, Author at The AIM Network - Page 11 of 200 » The Australian Independent Media Network

U.S. Imperialism, Religious Land Conflicts, War Economics

September 16, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
19 Replies

By Denis Hay

Description: U.S. Imperalism

Discover how U.S. imperialism, war economics, and religious land conflicts shape global politics. Learn how Australia can use monetary sovereignty to foster an ethical system.

Introduction: Unveiling the Complex Web of U.S. Imperialism and Global Conflicts

For centuries, global politics have been shaped by economic ambitions, religious influence, and military interventions. The United States, often regarded as a beacon of freedom, has played a pivotal role in shaping world events – both through its imperial ambitions and war-driven economy. Yet, these actions have left a trail of socio-political challenges that continue to reverberate today. From expropriated lands to conflicts fuelled by economic and military motives, the role of the U.S. cannot be ignored.

However, warfare is one of the most expensive and destructive forces a nation can undertake. Empires like Imperial Russia, Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Austria-Hungary collapsed under the strain of World War I, while Britain limped forward, only to lose its global dominance after World War II. The U.S. itself, once the envy of the world in 1950, now suffers from deep inequalities and underfunded social services due to decades of military overspending.

In contrast, Australia, through its monetary sovereignty, can forge a different path – one that fosters compassion, ethics, and peace. With full control over its currency and spending, Australia can focus on investing in social welfare, diplomacy, and education, avoiding the mistakes made by other global powers.

This guide explores U.S. imperialism, war economics, and religious land conflicts while examining how Australia can use its monetary sovereignty to lead by example, promoting a peaceful and ethical global future.

1. The History of U.S. Imperialism and Global Expansionism (19th to 20th Century)

The Manifest Destiny Doctrine

The concept of Manifest Destiny fuelled U.S. expansion across North America in the 19th century. Rooted in the belief that the U.S. was destined to spread from coast to coast, this doctrine led to conflicts with Indigenous populations and Mexico. The Mexican American War (1846–1848) resulted in the annexation of territories like California, Texas, and New Mexico. Indigenous populations were decimated, and the survivors were relegated to marginal lands.

Spanish-American War (1898)

The Spanish-American War marked the U.S.’s transition into a global power. After defeating Spain, the U.S. gained control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam. Though Cuba was granted formal independence in 1902, the U.S. kept a stronghold over its political and economic affairs, ensuring ongoing American influence.

The Panama Canal

In 1903, the U.S. orchestrated a rebellion in Panama to secure control over the Panama Canal, a critical economic and military pathway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This intervention further solidified U.S. dominance in the region.

These early imperial moves laid the foundation for U.S. global dominance, where economic and military interests began to dictate foreign policy decisions for decades to come.

References:

LaFeber, W. (1993). The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860–1898.

Kinzer, S. (2006). Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.

2. Economic Motives Behind U.S. Military Interventions

Nicaragua and Canal Conflicts

In 1910, the U.S. invaded Nicaragua to secure dominance over proposed canal routes, ensuring no rival to the Panama Canal. U.S. interventions allowed American corporations to control Nicaraguan finances, which impoverished the local population and established U.S. hegemony over the region’s infrastructure.

Haiti and Evangelical Business Interests

The U.S. military invaded Haiti in 1915 to protect American evangelical business interests. The 19-year occupation solidified U.S. economic control over Haiti, setting the stage for long-term political instability that endures to this day.

The Iranian Coup (1953)

In 1953, the U.S. and Britain orchestrated a coup in Iran to restore Western dominance over Iranian oil, which had been nationalized. The coup installed the Shah, an authoritarian ruler supported by the West, whose rule persisted until the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

These interventions reveal that U.S. foreign policy has rarely been driven by altruism. Instead, economic control has often overshadowed democratic values, leaving deep social, political, and economic scars in the affected nations.

References:

Blum, W. (2000). Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower

Gasiorowski, M. J., & Byrne, M. (2004). Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran.

3. U.S. Corporate Collaboration with Nazi Germany (1930s-1940s)

The Role of American Corporations

Before and during WWII, American corporations such as Ford and General Motors kept business ties with Nazi Germany. Over 150 U.S. companies contributed to the rearmament of Germany by supplying raw materials, technology, and patent knowledge.

Moral Debate and Economic Motivations

While well-documented, this collaboration is still controversial. U.S. businesses prioritized profit over ethics, leading to legal and moral scrutiny post-WWII.

The moral complexities of profiting from a regime responsible for atrocities show the darker side of international capitalism and how economic interests often override ethical considerations.

References:

Higham, C. (1983). Trading with the Enemy: An Exposé of The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933–1949.

