US rejects Australia’s calls to end pursuit of WikiLeaks(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
US rejects Australia’s calls to end pursuit of WikiLeaks
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/29/julian-assange-us-rejects-australias-calls-to-free-wikileaks-founder-during-ausmin-talks
98 comments
A reminder: Assange has now been a political prisoner without trial for more than a decade, simply for engaging in journalism the US does not like.
I want Assange free. But a reminder for the sake of transparency: held in the UK fighting extradition. I think your statement oversimplifies it.
Don't forget cia recommended assassinating him
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-lon...
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-lon...
Before that, he was held in an embassy and illegally surveilled while dodging assassination attempts.
When you're in prison indefinitely without trial, I don't think the location, type, form, or administrative classification really matters that much when you can't be with your family.
He's fighting extradition, sure, but it's extradition to a place where Manning was approximately tortured to death (she attempted suicide multiple times), so it's not really relevant.
When you're in prison indefinitely without trial, I don't think the location, type, form, or administrative classification really matters that much when you can't be with your family.
He's fighting extradition, sure, but it's extradition to a place where Manning was approximately tortured to death (she attempted suicide multiple times), so it's not really relevant.
Whilst it's important to stand up to the US on this matter, is there any way Australia can arrange with the UK to send him home?
> the WikiLeaks founder is alleged to have “risked very serious harm to our national security”.
Where "national security" = "reputation"
> the WikiLeaks founder is alleged to have “risked very serious harm to our national security”.
Where "national security" = "reputation"
To nobody's surprise: the U.S. does not actually have any protection for journalism, no protections for whistleblowers; if you embarrass them (worse in the case of WikiLeaks, being time and time again) they will get back at you to save any face. There is no reason to still go after Assange other than to make an example out of him.
They may even plot to assassinate you!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8041597/US-plotted-...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8041597/US-plotted-...
Many such cases!
100%. I've never seen a journalist embarrass the US government and get away with it. That's why there hasn't been any negative coverage of Biden and Trump got a total pass from the media.
Panama Papers? Although that's about financial shenanigans rather than Political.
But I still think the leaker was wise to remain anonymous.
But I still think the leaker was wise to remain anonymous.
> there hasn't been any negative coverage of Biden and Trump got a total pass from the media.
Are you from the Berenstein alternate reality? Do we have access to entirely-separate streams of media? No president in the united states has EVER avoided negative media coverage.
Are you from the Berenstein alternate reality? Do we have access to entirely-separate streams of media? No president in the united states has EVER avoided negative media coverage.
I would be greatly entertained by a world with zero negative coverage of Trump, because I assume we would also get the polar opposite of reality elsewhere in life. What's next, Celibate Clinton? Isolationist W? Communist Ford?
Imagine if they banned ad hominem attacks against the president. You can talk shit about the things they do or how terrible their policies are, but the moment you make it personal, it's jailtime.
What a weird reality to consider.
What a weird reality to consider.
Is this an argument about English libel laws?
... It is not, but now I am curious. Is that a thing in the Britzone?
Yes, from my memory of when a popular fantasy writer was in the mainstream discourse for a while, anybody that even said something remotely negative to her and advertised their location as in the U.K. immediately shut up and apologised after likely receiving legal threats. No anti-SLAPP regulation, either.
I believe it's because they can sue for damages related to the tarnishing of their image, though that may just be universal.
I believe it's because they can sue for damages related to the tarnishing of their image, though that may just be universal.
Biden and Trump are not the empire.
Remember when it was a "conspiracy theory" that Assange being detained in the UK to be questioned in Sweden by reopening a case was absolutely to help him be extradited to the US and punished for his heinous crimes: exposing corruption.
That's why the conspiracy accusations and labels and downvotes for the current thing shouldn't faze anyone, it's par for the course and then people pretend it never happened and that "we were always at war with eastasia".
That's why the conspiracy accusations and labels and downvotes for the current thing shouldn't faze anyone, it's par for the course and then people pretend it never happened and that "we were always at war with eastasia".
Exposing corruption, and also working directly with Russian intelligence to influence US elections. Assange is a complicated guy playing in a dangerous world, let's not pretend anyone involved here is a saint.
> influence US elections
I can't believe this narrative is still repeated. "influence" can mean almost anything. In the headliner 2016 story, it meant a few based Russian organizations bought several million dollars of targeted Facebook ads. That's what broke democracy I guess.
In Assange's case it means he released existing emails which reflected negatively on a candidate. In that past most of his released material has negatively reflected on republicans.
The US has an interest in, and is "influencing" foreign election 24/7 365.
I can't believe this narrative is still repeated. "influence" can mean almost anything. In the headliner 2016 story, it meant a few based Russian organizations bought several million dollars of targeted Facebook ads. That's what broke democracy I guess.
In Assange's case it means he released existing emails which reflected negatively on a candidate. In that past most of his released material has negatively reflected on republicans.
The US has an interest in, and is "influencing" foreign election 24/7 365.
You've lost a lot of the nuance which is part of the complexity. Assange released emails stolen from the DNC and given to him by Russian intelligence. He also made the decision not to publish data from similar attacks on the RNC. By doing so, he either should have known or for sure did know that he was acting in the interest of Russia to interfere in American elections.
> He also made the decision not to publish data from similar attacks on the RNC.
