The fake left is tearing itself a new arsehole over AUKUS. The superb prose of Maeve MacGregor wraps it nicely:
The most extraordinary thing about AUKUS, one of Australia’s foremost intelligence and foreign policy experts pointed out in early April, was that neither the former Morrison government nor the current Albanese one had taken it upon themselves to publicly make the “case [for it] beyond the generalities”.
“There has been no formal articulation for the reasons for the decision, no report, no speech to Parliament, no speech at all, other than the sales patter of successive governments,” said the late Allan Gyngell, citing the usual refrains around threats to the “rules-based order” and an ascendant China.
The most the nation had been treated to from government, Gyngell went on to say, were those “deeply irritating nose-tapping asides from politicians to journos” along the lines of “‘oh, if only you knew what we knew, you would agree with us’,” which he called both a “nonsense” and a departure from the approach of previous governments in conflicts past. To Gyngell’s mind, the scale and sheer secrecy — even deception — of the AUKUS pact was nonpareil in Australian history.
As of late Wednesday, the arc of this narrative had been careening towards an inflection point, with a burgeoning movement of discontent among Labor rank-and-file over AUKUS manifesting on the eve of the party’s three-day national conference in Brisbane.
More than 50 Labor branches across the country — including six in Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s seat of Grayndler — as well as a handful of federal electorate councils have passed motions directly opposing AUKUS, calling for debate on the conference floor and amendments to the party’s draft national platform.
Among the demands are calls for the removal of any reference to AUKUS in the draft national platform along with either a withdrawal from AUKUS or the suspension of any further funding for the defence pact pending a parliamentary inquiry into its aims, objectives, costs and associated risks.
Spearheading the push is Labor Against War, a grassroots anti-AUKUS Labor campaign founded by Marcus Strom — a former journalist and ex-adviser to Labor minister Ed Husic — who on Thursday announced the movement had appointed former Labor senators Margaret Reynolds and Doug Cameron as national patrons.
“Labor’s rank-and-file overwhelming oppose AUKUS and see it as a loss of sovereignty, opening the door to nuclear industry,” he said, adding that it dangerously and unnecessarily put Australia on a “war footing” with China.
“National conference is just the start of our campaign. It will be a victory for the rank-and-file just to force the debate onto the conference floor.”
But in a nod to the anxiety seizing Labor leadership over what could prove an incendiary moment, the prospect of any debate on Friday was, as of Thursday afternoon, hanging in the balance, with a power struggle gripping the Left faction.
Crikey understands that leading union figures within the faction were being persuaded to pull back from demands for a debate, and instead advance a watered-down motion that merely calls on the Albanese government to provide assurances around AUKUS as well as an explanation of the national benefits it supposedly affords.
On it goes. Let’s bring a few points to the discussion.
Alan Gyngell’s argument is well made. But he is hardly the bloke to ask. He was the architect of Paul Keating’s Asian engagement strategy which is now about as relevant as Elvis Presley’s underpants. There is no greater expert on foreign affairs in the country nor one so compromised by his own legacy.
Sure, let’s debate AUKUS. It is crazy. Not because it is nuclear. But because it is so timeframe irrelevant.
AUKUS does not compromise Australian sovereignty. It confirms that there never was any. This is where ALP delusion is strongest. The moment Xi Jinping came to power, any liberal engagement with China was doomed. Fifty years of CCP grooming of the ALP notwithstanding.
On the one hand, is the US liberal empire to which we owe the entire rules-based system we constantly use to bash it with.
On the other hand, is the Chinese illiberal empire that will crush Australian freedom if it prevails. We know precisely what that looks like because it wrote it down for us in the 14 conditions to end democracy:
There are no reastistic alternatives to be forced to choose strategic sponsor.
A concert of Asian powers seeking to restrain Great Power movement is one. But there is nothing much happening on that front. And such discussion groups tend to be useless when an aircraft carrier pulls up offshore.
Declaring neutrality is another. That will necessitate intense militarisation, getting The Bomb, and accepting much lower living standards, as well as national service. We are about as close to that as we are to Alpha Centauri.
Which leaves Australia with the binary choice.
It backs the liberal empire, which will make occasional military demands and want access for its blood-sucking corporations but mostly leave us alone, as well as guarantee democratic institutions.
Or, it backs the illiberal power which will fundamentally alter our political economy such that Australia is effectively occupied by the Chinese Communist Party, including gulags in Pilbara for the likes of me and other divergent.
It won’t be bad for everybody, especially ALP members:
Mark McGowan is in advanced talks about joining resources giant BHP in what would be his first job since turning WA politics on its head when announcing his shock resignation as Premier in May.
But it will be bad for the freedom and well-being of 99.9% of Australian children.
The Labor caucus should have that debate.