Loftus, J., & Aarons, M. (1994). The Secret War Against the Jews.

4. Operation Condor and U.S. Support for South American Dictators

Operation Condor Overview

Between 1975 and 1989, the U.S. supported Operation Condor, a campaign of political repression across Latin America designed to suppress socialist and communist movements. These efforts led to widespread human rights abuses, particularly in Argentina, Chile, and Brazil.

Human Rights Violations

With U.S. backing, military dictatorships in South America executed forced disappearances, torture, and assassinations. Over 60,000 people, including 30,000 in Argentina alone, were killed during this period of repression.

The legacy of Operation Condor is still a dark chapter in Latin American history, where fear of communism led to the destruction of families and communities.

References:

McSherry, J. P. (2005). Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America.

Dinges, J. (2004). The Condor Years: How Pinochet and His Allies Brought Terrorism to Three Continents.

5. U.S. Military Base Expansion and War Economics

The Role of War in the U.S. Economy

The U.S. military runs around 800 bases globally, which serve as strategic assets for projecting military power and controlling trade routes. This global presence enables the U.S. to keep influence over international affairs.

Economic Impact of Military Spending

The U.S. economy is heavily tied to its military-industrial complex. Defence spending drives employment and technological innovation but at the cost of social programs like healthcare and education. This reliance on war economics perpetuates a cycle of military intervention.

Potential Solutions for Australia

Australia, with its monetary sovereignty, can break free from the cycle of war economics by focusing on diplomacy, international aid, and sustainable development. Unlike the U.S., Australia can prioritize investments that promote peace and stability rather than military dominance.

References:

Chalmers, J. (2004). The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic.

Vine, D. (2020). The United States of War: A Global History of America’s Endless Conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State.

6. The Hidden Cost of Militarization: Social Decay in the U.S.

Social Decay and Neglect of Public Services

The massive investment in military spending in the U.S. has come at a steep social cost. Essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure have been neglected, contributing to widespread social decay. Pre-COVID, the U.S. had an extreme poverty rate of 5.5%, comparable to countries like Egypt and Palestine, and at least 550,000 people were homeless on any given night.

Education, Crime, and Inequality

The U.S. literacy rate stands at 86%, ranking 125th globally, alongside countries like Syria and Zimbabwe. Around 30 % of U.S. adults are functionally illiterate, making it difficult for them to vote, complete job applications, or escape poverty. The gun-related homicide rate in the U.S. is 25 times higher than other high-income nations, and the U.S. has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, with 655 inmates per 100,000 people.

Incarceration and Systemic Inequality

With 2 million people in prison and another 4.4 million under judicial restraint, the U.S. leads the world in incarceration rates. The systemic inequality within the American judicial system disproportionately affects low-income communities and minorities, leading to long-term cycles of poverty and crime.

The deep social inequalities in the U.S. are a direct consequence of decades of prioritizing military spending over social investment. The country now shows many of the same characteristics as failing states, with large disparities between the wealthy and the poor, high crime rates, and an underfunded education system.

References:

Hickel, J. (2018). The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions.

Davis, M. (2006). Planet of Slums.

7. Expropriation and Revanchism in Religious Land Conflicts

Church Land Ownership

Throughout history, religious institutions have held vast amounts of land globally. During political upheavals, these lands were often expropriated, with the church working to reclaim them through diplomacy, influence, or military force.

Modern-Day Jerusalem

In Jerusalem, religious land ownership is still highly contested. Over 60% of Jerusalem’s land is owned by Christian churches, and tensions between Israeli settlers and religious institutions over land rights continue to escalate.

Australia’s Role

Australia’s monetary sovereignty allows it to take a leadership role in advocating for peaceful, ethical resolutions to these long-standing religious land disputes. By using its financial autonomy to fund diplomacy and conflict resolution efforts, Australia can promote global peace.

References:

Wylie, J. A. (2010). The History of Protestantism, Volumes I-III.

Finkelstein, N. G. (2000). The Rise and Fall of Palestine: A Personal Account of the Intifada Years.

Summary: The Intersection of Imperialism, Religion, and War Economics

Throughout history, imperialism, religious land conflicts, and war economics have shaped global power dynamics. The U.S. has been a key player, but its military-driven economy has led to deep social inequalities and unrest. Australia, with its monetary sovereignty, can learn from these historical lessons and promote ethical, compassionate governance by focusing on diplomacy, social services, and human rights.

Question for Readers

How can Australia use its monetary sovereignty to advocate for global peace and ethical political systems?