I've been watching Assange's odissey quite closely and I don't remember seeing anything about withholding data "on the RNC". Do you have an example?
I've been watching Assange's odissey quite closely and I don't remember seeing anything about withholding data "on the RNC". Do you have an example?
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican...
Both things happened around the same time, both sourced to Russian hackers. It is unknown if Assange was offered the RNC emails for release. It is pretty clear this was done for political ends to aid Donald Trump, less clear if Assange was personally "in" on it.
Both things happened around the same time, both sourced to Russian hackers. It is unknown if Assange was offered the RNC emails for release. It is pretty clear this was done for political ends to aid Donald Trump, less clear if Assange was personally "in" on it.
I read that the RNC "maybe" was hacked, not that WikiLeaks received anything. As a matter of fact WikiLeaks is mentioned nowhere in the article. Are you making the conjecture here that hacked also implies leaked?
If the theory that the hacks and the leaks of the DNC documents come from Russia to sabotage Clinton's chances holds water, it would make more sense that the Russian sources release to WikiLeaks only the dirt on the DNC, doesn't it?
If the theory that the hacks and the leaks of the DNC documents come from Russia to sabotage Clinton's chances holds water, it would make more sense that the Russian sources release to WikiLeaks only the dirt on the DNC, doesn't it?
If the New york times or new York post receive documents and they publish ones and not others with a partisan motive they're still not criminals.
So this is a typical bullshit thing for democrat-party aligned people for whom the ends justifies the means and there's no bad tactics, only bad targets. The very same types that tell you "twitter files are partisan nothing burgers" and that people like Matt Taibbi are "right wingers".
I don't care what the FBI tries to pull to muddy the waters. Or the government toppling CIA, for that matter.
Assange has been pursued and illegally imprisoned for exposing corruption and doing journalism, nothing more.
So this is a typical bullshit thing for democrat-party aligned people for whom the ends justifies the means and there's no bad tactics, only bad targets. The very same types that tell you "twitter files are partisan nothing burgers" and that people like Matt Taibbi are "right wingers".
I don't care what the FBI tries to pull to muddy the waters. Or the government toppling CIA, for that matter.
Assange has been pursued and illegally imprisoned for exposing corruption and doing journalism, nothing more.
You got one thing right:
"twitter files are partisan nothing burgers"
"twitter files are partisan nothing burgers"
You just exposed yourself as a partisan hack.
Glenn greenwald and taibbi are not republican sycophants but true left but, just like criticizing Hillary made you "russian" or trumpist, seeing the truth about censorship makes you "right winger/republican".
Edit: hypocrisy at its finest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36927153
It's so hilarious. You can't even come up with an original dismissal. It's the same old tired labels. Try harder.
Glenn greenwald and taibbi are not republican sycophants but true left but, just like criticizing Hillary made you "russian" or trumpist, seeing the truth about censorship makes you "right winger/republican".
Edit: hypocrisy at its finest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36927153
It's so hilarious. You can't even come up with an original dismissal. It's the same old tired labels. Try harder.
You are the one being partisan everywhere on this site. Anything you can bring politics into, and even where you shouldn't, you do.
you're stalking me with your bad takes and when you get actual debate you run.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/4125603-facebook-fi...
fun how the nothingburger even applies to jokes.
Begone, troll.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/4125603-facebook-fi...
fun how the nothingburger even applies to jokes.
Begone, troll.
Firstly, I am not trolling nor have I done anything to justify your behavior, read the rules around here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
" Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
Secondly, there is no debate here. I am merely witnessing the equivalent of a person screaming uncontrollably for no reason at an intersection in a big city.
" Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
Secondly, there is no debate here. I am merely witnessing the equivalent of a person screaming uncontrollably for no reason at an intersection in a big city.
That's just Government propaganda. The same bullshit type of propaganda that was used against Daniel Ellsberg and everyone else who exposed corruption in power.
Your comment is just muddying the waters with a strawman: "someone being a saint" to avoid the very true fact that Assange is persecuted and imprisoned for being adversarial to the government and exposing corruption. It's very simple.
As for influencing US elections, you should look into the CIA/FBI and your own corrupt political parties that censor left and right when truths that are inconvenient appear. Oh, who would've thought, exactly like in Assange's case.
The whole accusing someone of Russia is just so disingenuous and time and time again (russiagate, Hunter's laptop, etc) it's shown to be absolute bullshit, that is happily reproduced by the bought and paid for media, who has ex CIA people happily being panelists and commentators.
It's so ridiculous and your comment extremely low effort.
Your comment is just muddying the waters with a strawman: "someone being a saint" to avoid the very true fact that Assange is persecuted and imprisoned for being adversarial to the government and exposing corruption. It's very simple.
As for influencing US elections, you should look into the CIA/FBI and your own corrupt political parties that censor left and right when truths that are inconvenient appear. Oh, who would've thought, exactly like in Assange's case.
The whole accusing someone of Russia is just so disingenuous and time and time again (russiagate, Hunter's laptop, etc) it's shown to be absolute bullshit, that is happily reproduced by the bought and paid for media, who has ex CIA people happily being panelists and commentators.
It's so ridiculous and your comment extremely low effort.
> your comment extremely low effort.
and yours is extremely high in brain worms. Not sure why you're still beating this horse.
and yours is extremely high in brain worms. Not sure why you're still beating this horse.
The dogged pursuit of Assange long predates the 2016 election.
