Illustrative Image
Written by Dr. Binoy Kampmark
If anyone was expecting a new tilt, a shine of novelty, a flash of independence from Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s address to the National Press Club on April 17, they were bound to be disappointed. The anti-China hawks, talons polished, got their fill. The US State Department would not be disturbed. The Pentagon could rest easy. The toadyish musings of the Canberra establishment would continue to circulate in reliable staleness.
In reading (and hearing) Wong’s speech, one must always assume the opposite, or something close to it. Whatever is said about strategic balance, don’t believe a word of it; such views are always uttered in the shadow of US power. From that vantage point, Occam’s Razor becomes a delicious blessing: nothing said by any Australian official in foreign policy should ever be taken as independently relevant. Best gaze across the Pacific for confirmation.
In Wong’s address, the ill-dressed cliché waltzes with the scantily clad platitude. “When Australians look out to the world, we see ourselves reflected in it – just as the world can see itself reflected in us.” (World, whatever you are, do tell.)
The basis for this strained nonsense is, at least, promising. Variety can, paradoxically, generate common ground. “This is a powerful natural asset for building alignment, for articulating our determination to see the interests of all the world’s peoples upheld, alongside our own.” Mightily aspirational, is Wong here, though such language seems pinched from the Non-Aligned Movement of the Cold War, one that Australia, US policing deputy of the Asia-Pacific, was never a part off. No informed listener would assume otherwise.
Like a lecture losing steam early, she finally gets to the point of her address: “how we avert war and maintain peace – and more than that, how we shape a region that reflects our national interests and our shared regional interests.” It does not take long to realise what this entails: talk about “rules, standards and norms – where a larger country does not determine the fate of the smaller country, where each country can pursue its own aspirations, its own prosperity.”
That the United States has determined the fate of Australia since the Second World War, manipulating, interfering and guiding its politics and its policies, makes this statement risible, but no less significant. We are on bullying terrain, and Wong is trying to pick the most preferable bully.
She can’t quite put it in those terms, so speaks about “the regional balance of power” instead, with Australia performing the role of handmaiden. She dons the sage’s hat, consumes the shaman’s herbal potion, insisting that commentators and strategists have gotten it wrong to talk about “great powers competing for primacy. They love a binary. And the appeal of a binary is obvious. Simple, clear choices. Black and white.”
It takes one, obviously, to know another, and Senator Wong, along with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, have shown little resistance to the very binary concept they supposedly repudiate. Far from opposing it, we might even go so far as to see their seduction by US power as a move towards the unitary: there is only one choice for the Canberra cocktail set.
Much of the speech seems trapped in this register. It rejects the “prism of great power.” It abhors the nature of great powers scrapping and squawking over territories. And yet, Wong is keen to point the finger to one great power’s behaviour: unstainable lending, political interference, disinformation, reshaping international rules and standards.
Finally, the dastardly feline is out of the bag – and it is not the United States. “China continues to modernise its military at a pace and scale not seen in the world for nearly a century with little transparency or assurance about its strategic intent.”
Oh, Penny, if only you could understand the actual premise of AUKUS and the US modernising strategy, given that Washington’s defence budget exceeds those of the next nine powers combined. Yes, you do say that a conflict over Taiwan “would be catastrophic for all”, but there is nothing to say what will restrain you, or your colleagues, from committing Australia to such a conflict. Given that the Albanese government has turned up its nose at war powers reform that would have given Parliament a greater say in committing national suicide, confidence can hardly be brimming.
The assessment of Australia’s own role in international relations is not just off the mark but off the reservation. “We deploy our own statecraft toward shaping a region that is open, stable and prosperous. A predictable region, operated by agreed rules, standards and laws. Where no country dominates, and no country is dominated. A region where sovereignty is respected, and all countries benefit from a strategic equilibrium.”
To this, one is reminded of the remarks of former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating, who describes Wong’s alms-for-the-poor routine as, “Running around the Pacific Islands with a lei around your neck handing out money”. This could hardly count as foreign policy. “It’s a consular task. Foreign policy is what you do with the great powers: what you do with China, what you do with the United States.”
