The AUKUS pact, a tripartite agreement involving the US, UK, and Australia, yielded gains for most partners, barring one. Australia, while seemingly assured of protection, found its aggressive stance—embracing nuclear-powered submarines and serving as a forward US military base—antagonizing other nations. Despite feeling a sense of superiority, we ultimately lost in the deal by surrendering to a foreign power like never before.
Recent events served as a stark reminder to Australians about our government's complete submission to Washington, making any talk of independence embarrassing. However, officials like Defence Minister Richard Marles and Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy painted a different picture, highlighting the approval granted by the US Congress through the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This approval sanctioned the transfer of three Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia's navy, with one ready for deployment and two in-service vessels. Additionally, Australia might seek approval for two more submarines of the same class.
These measures also allowed Australian contractors to train in US shipyards, aiding the establishment of Australia's nonexistent nuclear-submarine base. Furthermore, exemptions from US export control licensing requirements facilitated the transfer of controlled goods and technology among Australia, the UK, and the US without the need for an export license.
Marles praised Congress for providing unprecedented support, emphasizing the strength of the alliance and shared commitment to AUKUS. Yet, the minister conveniently ignored less flattering aspects of the authorization, like the exemption granting Washington control over Australian goods and technology while regulating US equivalent sharing with Australia. This exemption essentially retained Washington's role as the controller of nuclear technology.
Bill Greenwalt, familiar with the US export control system, highlighted Australia's adherence to failed US principles, emphasizing that such cooperation would strip Australia of its sovereign capability, placing it under US control and bureaucracy.
One significant outcome of this pact, particularly beneficial for the US military industry, was the inclusion of Australian taxpayers as funders of the US nuclear weapons program. Despite Canberra's non-proliferation stance, it inadvertently became a financier of the US naval armament, effectively contributing to modernized nuclear proliferation. The NDAA facilitated a mechanism for the US to accept funds from Australia to enhance its submarine industrial base, a contribution characterized by some as more of a "gift" than an investment.
A subsequent report by the Congressional Research Service detailed Australia's contribution to the US nuclear submarine program under the Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program. The estimated cost of the program stands at a staggering US$112.7 billion, with risks including delays, increased costs, and potential challenges in building both Columbia-class boats and Virginia-class attack submarines simultaneously.
Australia's funding becomes crucial in maintaining the increased procurement rate required by the US Navy for both Columbia and Virginia classes. This funding is drawn from various allocations over multiple financial years, particularly highlighted under the AUKUS proposed Pillar 1 pathway, involving the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra.
Australian taxpayer funding not only supports the US nuclear strike force but also aids another nation's nuclear weapons capabilities, potentially contradicting Australia's obligations under the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Senator David Shoebridge from the Australian Greens underscored this breach, urging transparency regarding how Australians are unwittingly supporting the construction of the next class of US ballistic missile submarines.
In essence, the intricate and extensive involvement of Australia in the US nuclear submarine program raises significant concerns about international obligations, financial commitments, and inadvertent contributions to nuclear proliferation.
Will 2024 be the year to rein in the military-industrial complex, the biggest threat to global peace?
The complex, a key part of US political economy, fuels geopolitical tensions and enables countries and private actors to push for and capitalise on conflict
It’s time for societies to make concerted efforts to rein it in and build a movement to educate the world about the grave threat it poses to civilisation.
The Financial Times published an article on December 28, 2023, heralding a surge in global defense orders and budgets aligning with a heightened war stance, with an approximate US$760 billion worth of hardware in the pipeline. The piece illustrated investors' fervor, pouring into military stocks, presenting an optimistic view of this trend without addressing the underlying concerns. The normalization of escalating military expenditures and the glorification of rising defense stocks as mere commodities amid global tensions perpetuate a dangerous narrative, seemingly trivializing the complexities of escalating militarization.
The roots of this normalization trace back to President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 cautionary mention of the "military-industrial complex" (MIC), expressing concerns over a concentrated group wielding excessive influence over national policies, thereby undermining democratic processes. Over the years, this warning was disregarded, dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theories, yet now, more than 50 years later, the discussion around the MIC has finally entered mainstream discourse.
Events like those in Ukraine and Gaza during 2023 laid bare the true nature of the MIC, exposing it as a significant threat to global peace. Despite this, headlines like the FT's misleadingly portray increased spending as efforts to enhance defense capabilities and security, perpetuating a deceitful narrative.
The growth of the MIC mirrors the excesses of a capitalist system, where the celebration of military expansion as an investment opportunity reflects a failure to restrain an industry reliant on conflicts, death, and devastation to thrive. The American MIC (AMIC) has burgeoned to a point where its primary focus isn't winnable wars but rather the perpetuation of conflicts, evident in actions like sending substantial weaponry to regions without ensuring subsequent stability or resolution.
With its deep entrenchment in the US economy, the AMIC poses a threat to global peace, often overshadowing diplomatic efforts with military solutions. European reliance on the AMIC for security exacerbates the consequences of conflicts like Ukraine's, resulting in a surge in military spending across the continent.
Moreover, the AMIC's influence reaches international crises, as seen in the US administration's rapid arms allocation to Israel despite global calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. The global MIC, characterized by its potential to breed conflict contagion, the looming nuclear threat, and the covert potential for bioweaponry, stands as a severe threat to civilization.
The MIC's unique structure, a blend of government and private entities operating within a network rife with corruption and lacking public scrutiny, elevates its power and impact. This industry, akin to the fossil fuel and pharmaceutical sectors, maintains a stronghold through relentless lobbying, politicians' vested interests, and media-fueled propaganda that perpetuates a constant state of fear and perceived threats.
The grip of the MIC extends beyond the US, involving governments and corporations worldwide, diverting essential resources from developmental needs. Global alliances are imperative to rein in the MIC, demanding concerted efforts from civil societies, academia, and independent media to raise awareness and counter its growth.
A proposed Global Conference On Peace (Global COP) akin to climate change conferences could serve as a platform to confront and educate stakeholders about the detrimental impacts of the MIC. Every nation, irrespective of its size or influence, should actively contribute to dismantling the MIC to safeguard international peace and stability. If the warmongers and stakeholders in the business of war continue to impede global peace efforts, they should anticipate others taking charge to preserve global stability.
Comments
Post a Comment