Conspiracy accusations are important.
You're talking about accusations of conspiracy theories.
You're talking about accusations of conspiracy theories.
Pretty much.
Anything a gov or an ideology doesn’t like often gets labeled conspiracy theory, [foreign] disinformation/collusion, terrorism, fascism. Some times throw throw more than one accusation at the idea they despise. Obviously sometimes those accusations are true in order to work, but it’s getting ridiculous now.
Anything a gov or an ideology doesn’t like often gets labeled conspiracy theory, [foreign] disinformation/collusion, terrorism, fascism. Some times throw throw more than one accusation at the idea they despise. Obviously sometimes those accusations are true in order to work, but it’s getting ridiculous now.
I'm really baffled by this. For example in the US, it's enough to just associate something with Russia for everyone to immediately drop any kind of critical thinking. You don't even have to provide compelling evidence for it. The association alone (real or made up) is already enough to completely corrupt the subject's image. This trick has been played dozens of times but somehow people still fall for it...
Or China.
>This trick has been played dozens of times but somehow people still fall for it...
and will keep falling for it. They can keep doing it because it keeps working, and people won't bother thinking a little bit deeper about the issue.
A whole lot of issues could be solved or on a good path to being solved if more people did that.
>This trick has been played dozens of times but somehow people still fall for it...
and will keep falling for it. They can keep doing it because it keeps working, and people won't bother thinking a little bit deeper about the issue.
A whole lot of issues could be solved or on a good path to being solved if more people did that.
Australia should just kick the US out. How can you have a meaningful defense partnership with a country that holds your own journalists hostage? Can you imagine if China and Canada had been collaborating on defense while the two Michaels thing was going on?
Australian here
We are a subimperial power. The metaphorical "empire" here being the "rules based" world order the US has established since WWII
We are the most powerful nation in Oceania but ultimately cannot confront the US when differences between us arise
We're one of the world's largest sources of minerals and land for the next few centuries. I don't think it's impossible we can't be invaded by a certainforeignpower by 2100
We're locally important, globally powerless and are clinging to the existing relational ties we have with our big brother, the US. Even to the determent of our own citizens
We are a subimperial power. The metaphorical "empire" here being the "rules based" world order the US has established since WWII
We are the most powerful nation in Oceania but ultimately cannot confront the US when differences between us arise
We're one of the world's largest sources of minerals and land for the next few centuries. I don't think it's impossible we can't be invaded by a certainforeignpower by 2100
We're locally important, globally powerless and are clinging to the existing relational ties we have with our big brother, the US. Even to the determent of our own citizens
Any power on the Pacific is going to lick its chops at the natural resources it could exploit if it just has this barely populated continent. So the Japanese during WW II and the Chinese today. Another area in similar distress is Siberia but they do have the protection of a nuclear armed bear.
> the Japanese during WW II
"Japan never seriously intended to invade Australia, a fact known to the Australian Government by mid-1942 and confirmed by intelligence reports, principal historian to the Australian War Memorial, Peter Stanley, said yesterday at a conference examining the events of 1942."
https://www.theage.com.au/national/japanese-invasion-a-myth-...
"Japan never seriously intended to invade Australia, a fact known to the Australian Government by mid-1942 and confirmed by intelligence reports, principal historian to the Australian War Memorial, Peter Stanley, said yesterday at a conference examining the events of 1942."
https://www.theage.com.au/national/japanese-invasion-a-myth-...
That's not entirely correct. There was a debate among the Navy and Army about whether they should or not or whether isolation was a better option. In the end they opted for isolation because due to Australia's geography (vast unpopulated). There is little doubt that if Japan had succeeded in the Pacific War that they would have gone after Australia (and Indonesia). It would be silly to write them off. The entire war was predicated over control of natural resources for an imagined future Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_...
I think John Mearsheimer summed it up quite well. Australia doesn't really have a choice. They don't really know what will happen if they go against China, but there are a lot of precedents on what happens to countries that go against the US. I guess the general consensus is to not risk that.
The Aukus deal is completely crazy. Australia is paying the US to build their own shipyards in the hopes that they get the right to share OLD submarines with the UK.
> “Now some people say there’s an alternative: you can go with China,” said Mearsheimer. “You have a choice here: you can go with China rather the United States. There’s two things I’ll say about that. Number one, if you go with China, you want to understand you are our enemy. You are then deciding to become an enemy of the United States. Because again, we’re talking about an intense security competition.”
> “You’re either with us or against us,” he continued. “And if you’re trading extensively with China, and you’re friendly with China, you’re undermining the United States in this security competition. You’re feeding the beast, from our perspective. And that is not going to make us happy. And when we are not happy you do not want to underestimate how nasty we can be. Just ask Fidel Castro.”
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/03/14/on-war-with-china-au...
The Aukus deal is completely crazy. Australia is paying the US to build their own shipyards in the hopes that they get the right to share OLD submarines with the UK.
> “Now some people say there’s an alternative: you can go with China,” said Mearsheimer. “You have a choice here: you can go with China rather the United States. There’s two things I’ll say about that. Number one, if you go with China, you want to understand you are our enemy. You are then deciding to become an enemy of the United States. Because again, we’re talking about an intense security competition.”
