gina Rinehart, a creature so comically absurd as to warrant immediate dismissal in any respectable commentary. But Australia’s richest human being demands to be noticed, given the insensible influence she continues to exert in press and policy circles. Rants of smelly suggestion become pearls of perfumed wisdom, often occasioned by large amounts of largesse she disgorges on her sycophantic following.
Of late, she has been busy in her narcissistic daftness. At the National Bush Summit held last month, she proved particularly unstoppable. While advertised as a News Corp project backed by a number of Australian corporate heavies (NBN, CommBank, Woolworths and Qantas), Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting left its unmistakable mark. The events offered a Rinehart Hall of Mirrors, self-reflecting her purchased eminence. She funded much of it; she structured it; she brought the necessary tyrannical boredom in tow.
Before remarking on some of the observations, brief mention should be made about the source of Rinehart’s animal spirit. One should never condemn, outright, the children for the sins of their parents. But she is the exception that proves the rule. Her father, Lang Hancock, was an elemental Australian version of a 20th century conquistador, an enterprising plunderer of the land and equally immune to cultural refinements and such novel notions as human rights. With barbaric clarity and genocidal suggestion, he proposed in 1984 that unassimilated members of the Indigenous populace be given the following treatment: “dope up the water up, so that they were sterile and would breed themselves out in the future and that would solve the problem.”
At the Port Hedland leg of the Bush Summit, Rinehart fantasised about having the military styled comforts offered by the US firm Rafael Advanced Defense Systems in 2011 to Israel. The Iron Dome system, used to shield Israel from rocket attacks, could just as well be deployed in Australia. But instead of focusing on protecting civilians, the batteries would be invaluable in protecting Rinehart’s own mining assets in the Pilbara.
A gorged ego, the country’s perceived welfare and mining interests are all fused in an unsteady mix of justified plunder under the cover of military protection for Hancock Prospecting. “It is no good having the resources of the Pilbara unless we can ship it out. Hence, we should have defence to keep our railways and ports open, and defend our sea lanes.” To the defensive dome could also be added “war drones, and smart sea mines.”
The next target in this spray of barking madness was government regulation – at least the sort that impairs her extractive practices. With brattish petulance, she even claimed that Canada had treated the mining industry with greater aplomb and respect, despite having, in her words, a “socialist” Prime Minister in the form of Justin Trudeau. Various taxes, such as the Fringe Benefits Tax, should be ditched, given the damage it was doing to Northern Australia.
Others in the primary industry market such as farmers and pastoralists also deserved relief from the stifling burden of red tape. “The size, expense, and intrusion of government has all grown massively in recent times, adding to businesses costs, record business failures, rising house costs and our own living costs, and delaying revenue earning projects.” Some of these observations are far from untrue, but coming from Rinehart, they suggest a grotesque self-interest at work.
In Bendigo, Victoria, her video address fumed at the state of Australia’s “woke” education system. Australia’s children and grandchildren, some “as young as three in pre-schools” were “being let down” by insidious practices, including lessons on the evils of the police and plastics. “They and others in school classes are no longer taught to be proud of our country, quite the opposite.”
Such vulnerable creatures, made to feel anxious about the effects of climate change, were also being deprived of a true understanding of mining, coal and iron ore. “In the entire high school curriculum iron ore is referenced only twice,” she sulks. “Yet climate change and renewable energy are mentioned 48 times.”
All liberal democracies face similar challenges: how to make sure the thick of mind remain distracted and resistant to riot, and keeping the malevolently wealthy contained within the realm of accountability. Rinehart’s commentaries suggest a desire to escape that orbit of accountability, operating as an unelected politician’s wish list. And being unelected is exactly how she likes it. The compromise and messiness of parliamentary debate and the making of policy would prove too excruciating and intolerable. Far better to intimidate elected representatives from afar, using platoons of paid-up lobbyists, consultants and cheering propagandists. When feeling generous, give them a confessional platform to ask forgiveness for their sins.
Were the fossil fuel lobby to be equipped with actual weapons, a coup would not be off the cards. A few Australian prime ministers have already had their heads, politically speaking, served on a platter to the mining industry, with Rinehart’s blessings. A depressing conclusion can thereby be drawn. Australia is a country where rule is exercised by those outside parliament. It’s Rinehart on minerals and metals and the Pentagon and the US military complex on weapons and military bases. What a stupendous state of affairs Australians find themselves in.
Sydney-based Harrison.ai has launched a new AI model to help radiologists analyse and interpret their patients’ x-rays, proving twice as effective as major large language models. On Thursday, the company launched Harrison.rad.1, which can generate specialised reports based on a particular patient’s context and clinical history and enables radiologists to ask open-ended questions about x-ray…
Vegvisir has supplied the Australian Army with Vegvisir’s Mixed Reality based situational awareness solution to enhance its sensor systems and to enable Army to explore whether mixed reality improves the efficiency of platforms the Australian Army has converted to uncrewed and optionally crewed vehicles. Vegvisir’s situational awareness system uses vehicle-mounted cameras, an immersive headset, and […]
The US State Department has greenlighted Australia’s request for sustainment services for its future fleet of Boeing AH-64E Apache attack helicopters under the Foreign MilitarySales (FMS) scheme, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on 23 August. The proposed deal for AH-64E Apache Sustainment Support Services and associated equipment is worth an estimated cost of […]
If you ask Elli Hanson about the barriers facing Australian startups and founders in a US-centric VC world, she’ll tell you it has a lot to do with our humility and the social phenomenon known as tall poppy syndrome. “Australian founders hold this incredibly profound quiet confidence, but don’t want to talk about the things…
Between September 11 and 13, the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre (MCEC) will play host to a bazaar of networking and deal making as part of a show that really ought to be called The Merchants of Death Down Under. And the times for these merchants are positively bullish, given that total global military expenditure exceeded US$2.4 trillion in 2023, an increase of 6.8% in real terms from 2022.
The introductory note to the event is, typically in the lingo of the industry, mildly innocuous, even dull. “The Land Forces 2024 International Land Defence Exposition is the premier platform for interaction between defence, industry and government of all levels, to meet, to do business and discuss the opportunities and challenges facing the global land defence markets.”
In greater detail, the website goes on to describe the Land Defence Exposition as “the premier gateway to the land defence markets of Australia and the region, and a platform for interaction with major prime contractors from the United States and Europe.” When it was held in 2022 at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, the event attracted 20,000 attendees, 810 “exhibitor organisations” from 25 countries, and ran 40 conferences, symposia and presentations. From 30 nations came 159 defence, government, industry and scientific delegations.
Land Forces 2024 is instructive into how the military-industrial complex manifests. Featured background reading for the event involves, for instance, news about cultivating budding militarists and numb any disturbing tendencies towards peacemaking. And where better to start than in school, where things have yet to even bud? From August 6, much approval is shown for the A$5.1 million Federation Funding Agreement between the Australian government and the state governments of South Australian and West Australia to deliver “the Schools Pathways Program (SPP)” as part of the Australian government’s Defence Industry Development Strategy. The program offers school children a chance to taste the pungent trimmings of industrial militarism: visits to military facilities, “project-based learning”, and attend presentations.
Rather cynically, the SPP co-opts the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) aspect of government policy, carving up a direct link between school study and the defence industry. “We need more young Australians studying STEM subjects in schools and develop skills for our future workforce,” insists the Australian Minister for Education, Jason Clare. Hard to disagree with the proposition, but why make things so blatantly easy for the Merchants of Death?
Mutterings of discontent have registered against the Land Forces exposition. Ellen Sandell, a Victorian member of parliament and leader of the Victorian Greens, and Adam Bandt, the federal member for Melbourne and leader of the Australian Greens, have written to the state Premier Jacinta Allan to call off the arms event. The party notes that such companies as Elbit Systems “and others that are currently fuelling … Israel’s genocide in Palestine, where 40,000 people have now been killed – will showcase and sell their products there.” Like most state premiers in Australia, Allan sees dollars before principles, icily dismissing such demands.
The protest outfit Disrupt Land Forces, one that so far boasts 50 different activist collectives, has been gathering some steam. As early as June 4, the publishing outlet Defence Connectreported movement on the activist front, with groups such as Wage Peace – Disrupt War and Whistleblowers, Activists & Communities Alliance planning to rally against the Land Force exposition.
On its website the group writes that it “hassled Land Forces out of Magandjin (Brisbane)” in 2022. The prospects look even better now for a re-run. “Imagine what we can do now, in Narrm (Melbourne).” Various activities are anticipated stretching over a week, a usual mix of carnival, activism, harrying – especially the arms dealers – with the goal of gathering 25,000 people who will ultimately encircle the MCEC and cause a halt to proceedings.
Ahead of the event, the Victorian Labor government, the event’s satisfied sponsor, is already anticipating trouble, seeing the threat to peace from protestors as far more profound than boardroom arms dealers making deals in the shadow of death. A further 1,800 police officers are being mobilised, drawn from the regional areas of the state.
The Victorian Minister for Police, Anthony Carbines, did his best to set the mood. “If you are not going to abide by the law, if you’re not going to protest peacefully, if you’re not going to show respect and decency, then you’ll be met with the full force of the law.” Let’s hope the police observe those same standards.
Warmongering press outlets, The Herald Sun being a perennial stalwart, warn of the “risks” that “Australia’s protest capital” will again be “held hostage to disruption and confrontation” given the diversion of police. Its editorial of August 15 gives the protestors a flatteringly demon tinge, treating the projected number of 25,000 attendees quite literally, swallowing whole the optimistic incitements on the website of Disrupt Land Force group.
The editorial also notes the concerns of unnamed senior members of the police force who fret about “the potential chaos outside MCEC at South Wharf and across central Melbourne”, one that compelled the forces to mount “one of the biggest security operations since the anti-vaccine/anti-lockdown protests at the height of Covid in 2021-21 or the World Economic Forum chaos in 2000.”
Were it up to the editors, protesting activists would do far better to stay at home and let the Victorian economy, arms and all, hum along. The merchants of death could go about negotiating the mechanics of murder in broad daylight; the Victorian government would get its blood fill; and Melbournians could turn a blind eye to what oils the mechanics of global conflict. The forthcoming protests will, hopefully, shock the city into recognition that the arms trade is global, nefarious and indifferent to the casualty count.
The challenges of the 21st century are too great for any nation to tackle them alone—especially in the realm of defense and security. That’s why interest among responsible powers is growing in collaboration generally but also with advanced new programs specifically. A case in point is with collaborative combat aircraft, known as CCAs. These highly […]
Australia has a young but burgeoning precision fermentation sector, but to meet its potential, it needs a big helping hand from the government.
It may only be home to six companies, but Australia’s precision fermentation ecosystem is already the largest across Asia-Pacific.
Ingredients made from this technology can contribute to the country’s AU$13B ($8.8B) opportunity to expand and diversify protein production, as forecast by Australia’s science research agency CSIRO. Additionally, precision fermentation could help meet the predicated additional domestic and export demand of 8.5 million tonnes of protein by 2030.
This is according to non-profit Cellular Agriculture Australia, which has published a new report exploring the country’s potential and challenges around precision fermentation.
Currently, there are five startups – Nourish Ingredients, Eden Brew, Daisy Lab, All G Foods, and Eclipse Ingredients – and an ASX-listed company (Noumi) working in the precision fermentation sector in Australia and New Zealand, while Change Foods has origins in Australia and Cauldron Ferm provides contract manufacturing solutions.
These companies are proteins like whey, casein, and bovine and human lactoferrin, as well as fats for better meat and dairy analogues. But as costs continue to be prohibitive, there has been an increased focus on lactoferrin, a high-value ingredient that makes things economically viable in the current landscape.
Cost and scalability are among a number of challenges facing the precision fermentation industry in Australia, including a lack of funding for open-access foundational research, high prices and a lack of clarity for regulatory applications, as well as limited government interest.
To counter that, Cellular Agriculture Australia has posited key policy recommendations for the Australian government to realise the full potential of precision fermentation, centred across research, manufacturing and regulation.
This could help the country “enhance its sovereign capability in biotechnology and food manufacturing, whilst supporting jobs and productivity”, argues the organisation.
It comes after a scorecard on government support for alternative proteins by fellow Aussie think tank Food Frontier placed Australia at the bottom of the list of 10 nations, identifying it as the only country in its analysis to not have a national strategy that included alternative proteins.
Taking science and research to the next level
Courtesy: Nourish Ingredients
The report calls on the Department of Education to place cellular agriculture as a research and infrastructure priority in the next National Research Infrastructure Roadmap. Due in 2026, this outlines the research infrastructure required over the coming decade, informing government actions to increase innovation.
The education department should also recognise foods as a priority application of synthetic biology through precision fermentation in the updated National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS), also due in 2026.
At the moment, synthetic biology is noted as a Step Change area in the NCRIS, which allows nationwide investments in infrastructure by coordinating open-access and targeted specialities, and prioritising scale-up and research translation.
Meanwhile, the think tank urges the Department of Industry, Science and Resources to consider cellular agriculture as “technologies for producing food under likely future Australian climate conditions” in the revitalised 2024 National Science and Research Priorities.
These priorities focus on government support for science and research, and influence the research projects universities submit for funding. This effort should further consider precision fermentation and other cellular agriculture techniques as having significant potential in helping the government reach its net-zero goal.
Pouring capital to scale up manufacturing
Courtesy: Cauldron Ferm
When it comes to the manufacturing sector, Cellular Agriculture Australia highlights the importance of increased federal investments into pilot and commercial-scale facilities to scale up precision-fermented products. One way to do this would be to expand the scope of the Future Made in Australia to include cellular agriculture and food as key opportunities.
The report recommends the Department of Industry, Science and Resources adopt cellular agriculture technologies in the government’s innovation agenda – in particular, within the proposed national bioeconomy strategy. In a similar move last month, India included smart proteins in its bioeconomy policy.
Meanwhile, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources is called upon to explicitly reference cellular agriculture tech in documents like the National Reconstruction Fund (NRF) Co-investment Plans, which would “unlock substantive funding opportunities” for precision fermentation players.
The think tank notes how existing policies are limited in their ability to fund first-of-a-kind facilities, with NRF investments only provided to projects with positive returns on investment. So the government should also consider additional financing schemes to bridge this gap.
Both federal and state administrations must look into flexible incentive packages – such as government-funded debt, corporate tax holidays, below-market input prices, and leaseback arrangements – to encourage investment in precision fermentation facilities. These can also be implemented through existing policy mechanisms like the NRF.
Advancing the regulatory framework for precision fermentation
Courtesy: Eden Brew
Already, the joint regulator Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) has approved precision-fermented ingredients from overseas companies, such as Impossible Foods’ soy leghemoglobin (or heme), Cargill’s EverSweet stevia sweetener, and certain infant formulas with fermentation-derived milk oligosaccharides.
Within the wider cellular agriculture space, the FSANZ is also considering an application from Sydney-based startup Vow to sell its cultivated meat in the countries. But to date, it hasn’t approved any precision-fermented ingredients as major food components (like dairy proteins).
The FSANZ’s regulatory framework has been a barrier for many companies. For example, Vow’s approval was expected to take 12 months, but is now approaching two years – precision fermentation has a similar regulatory timeline. Plus, filing a dossier is expensive, with companies having to pay AU$195,000 ($132,000) if they want things to be fast-tracked.