Call to Action

If you found this article insightful, share it with your network and join the conversation on how we can collectively create a more just world. For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter and stay informed on the most pressing global issues.

Social Sharing

Share this article with their contacts via social media, using the hashtags:
#MonetarySovereignty, #GlobalPeace, #WarEconomics, #ReligiousConflicts

This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Urgent action needed – ‘community’ is the challenge and solution for people with dementia

September 16, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
3 Replies

Dementia Australia Media Release

New research released today by Dementia Australia for Dementia Action Week demonstrates a decade of persistent poor understanding of dementia among Australians is leading to stigma and discrimination.

The research report – ‘People in the community’ are the challenge and the solution: Towards a dementia-friendly future’ – reflects the ongoing realities of stigma and discrimination experienced by people living with dementia. Data in the report from 2024 shows that:

Nearly three in four people (71 per cent) with a loved one living with dementia felt that people patronised their loved one.
Three in four (76 per cent) felt people treated their family member or friend with dementia as though they were not smart.
Two in three identified ‘people in the community’ as the most common source of discrimination.
One in three suggested that people avoid or exclude their loved one with dementia.

Other surveys conducted by Dementia Australia have found that one in three people think dementia is a normal part of ageing – which has increased slightly in the past decade. As well, alarmingly, in 2012 and 2024 surveys, 68 per cent of people say they know very little about dementia.

Dementia Australia Advisory Committee Chair Bobby Redman, who lives with dementia, said it is almost unbelievable that we are still having to talk about the limited awareness and understanding about dementia.

“Why do people treat us differently? What have we done to deserve this? As a Dementia Advocate, it angers me. Why are people not listening? All we are asking for is to be understood, respected and supported – just basic human rights,” Ms Redman said.

“If local councils, businesses and organisations recognise that dementia is no less of a disability because it is invisible, we could feel supported. If friends and others in our community keep an eye out for us and make sure we are included, we can feel less socially isolated.

“There is some great work happening in some communities to combat this discrimination and stigma which is heartwarming and encouraging – but we need to do more.

“Communities and Governments – local, State and Territory and Federal – need to raise awareness and understanding of dementia and to take action to make communities more inclusive for people living with dementia.”

Dementia Australia CEO Professor Tanya Buchanan said the research shows that it is indeed ‘people in the community’ who are the most common source of discrimination towards people living with dementia.

“Australian and international studies show that stigma and discrimination associated with a dementia diagnosis can discourage people from seeking health care, including a diagnosis, and reduce social engagement with family, friends and the broader community, which has knock-on impacts on the physical, cognitive and psychosocial health of the person with dementia,” Professor Buchanan said.

“It is incredibly disappointing that Australians’ understanding of dementia has not shifted in a decade and profoundly concerning that more people now think dementia is a normal part of ageing than they did a decade ago. Dementia is not a normal part of ageing.

“We know that we can do better as there are great examples of dementia-friendly communities from around the country.

“And that’s why this Dementia Action Week (16-22 September) Dementia Australia is calling for urgent and sustained action by communities and governments at all levels to increase their awareness and understanding of dementia – and to become the solution.”

Head to dementia.org.au/DementiaActionWeek to find out how you can join us to create a future where all people impacted by dementia are supported and welcomed in their communities, no matter where they live.

If this story has prompted any questions or concerns, please call the National Dementia Helpline 1800 100 500 (24 hours a day, seven days a week) or visit dementia.org.au

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

A Culture of Cowardice

September 15, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
10 Replies

By James Moore

We were somewhere over America at 35,000 feet and moving along at well over 500 nautical miles per hour. I do not remember the location but I do recall the conversation. The flight was out of a western U.S. city and was eastbound with the Republican candidate for president and a fuselage full of reporters and campaign staffers. The dull thrum of the jet engines at altitude and the long day of tramping around chasing after interviews and video and still photos had left most of the passengers tired and dozing.

George W. Bush, though, had not been too stressed. Hands were shaken, a few comments were tossed off to placate the media, and he walked around trying his best to look natural and enthused. The rest of us had to create a journalistic product and meet deadlines, and we were expended. The future president, however, came sauntering down the aisle of the plane with a non-alcoholic beer in his hand, looking for someone still awake. I must have been the only one conscious because he took the aisle seat in the empty row where I was sitting, and began to make small talk.

“What’d you think of today?” he asked. “Pretty good crowd, no?”

“Good turnout wherever we’ve been, Governor.”

“Yeah, yeah. I’m trying to get a sense of how this thing is going.”

“Those fund raising numbers you announced in L.A. the other day ought to tell you.”