> “You’re either with us or against us,” he continued. “And if you’re trading extensively with China, and you’re friendly with China, you’re undermining the United States in this security competition. You’re feeding the beast, from our perspective. And that is not going to make us happy. And when we are not happy you do not want to underestimate how nasty we can be. Just ask Fidel Castro.”
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/03/14/on-war-with-china-au...
Australia exports a huge amount of iron ore and coal [0]. Out of all Australian exports, about 1/3 go to China. I'd assume even higher for the bulk materials.
Australia has a lot of the world's iron ore deposits [1]. Russia and Brazil are the other options, but each with about half Australia's size. And China with half Russia and Brazil's size.
China needs steel. Which means China needs iron ore. Which means China needs Australia / Russia / Brazil.
Which means if Australia avoids overtly antagonizing China, they'll most likely look the other way to avoid disrupting supply.
What would upset Australia's power is a breakdown of freedom of navigation by commercial shipping in the Pacific.
Historically, the US has been supportive of this. China is much less inclined to do so, absent benefit to itself.
Cue AUKUS opportunity. Principly focused on the type of assets that would allow Australia to credibly make sea denial costly for China.
> Australia is paying the US to build their own shipyards in the hopes that they get the right to share OLD submarines with the UK.
Australia gets US and UK nuclear submarine technology.
And 3 new-build US Virginia-class attack submarines, with an option for a further 2.
And help updating their port facilities to enable servicing nuclear submarines, which potentially means additional US SSN/SSBN visits.
In addition to closer cooperation on drone and other programs.
If Australia can keep China unhappy, but shy of angry, it's a good deal for Australia.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_Australia
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267381/world-reserves-of...
Australia has a lot of the world's iron ore deposits [1]. Russia and Brazil are the other options, but each with about half Australia's size. And China with half Russia and Brazil's size.
China needs steel. Which means China needs iron ore. Which means China needs Australia / Russia / Brazil.
Which means if Australia avoids overtly antagonizing China, they'll most likely look the other way to avoid disrupting supply.
What would upset Australia's power is a breakdown of freedom of navigation by commercial shipping in the Pacific.
Historically, the US has been supportive of this. China is much less inclined to do so, absent benefit to itself.
Cue AUKUS opportunity. Principly focused on the type of assets that would allow Australia to credibly make sea denial costly for China.
> Australia is paying the US to build their own shipyards in the hopes that they get the right to share OLD submarines with the UK.
Australia gets US and UK nuclear submarine technology.
And 3 new-build US Virginia-class attack submarines, with an option for a further 2.
And help updating their port facilities to enable servicing nuclear submarines, which potentially means additional US SSN/SSBN visits.
In addition to closer cooperation on drone and other programs.
If Australia can keep China unhappy, but shy of angry, it's a good deal for Australia.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_Australia
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267381/world-reserves-of...
PRC is MORE supportive of commercial shipping since most of shipping goes to PRC, not unconstrained military FONAP under guise of civilian maritime research. Historically US has seized/disrupted much more merchant shipping than PRC because US likes their sanctions against adversaries.
AUKUS subs to disrupt PRC shipping is highly questionable, not least because there's only a few of them, and they won't be available for 30+ years if ever, by which time PRC subsurface will dramatically out number them, not to mention their survivability / detectability against PRC ASW / subsurface detector infra. The tactic / strategic value of the subs are questionable on short/medium/long term timelines. The real and immediate value of AUKUS was forward positioning more US assets in west AU (bombers / subs), which announement also happened essentially concurrently with AUKUS announcement. The complexities of the nuke boats, not the subs themselves, is the glue that politically bind AU with said US posture for decades. The subs themselves, IMO will do little in terms of force balance/deterrance in 30+ years, or half that considering how much long range strikes PRC will be building to make west AU and most of US infra in AU unsurvivable.
AUKUS subs to disrupt PRC shipping is highly questionable, not least because there's only a few of them, and they won't be available for 30+ years if ever, by which time PRC subsurface will dramatically out number them, not to mention their survivability / detectability against PRC ASW / subsurface detector infra. The tactic / strategic value of the subs are questionable on short/medium/long term timelines. The real and immediate value of AUKUS was forward positioning more US assets in west AU (bombers / subs), which announement also happened essentially concurrently with AUKUS announcement. The complexities of the nuke boats, not the subs themselves, is the glue that politically bind AU with said US posture for decades. The subs themselves, IMO will do little in terms of force balance/deterrance in 30+ years, or half that considering how much long range strikes PRC will be building to make west AU and most of US infra in AU unsurvivable.
The PRC has only had a blue water navy in the last couple decades.
We see what their first impulse to do with that is in the militarization and claiming of the South China Sea.
We'll see what their use of naval power is in the next few decades.
If you're betting on "Use it to enforce rules based international order," then I'll gladly take the "Politics by other means" opposite side of that bet.
Do you believe if given a credible naval force that could rival the US Navy, China wouldn't blockade Taiwan tomorrow?
> AUKUS subs to disrupt PRC shipping is highly questionable
That wasn't my suggestion. It was AUKUS subs to deter interdiction and threatening of commercial shipping by PRC naval forces, in support of PRC political goals.
We see what their first impulse to do with that is in the militarization and claiming of the South China Sea.
We'll see what their use of naval power is in the next few decades.
If you're betting on "Use it to enforce rules based international order," then I'll gladly take the "Politics by other means" opposite side of that bet.