So there’s a lot of room for improvement and streamlining, starting with removing or reducing the high costs associated with submitting food safety assessments. But the FSANZ would itself benefit from increased resources from the Department of Health and Aged Care, states Cellular Agriculture Australia. This would expand its capacity to deal with applications and help the industry be competitive internationally.
The health department could also authorise changes to the FSANZ act, which would streamline approvals for genetically engineered foods. For instance, the regulator could be empowered to accept risk assessments from international jurisdictions to speed up timelines and reduce costs for novel food applications.
Australia’s precision fermentation value chain has a ton of capabilities, thanks to its “robust research capability, a collaborative ecosystem of companies, a well-established regulatory system, and an emerging commercial landscape”, according to Cellular Agriculture Australia CEO Sam Perkins.
“We have all the puzzle pieces here, but government support is crucial to advancing the sector and ensuring Australian companies remain onshore,” he said. “The window of opportunity for this is finite.”
The tiltrotor V-22 Osprey has a plagued, bloodied history. But blighted as it is, the aircraft remains a cherished feature of the US Marines, regarded as vital in supporting combat assault, logistics and transport, not to mention playing a role in search-and-rescue missions and delivering equipment for the Navy carrier air wings.
In March this year, V-22 flights were again permitted after a three-month pause following a fatal crash on November 29 of an Air Force CV-22B off Yakushima Island, Japan and the grounding of all V-22S aircraft in early December. Col. Brian Taylor, program manager for the V-22 Joint Program Office, told a media roundtable two days prior to rescinding the ground order that a “meticulous and data-driven approach” had been used in investigations.
The approach, however, may well have been less meticulous and data-driven than a matter of desperation and self-interest, not to mention the role the aircraft is intended to play in the lighter, more agile forms of conflict envisaged by the “Force Design 2030” strategy. A feature of that strategy is EABO, known to the military wonks as Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations.
Bryan Clark, senior fellow and director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology, offers a blunt assessment. “There’s not a clear backup for the Marines, there’s not a clear backup for the Air Force, and soon there won’t be a backup for the Navy’s [carrier onboard delivery] mission.”
The Osprey’s failures have also left their spatter in Australia. On August 27, 2023 a V-22B Osprey with 23 US marines crashed to the north of Darwin on Melville Island, leading to three fatalities. Darwin, having become a vital springboard in projecting US power in the Indo-Pacific, hosts an annual Marine Rotational Force, so-called to avoid suspicions of a permanent garrisoning of the city.
The crash also stirred unwanted memories of a previous Osprey crash in Australia, when a Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 265 failed to safely land on the flight deck of USS Green Bay on August 5, 2017. That lethal occasion saw three deaths and 23 injuries.
The Osprey has pride of place in a military force that specialises in lethal aviation mishaps during training and routine operations. Join the US Armed Forces, and you might just get yourself killed by your own machinery and practices. The investigation into the Melville Island crash was instructive to that end, showing the aircraft to be, yet again, an object of pious reverence in US defence circles.
The initial investigation into the crash was initially eclectic: the Northern Territory police, fire and emergency services, along with personnel from the Australian Defence Force and the US Marine Corps. At the time, acting assistant commissioner and incident controller, Matthew Hollamby, expressed his enthusiasm in carrying out a “thorough investigation”. “We are in the recovery phase and working closely with NT Fire and Rescue Service to assist us with a safe and respectful recovery operation of the three deceased US marines.”
Despite such utterances, it soon became clear that any investigation into the matter would ultimately be pared back. Either the servitors were not considered up to the task, or all too capable in identifying what caused the crash. In September 2023, the local press reported that territory officials were no longer needed, with NT News going so far as to claim that local agencies had been “ousted from the investigation”. The Marines had taken full reins over the matter.
The top brass accordingly got the findings they wanted from the US Marines’ official report, which involved sparing the Osprey and chastising the personnel. There had been no “material or mechanical failure of any component on the aircraft”. The crash had been “caused by a series of poor decisions and/or miscalculations.”
The squadron’s attitude to procedure had also been less than enviable, marked by a “culture that disregarded safety of flight procedures”. There had been a “lack of attention to detail and failure to comply with proper pre-flight procedures”. There had also been a “lackadaisical attitude across the squadron” towards maintenance practices. Command responsibility in not addressing that particular culture was also acknowledged, while the conduct of the Australian Defence Forces and “local nationals” in responding to the crash were deemed “admirable”.
Such reports are hardly intended as ironic, but the executive summary notes how Australian defence protocols were so developed as to enable the Marines to operate with even greater daring than they otherwise would. The ADF’s “casualty evacuation (CASEVAC) and mass casualty (MASSCAS) support structure is allowing Marine units to conduct multi-national military training events in the Northern Territories without sacrificing force requirements. Without these well-established relationships in place this mishap may have been more tragic.”
The findings should have given the then Northern Territory Chief Minister Eva Lawler pause for concern. Squadrons of personnel operating such machinery indifferent to safety would surely stir some searching questions. But NT officials, under the eagle eye of the Canberra military establishment, aim to please, and Lawler proved no different. She knew “that the US Marines will do the work that’s needed now to make sure that any recommendations out of any inquiry are implemented in full.”
In a statement of unconvincing worth, the Marines insisted that they remained “unwavering” in their “commitment to the world class training of our aircrews and ensuring their safety”. And that commitment, not to mention the type of training, is precisely what we should be afraid of.
The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and Australian industry conducted their first direct maintenance task on a nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), as part of preparations to host and subsequently operate its own fleet of SSNs. The Submarine Tendered Maintenance Period (STMP) on the US Navy’s Virginia-class SSN USS Hawaii was performed at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia with […]
In a speech delivered at the ANU’s Centre for Asian-Australian Leadership on 19 August, Foreign Minster Penny Wong announced changes to the Australian Government’s New Colombo Plan (NCP). The speech—worth watching in full—outlined the government’s reforms to the now 10-year-old Indo-Pacific student mobility scheme, including:
A doubling of the number high-value NCP Scholarships awarded to support long duration study of (up to 19 months) in the Indo-Pacific from 150 per annum to (presumably) 300 per annum;
A new emphasis on the scheme funding Indo-Pacific experiences that cultivate language learning and broader “Asia literacy” capabilities among participating Australian students; and
Raising of the minimum duration of offshore Indo-Pacific experience under the NCP’s Mobility Program to four weeks (previously two weeks).
The motivations behind these reforms—the renewed emphasis on language learning, a desire to see more Australian students up in the Indo-Pacific for longer duration experiences, and a rebalancing of the NCP away from the two-week study tours that have characterised the first 10 years of the scheme, are good and worthy goals. But it remains to be seen if the changes announced last week will actually deliver on these ambitions.
The NCP has achieved an extraordinary amount in a relatively short span of time. In its first six years between 2014 and 2019, the NCP increased the number of Australian domestic undergraduates studying in the Indo-Pacific annually by 83%—from 8,437 students in 2014 to 15,440 students in 2019.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
It has nearly doubled the number of Australian undergraduates studying in Indonesia and India annually, and nearly tripled the numbers studying in Vietnam and Malaysia.
Source: Australian Universities International Directors’ Forum (AUIDF). CLICK TO ENLARGE
This achievement has been driven overwhelmingly by expansion of Australian undergraduate participation in short format learning abroad experiences of four weeks or less in duration. In 2019, the year before the pandemic, a record 15,440 domestic undergraduate students undertook learning abroad experiences in the Indo-Pacific. Eleven thousand (or 73%) of these experiences were of four weeks or less in duration. Only 11% (or about 1,800) of these experiences were students studying for a semester or longer in the Indo-Pacific.
Source: Australian Universities International Directors’ Forum (AUIDF). CLICK TO ENLARGE
[an] increased number and diversity of Australian university graduates with Indo-Pacific capability and Asia literacy;
deeper people-to-people and institutional relationships between Australia and the Indo-Pacific; and
students and alumni connected with leaders in government, business and civil society in the Indo-Pacific.
Over the NCP’s first decade, these objectives have, in practice, often been in tension with one another. The tension originates in the NCP’s design and dual nature as both an education program and an instrument of Australian foreign policy.
Australian universities have spent most of the first decade of the NCP trying to convince the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) of the educational outcomes and access, equity and inclusion benefits delivered by short duration learning abroad experiences. Under its previous settings the NCP has inarguably delivered on the “diversity” aspect of the scheme’s first objective. There are thousands upon thousands of Australian students who have enjoyed two-week introductory experiences of the Indo-Pacific under the NCP Mobility Program since 2014. These are students who now have passports, who have experienced international travel—many for the first time—who otherwise would not have.
However, these outcomes have, arguably, been achieved at the expense of the NCP’s other objectives—specifically the depth of “Indo-Pacific capability and Asia literacy” attained by NCP alumni, and the strength and durability of people-to-people relationships arising from these short visits to the Indo-Pacific by Australian students.
Foreign policy imperatives strike back
These shortcomings have been noticed by some in Australian foreign policy circles. The Lowy Institute’s Susannah Patton wrote in November 2022 that:
The impact of the NCP in improving Australia’s relationships with Southeast Asia is almost certainly low. The overwhelming majority of students receiving funding under the scheme…are recipients of “mobility grants”, which fund only short-term placements or travel…Qualitative academic research on the experiences of students travelling to Indonesia for short-term placements indicates that while short-term study tours may be “thought provoking”, they are unlikely to forge enduring connections to the country.
“The government should…reshape the New Colombo Plan to focus more on long-term study opportunities to ensure it is meeting its original goal of strengthening Australia’s relationships with countries in the broader Indo-Pacific.”
While prioritisation of longer duration experiences in the Indo-Pacific has been a feature of DFAT’s guidelines to universities since 2014, the raising of the minimum duration for NCP-funded mobility experiences under the 2025 guidelines is the Department’s most muscular pressing of this particular point yet.
Where to from here?
Australian universities are not yet very good at getting domestic undergraduates up to the Indo-Pacific for longer duration study—not, at least, at the scale or in the numbers desired by DFAT. The reasons for this are layered and complex. There are both student demand-side and university supply-side barriers. In short, the opportunity costs of heading up to the Indo-Pacific for semester or longer are high for most Australian students. This constrains the demand for such experiences—approximately 1,800 students nationally in 2019. Averaged across Australia’s 42 universities this equates to just 40 students per institution heading up to the Indo-Pacific for a semester or longer each year.
This is an uneconomically small number of students for Australian universities to accommodate within bespoke course offerings or degree programs. This is particularly the case in an Australian higher education environment characterised since 2017 by capped Commonwealth funding for the teaching of domestic students, and the universities’ consequent drive towards course and degree program rationalisation.
Efforts to overcome the supply-side barriers have been—and remain—particularly neglected. Existing NCP settings provide little to no meaningful institutional funding for universities, at least not of the sort or quantum required to make the universities want to serve DFAT’s aim of longer duration Indo-Pacific study by domestic students.
Consequently, the NCP has been wholly unsuccessful in motivating the kind of structural change required within the Australian higher education system that might see greater numbers of domestic students studying for a semester or longer in the region. The required structural change includes, most importantly, new courses and degree programs with clear, curriculum embedded pathways to a semester or longer in the Indo-Pacific.
DFAT’s approach to achieving the NCP’s objectives can be illuminatingly contrasted with recent interventions into Australian higher education by the Commonwealth Departments of Health and Defence. Rather than offer grants and scholarships to students, these departments have provided funding directly to Australian universities to set up and deliver courses that serve their particular departmental objectives.
Nothing in the latest reforms announced by the foreign minister is likely fix the NCP’s supply-side constraints or make Australian universities want to send domestic students up to the Indo-Pacific for a semester or longer in numbers above the prevailing modest level.
Conclusion: A slightly undercooked experiment for 2025
In taking two-week and three-week experiences off the table from 2025, the foreign minister has thrown down the gauntlet to Australian universities, inviting them to both build upon and level-up from the comparatively low-hanging fruit of the two-week study tours that have characterised the NCP’s first decade.
Learning abroad staff working at Australian universities are typically creative, resourceful and mission-driven people. They will likely do their best to adapt to the NCP’s new settings and extend the duration of their students’ sojourning in the Indo-Pacific beyond the new four-week minimum. It is unfortunate, though, that the Australian government has not yet buttressed the enthusiasm of these learning abroad staff with a revenue signal to vice-chancellors and faculty deans of a kind and quantum that might make university leadership prioritise and centre long duration learning abroad to the Indo-Pacific within university course and degree structures.
Declaration of Interest/Disclaimer: ACICIS has received over $19 million since 2014 in Australian Government funding through the New Colombo Plan to support over 4,000 Australian undergraduate students’ participation in the consortium’s short format and semester programs in Indonesia.
Hanwha Aerospace completed the construction of the H-ACE in Geelong, Australia, marking the first overseas production base established by a Korean defense company. AS9 Self-Propelled Howitzer, AS10 Armoured Ammunition Resupply Vehicle, and the Redback Infantry Fighting Vehicle will be manufactured at the facility. Hanwha Aerospace is accelerating its entry into the AUKUS markets through the […]
The problem with satellite states and subject powers is that their representatives are rarely to be trusted, especially on matters regarding security. Their idea of safety and assurance is tied up in the interests of some other power, one who supposedly guarantees it through a promised force of arms come the place and come the time. The guarantee is often a sham one, variable in accordance with the self-interest of the guardian. In the case of the United States, the island continent of Australia is only useful as an annexure of Washington’s goal: maintaining less the illusion of a Pax Americana than a state of threatened military aggression against any upstart daring to vex an empire.
In an interview with the Weekend Australian published on August 16, Republican Representative Michael McCaul, chair of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, did something few Australian politicians or think tankers dare do: offer a bracingly frank assessment about the military intentions of the AUKUS security pact. Forget the peaceful dimension here. A militarised, garrisoned Australia is essential to maintaining US military supremacy – on the pretext of maintaining the peace, naturally.
Australia’s vastness and geography has always mesmerised explorers, writers and planners of the military inclination. In the case of McCaul, Australia was to be praised as offering “key advantages” in deterring China. “It is the central base of operations in the Indo-Pacific to counter the threat.”
In the scheme of things, the northern city of Darwin was vital. “If you really look at the concentric circles emanating from Darwin – that is the base of operations, and the rotating (US) forces there are providing the projection of power and force that we’re seeing in the region.” On Sky News, the congressman went so far as to call Darwin “the epicentre of the organisation projecting power through the South China Sea to China.”
McCaul’s reasons for this state of affairs are given the usual dressing, the gingered sauce we have come to expect from the standard bearers of empire: the entire effort was a collaborative, cooperative one between two equal states with the same interests, an effort to “provide more deterrence in the region and project power and strength so we don’t have a war.” It sounded much like a shabby confection by one superior power to a vastly inferior one: manufacture the security threat – in this case, unchecked, possibly mad Chinese ambitions – and then gather military forces to battle it. Make it a joint affair, much like a married couple menaced by a nightmare.
The monster, once conjured, can only grow more dangerous, and must be fought as a matter of urgency. Their creators demand it. “Time is really of the essence right now, as Chairman Xi has announced his 2027 project,” warned McCaul, taking that all too familiar position on China’s leader as a barking mad despot keen on world war over a small piece of real estate. That year is only of significance to US planners since the Chinese president has promised Beijing’s readiness to invade Taiwan by that time. But such visions have no meaning in a vacuum, and the other power essential to that talk of toughness is Washington’s own provocative role. Australia has no reason to play in such playgrounds of nonsense, but AUKUS has been shown to be an open license for Canberra to commit personnel to any futile conflict over that island.