Much of the speech inhabits the realm of the speculative. Wong is delusionary in assuming that regional states will accept Australia’s observance of the Treaty of Rarotonga, whatever the stance taken by the AUKUS pact members. Otherwise known as the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, Wong has revealed Australia’s ambivalence in observing its provisions. For one, she is on record as accepting the position that the US need not confirm whether nuclear-capable assets visiting Australia have nuclear weapons. She merely says that Washington “confirmed that the nuclear-powered submarines visiting Australia on rotation will be conventionally-armed.”
This hardly squares with the assessments of her own minions in the Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs, who have confirmed that Australia will accept the deployment of nuclear weapons on its soil as long as they are not stationed.
The last word should be left to that great critic of the Albanese tilt towards Washington’s military-industrial pathology. “Wong,” observed Keating, “went on to eschew ‘black and white’ binary choices but then proceeded to make a choice herself – extolling the virtues of the United States, of it remaining ‘the central power’ – of ‘balancing the region’, while disparaging China as ‘intent on being China’, going on to say ‘countries don’t want to live in closed, hierarchical region, where rules are dictated by a single major power to suit its own interests’. Nothing too subtle about that.” The Washington establishment will be delighted.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
– “The report [‘Australia-Japan-US Maritime Cooperation’ by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies] contains specific recommendations….. The report’s author, Andrew Shearer, is a senior figure in the Australian foreign policy and military establishment…. Shearer is also very well connected in Washington…… Shearer makes clear [the] main “hard security” objective is to prepare for war with China….. The Pentagon’s preoccupation with “freedom of navigation” and China’s A2/AD [Anti-Access Area Denial] systems flows directly from its military strategy for war with China—Air Sea Battle. This is premised on being able to launch massive missile and air attacks on the Chinese mainland from warships and submarines in nearby waters, as well as from military bases in Japan and South Korea. Australia and Japan are central to Air Sea Battle and associated strategies, which include a naval blockade of China to strangle its economy…… ” (CSIS report argues for strong US-Japan-Australia alliance against China, By Peter Symonds, 9 April 2016)
A key aspect of US-Australian operational planning involves the enforcement of a naval blockade of China (with the objective of ‘economic strangulation’). The formation of military alliances and build-up of military architecture that is occurring under the framework of AUKUS relate to war preparations.
As such, symmetrical shared basing agreements (aviation, naval/submarine forces, etc.) between China and Russia would a logical response to the evident war preparations of the AUKUS alliance.
While the minimisation of war scenarios will remain a priority for Russia and China, US-allied escalations (their actions being incompatible with their rhetoric) have a logical outcome. Importantly, the deterrent and retaliatory military potential of China and Russia is significantly greater if combined. The approaching conflict will likely require the enhancement of military cooperation (and joint operational planning). Note: When this conflict occurs, the horrors the US-NATO-allied bloc will experience will eclipse the horrors they have inflicted on successive nations. This should also be self-evident.
Rhetoric of ‘deterrence’ or ‘de-escalation’ by Australian officials (parroted by its MSM) has no relevance to reality (and is incompatible with its actions) as Australia does not maintain a defensive posture and it is fuelling various active conflicts (including in Ukraine involving the provision of military hardware, training, ISR/targeting data, ADF forces operating as PMCs, etc.). Its procurements relate directly to efforts to enhance its offensive potential in an allied war against China (Australia integrated into US military architecture and operational planning).
In reality (in contrast to the claims of Australian officials and its MSM) Australia has embraced the aggressive globally expanding militarism of the US-NATO-allied bloc. This is evident through observation of Australian participation in successive US-led wars of aggression (Australian accusations of ‘Chinese aggression’ being based in hypocrisy as it is not China that is attacking successive nations).
For many analysts it is common knowledge this bloc will in time transition to focus on confrontation with China. AUKUS is an aspect of these preparations (for a US-led war against China).
While Australia currently recognises the implications of this approaching US-led war scenario against China, the fact remains it will be a key belligerent when this occurs. This should be self-evident. As such, the current enhancement of military cooperation between China and Russia is both necessary and timely.