Do you believe if given a credible naval force that could rival the US Navy, China wouldn't blockade Taiwan tomorrow?
> AUKUS subs to disrupt PRC shipping is highly questionable
That wasn't my suggestion. It was AUKUS subs to deter interdiction and threatening of commercial shipping by PRC naval forces, in support of PRC political goals.
PRC has had a blue enough water navy to reach SCS since the 60s - it's their backyard not the gulf of Aden. See Paracel island skirmish in 74 and Johnson Reef in 88 against Vietnam. Obviously not enough to deter the USN but the US was neutral on the SCS dispute until recently for obvious geopolitical reasons. Latest round of SCS drama and reclamation around the 2010s also started by Vietnam who spurred every other claimant to improve features, including PRC who btw was second last to reclaim and militarize out of 6 claimants. Brunei is good boi. TLDR is PRC impulse will obviously use the navy (really coastguard/scs militia) to assert sovereignty rights (as do other claimants) but has not actually interrupted commercial shipping despite having decades to counter the narrative. Even when PRC had good reason to i.e. ROC/TW attempted to blockade PRC via port closure policy until the 90s. Entire narrative PRC will disrupt SCS SLOCs is fabricated by the US to rationalize increased naval/coast guard presence in SCS considering shipping could be routed around SCS - study in the 00s pegged rerouting premium at 10% to circumvent SCS, basically trivial.
Yes, PRC disrupting commercial shipping is a valid strategic concern but the hypotheticals of it don't actually make much sense given where force balance is heading. PRC trend towards mainland based long range fires = PRC doesn't need navy to blockade TW (and increasingly US assets in 1st island chain including SCS). Real work is credibly deterring the US from intervening at all by expanding strikes to disrupting 2/3IC and even AU/CONUS. I think people, especially those brought up in the US military talking points, fixate too hard over the naval component in IndoPac for both sides but signs are pointing to increasing irrelevance of naval projection - large reason for B21 and NGAD and trying to get JP/PH/AU to expand basing is to plug loss of fires from diminishing role of naval power which US says is important to rectify while inaction to reform US ship building and acquisitions suggest it's not. They see which way the next potential war is heading.
Ultimately what makes more sense is the threat narrative of PRC disrupting SCS shipping is useful to rationalize US forward deployment just like AUKUS subs are about getting US bombers in west AU. Which circles back to AUKUS subs, the consensus criticism is deterrence value for a few nuke boats is minimal especially in 30 years it will take to get subs online and especially in SCS which is borderline PRC lake at this point given state trend of PRC ASW and subsea monitoring expansion. That's without mentioning PRC's own nuke sub procurement that will reach if not exceed parity of US+AUKUS with post reveal that initial batch of AUKUS subs will be redirecting hulls from USN. Criticism of AUKUS subs deterrence value is explicitly about how little deterrence it offers relative to cost and how it will bind AU defense to US interests and erode long term AU sovereignty. The latter being the primary strategic logic of AUKUS.
Yes, PRC disrupting commercial shipping is a valid strategic concern but the hypotheticals of it don't actually make much sense given where force balance is heading. PRC trend towards mainland based long range fires = PRC doesn't need navy to blockade TW (and increasingly US assets in 1st island chain including SCS). Real work is credibly deterring the US from intervening at all by expanding strikes to disrupting 2/3IC and even AU/CONUS. I think people, especially those brought up in the US military talking points, fixate too hard over the naval component in IndoPac for both sides but signs are pointing to increasing irrelevance of naval projection - large reason for B21 and NGAD and trying to get JP/PH/AU to expand basing is to plug loss of fires from diminishing role of naval power which US says is important to rectify while inaction to reform US ship building and acquisitions suggest it's not. They see which way the next potential war is heading.
Ultimately what makes more sense is the threat narrative of PRC disrupting SCS shipping is useful to rationalize US forward deployment just like AUKUS subs are about getting US bombers in west AU. Which circles back to AUKUS subs, the consensus criticism is deterrence value for a few nuke boats is minimal especially in 30 years it will take to get subs online and especially in SCS which is borderline PRC lake at this point given state trend of PRC ASW and subsea monitoring expansion. That's without mentioning PRC's own nuke sub procurement that will reach if not exceed parity of US+AUKUS with post reveal that initial batch of AUKUS subs will be redirecting hulls from USN. Criticism of AUKUS subs deterrence value is explicitly about how little deterrence it offers relative to cost and how it will bind AU defense to US interests and erode long term AU sovereignty. The latter being the primary strategic logic of AUKUS.
I think you're underselling your country. Australia is big and important enough that the US can't just ignore it or casually overthrow its government and install a puppet one.
Obviously, it would benefit Australia to keep a good relationship with the US, but that doesn't mean they have to acquiesce to every American demand. What is the US going to do? Find another Australia?
There are many countries that don't share much of the nebulous "values" with America yet enjoy a membership of US-led military alliances, because they're important enough. (Might not be a great example, but see Turkey.)
Obviously, it would benefit Australia to keep a good relationship with the US, but that doesn't mean they have to acquiesce to every American demand. What is the US going to do? Find another Australia?
There are many countries that don't share much of the nebulous "values" with America yet enjoy a membership of US-led military alliances, because they're important enough. (Might not be a great example, but see Turkey.)
> cannot confront the US when differences between us arise
While it's true that Australia is a minnow compared to the US, it doesn't mean that it can't influence the US, it just means it can't coerce it, which no one can anyway.