The integration, which has become synonymous with absorption, of Australia’s defence into the US military industrial complex, is also a matter of interest to McCaul. “I envision there being co-production in Australia … helping to build up our defence industrial base, which is really stressed right now with war in the Middle East and Ukraine and the eastern Europe threat.” Australia, servant to US global power.
This latest visit affirms the content of the recent AUSMIN meeting held in Annapolis, Maryland, where Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong confirmed that the US war machine would find itself operating in every sphere of Australian defence in what is clumsily described as “Enhanced Force Posture Cooperation”.
The occasion also gave McCaul a chance to announce that defence trade exemptions had been granted to Australia and the UK under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation. He still expressed regret over “big government regulation” as a barrier to “this crucial alliance’s ability to truly deter a conflict in the Indo-Pacific.”
The removal of some defence licensing restrictions has thrilled Marles, who continues to labour under the assumption that this will somehow favour Australia’s barely existing sovereign capability. “This is really important in terms of our ability to build our future submarines, but also to pursue that AUKUS Pillar II agenda of those new innovative technologies.” The embarrassingly naïve Marles ignores the vital feature of any such agreements: that the US maintains control over all intellectual property, including any relevant classified material associated with those technologies.
The comments from Rep. McCaul square with those made by previous officials who see Australia as a vital staging ground for war. US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, during his April 3 visit to Washington’s Center for a New American Security (CNAS), was also candid in the promise offered by nuclear powered submarines.
In a discussion with CNAS Chief Executive Officer, Richard Fontaine, Campbell foresaw “a number of areas of conflict and in a number of scenarios that countries acting together,” including Japan, Australia, South Korea and India, when it came to the Indo-Pacific. “I think that balance, the additional capacity will help strengthen deterrence more general [sic].” The nuclear-powered submarines intended for the Royal Australian Navy, along with the boats of likeminded states “could deliver conventional ordinance from long distances. Those have enormous implications in a variety of scenarios, including in cross-strait circumstances”.
Even with such open admissions on the reasons why AUKUS is important to Washington, the timid, the bought, and the bribed, hold the reins in Canberra. For them, the march to war amidst the false sounding notes of peace is not only inevitable but desirable.
Oat Milk Goodness, the Australian plant-based milk startup co-founded by cricketer Steve Smith, is to be acquired by Forbidden Foods. It now eyes an Indian expansion.
Australian cricket may be on a break, but one of its greatest batters is still keeping as busy as he’s on the pitch.
Steve Smith’s plant-based milk brand Oat Milk Goodness (OMG), which he co-founded with Tony Adams and Daniel Rootes in 2019, is set to be purchased by fellow Australian company Forbidden Foods in an A$3.4M ($2.25M) deal.
The parent company of vegan snack startup Blue Dinosaur, Forbidden Foods will leverage its domestic distribution footprint and relationships with major retailers to boost the presence of OMG’s oat milks. It will also tap into the profile of OMG’s ambassadors to raise awareness about the Blue Dinosaur brand.
OMG itself is looking to expand internationally, starting with India, a country where former Australia captain Smith harbours a giant fanbase, and one where milk analogues dominate the smart protein sector on the back of growing health consciousness.
“While there are a number of synergies between the businesses, OMG has the potential to benefit from the agreement through access to capital markets and international expansion opportunities,” Smith said, calling the deal a “springboard for OMG’s future growth”.
Forbidden Foods sets sights on better-for-you segment
Courtesy: Oat Milk Goodness
OMG was established to take advantage of Australia’s native oat supply – it is the third-largest producer of the grain globally. The brand is known for its clean-label, seed-oil-free oat milks that have gained traction in the country’s renowned specialty coffee industry.
The lineup consists of the original, barista-friendly oat milk, a chocolate flavour, as well a chocolate PrOATein version with faba bean and pea protein. The products are available at Woolworths and Ampol Foodary locations, health stores, and online.
For Forbidden Foods, the acquisition represents “considerable upside from an operational and corporate standpoint”. The company’s existing infrastructure and capacity can help manage OMG’s accounts, sales and distribution, and both businesses will be able to leverage their expertise to accelerate product development.
“Both parties have also identified numerous synergy opportunities in sales and marketing and the streamlining of overheads and internal administration costs, which will drive growth and cost efficiencies,” said Forbidden Foods CEO Alex Aleksic.
The deal marks the first step in his company’s goal of becoming a capital-light “brand manager in the ‘better for you’ segment of the FMCG sector to further capitalise on the consumer shift towards healthy choices”.
“The company is currently assessing a number of other value accretive opportunities and will provide further updates over the coming months,” Aleksic added.
OMG taps Australia’s evolving oat milk market
Courtesy: Oat Milk Goodness
Following the acquisition, which is expected to be completed by the end of September, OMG’s near-term priorities include fast-tracking product launches (primarily in the PrOATein range), overseas expansion, and building out its sales team and targeted marketing campaigns.
“The proposed transaction represents a unique opportunity to leverage the respective strengths of both companies and create an integrated multi-channel, health-focused products business serving domestic and international markets,” said Aleksic.
“Strategically, the Forbidden Foods board and management team holds the view that OMG’s product suite specifically complements Forbidden Foods’ core range of Blue Dinosaur healthy snack foods, by adding a leading health-drink range in a fast-growing market.”
According to the filing on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), OMG is generating annualised revenues of A$1.2M (about $800,000), and anticipates near-term revenue growth after the transaction is completed.
Meanwhile, Forbidden Foods posted a net loss before tax of A$1.1M ($730,000) in the first half of 2024, a 104% improvement on the same period last year, and its best earnings performance since being listed on the ASX in September 2020.
The company has simultaneously raised A$600,000 from investors alongside the acquisition agreement, and has previously indicated interest in expanding the Blue Dinosaur range across Asia-Pacific, as well as the Middle East and the US.
While plant-based milk only makes up 7.5% of overall milk sales in Australia, oat, soy and almond milk account for a quarter of milk-based drink sales in the country’s coffee shops. A spokesperson for The Alternative Dairy Co. – another milk analogue maker from down under – told Green Queen earlier this year that while almond milk is the most popular, oat is catching up and represents the future of the segment.
Research by industry giant Vitasoy also suggests that these products have made it into 40% of Aussie households, and have the potential to hit another 30%. And the main reason for buying plant-based milk in Australia is health, according to a survey where nearly half (49%) of respondents said these products are better for their health – so OMG’s clean-label oat milk would appeal to these consumers.
Other oat milk players in Australia include Milklab, Minor Figures, Australia’s Own, Chobani and Oatly. And just this week, the latter – the world’s largest oat milk company – debuted in the New Zealand market too.
The philosophy of the dunce, and the politics of the demagogue, often keep company. And Peter Dutton has both of these unenviable traits in spades. The Australian opposition leader, smelling weakness in his opponent, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has again gravitated to something he is most comfortable with: terrifying the kaka out of the Australian public.
The method of doing so is always unimaginatively dull and almost always inaccurate. Select your marginal group in society. Elevate it as a threat, filling it with a gaseous, nasty fantasy. Condemn said group for various fictional and misattributed defects. When all is done, demonise its members and tar any alleged supporters or collaborators as foolish at best, unpatriotic at worst.
The group of late to rankle Dutton and his front bench of security hysterics are Palestinians, notably those fleeing the odious war in Gaza and seeking sanctuary in Australia. Since the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, only 2,922 visas have been granted to those possessing Palestinian Authority travel documents, with roughly 350 being visitor visas. Much larger total of 7,111 visa applications have been refused by the federal government. So far, a mere 1,300 of them have made it to Australia, placed on temporary visitor visas that do not enable the holders to receive government aid or engage in meaningful employment. The Albanese government is ruminating on whether to create a new category of visa that would lift such impediments.
On such figures, Dutton has little to work with. Undeterred, he has spent the best part of a week playing the role of the tactically paranoid. “If people are coming in from that war zone and we’re uncertain about their identity or allegiances,” he told Sky News on August 14, it was “not prudent” to let them in.
Education Minister Jason Clare, who represents an electorate in Western Sydney with a sizeable Muslim population, mockingly invited Dutton to pay a visit. “There are people from Gaza here now, they live in my electorate, I’ve met them, great people.” They had “had their homes blown up, their schools blown up, their hospitals blown up, who have had their kids blown up.”
The Shadow Home Secretary James Paterson has also drummed up the concern that the government has simply not convinced “us and the Australian people that the security and identity checks that they’re doing are sufficiently thorough and robust to protect the Australian people”. While Australia had an “important role to play” in confronting “a very serious need,” safety and security of the Australian populace came first.
What constitutes a satisfactory measure for Paterson? A blanket refusal to grant visas to any supporters of Hamas would be a start. “We are several days now into this debate, and they still have not clearly said whether they will or whether they won’t accept someone who is a supporter of Hamas into our country.” All applications from Palestinians fleeing Gaza had to be referred to the domestic intelligence service, ASIO and “robust in-person interviews and biometric tests” conducted.
In comments made to The Australian Financial Review, Paterson revealed the true intention of this dash into demagogy’s thicket. “Governments make choices all the time about who they prioritise to bring to Australia. If the Albanese government picks this cohort ahead of others it will be a revealing choice.”
These objections have an air of stifling unreality to them. For one thing, they are scornful of the views of Mike Burgess, the current ASIO director general, who, on August 11, stated that “there are security checks” or “criteria by which people are referred to my service for review and when they are, we deal with that effectively.”
Burgess, showing uncharacteristic nuance, drew a distinction between the provision of financial or material aid to the organisation, something which might tickle the interest of a screening officer, and that of “rhetorical support”. “If it’s just rhetorical support, and they don’t have an ideology or support for a violent extremism ideology, then that’s not a problem.”
The logic of preventing individuals coming to Australia purely because of a supporting link with Hamas shows a dunce’s principle at work. It falsely imputes that the individual is a potential terrorist, eschewing any broader understanding. Immature and unworldly, such a perspective ignores the blood-spattered political realities of the conflict. The insinuation here is that the only acceptable Palestinian is an apolitical one mutely acknowledging the primacy of Israel power, humble in expressing any claims to self-determination.
The Coalition opposition to granting visas to Palestinians voicing support for Hamas is also implausible in another respect. While claiming to be defenders of that most weaselly of terms, “social cohesion”, Dutton and his stormtroopers seek to demolish it. Manufacturing insecurity, much like the mafia’s credo, becomes the pretext for battling it.
Boiled down to its essentials, the views of Dutton and his colleagues, wholly picked from the cabinet of Israel’s security narrative, is that any support for Palestinian autonomy and independence, manifested through any political or military arm, must be suspect. You had to be, as Paterson put it, “a peaceful supporter of Palestinian self-determination” and an opponent of “using violent means”. Be quiet, remain subservient, and wait for the oppressor’s good will.
Partners of the tripartite Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS) security pact have advanced their co-development of resilient and autonomous artificial intelligence technology (RAAIT), the Australian Department of Defence (DoD) announced on 9 August. The latest effort to enhance autonomous systems capability, which sequenced AI algorithms to support target detection and decision-making, […]
A licence-free environment for AUKUS technology transfer will come into effect next month after the three nations finalised legislative reforms that unlock billions of dollars in defence exports. The Biden Administration will on Friday morning (AEDT) formally certify legislation exempting Australia and the United Kingdom from US export control licensing requirements from September 1. The…
Of the international intelligence information that comes to Australian agencies from the Five Eyes, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we have the colonisation of our intelligence agencies These agencies dominate the advice to ministers, writes John Menadue.
Michael Lester:Hello again listeners to Community Radio Northern Beaches Community Voices and also the Pearls and Irritations podcast. I’m Michael Lester.
Our guest today is the publisher and founder of the Pearls and Irritations Public Policy online journal, the celebrated John Menadue, with whom we’ll be so pleased to have a discussion today. John has a long and high profile experience in both the public service, for which he’s been awarded the Order of Australia and also in business.
As a public servant, he was secretary of a number of departments over the years, prime minister and cabinet under a couple of different prime ministers, immigration and ethnic affairs, special minister of state and the Department of Trade and also Ambassador to Japan.
And in his private sector career, he was a general manager at News Corp and the chief executive of Qantas. These are just among many of his considerable activities.
These days, as I say, he’s a publisher, public commentator, writer, and we’re absolutely delighted to welcome you here to Radio Northern Beaches and the P&I podcast, John.
John Menadue: Thank you, Michael. Thanks for the welcome and for what you’ve had to say about Pearls and Irritations. My wife says that she’s the Pearl and I’m the Irritation.
ML:You launched, I think, P&I, what, 2013 or 2011; anyway, you’ve been going a long while. And I noticed the other day you observed that you’d published some 20,000 items on Pearls and Irritations to do with public policy. That’s an amazing achievement itself as an independent media outlet in Australia, isn’t it?
JM: I’m quite pleased with it and so is Susie, my wife. We started 13 years ago and we did everything. I used to write all the stories and Susie handled the technical, admin, financial matters, but it’s grown dramatically since then. We now contract some of the work to people that can help us in editorial, in production and IT. It’s achieving quite a lot of influence among ministers, politicians, journalists and other opinion leaders in the community.
We’re looking now at what the future holds. I’m 89 and Susie, my wife, is not in good health. So we’re looking at new governance arrangements, a public company with outside directors so that we can continue Pearls and Irritations well into the future.
Pearls and Irritations publisher John Menadue . . . “I’m afraid some of [the mainstream media] are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.” Image: Independent AustralianML: So you made a real contribution through this and you’ve given the opportunity for so many expert, experienced, independent voices to commentate on public policy issues of great importance, not least vis-a-vis, might I say, mainstream media treatment of a lot of these issues.
This is one of your themes and motivations with Pearls and Irritations as a public policy journal, isn’t it? That our mainstream media perhaps don’t do the job they might do in covering significant issues of public policy?
JM: That’s our hope and intention, but I’m afraid some of them are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.
It’s quite a shame what mainstream media is serving up today, propaganda for the United States, so focused on America.Occasionally we get nonsense about the British royal family or some irrelevant feature like that.
But we’re very badly served. Our media shows very little interest in our own region. It is ignorant and prejudiced against China. It is not concerned about our relations with Indonesia, with the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam.
It’s all focused on the United States.We’re seeing it on an enormous scale now with the US elections. Even the ABC has a Planet America programme.
It’s so much focused on America as if we’re an island parked off New York. We are being Americanised in so many areas and particularly in our media.
ML: What has led to this state of affairs in the way that mainstream media treats major public policy issues these days? It hasn’t always been like that or has it?
JM: We’ve been a country that’s been frightened of our region, the countries where we have to make our future. And we’ve turned first to the United Kingdom as a protector. That ended in tears in Singapore.
And now we turn to the United States to look after us in this dangerous world, rather than making our own way as an independent country in our own region. That fear of our region, racism, white Australia, yellow peril all feature in Australia and in our media.
But when we had good, strong leaders, for example, Malcolm Fraser on refugees, he gave leadership and our role in the region.
Gough Whitlam did it also. If we have strong leadership, we can break from our focus on the United States at the expense of our own region. In the end, we’ve got to decide that as we live in this region, we’ve got to prosper in this region.
