Connect with us

NEWS

The AUKUS deal confirms Australia’s complete dependence on the US and the UK

Published

on

Canberra is once again serving, and paying for, Washington and London’s regional ambitions

Last week, amidst a great deal of pomp and ceremony at a San Diego, California naval base, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed off on the AUKUS submarine deal with the United States and the UK.

Under this extraordinary arrangement, Australia agreed to pay $368 billion for eight nuclear-powered submarines to be manufactured mostly in America and Britain. The staggered delivery dates stretch decades into the future.

The AUKUS pact, however, is not just about the purchase of a few over-priced submarines that may be technologically obsolete by the time they are built. The pact also firmly binds Australia to the wheels of the US and UK in respect of security issues in Southeast Asia. More importantly, this week’s submarine deal represents an important shift in Australia’s foreign policy settings towards craven dependence on the US and UK, and away from its recent rapprochement with China.

Footage of Prime Minister Albanese gazing in admiration at President Biden and Rishi Sunak in San Diego reflects perfectly the subservience that now characterizes Australia’s relationship with the US and UK. “I am so honored to stand alongside you both,” he said.

Albanese described the AUKUS deal in his characteristically mangled prose as follows: “The sum of the three is more than one plus one in this case. And I think that the cooperation we’ve had is really exciting.” No mention of abandoning Australia’s foreign policy independence, disturbing regional stability, alienating China or becoming dependent on two waning world powers, one of which hasn’t had a military presence in Southeast Asia since the 1970s.

Australian premiers spar over nuclear sub waste disposal

China responded to this week’s events by reiterating its characterization of the AUKUS pact as being informed by a “typical cold war mentality which will only motivate an arms race, and harm regional peace and stability.”

From an historical perspective, Albanese’s obsequious capitulation to the foreign policy and economic interests of the UK and US should come as no surprise. Australia remains a member of the British Commonwealth, and King Charles III, in his regal capacity as King of Australia, is the nation’s head of state. Unlike other British dominions, Australia has never opted to become a republic. Until the Whitlam Labor government came to power in 1972, Australian Prime Ministers inevitably supported the UK on foreign policy issues. Prime Minister Menzies defended Britain during the Suez crisis, and was dispatched by his British masters to Cairo to lecture President Nasser on the error of his ways.

When Australia did briefly break free from British domination during World War II, it simply replaced one colonial overlord with another – this time the United States. Australia’s ill-advised involvement in wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan followed, together with decades of wasted opportunities to cement better relationships with neighboring nations in Southeast Asia – most importantly China and Indonesia. And who can forget Prime Minister Holt’s stirring “All the way with LBJ” speech delivered at the height of the Vietnam war – yet another ode to Australian subservience.

Additionally not without precedent is the spectacle of Australia being lumbered with overpriced American military hardware in exchange for support for unwise American foreign policy aims. In the early 1960s when the Menzies government urged President Kennedy to escalate the war in Vietnam, part of that disastrous pact involved Australia purchasing the expensive and trouble-plagued F-111 aircraft from its (no doubt very grateful) US manufacturer.

This brings us back to the AUKUS deal itself. It is, of course, the brainchild of former conservative Prime Minister Scott Morrison – who Albanese soundly defeated at the polls in May last year.

In September 2021, in typically duplicitous fashion, Morrison reneged on a $90 billion deal brokered by former Prime Minister Turnbull to purchase a number of submarines from France – and, at the same time, proudly unveiled the AUKUS security pact. This unprincipled act of diplomacy resulted in a serious breach in Australian-French relations that has still not been remedied.

The AUKUS nuclear submarine deal is part of an imperialist crusade against China

Albanese immediately supported the AUKUS pact, despite its far reaching consequences – in part to avoid a political conflict in respect of foreign policy in the lead up to the 2022 election, but also – as this week’s events have made clear – because he craves dependence on the UK and US just as much as Menzies, Holt and Morrison ever did.

It became obvious this week that Albanese – for all his allegedly left-wing radicalism – adheres to exactly the same irrational foreign policy world-view that unreconstructed cold war warriors like Morrison, and those conservative Prime Ministers that preceded him subscribed to.

Not only does the AUKUS pact, like most disastrous Australian foreign policy stances, have bipartisan support from both major political parties, but it has also been endorsed by all of the major media organizations in Australia – including the so-called left wing ABC and Channel Nine newspapers, and the undoubtedly right-wing Murdoch press and Sky News.

In the circumstances, critics of the AUKUS pact have been very thin on the ground in Australia.