Australia has done well so far by being a "middle power" and using diplomacy and statecraft. That's where its future lies. Everyone has to deal with the enormous power of the US, it's much better to do it as a "good friend".
While it's true that Australia is a minnow compared to the US, it doesn't mean that it can't influence the US, it just means it can't coerce it, which no one can anyway.
Australia has done well so far by being a "middle power" and using diplomacy and statecraft. That's where its future lies. Everyone has to deal with the enormous power of the US, it's much better to do it as a "good friend".
If it's any consolation, I believe Five Eyes access puts a nation above any old NATO member in adjacency to US hegemony and will become even more of a geopolitical asset in coming decades.
But yeah any amount of reading about the CIA in Aus, especially 1975 stuff, makes the power relationship clear.
But yeah any amount of reading about the CIA in Aus, especially 1975 stuff, makes the power relationship clear.
Australia is also still remote. It is literally far away from mostly things. Compare Canada, similar in size/resources/people/politics but geographically much closer to centers of power. Canada has more to fear.
It has Indonesia immediately to its north with a population of 275 million, it's not far away from potential trouble.
From the US perspective, SE Asia's population demographics make economic access a key determinant of the future.
If China can credibly restrict shipping in the south of the South China sea, then that accrues substantial economic power in the coming decades.
Which is another way of saying that if Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines don't believe in the US's regional power projection, they'll allow China to do as it wants.
In any escalation scenario, Guam gets plastered. Taiwan is blockaded. Okinawa is... well, that's a wildcard.
But Australia has land. A LOT of land. So establishing closer military ties (also with the Philippines) affords freedom of dispersement.
Which in turn increases US retaliatory options in the case of escalation.
Which makes sudden escalation less likely, as China has less to gain from it.
Or, in other words, the Pacific is now Europe ~1960, with the US trying to establish a credible capability to surge into the region in the event of hostilities.
If China can credibly restrict shipping in the south of the South China sea, then that accrues substantial economic power in the coming decades.
Which is another way of saying that if Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines don't believe in the US's regional power projection, they'll allow China to do as it wants.
In any escalation scenario, Guam gets plastered. Taiwan is blockaded. Okinawa is... well, that's a wildcard.
But Australia has land. A LOT of land. So establishing closer military ties (also with the Philippines) affords freedom of dispersement.
Which in turn increases US retaliatory options in the case of escalation.
Which makes sudden escalation less likely, as China has less to gain from it.
Or, in other words, the Pacific is now Europe ~1960, with the US trying to establish a credible capability to surge into the region in the event of hostilities.
That’s not a fair characterization. Indonesia has suffered at the hands of two empires, first the Dutch then the Japanese. It is not an expansionist power or a threat to Australia any more than New Zealand is. Just because people look different or have different beliefs doesn’t make them threats, that’s a primitive form of thinking that humanity ought to move away from.
Beyond the population and proximity, I'm not characterising anything. You're reading in a lot into my comment.
But in Australian politics, Indonesia as a potential, albeit very unlikely, threat has been discussed, with the point being that 275 million people in a somewhat politically unstable country has that potential.
It's only in this century that Indonesia has become a functioning democracy and has had authoritarian and sometimes brutal leaders, slaughtering hundreds of thousands, in the not so distant past. It currently has relatively good relations with Australia but they are not close or secure. No one is accusing them of anything but there is a non-zero chance of them becoming a threat.
But in Australian politics, Indonesia as a potential, albeit very unlikely, threat has been discussed, with the point being that 275 million people in a somewhat politically unstable country has that potential.
It's only in this century that Indonesia has become a functioning democracy and has had authoritarian and sometimes brutal leaders, slaughtering hundreds of thousands, in the not so distant past. It currently has relatively good relations with Australia but they are not close or secure. No one is accusing them of anything but there is a non-zero chance of them becoming a threat.
From 1980s-2010s, AU military training opfor was the "Musorian Armed Forces" aka Indonesia. ID recent military presentation on ballistic missiles also highlighted AU as potential target (and Singpore, Philiphines, SCS). Reality is ID defense will modernize with time threat perception is correlated to capabilities.
[deleted]
the Australian government does not give a fuck about Australian citizens getting themselves in deep shit overseas, never has, never will
and it's because the ones that persist in doing so would wear their entitlement on every bloody sleeve so hard until every consulate is jammed up dealing with the procedural consequences of every half-cocked larrikin pisshead that tries stealing a tuk-tuk or whatever, and by the gods we export enough of them, sorry world
and it's because the ones that persist in doing so would wear their entitlement on every bloody sleeve so hard until every consulate is jammed up dealing with the procedural consequences of every half-cocked larrikin pisshead that tries stealing a tuk-tuk or whatever, and by the gods we export enough of them, sorry world
That may be your perception. On the other hand, there are posters in your airports saying that if an Australian uses prostitution overseas, he will be arrested when he comes back.
No there aren’t, as a quick search for the legality of prostitution in Australia would have told you.
You may have missed the word “child”, as sex tourism of this kind is unfortunately still a problem.
You may have missed the word “child”, as sex tourism of this kind is unfortunately still a problem.
That's the point, though, isn't it? Fun fact: when you come back, you are no longer overseas, so now the Australian government once again gives a fuck about you! In principle, at least.