Security in our region, not from our region. We can do it, but I’m afraid that we’ve been retreating from Asia dreadfully over the last two or three decades. I thought when we had a Labor government, things would be different, but they’re not.
We are still frightened of our own region and embracing at every opportunity, the United States.
ML: Another theme of the many years of publishing Pearls and Irritations is that you are concerned to rebuild some degree of public confidence and trust that has been lost in the political system and that you seek to provide a platform for good policy discussion with the emphasis being on public policy. How has the public policy process been undermined or become so narrow minded if that’s one way of describing it?
JM: Contracting out work to private contractors, the big four accounting firms, getting advice, and not trusting the public service has meant that the quality of our public service has declined considerably. That has to be rebuilt so we get better policy development.
Ministers have been responsible, particularly Scott Morrison, for downgrading the public service and believing somehow or other that better advice can be obtained in the private sector.
Another factor has been the enormous growth in the power of lobbyists for corporate Australia and for foreign companies as well. Ministers have become beholden to pressure from powerful lobby groups.
One particular example, with which I’m quite familiar is in the health field. We are never likely to have real improvements in Medicare, for example, unless the government is prepared to take on the power of lobbyists — the providers, the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies in Australia.
But it’s not just in health where lobbyists are causing so much damage. The power of lobbyists has discredited the role of governments that are seduced by powerful interests rather than serving the community.
The media have just entrenched this problem. Governments are criticised at every opportunity. Australia can be served by the media taking a more positive view about the importance of good policy development and not getting sidetracked all the time about some trivial personal political issue.
The media publish the handouts of the lobbyists, whether it’s the health industry or whether it’s in the fossil fuel industries. These are the main factors that have contributed to the lack of confidence and the lack of trust in good government in Australia.
ML: A particular editorial focus that’s evident in Pearls and Irritations is promoting, I think in your words, a peaceful dialogue and engagement with China. Why is this required and why do you put it forward as a particularly important part of what you see as the mission of your Pearls and Irritations public policy journal?
JM; China, is our largest market and will continue to be so. There is a very jaundiced view, particularly from the United States, which we then copy, that China is a great threat. It’s not a threat to Australia and it’s not a threat to the United States homeland.
But it is to a degree a threat, a competitive threat to the United States in economy and trade. America didn’t worry about China when it was poor, but now that it’s strong militarily, economically and in technology, America is very concerned and feels that its future, its own leadership, its hegemony in the world is being contested.
Unfortunately, Australia has allowed itself to be drawn into the American contest with China. It’s one provocation after another. If it’s not within China itself, it’s on Taiwan, human rights in Hong Kong. Every opportunity is found by the United States to provoke China, if possible, and lead it into war.
I think, frankly, China will be more careful than that.
China’s problem is that it’s successful. And that’s what America cannot accept. By comparison, China does not make the military threat to other countries that the United States presents.
America is the most violent, aggressive country in the world. The greatest threat to peace in the world is the United States and we’re seeing that particularly now expressed in Israel and in Gaza.
But there’s a history. America’s almost always at war and has been since its independence in 1776. By contrast, China doesn’t have that sort of record and history. It is certainly concerned about security on its borders, and it has borders with 14 countries.
But it doesn’t project its power like the US. It doesn’t bomb other countries like the United States. It doesn’t have military bases surrounding the United States.
The United States has about 800 bases around the world. It’s not surprising that China feels threatened by what the United States is doing. And until the United States comes to a sensible, realistic view about China and deals with it politically, I think they’re going to make continual problems for us.
We have this dichotomy that China is our major trading partner but it’s seen by many as a strategic threat. I think that is a mistake.
ML: But what about your views about the public policy process underlying Australia’s policy in reaching the positions that we’re taking vis-a-vis China?
JM: There are several reasons for it, but I think the major one is that Australian governments, the previous government and now this one, takes the advice of intelligence agencies rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Our intelligence agencies are part of Five Eyes. Of the international intelligence which comes to Australian agencies, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we’ve had the colonisation of our intelligence agencies and they’re the ones that the Australian government listens to.
Very senior people in those agencies have direct access to the Prime Minister. He listens to them rather than to Penny Wong or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. On most public issues involving China, the Department of Foreign Affairs has become a wallflower.
It’s a great tragedy because so much of our future in the region depends on good diplomacy with China, with the ASEAN, with the countries of our region.
Those intelligence agencies in Australia, together with American funded, military funded organisations such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have the ear of governments. They’ve also got the ear of the media.
Stories are leaked to the media all the time from those agencies in order to heighten our fear of the region. The Americanisation of Australia is widespread. But our intelligence agencies have been Americanised as well, and they’re leading us down a very dangerous path.
ML: I’m speaking with our guest today on Reno Northern Beaches Community Voices and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast with the publisher of Pearls and Irritations Public Policy Journal, John Menadue, distinguished Australian public servant and businessman.
John, again, it’s one thing to talk about that, but governments, when they change, and we’ve had a change of government recently, very often, as I’m sure you know from personal experience, have the opportunity and do indeed change their advisors and adopt different policies, and one might have expected this to happen.
Why didn’t we see a change of the guard like we saw a change of government?
JM: I think this government is timid on almost everything. It was timid from day one on administrative arrangements, departmental arrangements, heads of departments.
For example, there was no change made to dismantle the Department of Home Affairs with Michael Pezzullo. That should have happened on day one, but it didn’t happen.
Concerns we’ve had in migration, the role of foreign affairs and intelligence with all those intelligence agencies gathered together in one department has been very bad for Australia.
Very few changes were made in the leadership of our intelligence agencies, the Office of National Assessments, in ASIO. The same advice has been continued. In almost every area you can look at, the government has been timid, unprepared to take on vested interests, lobbyists, and change departments to make them more attuned to what the government wants to do.
But the government doesn’t want to upset anyone. And as a result, we’re having a continuation of badly informed ministers and departments that have really not been effectively changed to meet the requirements and needs of, what I thought was a reforming government.
ML: In that context, AUKUS and the nuclear submarine deal might be perhaps a case in point of the broader issues and points you’re making. How would you characterise the nature of the public policy process and decision behind AUKUS? How were the decisions made and in what manner?
JM: By political appointees and confidants of Morrison. There’s been no public discussion. There’s been no public statement by Morrison or by Albanese about AUKUS — its history, why we’re doing it.
It’s been left to briefings of journalists and others. I think it’s disgraceful what’s happened in that area. It’s time the Australian government spelled out to us what it all means, but it’s not going to do it. Because I believe the case is so threadbare that it’s not game to put it to the public test.
And so we’re continuing in this ludicrous arrangement, this fiscal calamity, which Morrison inflicted on the Albanese government which it hasn’t been game to contest.
My own view is that frankly, AUKUS will never happen. It is so absurd — the delay, the cost, the failure of submarine construction or the delays in the United States, the problems of the submarine construction and maintenance in the United Kingdom.
For all those sorts of reasons, I don’t think it’ll really happen. Unfortunately, we’re going to waste a lot of money and a lot of time. I don’t think the Department of Defence could run any major project, certainly not a project like this.
Defence has been unsuccessful in the frigate and numerous other programmes. Our Department of Defence really is not up to the job and that among other reasons gives me reason to believe, and hope frankly, that AUKUS will collapse under its own stupidity.
But what I think is of more concern is the real estate, which we are freely leasing to the Americans. We had it first with the Marines in Darwin. We have it also coming now with US B-52 aircraft based out of Tindal in the Northern Territory and the submarine base in Perth, Western Australia.
These bases are being made available to the United States with very little control by Australia. The government carries on with nonsense about how our sovereignty will be protected.
In fact, it won’t be protected. If there’s any difficulties, for example, over a war with China over Taiwan, and the Americans are involved, there is no way Americans will consult with us about whether they can use nuclear armed vessels out of Tindal, for example.
The Americans will insist that Pine Gap continues to operate. So we are locked in through ceding so much of our real estate and the sovereignty that goes with it.
Penny Wong has been asked about American aircraft out of Tindal, carrying nuclear weapons and she says to us, sorry but the Americans won’t confirm or deny what they do.
Good heavens, this is our territory. This is our sovereignty. And we won’t even ask the Americans operating out of Tindal, whether they’re carrying nuclear weapons.
Back in the days of Malcolm Fraser, he made a statement to the Parliament insisting that no vessels or aircraft carrying nuclear weapons or ships carrying nuclear weapons could access Australian ports or operate over Australia without the permission of the Australian government.
And now Penny Wong says, we won’t ask. You can do what you like. We know the US won’t confirm or deny.
When it came to the Solomon Islands, a treaty that the Solomons negotiated with China on strategic and defence matters, Penny Wong was very upset about this secret agreement. There should be transparency, she warned.
But that’s small fry, compared with the fact that the Australian government will allow United States aircraft to operate out of Tindal without the Australian government knowing whether they are carrying nuclear weapons. I think that’s outrageous.
ML: Notwithstanding many of the very technical and economic and other discussions around the nuclear submarine’s acquisition, it does seem that politically, at least, and not least from the media presentation of our policy position that we’re very clearly signing up with our US allies against contingency attacks on Taiwan that we would be committed to take a part in and we’re also moving very closely, to well the phrase is interoperability, with the US forces and equipment but also personnel too.
You mentioned earlier, intelligence personnel and I believe there’s a lot of US personnel in the Department of Defence too?
JM: That’s right. It’s just another example of Americanisation which is reflected in our intelligence agencies, Department of Defence, interchangeability of our military forces, the fusion of our military or particularly our Navy with the United States. It’s all becoming one fused enterprise with the United States.
And in any difficulties, we would not be able, as far as I can see, to disengage from what the United States is doing. And we would be particularly vulnerable because of the AUKUS submarines. That’s if they ever come to anything. Because the AUKUS submarines, we are told, would operate off the Chinese coast to attack Chinese submarines or somehow provide intelligence for the Americans and for us.
These submarines will not be nuclear armed, which means that in the event of a conflict, we would have no bargaining or no counter to China. We’d be the weak link in the alliance with the United States.
China will not be prepared to strike the mainland United States for fear of massive retaliation. We are the weak link with Pine Gap and other real estate that I mentioned. We would be making ourselves much more vulnerable by this association with the United States.
Those AUKUS submarines will provide no deterrence for us, but make us more vulnerable if a conflict arises in which we are effectively part of the US military operation.
ML: How would you characterise the mainstream media’s presentation and treatment of these issues?
JM: The mainstream media is very largely a mouthpiece for Washington propaganda. And that American propaganda is pushed out through the legacy media, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the news agencies, Fox News which in turn are influenced by the military/ business complex which Eisenhower warned us about years ago.
The power of those groups with the CIA and the influence that they have, means that they overwhelm our media. That’s reflected particularly in The Australian and News Corporation publications.
I don’t know how some of those journalists can hold their heads. They’ve been on the drip feed of America for so long. They cannot see a world that is not dominated and led by the United States.
I’m hoping that over time, Pearls and Irritations and other independent media will grow and provide a more balanced view about Australia’s role in our region and in our own development.
We need to keep good relations with the United States. They’re an important player, but I think that we are unnecessarily risking our future by throwing our lot almost entirely in with the United States.
Minister for Defence, Richard Marles is leading the Americanisation of our military. I think Penny Wong is to some extent trying to pull him back. But unfortunately so much of the leadership of Australia in defence, in the media, is part and parcel of the mistaken United States view of the world.
ML: What sort of voices are we not hearing in the media or in Australia on this question?
JM: It’s not going to change, Michael. I can’t see it changing with Lachlan Murdoch in charge. I think it’s getting worse, if possible, within News Corporation. It’s a very, very difficult and desperate situation where we’re being served so poorly.
ML: Is there a strong independent media and potential for voices through independent media in Australia?
JM: No, we haven’t got one. The best hope at the side, of course, is the ABC and SBS public broadcasters, but they’ve been seduced as well by all things American.
We’ve seen that particularly in recent months over the conflict in Gaza. The ABC and SBS heavily favour Israel. It is shameful.
They’re still the best hope of the side, but they need more money. They’re getting a little bit more from the government, but I think they are sadly lacking in leadership and proper understanding of what the role of a public broadcaster should be.
I don’t think there’s a quick answer to any of this. And I hope that we can extricate ourselves without too much damage in the future. Our media has a great responsibility and must be held responsible for the damage that it is causing in Australia.
ML: Well, look, thank you very much, John Menadue, for joining us on Radio Northern Beaches and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast. John Menadue, publisher, founder, editor-in-chief of, for the last 13 years, the public policy journal Pearls and Irritations. We’ve been discussing the role of the mainstream media, independent media, in the public policy processes too in Australia, and particularly in the context of international relations and in this case our relationships with the US and China.
Thank you so much John for taking the time and for sharing your thoughts with us here today. Thanks for joining us John.
JM: Thank you. Let’s hope for better days.
John Menadue, founder and publisher of Pearls and Irritations public policy journal has had a senior professional career in the media, public service and airlines. In 1985, he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for public service. In 2009, he received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Adelaide in recognition of his significant and lifelong contribution to Australian society. This transcript of the Pearls and Irritations podcast on 10 August 2024 is republished with permission.
Of the international intelligence information that comes to Australian agencies from the Five Eyes, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we have the colonisation of our intelligence agencies These agencies dominate the advice to ministers, writes John Menadue.
Michael Lester:Hello again listeners to Community Radio Northern Beaches Community Voices and also the Pearls and Irritations podcast. I’m Michael Lester.
Our guest today is the publisher and founder of the Pearls and Irritations Public Policy online journal, the celebrated John Menadue, with whom we’ll be so pleased to have a discussion today. John has a long and high profile experience in both the public service, for which he’s been awarded the Order of Australia and also in business.
As a public servant, he was secretary of a number of departments over the years, prime minister and cabinet under a couple of different prime ministers, immigration and ethnic affairs, special minister of state and the Department of Trade and also Ambassador to Japan.
And in his private sector career, he was a general manager at News Corp and the chief executive of Qantas. These are just among many of his considerable activities.
These days, as I say, he’s a publisher, public commentator, writer, and we’re absolutely delighted to welcome you here to Radio Northern Beaches and the P&I podcast, John.
John Menadue: Thank you, Michael. Thanks for the welcome and for what you’ve had to say about Pearls and Irritations. My wife says that she’s the Pearl and I’m the Irritation.
ML:You launched, I think, P&I, what, 2013 or 2011; anyway, you’ve been going a long while. And I noticed the other day you observed that you’d published some 20,000 items on Pearls and Irritations to do with public policy. That’s an amazing achievement itself as an independent media outlet in Australia, isn’t it?
JM: I’m quite pleased with it and so is Susie, my wife. We started 13 years ago and we did everything. I used to write all the stories and Susie handled the technical, admin, financial matters, but it’s grown dramatically since then. We now contract some of the work to people that can help us in editorial, in production and IT. It’s achieving quite a lot of influence among ministers, politicians, journalists and other opinion leaders in the community.
We’re looking now at what the future holds. I’m 89 and Susie, my wife, is not in good health. So we’re looking at new governance arrangements, a public company with outside directors so that we can continue Pearls and Irritations well into the future.
Pearls and Irritations publisher John Menadue . . . “I’m afraid some of [the mainstream media] are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.” Image: Independent AustralianML: So you made a real contribution through this and you’ve given the opportunity for so many expert, experienced, independent voices to commentate on public policy issues of great importance, not least vis-a-vis, might I say, mainstream media treatment of a lot of these issues.