Australia will in time be involved in another US-led war, this time against China (Australia already being involved in allied operations in Ukraine).
Despite the rhetoric of various Australian officials (such as statements by Australian FM Penny Wong, her efforts largely intended to dissuade a military response by China to the ongoing US enhancement/integration of Taiwan into allied close proximity military-missile architecture), it is a matter of logic Australia will in the near future be in a kinetic stage of conflict against China.
For many analysts it is common knowledge forms of warfare currently being applied against Russia will in time be employed against China, consistent with the sequential targeting format of the US-NATO-allied bloc. When this war is imposed on China (due to ongoing US escalations), the incompatibility of rhetoric (of various Australians officials) with the actions of Australia will become evident.
Australian strategic policy documents show it is integrated into US operational planning for this approaching war scenario. While Australian officials are currently talking de-escalation (seeking to restore lost trade with China and concerned about China going to war against a secessionist Taiwan despite Western bloc threats), Australia is accelerating preparations for war. This includes seeking advanced US military aviation including UAVs, US (nuclear-capable) Tomahawk missiles (on naval platforms[Mk-41/Mk-14 launch canisters]/submarine platforms [US Virginia class]), hosting and acquiring US/UK nuclear (powered and capable) submarines while increasing the build-up of US military forces including ‘strategic aviation’ [nuclear bombers] and broader US military architecture.
Australia will augment US-led operations against China when war occurs (being the logical outcome of the US replicating the Ukraine format in relation to Taiwan [integration into allied close proximity military-missile architecture] and corresponding escalations). In this context, the quiet adjustment of operational planning (conventional and strategic forces) by China and the enhancement of military cooperation with Russia would be advisable.
As an Australian, I can affirm that Penny Wong has always been a very hate-filled woman. . .
… and – surprise surprise! – she’s a Lesbian.
Who didn’t see THAT one coming?
Quick summary, the unfettered Truth – Australia is NOT a “democracy”, it’s a Chess Piece.
Update: US escalations in relation to Taiwan (build-up and integration into allied close proximity military-missile architecture) not only relate to the US efforts to secure supply chains associated with key Taiwanese technology industry (relating to the pursuit of allied economic and technological primacy) but importantly also relate to the pursuit of nuclear primacy (allied close proximity fast offensive/first-strike potential with multi-layered multi-phase retaliatory missile interception capabilities and corresponding surveillance/tracking radar [efforts to overcome MAD]). This potential creates an unacceptable security threat to China. US escalations will in time logically transition the intensifying hybrid warfare domain to kinetic stages of conflict. At that time Australia will be at war against China and will experience the consequences of its own hostile actions. This scenario is closer that they would like to believe. As I have stated previously, the greatest threat to many are the consequences of their own actions. When Australia participates in another US-led war, this time against China, there will be understanding (and experience) of this concept.
Note: Australian resort to criminal forms of warfare is well established. For example, Australia demanded sanctions be maintained against targeted nations (and individuals) even after it was established these sanctions were creating a humanitarian crisis and in some cases (such as Iraq), mass infant deaths conforming to genocide. Such immoral (evil) behaviour will however soon be ended in an approaching horror of their own making, the many gradually globally expanding wars of the US-NATO-allied bloc progressing to the final stages of what in time will be commonly recognised as the latest unfolding world war. This event will not translate to human extinction but it should be self-evident it would/will eclipse all previous wars. While efforts to prevent such an event will continue, it would be prudent for the military commands of Russia and China to attain nuclear primacy as a matter of priority. US-NATO-allied bloc escalations have a logical outcome.
FWIW, despite wishful thinking by certain factions, war with China now is inevitable.
Martin Armstrong’s AI platform Socrates has already come to that conclusion. According to Socrates, war will kick off sometime in 2024, with intensity peaking around 2027.
This time around – WE are the “bad guys”.
If only a war with China would break out there could be more to us. More refugees in the world, more organ trade, more human trafficking, more money to us……….LOL.
“…the ill-dressed cliche waltzes with the scantily clad platitude.”
Damn that’s good.
Australia is being naive by allowing the US to drag them into this conflict…