My friend, you would not tell with such high zest / To children ardent for some desperate glory, / The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est / Pro patria mori. – Wilfred Owen
What you will hear in this podcast is an unashamed, highly-curated program by the ABC called Backroads promoting joint military exercises with the United States, and trying to convince us that this is not a attack on the sovereignty of the First Nations people in that area where Bradshaw training exercises are being carried out. In this podcast, we discuss neutrality and the peace movement. Andrew and Bevin have put together an argument that the peace movement in Australia should be considering adopting a neutral position, alliances that we currently have should be reviewed. I respectfully disagree with the two protagonists (Andrew and Bevan) in this podcast, while I accept their opposition to the AUKUS security pact, and the Australia-US Force Posture Agreement and all of the alliances that have been built up with the United States for several generations. Now, I agree with their criticism, it’s more important to adopt an opposition to the United States on foreign policy in our region and in other regions of the world.
Radio Program – Neutrality and the Peace Movement.
ANDREW 1: Greeting listeners. My name’s Andrew and with me is Bevan Ramsden. In this podcast from IPAN, the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network we examine neutrality as an alternative Australian defence policy in the light of recent polling which shows that a clear majority of Australians are in favour of us remaining neutral in the event of war between the U.S. and China.
BEVAN 1: Current Australian defence policy involves close integration with the U.S. military in all areas, making an independent foreign policy impossible and ensuring Australia’s automatic involvement in U.S-instigated wars such as a war with China, our major trading partner. A policy of neutrality would free Australia from involvement in such disastrous military adventures and enable the pursuit of peaceful and mutually beneficial relations with all countries. Recent polls have shown that neutrality has considerable support in the Australian community.
ANDREW 2: The various organizations comprising the Australian peace movement have long campaigned against the slavish adherence to U.S. foreign policy by successive Australian governments and their close and comprehensive integration of the Australian military with that of the U.S. This integration and inter-dependence is now so close that Australian foreign policy is arguably made in Washington, not Canberra.
This close alignment is underpinned by the U.S- Australia alliance, the Force Posture Agreement (FPA) and the AUKUS Security Pact.
BEVAN 2: The U.S-Australia Force Posture Agreement, which we’ll refer to as the FPA, was signed in 2014 by the Australian and U.S. governments. It allows a U.S. military presence on Australian territory, including unimpeded access to our seaports, airports and military bases. Specifically, RAAF Tindal in the NT is being upgraded, at a cost to the Australian taxpayer of one billion dollars, to allow the basing there of up to six U.S. nuclear weapons capable long-range B52 bombers. Fuel for these bombers and other U.S. aircraft will be supplied from a large U.S-controlled storage depot at East Arm in Darwin. The FPA enables up to 2,500 US marines to be stationed in the NT each year to train with the ADF for war, most likely with China over Taiwan. These joint training exercises, known as Talisman Sabre and Pitch Black, are also enabled by the FPA. Also part of the FPA is a U.S. military command centre in Darwin and a logistics centre for munitions and spare parts at Bandiana in Victoria.
ANDREW 3: The FPA represents a significant sell-out of our sovereignty to the United States and enables the U.S. to conduct offensive military operations, including nuclear strikes, from our territory. Most alarmingly, this Agreement was entered into secretly, behind the backs of the Australian people and with no public or parliamentary debate.
BEVAN 3: The AUKUS Security Pact between the U.S, the U.K. and Australia was announced on 15thSeptember, 2021 by the Morrison government. It was also entered into secretly and without any public or parliamentary debate or approval and has been wholeheartedly embraced by the Albanese ALP government.
ANDREW 4: The first stage of AUKUS involves Australia purchasing three nuclear-powered attack submarines from the U.S. and commencing a program in conjunction with the U.K. for manufacture of nuclear powered attack submarines at the Osborne shipyard in South Australia. The estimated cost of this venture is an eye-watering 368 billion dollars, which past experience suggests may well blow out massively, especially given the fact that Australia has no experience in building nuclear submarines.
BEVAN 4: These long-range attack submarines are too large for use in Australia’s coastal waters, being designed for hunter-killer operations in deep waters far distant from Australia, such as the South China Sea. They are thus clearly intended for use in a war between the U.S. and China and are arguably an extension of the U.S Navy paid for by Australian taxpayers. From 2027 onwards these submarines will be ported on our west coast at HMAS Stirling, which will be upgraded to accommodate them at a cost of 8 billion dollars, paid for by you-know-who. The government is also considering a submarine base on our east coast at a projected cost of 10 billion dollars, with Port Kembla near Wollongong believed to be the U.S. Navy’s preferred location,
ANDREW 5: Such huge public expenditures on what are clearly preparations for U.S-led wars is at the expense of urgently needed action on social projects such as affordable public housing, health, child care and other measures to reduce the financial stress that so many in our community are experiencing.