This is one of your themes and motivations with Pearls and Irritations as a public policy journal, isn’t it? That our mainstream media perhaps don’t do the job they might do in covering significant issues of public policy?
JM: That’s our hope and intention, but I’m afraid some of them are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.
It’s quite a shame what mainstream media is serving up today, propaganda for the United States, so focused on America.Occasionally we get nonsense about the British royal family or some irrelevant feature like that.
But we’re very badly served. Our media shows very little interest in our own region. It is ignorant and prejudiced against China. It is not concerned about our relations with Indonesia, with the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam.
It’s all focused on the United States.We’re seeing it on an enormous scale now with the US elections. Even the ABC has a Planet America programme.
It’s so much focused on America as if we’re an island parked off New York. We are being Americanised in so many areas and particularly in our media.
ML: What has led to this state of affairs in the way that mainstream media treats major public policy issues these days? It hasn’t always been like that or has it?
JM: We’ve been a country that’s been frightened of our region, the countries where we have to make our future. And we’ve turned first to the United Kingdom as a protector. That ended in tears in Singapore.
And now we turn to the United States to look after us in this dangerous world, rather than making our own way as an independent country in our own region. That fear of our region, racism, white Australia, yellow peril all feature in Australia and in our media.
But when we had good, strong leaders, for example, Malcolm Fraser on refugees, he gave leadership and our role in the region.
Gough Whitlam did it also. If we have strong leadership, we can break from our focus on the United States at the expense of our own region. In the end, we’ve got to decide that as we live in this region, we’ve got to prosper in this region.
Security in our region, not from our region. We can do it, but I’m afraid that we’ve been retreating from Asia dreadfully over the last two or three decades. I thought when we had a Labor government, things would be different, but they’re not.
We are still frightened of our own region and embracing at every opportunity, the United States.
ML: Another theme of the many years of publishing Pearls and Irritations is that you are concerned to rebuild some degree of public confidence and trust that has been lost in the political system and that you seek to provide a platform for good policy discussion with the emphasis being on public policy. How has the public policy process been undermined or become so narrow minded if that’s one way of describing it?
JM: Contracting out work to private contractors, the big four accounting firms, getting advice, and not trusting the public service has meant that the quality of our public service has declined considerably. That has to be rebuilt so we get better policy development.
Ministers have been responsible, particularly Scott Morrison, for downgrading the public service and believing somehow or other that better advice can be obtained in the private sector.
Another factor has been the enormous growth in the power of lobbyists for corporate Australia and for foreign companies as well. Ministers have become beholden to pressure from powerful lobby groups.
One particular example, with which I’m quite familiar is in the health field. We are never likely to have real improvements in Medicare, for example, unless the government is prepared to take on the power of lobbyists — the providers, the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies in Australia.
But it’s not just in health where lobbyists are causing so much damage. The power of lobbyists has discredited the role of governments that are seduced by powerful interests rather than serving the community.
The media have just entrenched this problem. Governments are criticised at every opportunity. Australia can be served by the media taking a more positive view about the importance of good policy development and not getting sidetracked all the time about some trivial personal political issue.
The media publish the handouts of the lobbyists, whether it’s the health industry or whether it’s in the fossil fuel industries. These are the main factors that have contributed to the lack of confidence and the lack of trust in good government in Australia.
ML: A particular editorial focus that’s evident in Pearls and Irritations is promoting, I think in your words, a peaceful dialogue and engagement with China. Why is this required and why do you put it forward as a particularly important part of what you see as the mission of your Pearls and Irritations public policy journal?
JM; China, is our largest market and will continue to be so. There is a very jaundiced view, particularly from the United States, which we then copy, that China is a great threat. It’s not a threat to Australia and it’s not a threat to the United States homeland.
But it is to a degree a threat, a competitive threat to the United States in economy and trade. America didn’t worry about China when it was poor, but now that it’s strong militarily, economically and in technology, America is very concerned and feels that its future, its own leadership, its hegemony in the world is being contested.
Unfortunately, Australia has allowed itself to be drawn into the American contest with China. It’s one provocation after another. If it’s not within China itself, it’s on Taiwan, human rights in Hong Kong. Every opportunity is found by the United States to provoke China, if possible, and lead it into war.
I think, frankly, China will be more careful than that.
China’s problem is that it’s successful. And that’s what America cannot accept. By comparison, China does not make the military threat to other countries that the United States presents.
America is the most violent, aggressive country in the world. The greatest threat to peace in the world is the United States and we’re seeing that particularly now expressed in Israel and in Gaza.
But there’s a history. America’s almost always at war and has been since its independence in 1776. By contrast, China doesn’t have that sort of record and history. It is certainly concerned about security on its borders, and it has borders with 14 countries.
But it doesn’t project its power like the US. It doesn’t bomb other countries like the United States. It doesn’t have military bases surrounding the United States.
The United States has about 800 bases around the world. It’s not surprising that China feels threatened by what the United States is doing. And until the United States comes to a sensible, realistic view about China and deals with it politically, I think they’re going to make continual problems for us.
We have this dichotomy that China is our major trading partner but it’s seen by many as a strategic threat. I think that is a mistake.
ML: But what about your views about the public policy process underlying Australia’s policy in reaching the positions that we’re taking vis-a-vis China?
JM: There are several reasons for it, but I think the major one is that Australian governments, the previous government and now this one, takes the advice of intelligence agencies rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Our intelligence agencies are part of Five Eyes. Of the international intelligence which comes to Australian agencies, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we’ve had the colonisation of our intelligence agencies and they’re the ones that the Australian government listens to.
Very senior people in those agencies have direct access to the Prime Minister. He listens to them rather than to Penny Wong or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. On most public issues involving China, the Department of Foreign Affairs has become a wallflower.
It’s a great tragedy because so much of our future in the region depends on good diplomacy with China, with the ASEAN, with the countries of our region.
Those intelligence agencies in Australia, together with American funded, military funded organisations such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have the ear of governments. They’ve also got the ear of the media.
Stories are leaked to the media all the time from those agencies in order to heighten our fear of the region. The Americanisation of Australia is widespread. But our intelligence agencies have been Americanised as well, and they’re leading us down a very dangerous path.
ML: I’m speaking with our guest today on Reno Northern Beaches Community Voices and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast with the publisher of Pearls and Irritations Public Policy Journal, John Menadue, distinguished Australian public servant and businessman.
John, again, it’s one thing to talk about that, but governments, when they change, and we’ve had a change of government recently, very often, as I’m sure you know from personal experience, have the opportunity and do indeed change their advisors and adopt different policies, and one might have expected this to happen.
Why didn’t we see a change of the guard like we saw a change of government?
JM: I think this government is timid on almost everything. It was timid from day one on administrative arrangements, departmental arrangements, heads of departments.
For example, there was no change made to dismantle the Department of Home Affairs with Michael Pezzullo. That should have happened on day one, but it didn’t happen.
Concerns we’ve had in migration, the role of foreign affairs and intelligence with all those intelligence agencies gathered together in one department has been very bad for Australia.
Very few changes were made in the leadership of our intelligence agencies, the Office of National Assessments, in ASIO. The same advice has been continued. In almost every area you can look at, the government has been timid, unprepared to take on vested interests, lobbyists, and change departments to make them more attuned to what the government wants to do.
But the government doesn’t want to upset anyone. And as a result, we’re having a continuation of badly informed ministers and departments that have really not been effectively changed to meet the requirements and needs of, what I thought was a reforming government.
ML: In that context, AUKUS and the nuclear submarine deal might be perhaps a case in point of the broader issues and points you’re making. How would you characterise the nature of the public policy process and decision behind AUKUS? How were the decisions made and in what manner?
JM: By political appointees and confidants of Morrison. There’s been no public discussion. There’s been no public statement by Morrison or by Albanese about AUKUS — its history, why we’re doing it.
It’s been left to briefings of journalists and others. I think it’s disgraceful what’s happened in that area. It’s time the Australian government spelled out to us what it all means, but it’s not going to do it. Because I believe the case is so threadbare that it’s not game to put it to the public test.
And so we’re continuing in this ludicrous arrangement, this fiscal calamity, which Morrison inflicted on the Albanese government which it hasn’t been game to contest.
My own view is that frankly, AUKUS will never happen. It is so absurd — the delay, the cost, the failure of submarine construction or the delays in the United States, the problems of the submarine construction and maintenance in the United Kingdom.
For all those sorts of reasons, I don’t think it’ll really happen. Unfortunately, we’re going to waste a lot of money and a lot of time. I don’t think the Department of Defence could run any major project, certainly not a project like this.
Defence has been unsuccessful in the frigate and numerous other programmes. Our Department of Defence really is not up to the job and that among other reasons gives me reason to believe, and hope frankly, that AUKUS will collapse under its own stupidity.
But what I think is of more concern is the real estate, which we are freely leasing to the Americans. We had it first with the Marines in Darwin. We have it also coming now with US B-52 aircraft based out of Tindal in the Northern Territory and the submarine base in Perth, Western Australia.
These bases are being made available to the United States with very little control by Australia. The government carries on with nonsense about how our sovereignty will be protected.
In fact, it won’t be protected. If there’s any difficulties, for example, over a war with China over Taiwan, and the Americans are involved, there is no way Americans will consult with us about whether they can use nuclear armed vessels out of Tindal, for example.
The Americans will insist that Pine Gap continues to operate. So we are locked in through ceding so much of our real estate and the sovereignty that goes with it.
Penny Wong has been asked about American aircraft out of Tindal, carrying nuclear weapons and she says to us, sorry but the Americans won’t confirm or deny what they do.
Good heavens, this is our territory. This is our sovereignty. And we won’t even ask the Americans operating out of Tindal, whether they’re carrying nuclear weapons.
Back in the days of Malcolm Fraser, he made a statement to the Parliament insisting that no vessels or aircraft carrying nuclear weapons or ships carrying nuclear weapons could access Australian ports or operate over Australia without the permission of the Australian government.
And now Penny Wong says, we won’t ask. You can do what you like. We know the US won’t confirm or deny.
When it came to the Solomon Islands, a treaty that the Solomons negotiated with China on strategic and defence matters, Penny Wong was very upset about this secret agreement. There should be transparency, she warned.
But that’s small fry, compared with the fact that the Australian government will allow United States aircraft to operate out of Tindal without the Australian government knowing whether they are carrying nuclear weapons. I think that’s outrageous.
ML: Notwithstanding many of the very technical and economic and other discussions around the nuclear submarine’s acquisition, it does seem that politically, at least, and not least from the media presentation of our policy position that we’re very clearly signing up with our US allies against contingency attacks on Taiwan that we would be committed to take a part in and we’re also moving very closely, to well the phrase is interoperability, with the US forces and equipment but also personnel too.
You mentioned earlier, intelligence personnel and I believe there’s a lot of US personnel in the Department of Defence too?
JM: That’s right. It’s just another example of Americanisation which is reflected in our intelligence agencies, Department of Defence, interchangeability of our military forces, the fusion of our military or particularly our Navy with the United States. It’s all becoming one fused enterprise with the United States.
And in any difficulties, we would not be able, as far as I can see, to disengage from what the United States is doing. And we would be particularly vulnerable because of the AUKUS submarines. That’s if they ever come to anything. Because the AUKUS submarines, we are told, would operate off the Chinese coast to attack Chinese submarines or somehow provide intelligence for the Americans and for us.
These submarines will not be nuclear armed, which means that in the event of a conflict, we would have no bargaining or no counter to China. We’d be the weak link in the alliance with the United States.
China will not be prepared to strike the mainland United States for fear of massive retaliation. We are the weak link with Pine Gap and other real estate that I mentioned. We would be making ourselves much more vulnerable by this association with the United States.
Those AUKUS submarines will provide no deterrence for us, but make us more vulnerable if a conflict arises in which we are effectively part of the US military operation.
ML: How would you characterise the mainstream media’s presentation and treatment of these issues?
JM: The mainstream media is very largely a mouthpiece for Washington propaganda. And that American propaganda is pushed out through the legacy media, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the news agencies, Fox News which in turn are influenced by the military/ business complex which Eisenhower warned us about years ago.
The power of those groups with the CIA and the influence that they have, means that they overwhelm our media. That’s reflected particularly in The Australian and News Corporation publications.
I don’t know how some of those journalists can hold their heads. They’ve been on the drip feed of America for so long. They cannot see a world that is not dominated and led by the United States.
I’m hoping that over time, Pearls and Irritations and other independent media will grow and provide a more balanced view about Australia’s role in our region and in our own development.
We need to keep good relations with the United States. They’re an important player, but I think that we are unnecessarily risking our future by throwing our lot almost entirely in with the United States.
Minister for Defence, Richard Marles is leading the Americanisation of our military. I think Penny Wong is to some extent trying to pull him back. But unfortunately so much of the leadership of Australia in defence, in the media, is part and parcel of the mistaken United States view of the world.
ML: What sort of voices are we not hearing in the media or in Australia on this question?
JM: It’s not going to change, Michael. I can’t see it changing with Lachlan Murdoch in charge. I think it’s getting worse, if possible, within News Corporation. It’s a very, very difficult and desperate situation where we’re being served so poorly.
ML: Is there a strong independent media and potential for voices through independent media in Australia?
JM: No, we haven’t got one. The best hope at the side, of course, is the ABC and SBS public broadcasters, but they’ve been seduced as well by all things American.
We’ve seen that particularly in recent months over the conflict in Gaza. The ABC and SBS heavily favour Israel. It is shameful.
They’re still the best hope of the side, but they need more money. They’re getting a little bit more from the government, but I think they are sadly lacking in leadership and proper understanding of what the role of a public broadcaster should be.
I don’t think there’s a quick answer to any of this. And I hope that we can extricate ourselves without too much damage in the future. Our media has a great responsibility and must be held responsible for the damage that it is causing in Australia.
ML: Well, look, thank you very much, John Menadue, for joining us on Radio Northern Beaches and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast. John Menadue, publisher, founder, editor-in-chief of, for the last 13 years, the public policy journal Pearls and Irritations. We’ve been discussing the role of the mainstream media, independent media, in the public policy processes too in Australia, and particularly in the context of international relations and in this case our relationships with the US and China.
Thank you so much John for taking the time and for sharing your thoughts with us here today. Thanks for joining us John.
JM: Thank you. Let’s hope for better days.
John Menadue, founder and publisher of Pearls and Irritations public policy journal has had a senior professional career in the media, public service and airlines. In 1985, he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for public service. In 2009, he received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Adelaide in recognition of his significant and lifelong contribution to Australian society. This transcript of the Pearls and Irritations podcast on 10 August 2024 is republished with permission.
Above: Political prisoner in Ukraine, Inna Ivanochko sits in a dock in a court. Inna Ivanochko is the head of the Lviv organisation of Opposition Platform — For Life, which was Ukraine’ second largest party in parliament until it was persecuted and then banned. She is facing up to 15 years in prison for expressing her political views in the years before the war started – which the Ukrainian regime have now retrospectively deemed to have been in the service of Russia. Her supposed “offences” include allegedly participating in a September 2015 protest rally over living standards grievances and violations of constitutional rights, taking court action in 2018 against a city council decision to knock down a monument to Soviet World War II soldiers and advocating turning Ukraine into a federal state during a 2018 television interview.