Earlier in the week, however, former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, in an address to the National Press Club in Canberra, had the audacity to deliver a devastating critique of the AUKUS deal and the Albanese government. Keating made the following points:
AUKUS deal ‘worst in history’ – former Australian PM

the AUKUS deal is “the worst deal in all history” and “irrational in every dimension”
the San Diego meeting was a “kabuki show”
the AUKUS trilateral partnership is all about “seeking to maintain US strategic hegemony in Asia” by containing China
Australia is “shunning security in Asia for security in and within the Anglosphere”
the UK is “looking around for suckers… (to create a) … global Britain… after that fool Johnson destroyed their place in Europe” and reminded his audience that the UK had “dumped Australia all through the twentieth century”
“Australia is locking in its next half century in Asia as subordinate to the United States” and Albanese is “a Prime Minister with an American sword to rattle”
Albanese’s decision to ally Australia with the US “to try and contain China as an economic rival” could have “deadly consequences for Australia” and that the “incompetent” Albanese government had “embarked on a dangerous and unnecessary journey”
Joe Biden “couldn’t string three words together … but wants to go to war”
he reiterated his previously expressed view that China did not pose a security threat to Australia and that Taiwan was “a manufactured problem”
Albanese is being been duped by the “dopes” in the defense and national security establishments
Albanese could have purchased 40 to 50 conventional submarines for the same money as he is spending on the 8 AUKUS submarines

He also claimed that “there was only one payer at San Diego” – namely Australia – and that the AUKUS deal was structured to support the US economy and “bail out British companies.”

The responses of Albanese and his defense and foreign affairs ministers to Keating’s attack have been predictable. They have resolutely avoided dealing with the issues raised by Keating and simply claim he had “diminished himself” by attacking them personally, as well as criticizing him for being “nasty” to the foreign affairs minister, who happens to be a woman.

China warns of ‘dangerous road’ following AUKUS deal

This kind of all-too-common petty ad hominem attack, based on confected outrage or offense – which enables the real issues to be completely avoided – is, of course, what passes for political debate in the West these days.

Paul Keating’s iconoclastic speech last week was both timely and welcome. He single-handedly attempted to initiate a necessary debate on an issue of fundamental importance to Australia’s future and the security of the entire Southeast Asia region.

Whether a serious public debate will happen or not – it seems unlikely at the moment – Keating, who left office in 1996, has done Australia a great service by drawing attention to the deeply problematic and troubling nature of the AUKUS pact.

Keating has also obliquely reminded Australian voters – at least those who are old enough to remember it – of a time when a few politicians of stature and principle still sat in parliament, and when genuine public debate took place, as a matter of course, in respect of issues of national importance.

Sadly – if Prime Minister Albanese and his defense and foreign affairs ministers are any indication – that time seems to have long since passed.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TSFT.

PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME

SUITABLE MUSIC FOR YOGA LOVERS

NEWS

China is raising its retirement age, now among the youngest in the world’s major economies

Published

on

Starting next year, China will raise its retirement age for workers, which is now among the youngest in the world’s major economies, in an effort to address its shrinking population and aging work force.

The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the country’s legislature, passed the new policy Friday after a sudden announcement earlier in the week that it was reviewing the measure, state broadcaster CCTV announced.

The policy change will be carried out over 15 years, with the retirement age for men raised to 63 years, and for women to 55 or 58 years depending on their jobs. The current retirement age is 60 for men and 50 for women in blue-collar jobs and 55 for women doing white-collar work.

“We have more people coming into the retirement age, and so the pension fund is (facing) high pressure. That’s why I think it’s now time to act seriously,” said Xiujian Peng, a senior research fellow at Victoria University in Australia who studies China’s population and its ties to the economy.

The previous retirement ages were set in the 1950’s, when life expectancy was only around 40 years, Peng said.

The policy will be implemented starting in January, according to the announcement from China’s legislature. The change will take effect progressively based on people’s birthdates.

For example, a man born in January 1971 could retire at the age of 61 years and 7 months in August 2032, according to a chart released along with the policy. A man born in May 1971 could retire at the age of 61 years and 8 months in January 2033.

Demographic pressures made the move long overdue, experts say. By the end of 2023, China counted nearly 300 million people over the age of 60. By 2035, that figure is projected to be 400 million, larger than the population of the U.S. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences had previously projected that the public pension fund will run out of money by that year.

Pressure on social benefits such as pensions and social security is hardly a China-specific problem. The U.S. also faces the issue as analysis shows that currently, the Social Security fund won’t be able to pay out full benefits to people by 2033.