And they're not my airports. If they were, parking would be cheaper
And they're not my airports. If they were, parking would be cheaper
are you sure it wasn't prostitution but child abuse overseas that was illegal?
I think he meant child prostitution, which is a popular pursuit for some Australian* men in certain Asian countries.
* But not exclusively, see Gary Glitter for instance.
* But not exclusively, see Gary Glitter for instance.
[deleted]
Wait, really? I haven't seen these before.
Not worked well for Austraila, before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...
Yeah, they should just kick the US out over Julian Assange, that'll teach them a good lesson they won't soon forget. Who needs the USA anyway, Australia will be fine without them.
I know I'm replying to sarcasm, but China would literally buddy up to Australia as soon as any rift between between Australia and the US became publicised.
Australia potentially has more value to the US than vice versa.
Australia potentially has more value to the US than vice versa.
Over 85% of Australians have an unfavorable view of China, which is greater than the % having an unfavorable view of China in the US. Australia's partnership with the US is largely due to China.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/07/27/views-of-china...
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/07/27/views-of-china...
The journalist thing is a fig leaf. He had a clear political agenda and happily did the bidding of the Russians (and others) in an attempt to score political points.
Calling yourself a journalist is not a get out of jail free card.
Meanwhile Australia relies on the US for it's security. It has basically no hope of defending its land mass with its existing defense force and has no interest in funding one that could.
If you put your proposal to Australians you'd basically have no hope of getting a majority that agreed.
Calling yourself a journalist is not a get out of jail free card.
Meanwhile Australia relies on the US for it's security. It has basically no hope of defending its land mass with its existing defense force and has no interest in funding one that could.
If you put your proposal to Australians you'd basically have no hope of getting a majority that agreed.
Does his agenda make him lie? Does it have any impact on the sources, that used wikileaks?
No? Then why is it important?
You were right, it is a fig leaf for ones and a strawman for others.
The main problem, we as a society have, is a embassing lack of problem awareness! Guess what wikileaks does, i beg you.
No? Then why is it important?
You were right, it is a fig leaf for ones and a strawman for others.
The main problem, we as a society have, is a embassing lack of problem awareness! Guess what wikileaks does, i beg you.
> Does his agenda make him lie?
He accepted hacked emails from the Russians and released them in a way to effect his goal of having Clinton lose the election. That was his stated goal.
You wouldn't call it a lie, but calling yourself a journalist on that basis certainly is.
Most people who back Assange just agree with his politics and/or means to an ends. But they don't have that level of awareness.
He accepted hacked emails from the Russians and released them in a way to effect his goal of having Clinton lose the election. That was his stated goal.
You wouldn't call it a lie, but calling yourself a journalist on that basis certainly is.
Most people who back Assange just agree with his politics and/or means to an ends. But they don't have that level of awareness.
So telling the truth at the wrong time makes it immoral?
Stories of high interest, not coming from him.
Stories of high interest, not coming from him.
H Clinton was a terrible candidate. That's why she lost. Neoliberalism has destroyed the working class. Democrat elites too arrogant to blame themselves for their own stupidly tried to blame Putin/Russians and now we have a war in Ukraine. How's that war going in Ukraine? If it's strictly a policy to make the military industrial complex rich it's a huge success. By all other measures it's an effing disaster.
...As a whistleblower, you might as well call yourself everything you can, because as is evidenced by the degree of diplomatic murder hornet swarm you can kick up by outing governmental dirty laundry, you'll need all the help you can get.
See about every whistleblower of the last decade and a half.
McAfee, Assange, Snowden... and yet not one official ousted or inconvenienced. Astonishing really.
See about every whistleblower of the last decade and a half.
McAfee, Assange, Snowden... and yet not one official ousted or inconvenienced. Astonishing really.
... MacAfee was a whistleblower?
[deleted]
> holds your own journalists hostage?
The rub is that he is not a journalist.
The rub is that he is not a journalist.
Ahem we have other journalists we hold hostage
Edit: this is a joke about our National Security Laws and frivolous use of Gag Orders. Plus the AFP raiding journalists on a whim
Edit: this is a joke about our National Security Laws and frivolous use of Gag Orders. Plus the AFP raiding journalists on a whim
Who and for which crimes?
australians deeply hate/fear china at a visceral level, which is pretty much the only thing that matters in this relationship.
they'll gladly sacrifice their own economic growth and autonomy to bolster the US hegemony. this is patently obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together. it's less than 20 million white people sitting on a continent the size of the US. they need protection at any cost, no questions asked. this isn't rocket science.
DC wears the commonwealth crown these days, london is a literal sideshow/museum/slush fund and canberra is basically just a military/listening outpost with a mining station attached.
they'll gladly sacrifice their own economic growth and autonomy to bolster the US hegemony. this is patently obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together. it's less than 20 million white people sitting on a continent the size of the US. they need protection at any cost, no questions asked. this isn't rocket science.
DC wears the commonwealth crown these days, london is a literal sideshow/museum/slush fund and canberra is basically just a military/listening outpost with a mining station attached.
I’m sorry you had this experience, but it’s true. Australians are often deeply racist. However, Chinese are too. It’s unfortunate, but it’s not the main issue.
One issue Australians have is their vastly inferior (in general) level of rhetorical facility on these matters, as compared to Chinese. We just don’t have the quality of critical thought that many young Chinese are displaying. This sounds ridiculous, I know, but again it’s true.