Photo: Supplied
In late April 2024, the Albanese Labor government in Australia announced yet another $100 million in “aid” to Ukraine. The new “aid” package includes air-dropped bombs and drones. The package was announced by deputy prime minister, Richard Marles during a visit to Ukraine where he encouraged the Ukrainian regime to continue its war against Russia. Marles also affirmed the continued participation of Australian soldiers in an operation training Ukrainian troops in Britain. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops have already been trained in this U.K.-led operation. The U.S. and European NATO powers and their allies, like the Australian imperialist regime, are prepared to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood to advance their proxy war against Russia.
As millions of low-paid workers, working-class youth, unemployed workers and pensioners suffer under soaring rents, Australian governments have failed to provide adequate funding for the public housing that could help drive down rents across the rental market. Meanwhile, governments of all stripes refuse to substantially boost the crushingly low Jobseeker payments. They say that there is a need to be “prudent” to avoid fueling inflation. Yet, when it comes to fueling death and destruction in distant lands to shore up Western imperialist domination of the world, successive federal governments have had no trouble finding large financial resources. The April announcement brings the Australian regime’s total military assistance to its Ukrainian counterparts to $880 million. Earlier announced Australian military support included the provision of armoured vehicles, six M777 155mm howitzers and artillery shells.
This military assistance is backed by all the parties in the Australian parliament, the entire mainstream media and all of Australia’s influential political think tanks. Yet despite this and the ruling class’ intense propaganda campaign supporting the proxy war against Russia, many Australians do not buy the government’s “rationales” for its military support to its Ukrainian counterparts. Indeed a poll conducted this month by the Australian government-controlled ABC news outlet found that a (small) majority of Australians actually want the government to wind back or end support for Ukraine.
One of the main narratives that Australia’s ruling class and other Western imperialist ruling classes use to justify their massive military backing of Ukraine is their claim that they are “defending a fellow democracy against an authoritarian power.” However the Ukrainian capitalist regime is no “democracy” of any kind! Fascist forces play a prominent role in Ukraine’s state organs. For example, a key part of Ukraine’s National Guard and prominent part of the regime’s ultra-nationalist folklore is the fascist Azov Assault Brigade. Formed in 2014 by neo-Nazi politician Andriy Biletsky, the Azov Assault Brigade sports Nazi regalia and trains its members in white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideology. It is notorious for murdering, raping and assaulting numerous leftists, members of ethnic minorities and civilians sympathetic to Russia. The character of the Ukrainian regime can also be seen from the fact that in 2015 it made two Nazi-collaborating, anti-Soviet paramilitary groups (the UPA and the OUN), “heroes of Ukraine.” During World War II, the UPA and OUN between them murdered 100,000 Polish people and tens of thousands of Jewish people, while helping their Nazi allies to carry out the Holocaust. The Ukrainian regime has also renamed many streets after the fascist leader of the OUN, Stepan Bandera; and have also erected numerous statues and other monuments to this Nazi-allied war criminal.
Capitalism and Democracy
Of course, the Western regimes using Ukraine are hardly true “democracies” themselves. To be sure Western governments are elected and citizens are theoretically able to advance their political views. However, in practice it is the wealthy capitalists, in great disproportion to their small numbers that have the means to shape public opinion and hence steer election outcomes. It is they who own the media, establish and finance the political think tanks, provide much of the funding for political parties and political NGOs and have the financial resources to pay for expensive political advertising and lobbyists. Thus in terms of political influence, “democracies” under capitalism run more on “one dollar, one vote” rather than the nominal, “one person, one vote.” Moreover, due to their tremendous wealth and control of the economy, the capitalists are able to ensure that all the key state institutions remain tied to them by thousands of threads irrespective of which political party is elected to govern. Therefore, in all nominally “democratic” capitalist countries, the form of “democracy” masks the reality that the system is in fact just a form of dictatorship of the capitalist class. To the extent that there is any real democracy it is only that the different capitalists and pro-capitalist factions are able to freely and “democratically” debate their differences and arrive at a majority decision about which policies best serve the interests of their class. Moreover, just as in more openly authoritarian forms of capitalist rule, whenever the rule of the capitalist class faces a serious challenge, the ruling class will resort to the most brutal authoritarian repression to protect their interests.
Nevertheless, as far as the working-class and other oppressed are concerned, this pseudo-“democratic” form of administering capitalism is preferable to other forms of capitalism – like fascism, military dictatorship etc – because it allows the masses comparatively greater freedoms with which to organise resistance against capitalist exploitation. That is why in capitalist parliamentary democracies like Australia, we oppose every attack of the ruling class on the limited democratic rights that the masses do have. And as decaying, late-stage capitalism is increasingly unable to meet the needs of the masses, in nearly every capitalist parliamentary “democracy” around the world the worried capitalist class is chipping away at the political rights that it had previously conceded to the masses. Just look at the hardline anti-protest laws that have been enacted in NSW and other Australian states and the federal government’s draconian “foreign interference” laws which are aimed at suppressing expressions of sympathy for socialistic China.
Teacher from Kiev, Alla Dushkina. (Photo: Supplied). She spent three months in a Ukrainian jail for correspondence with an acquaintance from Russia, in which she expressed doubts about the correctness of Ukraine’s political course. Later, she was granted bail and managed to leave the country without waiting for the verdict. Ukrainian journalist Pavel Volkov managed to interview her. Here is an excerpt from what Alla Dushkina told the journalist:
I was arrested with my son in Khmelnitskiy [a city in Western Ukraine].
Five cars surrounded us, and then they interrogated me for 72 hours, trying to get a confession. I didn’t sign anything, we were beaten, wrapped in a black and red flag [the flag of the Nazi-collaborating OUN-UPA]. I had to confess that I made some marks [for Russian bombs and missiles] and that I had given shelter to Kadyrovites [Chechens who are fighting for Russia], whom I had never seen in my life. And they took fingerprints, and forced me to pass a lie detector, and threatened to take me in the city square with an announcement that I was putting tags [was a missile gunner] so that the mothers of the murdered soldiers would beat me. Then they realized that I wouldn’t sign anything, put bags on my son and me and started leading us somewhere. They brought us to Kiev, my son was shoved into the basement in front of me, they demanded from him to say that I had killed people, pressed on my conscience, threatened. I was taken to the SSU building on Askold Lane, then to the Lukyanovo pre—trial detention center. The jailer showed me videos on her phone every morning – as far as I can understand, she was instructed to do this – how in both men’s and women’s buildings people were beaten, dipped their heads in the toilet, bullied. They demanded a confession from me to avoid the fate of people on these videos.
Today’s Ukraine – Not Any Kind of Democracy At All
Today’s capitalist Ukraine does not even have the truncated, “democratic” form of the dictatorship of the capitalist class that exists today in Australia, the U.S., France and other so-called “Western democracies.” Political parties and activists genuinely opposed to the Ukrainian government’s policies face severe and brutal repression. Such repression greatly intensified after a 2014 far-right coup, engineered by Washington and the European imperialist powers. That coup overthrew the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych who attempted to simultaneously maintain friendly ties with both Russia and the EU. Yanukovych’s government was replaced by a rabidly Ukrainian nationalist regime that was as fiercely anti-Russia as it was pro-Western. The new regime enacted laws discriminating against the Russian-speaking populations in the east of Ukraine as well as against other non-Ukrainian minorities. When the post-2014 regime inevitably met with opposition – especially in the east and south of the country – this was met with extreme repression supplemented by the terror of fascist gangs. In 2015, the regime banned the sizable Communist Party of Ukraine and two smaller other, nominally communist parties. Meanwhile the regime jailed or threatened political opponents and journalists.
Some Ukrainians have made courageous efforts to detail the persecution that others are facing at the hands of the Ukrainian regime. Among these is Ukrainian journalist Pavel Volkov. Volkov was himself imprisoned from 2017 for thirteen months for merely writing articles critical of the 2014 right-wing coup and for sympathising with the plight of the people of the eastern, mostly Russian-speaking, Donbass region who were attacked for their opposition to the new ultra-nationalist order. For this, he was accused of “separatism,” “terrorism,” and “collaboration with the enemy”. Due to the efforts of out of court supporters and a dedicated team of lawyers, Volkov eventually proved the charges false in court. However, this was a very rare case where the Ukrainian regime’s trumped-up charges against opponents have been defeated in the regime’s courts. Most of those targeted end up in prison or worse. Pavel Volkov described what he observed in the years 2018-2020:
… people have been tried under `separatist’ and `terrorist’ articles for laying flowers at the Soviet monuments; paying taxes for DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic) [a pro-Russia rebel government that was established in the eastern Donetsk region by opponents of the post-2014 far-right regime]; organizing `Pushkin Balls,’ and so on. Any activity that can be interpreted as the glorification of the Soviet past, the valorization of the Russian culture, or the recognition of the authorities of rebellious Donbass came to be acknowledged as ‘separatist’ and ‘terrorist.’
Ukrainian journalist, Pavel Volkov, in court. Photo: Supplied
Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war in February 2022, the Ukrainian regime has used the cover of the war and the mantra of “defending national security against treason” to persecute its opponents to a yet more extreme degree. In June 2022, the regime banned the biggest opposition party, the Opposition Platform — For Life, a party which just 17 months before had been leading Ukraine’s opinion polls. Similarly, the regime banned several other parties – accusing all of either “collaborating with Russia” or “violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine” or “destabilising the social and political situation in Ukraine”. Among the parties that the Ukrainian regime banned include Viktor Yanukovych’s former party, the Party of Regions as well as Derzhava, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Socialist Party of Ukraine and Union of Left Forces.
Anyone in Ukraine who expresses even the mildest sympathy for Russia or who advocates peace talks is targeted. Other dissidents are falsely accused of pro-Russia sympathies in order to silence them. As journalist, Pavel Volkov put it:
Today, there are thousands of civilian prisoners in Ukraine who are deprived of their liberty and human rights for ‘likes’ under ‘incorrect’ social-media posts, Internet discussions of projectile impact location, frank correspondence with relatives in Russia via messengers, performing professional duties (like teaching) in the territories occupied and then abandoned by Russia, and so on. The retreats of the Russian Armed Forces from the Kiev region, parts of the Kharkov region, and parts of the Kherson region in later 2022 were marked by mass arrests, which continue to this day. This is what the SSU [Security Service of Ukraine] calls `the stabilization measures.’ Only in the summer of 2022, as a result of these `measures’ – apartment-by-apartment sweeps – 700 people were detained in Vinnytsa and Nikolaev – two regional centers in the southern part of Ukraine bordering the Odessa region.
Although Volkov himself was forced to flee Ukraine in the latter part of 2022, he and his colleagues have since then painstakingly analysed the open source data of the various enforcement agencies of the Ukrainian regime in order to estimate the number of political prisoners there. They found that from the time of the 2014 far-right coup to the start of the Russian intervention in early 2022, the Ukrainian Prosecutor’s Office brought 643 cases to the court on political charges. This repression then escalated such that in 2022 and 2023 alone the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office and regional prosecutor’s offices opened up 26,821 cases on political matters of which 4,315 have already been brought to the court with an indictment. Moreover, when the cases brought by the Ukrainian National Police and the SSU secret police are also included, Volkov and Co. found that the Ukrainian regime had opened up over 74 thousand criminal cases on politically motivated charges. This means that the number of people in today’s Ukraine who are in either prison or pre-trial detention on the basis of political charges is likely to be in the tens of thousands.
Among the laws that Ukrainian regime have used to persecute dissidents is Article 436-2 of Ukraine’s criminal code which nominally prosecutes people for: justification, recognition as legitimate or denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine or glorification of its participants. Articles 110 and 110-2 of Ukraine’s criminal code also targets people for expressing dissident views but does so under the official charge of: trespass against the territorial integrity or inviolability of Ukraine or financing of such actions. Volkov’s research shows that under these three articles of the criminal code alone, Ukrainian prosecutors in 2022 and 2023 have opened up 14,411 political cases of which more than 1,400 were already brought to court during that period. Under the likes of these type of pretexts, Professor Sergey Shubin from the Nikolayev region was sentenced to 15 years in prison for merely making reflections in his personal diary on what life would be like in the region if it were occupied by the Russian army. A pensioner from Sumy region Lyudmila Vazhinskaya was sentenced to six months jail for advocating peace talks between Ukraine and Russia while talking with people in a queue for milk. In a high-profile case, Inna Ivanochko, the head of the Lviv (city in western Ukraine) organisation of Ukraine’ second biggest parliamentary party (until it was persecuted and then banned), Opposition Platform — For Life, was arrested in August 2022 and has been in pre-trial detention ever since. She is facing up to 15 years in prison for expressing her political views in the years before the war started. These include allegedly participating in a September 2015 rally against low pensions, increased tariffs and violations of constitutional rights, taking legal action in a Lviv court (!) against the 2018 decision of the Lviv City Council to knock down a monument to Soviet World War II soldiers and advocating turning Ukraine into a federal state (an idea which is branded “separatism” in contemporary Ukraine) in a television interview in 2018. Outrageously, the three lawyers who defended Inna Ivanochko have also all been arrested. The latest of her lawyers to be arrested was Svetlana Novitskaya who was seized on February 20 of this year and has been imprisoned ever since. She is accused of violating Article 436-2 of Ukraine’s criminal code, “denying the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine” … for her statements in court defending her client, Inna Ivanochko! Defence lawyers imprisoned for their submissions in court defending their clients – such is the “democracy” that the Australian and other Western capitalist rulers say that they are “defending” through sending huge quantities of weapons to their proxy!
Volkov’s research found that in 2022 and 2023 Ukrainian prosecutors had also opened 3,126 cases of suspicion of “High treason” under Article 111 of its criminal code and 7,058 cases on “Collaborationism” under Article 111-1. Most of the people imprisoned under such charges are those who worked in public institutions in the areas occupied by the Russian army. After the Russian troops withdrew from some of the areas, these public sector workers have been persecuted as “traitors” and “collaborators”. People like Anatoliy Miruta, a man from the Kiev region who was jailed for 10 years for negotiating with the Russian military to take local residents to the hospital and distributing Russian humanitarian aid. Or like, Valentina Ropalo, a resident of Volchansk in the Kharkov region, who was hit with a five year prison sentence for working as the head of the housing and communal services department while the Russian army was in her city, which was deemed to be “collaboration with the enemy”. Meanwhile, Olga Galanina, Deputy Chairman of the Berdyansk Administration for Humanitarian Affairs, is facing a life sentence because she agreed to continue her work in Berdyansk, Zaporozhye region, under the Russian administration. SSU officers kidnapped her student son in Dnepropetrovsk, illegally held him in detention, forcing his mother to come to the territory controlled by Ukraine, where she was arrested.
In addition to the political prisoners in Ukraine who have either been officially sentenced to jail or are in pre-trial detention, are a large number of others who have been abducted by the regime or its fascist auxiliaries. Among them is Sergey Chemolosov, a resident of the village of Ivanovka in the Kharkov region. Chemolosov had been distributing Russian humanitarian aid and helped restore the village’s electricity supply during the stay of Russian troops there. On 7 September 2022, Ukrainian military officers kidnapped Chemolosov and took him to an unknown destination. On September 9, Kirill Tymoshenko, the deputy head of the office of President Zelensky, published on Facebook a photo in which Chemolosov, with marks showing that he was severely beaten in custody, is sitting blindfolded with his hands tied. What later happened to Chemolosov or whether he is even still alive is unknown. It is also unknown the exact number of political prisoners that the Ukrainian regime has similarly abducted and is illegally detaining at secret locations.