“This is happening everywhere,” said Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations. “But in China with its large elderly population, the challenge is much larger.”

That is on top of fewer births, as younger people opt out of having children, citing high costs. In 2022, China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported that for the first time the country had 850,000 fewer people at the end of the year than the previous year , a turning point from population growth to decline. In 2023, the population shrank further, by 2 million people.

What that means is that the burden of funding elderly people’s pensions will be divided among a smaller group of younger workers, as pension payments are largely funded by deductions from people who are currently working.

Researchers measure that pressure by looking at a number called the dependency ratio, which counts the number of people over the age of 65 compared to the number of workers under 65. That number was 21.8% in 2022, according to government statistics, meaning that roughly five workers would support one retiree. The percentage is expected to rise, meaning fewer workers will be shouldering the burden of one retiree.

The necessary course correction will cause short-term pain, experts say, coming at a time of already high youth unemployment and a soft economy.

A 52-year-old Beijing resident, who gave his family name as Lu and will now retire at age 61 instead of 60, was positive about the change. “I view this as a good thing, because our society’s getting older, and in developed countries, the retirement age is higher,” he said.

Li Bin, 35, who works in the event planning industry, said she was a bit sad.

“It’s three years less of play time. I had originally planned to travel around after retirement,” she said. But she said it was better than expected because the retirement age was only raised three years for women in white-collar jobs.

Some of the comments on social media when the policy review was announced earlier in the week reflected anxiety.

But of the 13,000 comments on the Xinhua news post announcing the news, only a few dozen were visible, suggesting that many others had been censored.

Continue Reading

NEWS

Russia warns NATO of ‘direct war’ over Ukraine

Published

on

Moscow’s envoy to the UN has reiterated where the Kremlin’s red line is

Granting Kiev permission to use Western-supplied long-range weapons would constitute direct involvement in the Ukraine conflict by NATO, Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, has said.

Moscow will treat any such attack as coming from the US and its allies directly, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday, explaining that long-range weapons rely on Western intelligence and targeting solutions, neither of which Ukraine is capable of.

NATO countries would “start an open war” with Russia if they allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons, Nebenzia told the UN Security Council on Friday.

“If such a decision is made, that means NATO countries are starting an open war against Russia,” Moscow’s envoy said. “In that case, we will obviously be forced to make certain decisions, with all the attendant consequences for Western aggressors.”

Putin issues new warning to NATO

“Our Western colleagues will not be able to dodge responsibility and blame Kiev for everything,” Nebenzia added. “Only NATO troops can program the flight solutions for those missile systems. Ukraine doesn’t have that capability. This is not about allowing Kiev to strike Russia with long-range weapons, but about the West making the targeting decisions.”

Russia considers it irrelevant that Ukrainian nationalists would technically be the ones pulling the trigger, Nebenzia explained. “NATO would become directly involved in military action against a nuclear power. I don’t think I have to explain what consequences that would have,” he said.

The US and its allies placed some restrictions on the use of their weapons, so they could claim not to be directly involved in the conflict with Russia, while arming Ukraine to the tune of $200 billion.

Multiple Western outlets have reported that the limitations might be lifted this week, as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy visited Kiev. Russia has repeatedly warned the West against such a course of action.

 

Continue Reading

NEWS

China makes its move in Africa. Should the West be worried?

Published

on

Beijing maintains a conservative economic agenda in its relations with the continent, while finding it increasingly difficult to avoid a political confrontation with the West

The ninth forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and the FOCAC summit held in Beijing on September 4-6 marked a significant phase in Africa’s relations with its global partners in the post-Covid era. China is the last major partner to hold a summit with African nations following the end of the pandemic; Africa summits were held by the EU and the US in 2022, and by Russia in 2023. The pandemic, coupled with rising global tensions, macroeconomic shifts, and a series of crises, underlined Africa’s growing role in the global economy and politics – something that China, which has undergone major changes (both internal and external) as a result of the pandemic, is well aware of.

It is clear that the relationship between China and Africa is entering a new phase. China is no longer just a preferential economic partner for Africa, as it had been in the first two decades of the 21st century. It has become a key political and military ally for many African countries. This is evident from China’s increasing role in training African civil servants and sharing expertise with them, as well as from several initiatives announced at the summit, including military-technical cooperation: officer training programs, mine clearing efforts, and over $100 million which China will provide to support the armed forces of African nations.

In the political arena, however, Beijing is proceeding very cautiously and the above-mentioned initiatives should be seen as the first tentative attempts rather than a systematic strategy.