If Australia is going to effectively think about, and eventually negotiate, its place in the changing order, its citizens need to get a lot more cosmopolitan, critical and perceptive about international affairs.
For educated Chinese, I suspect thinking critically about international perceptions and power (and possibly even relations) is almost second nature: it makes sense to have it as a National pastime for an emerging power.
Australians need to recognize the necessity of this for their own position, too, and work to let go of the limiting policy dogma that continues to constrain and limit their political thinking.
It may not be too useful to promote Paul Keating as a role model for this type of critical faculty as his stances will provoke too much opposition for people to want to admire or follow him. Yet the truth is his kind of contrarian policy thinking is exactly more of what Australian needs, even if of not exactly the same flavor.
Unfortunately, we’ve been a victim of our own success, and our economic buffer will conceivably for the midterm, insulate us from the urgent need to develop the critical faculties that are so essential to our long-term future.
In other words, people can say “why do I need to rethink it? we’re doing great.”
One issue Australians have is their vastly inferior (in general) level of rhetorical facility on these matters, as compared to Chinese. We just don’t have the quality of critical thought that many young Chinese are displaying. This sounds ridiculous, I know, but again it’s true.
If Australia is going to effectively think about, and eventually negotiate, its place in the changing order, its citizens need to get a lot more cosmopolitan, critical and perceptive about international affairs.
For educated Chinese, I suspect thinking critically about international perceptions and power (and possibly even relations) is almost second nature: it makes sense to have it as a National pastime for an emerging power.
Australians need to recognize the necessity of this for their own position, too, and work to let go of the limiting policy dogma that continues to constrain and limit their political thinking.
It may not be too useful to promote Paul Keating as a role model for this type of critical faculty as his stances will provoke too much opposition for people to want to admire or follow him. Yet the truth is his kind of contrarian policy thinking is exactly more of what Australian needs, even if of not exactly the same flavor.
Unfortunately, we’ve been a victim of our own success, and our economic buffer will conceivably for the midterm, insulate us from the urgent need to develop the critical faculties that are so essential to our long-term future.
In other words, people can say “why do I need to rethink it? we’re doing great.”
Reminds me of this piece jewel of a piece, there are deep cultural problems in the west:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/russias-dipl...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/russias-dipl...
minor addition to the above -- China has an abundance of computer science skill at the population level, and specialist University-level math and computer science in numbers similar to entire populations elsewhere. The cliche failing of Chinese thinkers - lack of originality - is not nearly as much of an impediment in CS. The number of DeepLearning and AI academic papers in the last five years or so, might not be "the" winning paper, but thousands are good enough.
[deleted]
It's not the fear of china. Australia cannot make an independent decision without facing the wrath of the US. There is no way Australia or UK can part ways with US diplomatically
According to your comment, it's not fear/hate of China, it's fear/hate of the US.
IMO more US discourse power via influence over news orgs, ngos, think tanks etc allows them to control who to hate/fear. Both geopolitical adversaries AND anti US candidates in partner countries. Domestic media in LIO countries can't compete against motivated US propaganda, nevermind PRC propaganda. It's inability to counter US interests when push comes to shove. Especially AU who is maximally/existentially integrated in US defense, they don't have the conditions to pursue independant foreign policy even if they wanted to.
yes - the US tells them who to fear and who to hate, and why.
the entire anglosphere follows the beat of their drummer. it's obvious if you ever travel outside of the 5 eyes countries + NATO, which i'm guessing like 90% of english speakers don't, and never will.
the entire anglosphere follows the beat of their drummer. it's obvious if you ever travel outside of the 5 eyes countries + NATO, which i'm guessing like 90% of english speakers don't, and never will.
"hate" is too strong. Australia and China have both prospered together for many years. Australia has too much to be thankful to China for.
It is more likely pure fear. If current trends continue, at some point Australia'll have to knuckle under and start aligning ourselves with Chinese policy or get squished by them. And If the US/South America dynamic is any standard to go by, they'll probably start taking a more active role in moderating Australian politics which isn't welcome to the current politicians.
It is more likely pure fear. If current trends continue, at some point Australia'll have to knuckle under and start aligning ourselves with Chinese policy or get squished by them. And If the US/South America dynamic is any standard to go by, they'll probably start taking a more active role in moderating Australian politics which isn't welcome to the current politicians.
The UK also has a strategic position as part of the giuk gap.
I hear on the grapevine that all US submarines globally are managed from a secret facility in northern Australia, which no longer need to surface as they now have water penetrating signals presumably from LEO satellites. Given that substantial importance alone, let alone Pine Gap, I don't think the US would allow kick-out. They'd just run some kind of CIA thing internally and rejig Aussie politics, which is a joke any way you look at it.... the only creatures in parliament last time I visited were a bunch of galahs doing a bit of grass on the roof. The only people keeping Aussie politicians relatively honest were the ABC, and they've been defunded. Canberra, Australia's political capital, representing the depth and expanse of its defense and political establishment, is its fastest growing city. Yet 45 minutes out of town there is no phone signal, like a developing country, and the bars say their best business comes when parliament is sitting. Source: Visited a month ago.
> They'd just run some kind of CIA thing internally and rejig Aussie politics
Did it once already:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-...
Did it once already:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-...
rixthefox(1)