9 September 2022: Sergey Chemolosov, a resident of the village of Ivanovka in Ukraine’s Kharkov region, is shown in a Facebook post, celebrating his detention, made by the deputy head of the office of President Zelensky, Kirill Tymoshenko. Chemolosov is blindfolded, with his hands tied behind his back and with marks indicating that he was beaten in custody. Two days earlier, Ukrainian military officers had abducted Chemolosov and taken him to an unknown location. Chemolosov’s “crime” is that he had been distributing Russian humanitarian aid and helped restore the village’s electricity supply during the stay of Russian troops in his village. What later happened to Chemolosov is unknown.
Down With the Ukrainian Regime’s Persecution of Leftists!
The pro-Western Ukrainian regime has especially targeted avowed communists, leftists and others with sympathy for the former Soviet Union. Thus Pavel Volkov’s research shows that among the politically motivated criminal cases that Ukrainian prosecutors have opened up in 2022 and 2023 are 600 cases of suspected violation of Article 436-1 of Ukraine’s criminal code, which bans the production and distribution of communist symbols and propaganda sympathetic to communist “totalitarian regimes” (which is mostly aimed at supporters of the former Soviet Ukraine and the former Soviet Union). Already 322 people have been brought before the courts on these charges. Formally, Article 436-1 also bans Nazi symbols and propaganda sympathetic to Nazi regimes. However, that part of the law is never applied – especially since support for Stepan Bandera and his Nazi-allied OUN is a key part of the official ideology of the Ukrainian regime. Article 436-1 of Ukraine’s criminal code was indeed never meant to target neo-Nazi elements. The proscription of Nazi symbols in Article 436-1 was included purely to obscure the stridently anti-communist nature of the law.
Many of the leftists imprisoned have been prosecuted under trumped-up charges under other articles of Ukraine’s criminal code. Among them is left-wing activist from Zaporozhye, Yuriy Petrovsky who was hit with a 15 year jail term for allegedly providing assistance to the Russian military. Also imprisoned is Bogdan Syrotiuk, a leader of the Young Guard of Bolshevik Leninists and who is associated with the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). Syrotiuk was arrested eight weeks ago on trumped charges of “treason” because of his opposition to both the Ukrainian and Russian side in the war. If convicted by Ukraine’s thoroughly biased courts, Syrotiuk is threatened with a prison sentence of 15 years to life. The ICFI have held rallies outside Ukraine embassies in several cities demanding freedom for Bogdan Syrotiuk, including a June 14 protest in Canberra conducted by the ICFI’s Australian section, the Socialist Equality Party (SEP). We in Trotskyist Platform add our voice to the demand for immediate freedom for 25 year-old Bogdan Syrotiuk.
Trotskyist Platform demands the immediate release of all those imprisoned by the Ukrainian regime for expressing pro-Soviet, communist and other leftist sympathies. We say: Immediately scrap the anti-communist Article 436-1 of Ukraine’s criminal code! We also call for the immediate release of all those imprisoned in Ukraine for advocating peace in the war of for expressing sympathy for Russia or merely admiration for Russian culture. Those public sector workers branded as “traitors” and “collaborators” for performing their duties during Russian control of their villages and cities must also be immediately freed. Down with the Ukrainian regime’s mafia-style abductions of dissidents and those-branded as “Russian collaborators”! Lift the regime’s ban on the Communist Party of Ukraine! Lift the Ukrainian regime’s ban on all other leftist, anti-nationalist, anti-war and other opposition parties!
It should be noted that we support the campaign to free ICFI-associated Bogdan Syrotiuk despite our profound political differences with the ICFI and the SEP. Not least among our differences with the ICFI/SEP is our objection to their decision to “denounce the Russian military intervention in Ukraine” in February 2022 – a point which they have been reiterating of late – which undercuts their nominal position of opposition to both sides in the war and slants towards a position of partially defending Ukraine (a true defeatist on both sides stance would not have taken a position on the question of the February 2022 Russian intervention). Today, recognising that Ukraine’s war with Russia has become subordinate to the Western imperialist tyrants of the world, we in Trotskyist Platform call for the defence of Russia (despite its reactionary capitalist rulers) against imperialism and its Ukrainian proxies. In contrast, the SEP and ICFI continue to take a stated position of opposition to both sides in the war.
Ukrainian journalist, Pavel Volkov, pictured during his 13 month period of imprisonment, starting in 2017, for writing articles critical of the Ukrainian regime. Since his release, he and his colleagues have analysed open source data revealing thousands of cases of political persecution in his country. Pictured sitting on the left is defence lawyer, Svetlana Novitskaya, who herself has been in pre-trial detention since 20 February 2024. Novitskaya is being persecuted for her defence of many high-profile political prisoner cases. She is accused of violating Article 436-2 of Ukraine’s criminal code, “denying the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine” during her statements in court defending her client, opposition politician, Inna Ivanochko!
Photo: Supplied
Extreme Political Repression in Ukraine a Result of the Early 1990s Capitalist Counterrevolution
The political repression in today’s Ukraine is far more intense and brutal than any repression that occurred in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic during the last four decades of the socialistic Soviet Union. To be sure, in the mid-late 1930s when the, by then bureaucratised, leadership of the Soviet worker state, under the impact of profound international defeats for the socialist movement, moved to the right in many areas – from international policy, to economic and social policies, to backsliding on Lenin’s 100% correct insistence on being sensitive to the national rights of the Ukrainian and other non-Russian peoples – the Stalin-led bureaucracy sought to muzzle potential resistance to this rightist turn with murderous persecution of the most devoted and thoughtful communists. Soviet Ukraine was especially hard hit by this repression for a several year period. However, from the late 1950s onwards, the jailing of political dissidents in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (and indeed the whole Soviet Union) became relatively rare. Moreover, the political prisoners that did exist in Soviet Ukraine during this period were largely not leftists. Rather, Soviet Ukraine’s repression mostly targeted opponents of socialistic rule – something which even a workers state operating under the ideal form of workers democracy may be compelled to do during the transition to full socialism if it is facing a world where the richest, most economically powerful countries of the world continue to be under capitalist rule.
All this is important to understand because the fanatically anti-Soviet Ukrainian regime and its imperialist masters present today’s Ukraine as “democratic” as opposed to the “totalitarian” Soviet period. Similarly, they portray the period of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as an unending series of horrors in which the Ukrainian people were supposedly “oppressed” by Russians. However, during the Soviet Union’s hey days in the late 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, the masses of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic enjoyed full employment, free high-quality education, free health care and a rich cultural, entertainment and sporting life. The 1917 great October Socialist Revolution not only freed all the toilers of the former Russian empire from capitalism but it liberated the people of Ukraine from the intense national oppression that they faced in the pre-Soviet days when they were under the thumb of Russian imperialist rulers. To be sure, during certain periods of Stalin’s administration of the Soviet Union, there were bouts of partial re-institution of policies offending the Ukrainian people’s legitimate national feelings. However, from the late 1950s onwards, although there remained a degree of Russian centredness in the Soviet bureaucracy, the culture of the minority nationalities of the socialistic USSR again flourished with renewed vigour along with the economic standard of living of their peoples. It could not be said that the people of Ukraine were nationally oppressed in this period. Indeed, by the latter days of the Soviet period, the average life expectancy in Soviet Ukraine was nearly a year and a half higher than in Soviet Russia.
However, the Soviet workers state faced intense hostility from the considerably richer imperialist powers. The immense external pressure that capitalism exerted upon the Soviet Union resulted in a conservative bureaucracy being squeezed up to the top of the workers state. The rule of this bureaucracy, with its petty privileges, politically and economically weakened the workers state. Through suppressing workers democracy, the bureaucracy retarded the Soviet Union’s socialist planned economy from reaching its full and tremendous potential. Eventually, under the relentless pressure of the imperialist powers and the economic stagnation that this caused, the bureaucracy started making more and more international and domestic concessions to capitalism. This encouraged a layer of petty capitalists and speculators and highly educated, mostly younger, people – who were seduced by the promise that capitalism would bring them the standard of living enjoyed by the upper and upper-middle classes in the West along with “democracy” – to push for outright capitalist counterrevolution. They spearheaded their push under the cover of fighting for “democracy”. In Ukraine this was supplemented with virulent Ukrainian nationalism. Yet despite their promises and the massive backing they were gaining from the U.S.-led imperialists, most of the people of Soviet Ukraine did not support these counterrevolutionaries. In a March 1991 Soviet-wide referendum on whether or not to maintain the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, more than 71% of the people of Soviet Ukraine voted to maintain the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in a referendum that had a nearly 84% turnout in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. However, although the majority of the people of Soviet Ukraine – and indeed the whole Soviet Union – were wary of those who wanted to overthrow socialistic rule, lacking authentic leadership and being depoliticised by decades of bureaucratic rule, they were confused as to what to do and, to an extent, were even unclear about the need to forcibly resist the emerging counterrevolution. As a result, a relatively small layer of imperialist-backed counterrevolutionaries were able to destroy the greatest victory the working classes of the world have ever achieved, while the working-class masses watched on by.
A comparison of life expectancy of Ukraine and China from 1989 to 2021. In 1989, the year before Ukraine and the rest of the Soviet Union started diving rapidly towards its 1991-92 capitalist counterrevolution, the average life expectancy in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was three years higher than in socialistic China (which then still had a long way to go to catch up from the terrible poverty of its pre-1949, semi-colonial capitalist times). But after capitalist counterrevolution, the life expectancy in Ukraine collapsed along with the people’s living standards. Three decades later, in 2021 (which was the year before the war started), the life expectancy in Ukraine was still less than it was near the end of her socialistic days in 1989, despite all the advances in global medical science over the last three decades. By contrast, China, which has remained under socialistic rule has continued to see a strongly rising life expectancy. From having an average life expectancy that was three years below that of Soviet Ukraine in 1989, socialistic China’s average life expectancy by 2021 was more than eight years higher than in, now, capitalist Ukraine (it is today almost 11 years higher).
Source: World Bank
The 1991-1992 capitalist counterrevolution and the resulting conversion of collectively-owned, public enterprises into the private ownership of a few was a disaster for the toiling masses of Ukraine. Indeed it was a catastrophe for all the masses of the former Soviet Union. Unemployment soared, people were driven into poverty, industries were dismantled, the social position of women diminished and ethnic tensions intensified. And far from the “democracy” that the leaders of the capitalist counterrevolution promised, every part of the former Soviet Union saw political persecution of opponents. In October 1993, pro-Western “democratic” Russian president, Boris Yeltsin unleashed tanks against protesters and his own parliament, killing nearly 150 people.
Such political repression in all ex-Soviet countries is driven by two inter-related factors. Firstly and most importantly, the capitalist counterrevolution reduced the living standards of much of the population. Bitter about their position and having known a better life in the Soviet days, the masses could not be held back from opposing the new social “order” through propaganda and nationalism alone. The new capitalist rulers also needed to unleash brutal political repression to keep the masses in check.
Secondly, the political repression in the now capitalist countries existing in the lands of the former Soviet Union is partly connected with the particular forms of capitalism that arose from the capitalist counterrevolution. In the lands that have never been workers states, capitalism emerged from feudalism (except in some settler colonies when it was brutally imposed on first peoples often living in egalitarian hunter-gatherer type societies) as a higher, more progressive social system than the one that it replaced. Then, after having exhausted its initially progressive content, now decaying capitalism brought only suffering to the masses, social reaction, imperialism and catastrophic inter-imperialist wars; while still containing elements of its ability to develop the productive forces further than the feudalism that it had replaced. However, when capitalism was re-introduced to the lands of the former Soviet Union, it had absolutely no traces of the young, initially relatively progressive, capitalism that replaced feudalism. Instead, the capitalism that was transplanted into the lands of the former Soviet Union was entirely the decrepit, reactionary capitalism of the late 20th century. Moreover, this capitalist rule was not replacing a still more oppressive feudalism but replacing a higher, more progressive social order – one based on collective ownership of the means of production and working-class rule. Therefore, inevitably, the new capitalist ruling classes dreamt not mainly of expanding the productive forces to boost profits but of looting the productive capacity that was already there and of making a killing by dismantling and selling off the former Soviet Union’s massive industrial base. The capitalism installed into the lands of the former Soviet Union was an especially corrupt and venal form of capitalism. Alongside the plunge in the masses standard of living caused by the reversion to a reactionary social system, capitalist restoration in the lands of the former Soviet Union led to a retrogression in the moral substance of the people. The destruction of a collectivist-based economic system and its replacement with one-based on exploitation and dog-eat-dog competition – especially in conditions of newly arisen poverty – has pushed many to abandon some of the caring, mutually aiding outlook that Soviet people were famous for in favour of a ruthless jostling for scarce jobs and assets. For all these reasons, the capitalism that arose on the ashes of the Soviet workers state has been a mafia-style capitalism, characterised by the close inter-twining of capitalists with criminal gangs and collaboration between state agencies and criminal groups. The brutality of the state organs in the now capitalist, ex-Soviet countries is then in part driven by their “need” to defend the interests of the particular capitalists-criminals that they are collaborating with by mercilessly suppressing the objections of both rival mafia capitalists and those citizens daring to challenge this corruption.
However, at the same time, more far-sighted elements within the capitalist classes in ex-Soviet countries see the need to bring order to their capitalism in order to ensure the efficiency and viability of their system. They seek a political force – typically centred around a “strongman” – to achieve this task. When such a political force is pushed into power by the dominant elements of the capitalist class, this force uses ruthless repression to make particular capitalists – and the sections of the masses that these bigwigs have brought around them – sacrifice some of their short-term criminal-linked plunder in order to ensure the overall interests of the capitalist class as a whole and the long-term survival of the capitalist order. This is the role played in Russia by Putin. The fact that he performs this function reasonably effectively is the reason why he has been backed by the majority of Russia’s capitalist exploiting class for so long – despite his occasional crackdowns on particular oligarchs. To be sure, the discipline to capitalism that such strongmen bring often does not apply to their closest friends and relatives within the capitalist class! That is why the capitalists closest to Putin are given favoured treatment – as long as they don’t drift into opposition to him (like late Wagner Group boss Yevgeny Prigozhin did!).
Yet, even amongst the repressive capitalist regimes in the countries of the former Soviet Union, today’s Ukrainian one is especially brutal. There are several reasons for this. One reason is that the people of Ukraine have suffered from capitalist counterrevolution especially hard. Notably, despite all the advances in modern health science over these last three decades, Ukraine’s average life expectancy in the year before the recent war began (2021) was actually lower than it was in 1989, the year before Ukraine and the rest of the USSR started sliding rapidly towards capitalist restoration! Moreover, whereas at the end of the Soviet times in 1990, Ukraine’s GDP per capita (as determined by the more relevant PPP – Purchasing Power Parity – method) was 95% of Russia’s, i.e. basically the same despite being far more resource poor than Russia; by 2021, the year before the war began, her per capita income was less than half that of Russia’s (46% of Russia’s to be exact). By the way, this comparison alone should smash the notion that Ukraine was a “subjugated” nation in Soviet times that became “liberated” through the destruction of the Soviet Union! However, the main point for us here is that the working-class masses of Ukraine have suffered even more cruelly from the capitalist counterrevolution than the masses of Russia. Therefore, the regime enforcing capitalist rule in Ukraine has been compelled to use still more brutal repression to keep the unhappy masses in line.