While China strives to avoid political confrontation with the West in Africa and even closely cooperates with it on certain issues, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so. Washington is determined to pursue a policy of confrontation with Beijing in Africa – this is evident both from US rhetoric and its strategic documents.

Dirty tactics: How the US tries to break China’s soft power in Africa

A “divorce” between China and the West is almost inevitable. This means that Chinese companies may lose contracts with Western corporations and won’t have access to transportation and logistics infrastructure. Consequently, China will need to develop its own comprehensive approach to Africa, either independently or in collaboration with other global power centers.

An important sign of the growing confrontation between the US and China in Africa was the signing of a trilateral memorandum of understanding between China, Tanzania, and Zambia regarding the reconstruction of the Tanzania-Zambia Railway (TAZARA), which was originally built by China in the 1970s. If it is expanded, electrified, and modernized, TAZARA has the potential to become a viable alternative to one of the key US investment projects in the region: the Lobito Corridor, which aims to enhance logistics infrastructure for exporting minerals (copper and cobalt) from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia by modernizing the railway from the DR Congo to the Angolan port of Lobito.

In inland regions such as Eastern Congo, transportation infrastructure plays a crucial role in the process of mineral extraction. Considering the region’s shortage of rail and road networks, even a single non-electrified railway line leading to a port in the Atlantic or Indian Ocean can significantly boost the operation of the mining sector and permanently tie the extraction and processing regions to specific markets.

It appears that China’s initiative holds greater promise compared to the US one, particularly because Chinese companies control major mines both in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia. This gives them a clear advantage in working with Chinese operators and equipment, facilitating the export of minerals through East African ports. Overall, this indicates that East Africa will maintain its role as the economic leader on the continent and one of the most integrated and rapidly developing regions for imports.

A former colonial European power returns to Africa. What is it after now?

The highlight of the summit was China’s pledge to provide $50 billion to African countries over the next three years (by 2027). This figure echoes the $55 billion commitment to China made by the US (for 3 years) at the 2022 US-Africa Summit and the $170 billion that the EU promised to provide over seven years back in 2021. Consequently, leading global players allocate approximately $15-20 billion annually to Africa.

In recent years, there has been noticeable growth in such promises. Nearly every nation is eager to promise Africa something – for example, Italy has pledged $1 billion annually. However, these large packages of so-called “financial aid” often have little in common with actual assistance, since they are typically commercial loans or corporate investments. Moreover, a significant portion of these funds is spent in the donor countries (e.g. on the procurement and production of goods), which means that they contribute to the economic growth of African nations in a minimal way.

As for China, it will provide about $11 billion in genuine aid. This is a substantial amount which will be used for developing healthcare and agriculture in Africa. Another $30 billion will come in the form of loans (roughly $10 billion per year) and a further $10 billion as investments.

The overall financial framework allows us to make certain conclusions, though it’s important to note that the methodology for calculating these figures is unclear, and the line between loans, humanitarian aid, and investments remains blurred. In terms of investments (averaging around $3 billion per year), Beijing plans to maintain its previous levels of activity – in recent years, China’s foreign direct investments (FDI) have ranged from $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Financial and humanitarian aid could nearly double (from the current $1.5 billion-$2 billion per year) while lending is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels (which would still be below the peak years of 2012-2018).

Can Africa seize control of its own energy?

China’s economic plan for Africa seems to be quite conservative. It’s no surprise that debt issues took center stage during the summit. During the Covid-19 pandemic, macroeconomic stability in African countries deteriorated, which led to challenges in debt repayments and forced Africa to initiate debt restructuring processes assisted by the IMF and the G20. Starting in 2020, a combination of internal and external factors led China to significantly cut its lending to African countries – from about $10-15 billion down to $2-3 billion. This reduction in funding has triggered economic reforms in several African countries (e.g. Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria), which have shifted toward stricter tax and monetary policies. While promises to increase lending may seem like good news for African nations, it’s likely that much of this funding will go toward interest payments on existing obligations and debt restructuring, since China wants to ensure that its loans are repaid.

Despite China’s cautious approach to Africa, its interaction with the continent will develop as a result of external and internal changes affecting both Africa and China. Africa will gradually become more industrialized and will reduce imports while the demand for investments and local production will increase. China will face demographic challenges, and its workforce will decrease. This may encourage bilateral cooperation as some production facilities may move from China to Africa. This will most likely concern East African countries such as Ethiopia and Tanzania, considering China’s current investments in their energy and transportation infrastructure. Additionally, with Africa’s population on the rise and China’s population declining, Beijing is expected to attract more African migrant workers to help address labor shortages.

Continue Reading

Trending