BEVAN 5: Australian involvement in a U.S. war on China would be disastrous for the people of Australia, our region and the world. Trade with China would cease, shipping and trade generally would be disrupted and the people would be impacted by shortages of everyday items, severe job losses and the general wrecking of the economy. In the event of a full-scale war, U.S. installations such as Pine Gap, the North-West Cape submarine communication base and the B52 bomber base at RAAF Tindal could be subject to retaliatory missile strikes even if Australian forces were not directly involved, and the ultimate horror of nuclear war would be an ever-present possibility. Little wonder that Australian peace organisations are campaigning against AUKUS, the acquisition of nuclear-powered attack submarines, the FPA and U.S. military bases on our soil with the aim of keeping Australia out of such a war.
ANDREW 6: It is therefore somewhat surprising that the Australian peace movement has not seized on the popular support for neutrality to build a more active anti-war movement with the broadest possible mass base. In 2022 and 2023 the conservative Lowy Institute conducted polls concerning the Australian people’s attitude to a war against China. The question was: “In the event of a war between the United States and China should Australia support China, support the United States or remain neutral?”
In 2023, the answer was 57% of Australians overall in favour of neutrality, with 67% of young people and 73% of women in favour of neutrality. These figures were an increase on those of 2022.A second independent poll done by Essential Research late in 2023, with a similar question, showed 67% of Australians in favour of neutrality.
BEVAN 6: These figures show the potential for deepening community understanding and actively involving a much larger number of Australians in the campaign to keep Australia out of another U.S. war, in particular one against China over Taiwan. Such mass mobilization would seem to be the only way to challenge the Australian leadership, of both major parties, to rethink and turn away from their current preparation for war and take a neutral stance if such a war breaks out, in the interests of the Australian people and those of our region.
ANDREW 7: A policy of neutrality is not dishonorable or cowardly.On the contrary, it is a courageous and honorable position and one that is recognized by the United Nations. It is understood that a neutral country will defend its neutrality and independence if attacked but will not support belligerents engaged in wars elsewhere. A neutral country will not allow foreign military bases or foreign military activities on its soil. Switzerland is perhaps the best-known of example a neutral country and one that spends far less of its GDP on defence than does Australia.
BEVAN 7: Dr Albert Palazzo is an Adjunct Professor at the University of New South Wales – Canberra. Formally, he was the Director of War Studies in the Australian Army Research Centre, a part of the Australian Army Headquarters.. In a paper published in 2018 he argues that; “The era of Australian dependency on a great power partner as a security policy is coming to an end and that of armed neutrality is beckoning…”
Regarding the adoption by Australia of armed neutrality as its defence policy, Dr Palazzo says: “There is no doubt that in order to adopt armed neutrality the ADF will have to undergo a major transformation. Platforms that are designed to operate within a US naval or air task group, for example, may no longer be practical or even suitable for armed neutrality. The Army’s perception of itself as an infantry-centric force may need to undergo a radical revision, with the status of the gunner moving to the fore as coastal defence again becomes the land force’s primary role. Australia will also need to review its preference for a just-in-time supply chain and greatly increase the scale of holdings in defence warehouses.’
Dr Palazzo further states that: ‘While these adjustments may seem daunting, even radical, there are advantages to adopting armed neutrality, in addition to becoming a nation that is finally responsible for its own sovereignty and ending questions surrounding the future reliability of the United States.’
‘It also will allow Australia to make decisions for itself. If Australia is interested in remaining a sovereign state, a form of armed neutrality provides a way forward.”
ANDREW 8: In 1984 the late David Martin wrote a scholarly and comprehensive work entitled “Armed Neutrality for Australia”. He collaborated in the writing of this book with a range of defence, academic, diplomatic and military experts, both from Australia and overseas.
I quote from his introduction:
“This book aims to show that the best policy for Australia is armed neutrality. It accords with our needs and our geographical position. Shaped to our means, it would be viable both morally and in practice. It would let is establish stable and mutually beneficial relations with other countries, especially our neighbours. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, during his first inaugural address – “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none”. If we can let go the inherited belief that to be safe we need powerful protectors, we shall discover that we are quite able to look after ourselves.”
BEVAN 8: Neutrality does not have to be a universal policy, and can be applied to particular situations. The current policy of the Australian government, far from guaranteeing our security, places us in increasingly dire peril. We urgently need to break free of the dangerous, suffocating and cripplingly expensive U.S. military alliance and embrace neutrality in regard to a U.S. war with China, whether or not that position is or should be a universal position by Australia in relation to all wars. And that brings us the end of this IPAN Podcast, although we’ll be having much more to say on this issue. You can follow IPAN on Facebook and Twitter and our web site is http://www.ipan.org.au.
Argument
One of the reasons why I say this is that the United States has got itself involved in complicity with Israeli genocide in in Gaza. And I think that it is ultra viresl the ruling of the International Court of Justice, I think it is a departure from the sentiments of the international community, and that it should be actively opposed.
Also, for many years, the United States has imposed an embargo on Cuba. That is totally wrong., to impose sanctions on a poor country and its people is wrong I don’t see any reason why the United States should cripple a country like Cuba. And it just beggars belief that the United States would suspend the main humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, that is the United Nations Works and Relief Agency, that it should suspend its payments to that organization whilst Palestinians in Gaza are facing starvation.
Australia should also oppose United States aggression in the South China Sea for the obvious reason that our major trading partners conductor activities in that area of the world.
Ian Curr
6 Feb 2024