The second reason why repression is particularly severe in Ukraine is because the regime there took an especially fanatical anti-Soviet turn after the 2014 right-wing coup. They began knocking down monuments to the Soviet Union and to the Red Army’s victory over Nazi Germany. The regime even passed a law banning, under the threat of up to five years imprisonment, any singing of the Communist Internationale or the Ukrainian Soviet and Soviet anthems and any flying of the flags of the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the former Soviet Union! Yet a considerable proportion of Ukraine’s population is either old enough to remember how much better life was in Soviet times or at least old enough to hear such accounts from their parents and their aunts and uncles. To people who remember fondly and are proud of the achievements of the Soviet Union and of the Red Army’s heroic victory over Nazi Germany, the extreme anti-Sovietism of Ukraine’s ruling elite and its hailing of anti-Soviet, Nazi collaborators are unbearably offensive. This is especially true for the peoples of the southern and eastern parts of Ukraine, who have been less blinded by extreme nationalism than peoples in the western Galician region generally have. Thus to enforce its anti-Soviet laws, practices and ideology, the regime has had to use naked repression and intimidation against the significant percentage of pro-Soviet minded people in the country.
Thirdly, given that a significant part of Ukraine’s population speak Russian as well as other non-Ukrainian languages – including Hungarian, Moldovan and Romanian – as their first language, the post-2014 Ukrainian regime’s discrimination against the use of non-Ukrainian languages inevitably provoked strong resistance. Such discrimination is itself a result of the majority of the capitalist class realising that it could only protect itself from the wrath of the masses, discontented as they are over high unemployment and poor living standards, through diverting their anger onto Russian-speakers and ethnic minorities. Ukraine’s rulers are hardly the only capitalist ruling class to enact language discrimination in order to divide the working-class masses and prevent united multi-ethnic mass struggle against themselves. And they are hardly the only regime to face a revolt as a result of such discriminatory language policies! For example, in Sri Lanka, the majority of the capitalist ruling class, terrified by a massive 1953 general strike, which united workers from both the majority Sinhala ethnicity and the minority Tamil ethnicity, in the following years introduced language laws that ostentatiously discriminated against Tamil speakers. It was this discrimination against Tamil language speakers that in good part eventually led to the rise of the Tamil armed national liberation struggle. And similar to Sri Lanka, the Ukrainian regime’s language and other social discrimination against non-Ukraine speakers can only be enforced with brutal state repression against those who resist.
Fourth, and in good part for the above three reasons, a significant part of Ukraine’s population does not want to fight a war with Russia. Many even sympathise with Russia, which is seen as less oppressive of pro-Soviet sentiment than the Ukrainian regime as well as obviously being more tolerant of Russian speakers. Terrified by this reality, the Kiev regime unleashes hysterical repression and violence against dissidents – both real and perceived.
Political prisoner, Professor Sergey Shubin in the dock of a Ukrainian court. The Ukrainian regime sentenced Shubin to 15 years in prison for merely making reflections in his personal diary on what life would be like in his Nikolayev region if it were occupied by the Russian army.
Photo: Supplied
Fifth, the Ukrainian regime has a sizable support base of fanatical nationalists from which to launch repression against its opponents. Although a significant part of Ukraine’s population rejects the regime’s extreme anti-Soviet and anti-Russian hostility, there is also a sizable part of Ukraine’s self-employed and middle class population who have fallen for the extreme Ukrainian nationalism that they have been fed by the majority of the country’s capitalist class. They have bought the ruling class’ lying anti-Soviet propaganda. However, there is also a genuine fear amongst Ukrainian people that they will be subordinated by a new Russian empire as the Ukrainian people truly were in pre-Soviet, Tsarist times. These fears are born of the reality that today’s Russian Army is not the Soviet Red Army that liberated Ukraine from the Nazi invasion (and from Bandera and other Nazi collaborators). And today’s Russia is no longer a Soviet Russia that proclaims “Friendship of the Peoples” but a capitalist Russia whose rulers openly hail the expansionist, Great Russian chauvinist, Tsarist times. Ukraine’s capitalist rulers manipulate their people’s fear of being subjugated by Russia and inject into those legitimate fears ultra-right-wing nationalism, fanatical anti-Sovietism and loyalty to the program of Bandera and other Nazi collaborators.
In summary, capitalist counterrevolution has not brought the masses in the former Soviet lands any of the prosperity and “democracy” that the counterrevolutionaries promised – not even the token form of “democracy” that exists in Western capitalist countries. Indeed, it has brought the very opposite! This is true throughout all the lands of the former Soviet Union – and is especially true in today’s Ukraine.
Above, Ukraine, July 2022: Prime minister Albanese meets with Ukrainian leaders during a visit aimed at encouraging the Ukrainian regime to maintain their war against Russia. Albanese is here holding a model of the Antonov An-225, the world’s largest aircraft that was sadly destroyed during the early days of the war. Ukrainian officials had presented the AN-225 model to Albanese as a symbol of Ukrainian national pride. The people of Ukraine should indeed be proud of the magnificent AN-225. Except the AN-225 was not made during the period of the post-Soviet, capitalist Ukraine but was manufactured in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, with components and design also contributed by various other parts of the Soviet Union (Below: The AN-225 in Soviet times carrying the Soviet spacecraft the Buran). Yet today’s fanatically anti-Soviet, Ukrainian regime, that outlaws any use of Soviet symbols, ended up presenting to Albanese what is in reality a tribute to this marvel of Soviet engineering excellence! Inadvertently, that is an admission of how much more Ukraine achieved in Soviet times. For Ukrainian officials simply could not find any symbol of achievement from the more than three decades of post Soviet, capitalist Ukraine’s existence that was worthy of being presented as a gift to a foreign “dignitary”. For, given the extreme hostility to the Soviet Union of this Ukrainian regime, if there actually was such a symbol of achievement from post-Soviet Ukraine, they would have presented it, rather than having to claim as their own the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic’s – and broader Soviet Union’s – fabulous aircraft. In Soviet times, Ukraine was known for its aircraft manufacturing and other advanced industries, its beautiful tourist destinations and its hospitable people. In contrast, post-Soviet, capitalist Ukraine has been most known by the outside world as one of the scam capitals of the world; and even more so as a place from where large numbers of women facing poverty and lack of opportunity would seek to become “mail-order-brides” to men living in richer countries; or sex workers in the West (many of whom would end up being cruelly exploited by sex industry bosses). Capitalist counterrevolution has been an absolute disaster for most people in Ukraine and most people in all of the former Soviet Union.
Photo (top): X/Twitter @ukraine_world.
Photo (below): Peter Volek/JetPhotos.Net
Defend Russia Against Imperialism and its Ukrainian Proxies!
The Ukrainian regime’s imprisonment of tens of thousands of political prisoners blows to smithereens the claims of the Australian and other Western capitalist governments that they are backing Ukraine’s war in order to “defend democracy.” So what then is actually driving Ukraine’s war with Russia? When Russia first intervened in February 2022, the war was mostly an inter-capitalist squabble for territory. Ukraine wanted to forcibly keep lands in the eastern Donbass region where the majority of residents, mostly Russian speakers enraged at the fanatically anti-Soviet and anti-Russian character of the post-2014 regime, no longer wanted to be part of Ukraine. On the other hand, the Russian regime, encouraged by the ethnic/cultural solidarity of many of its people with the embattled Russian-speaking population in the Donbass region, wanted to not only grab the clearly pro-Russia portions of Ukraine but to gain additionally territory in regions where the majority of residents did not want to be part of Russia. Both the Ukrainian and Russian governments were driven by the needs of the respective capitalist classes that they serve to maximise the size of their guaranteed markets and the extent of raw materials under their control by maximising their country’s territory. For this reason, when Russia first entered Ukraine in February 2022, we called for opposition to both sides. At the same time, given that our “own” capitalist rulers and its U.S. senior partners were clearly backing Ukraine, we had a tilt that especially emphasized opposition to Ukraine. We demanded an end to all Western sanctions against Russia and an end to all Western military aid to Ukraine.
However, even from the first days of the Russian intervention there was another aspect to the conflict. The Western imperialist powers wanted to extend NATO to Russia’s borders in order to intimidate her. The imperialist powers wanted to prevent Russia from becoming a potential great power rival and hoped that they could instead, one day, again reduce Russia to the humiliated and dependent status that she had in the first decade after the capitalist counterrevolution. The imperial powers also hoped to pressure Russia into abandoning her friendly ties with socialistic China so that they could advance their main global strategic goal – to overthrow the Chinese workers state. Ideally, the imperialist powers hoped that through exerting pressure on Russia they could foster a “colour revolution” there that would bring to power a Western subservient regime – like the Yeltsin-Putin regime of the 1990s or the Ukrainian regime of today. Against these plans, Russia’s rulers understandably wanted to retard the encroachment of NATO to its borders.
Initially we judged that this driving force of the conflict was less a factor than the inter-capitalist squabble for territory. However, in our initial detailed coverage of the conflict, we foreshadowed the possibility that the antagonism between the Western imperialist powers and Russia could become the main aspect of the war. Within several weeks into the conflict, this is what indeed occurred. This was shown in late March-early April 2022 when Ukraine and Russia were on the verge of agreeing to a peace deal. However, that was scuttled by not only pressure on Zelensky from Ukraine’s fascist groups but by the diktats that the Western powers made to Kiev. Indeed on 9 April, then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson made a surprise visit to Kiev where he publicly told the Ukrainian government that no peace deal should be made with Russia. The following month, the U.S. announced a package of arms to Ukraine that was on a qualitatively greater scale than earlier military backing. It had become clear that although the element of inter-capitalist squabble between Ukraine and Russia remained, this was now the minor factor in a war that had become largely a conflict between Western imperialism and Russia, with Ukraine the proxy of the former. Although Russia’s capitalist rulers themselves long to build a new imperialist empire, they currently have neither the capital to do so nor the alliance of a wealthy imperialist power that could allow them to gain a stake in imperialist lootings through acting as a military enforcer for their ally. Therefore, what we now have is a proxy war between the real imperialist plunderers of the world and a capitalist but not imperialist Russia. Therefore, we in Trotskyist Platform called to defend Russia in the conflict, headlining in an article outlining our updated position: “Don’t Let the Western Capitalist Rulers Reinforce Their Tyranny Over the World! Defeat U.S., British, Australian and German Imperialism’s Proxy War to Weaken and Stifle Russia!” As our article explained:
Such a defeat would weaken the ability of the imperialists to mobilise further predatory interventions abroad. It would also deter their plans to use Taiwan as a proxy to pressure socialistic China or even to incite a world war against the socialistic giant. Moreover, any setback for the U.S. imperialists and their allies in this proxy war would give encouragement to the resistance struggles of all those being subjugated by the U.S. and its allies elsewhere, like the Palestinian people suffering under incessant Israeli terror. More generally, a defeat for the Western powers in their Ukraine proxy war could only encourage the toiling masses of Africa, Latin America, the South Pacific and most of Asia to resist in their own lands the various Western capitalists that super-exploit labour, plunder natural resources, leach loan interest repayments, seize markets and manipulate and stand over governments. Within the Western countries themselves, a defeat for the capitalist ruling classes in their proxy war would weaken their authority. It would thus open opportunities for the working class and oppressed to wage mass resistance against soaring rents and food and fuel prices, plummeting real wages, the incessant expansion of insecure work forms and brutal racist oppression of persecuted communities.
Our updated position meant that we were no longer calling for the Russian working-class to oppose the war effort of its own rulers – we were only making such an appeal to the Ukrainian masses. But for our work in Australia, the updated line did not change our fundamental slogans on the war. What it did do is to increase the urgency to oppose Australian military support to Ukraine as part of opposing the entire U.S.-NATO-led proxy war against Russia. As part of this it is necessary to campaign to free all leftist, anti-war, anti-nationalist and other political prisoners in Ukraine. This is not only to save tens of thousands of people from terrible suffering or even torture and death but to expose the lie of the Australian and other Western rulers that they are “working to defend democracy in Ukraine”.
Free the Political Prisoners in Australia Too!
It is possible through a campaign of exposure and agitation in Australia and other Western countries to make headway in winning the release of the political prisoners in Ukraine. This is because the Western regimes ability to make their own populations accept military aid to Ukraine depends on convincing their own populations that the arms are going to “defend a democracy against authoritarianism”. Therefore, exposure of the anti-democratic nature of the Ukrainian regime could significantly embarrass their Western masters and force the latter to push the Ukrainian regime to try and improve its image by releasing some of its political prisoners. In a similar but slightly different way that is how opponents of Cold War McCarthysim, demanding freedom for pro-North Korea political prisoner in Australia, Chan Han Choi and an end to the broader McCarthyist persecution of supporters of socialistic states, ended up pressuring the Australian regime to give Choi a much shorter sentence than the regime had been planning. Since attacking socialistic North Korea and its socialistic Chinese ally over “human rights” is the key method that the Australian rulers use to mobilise their own populations behind their Cold War drive against these countries, our agitation, exposing how the Australian rulers were violating the human rights of a North Korea supporter and how this was symptomatic of both the bogus character of the regime’s claims to stand for “human rights” and of the biased, anti-working class nature of its “justice system”, was very politically damaging to them. And it is only when our struggle against the capitalist exploiting class – and the state organs that enforce their interests – does political damage to them does the capitalist ruling class ever retreat. So let us fight to win freedom for political prisoners in Ukraine by politically damaging the Australian and other Western rulers through exposing the mass incarceration of dissidents by their supposedly “democratic”, Ukrainian proxies.
We cannot call for freeing political prisoners in Ukraine without also calling to free the political prisoners in Australia. The latest of these is David McBride, the whistleblower who was last month despicably sentenced to 5 years and 8 months in prison for passing information to the media that had the effect of exposing a large number of horrific war crimes by Australian special forces troops in Afghanistan. The other three political prisoners here are victims of the Australian ruling class’ enthusiastic participation in imperialism’s Cold War drive against socialistic China. The latest of these political prisoners to be jailed was Di Sanh Duong. Duong was outrageously sentenced to nearly three years in prison for supposedly “preparing to conduct foreign interference” on behalf of China, because he … publicly donated money to a Melbourne public hospital charity! Additionally, many Aboriginal people in prison, although not formally political prisoners, are in practice facing a political persecution. For they have been hit with not only over-policing but with especially harsh punishments because of the enduring racist nature of the Australian regime.
So we demand: Free the Aboriginal victims of Australia’s racist “justice system”! Free David McBride! Free Di Sanh Duong and fellow Cold War prisoners in Australia, Daniel Duggan and Alexander Csergo! Free the thousands of leftist, anti-war, anti-nationalist and other political prisoners in Ukraine!
Countering UAS is a growing part of defence requirements, and industry is stepping up to the demand. The unmanned drone threat to the security of not only government and military operations and facilities but also to commercial, industrial, and public events has grown rapidly. Industries in the Asia-Pacific region, capitalising particularly on their expertise and […]
Countering UAS is a growing part of defence requirements, and industry is stepping up to the demand. The unmanned drone threat to the security of not only government and military operations and facilities but also to commercial, industrial, and public events has grown rapidly. Industries in the Asia-Pacific region, capitalising particularly on their expertise and […]