“True. True. Those are a positive indication.”

I was unaccustomed to small talk with Bush as governor or presidential candidate. He often came back in the plane at the end of the day when reporters were working on deadline and distracted us when he had no further responsibilities. We were hardly strangers since I had reported on his time as governor of Texas and his career in the oil patch and with the Texas Rangers baseball team. I had also been filing Freedom of Information requests regarding his time in the Texas National Guard and had set off alarms in his campaign during a gubernatorial debate with Ann Richards when I asked him about his service. I thought our relationship was always going to be arm’s length but he seemed open to a conversation on this night and I did not hesitate.

“I gotta tell ya, Governor,” I said. “You sometimes don’t look too enthused about winning this election.”

“Oh come on. What do you mean?” He was genuinely surprised by my assessment.

“I know you aren’t just going through the motions but I honestly think there’s something missing from your pitch. I’m not qualified to say these things, I know, but I often find myself wondering why you are running. Being governor of Texas is a pretty great political job, no?”

“Oh, yeah. I love it. I do. More than most folks realize. But I had to do this.”

“What do you mean, ‘You had to?’”

“It was expected, that’s all.”

“By whom? I don’t follow.”

“It’s just my time. My family, the business community, the party, everybody expects me to run for president, and that’s what I’m doing.”

“And you don’t want to?”

He did not answer and looked away from me. I let the question sit for a moment and then asked what he would do if he lost.

“Oh, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Laura and I would go back to Dallas. I’d sit on some boards. Might make a run at baseball commissioner. Laura and the girls and I would have a nice life.”

The man who was about to win one of the most important jobs on the planet was apparently ambivalent about his role and significance to the free world. I was unsurprised. Hard work was not part of what had formed his character. Privilege had handed him a set of tools to work with and he had let most of them lay on the floor. His oil company in West Texas had managed to drill most of the dry holes in the Permian Basin when other production companies were finding crude almost as easily as hammering pipes into the ground and waiting for gushers. His performance in the energy industry did not promise a great future in the White House.

I thought about our airplane conversation again because of the recent speculation that Bush might endorse Kamala Harris. Sure, there is a non-zero chance of that happening, but I suggest you place your bets elsewhere. Bush does not, and has not, stuck his neck out when there is a chance he will regret the risk. He likes the victory dance, not the battle. His grandest performances have always been acting the tough guy as he sends others into distant fields of fire. When he stood on the rubble of the Twin Towers after 9/11 and talked about finding the people who committed the attack, he was a little man acting big, and making poor choices.

In about 18 months, the president who had used family connections to avoid combat in Vietnam, had gotten congress to approve $63 billion dollars to invade Iraq regardless of the fact that Saddam Hussein’s government was not involved in the terrorist acts in New York City. Only a small portion of the allocation was meant for the war in Afghanistan even though the attacks of 9/11 were led by Osama bin Laden, who was hiding out in the mountainous country, and our intelligence agencies had advised the White House of his whereabouts. Instead, Bush was compelled to revenge his father’s failures in Iraq and to take down Hussein, which was really just a bonus since the primary goal of the U.S. invasion was to secure the oil supplies.

“Iraq,” Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had said, “Simply floats on a sea of oil.”

While he was busy spending tax dollars to build up his profile as a “war president,” Bush was also cutting taxes with his Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, (JGTRRA) which reduced the dividend tax rate from 38.6 percent to 15 and cut the capital gains tax to the same level. Harvard Business School must have taught him a new nonsense that increasing spending while reducing taxes was smart economics, or maybe that was one of the classes he had skipped. The JGTRRA act also dramatically increased the amount of money that could be written off as expenses for investing in businesses.

As the cost for invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan increased exponentially to almost $2 trillion dollars, deficits soared to heights known only by the war president’s ego. The groundwork had been laid for the Great Recession and war spending meant the federal government had little flexibility to respond when the financial crisis arrived. By 2008, when Bush was leaving office, the U.S. national debt had increased from about $5.8 trillion in 2001 to nearly $10 trillion, but, hey, W. looked good in his “Mission Accomplished” flight suit on the deck of the aircraft carrier. The mission was not, as history records, accomplished, and the Mideast remains restive. The main achievement was waste of resources.

Bush has been without character and principle his entire adulthood. When he finished business school at Harvard and became eligible for the draft in the Vietnam War, he turned to his father’s friend, Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, to get him a cushy pilot’s commission in the Texas National Guard. Barnes placed Bush on what was known as the “political list,” which was sons of well-connected and wealthy Texans determined to keep their progeny out of the meaningless war. The documents I, and a few other reporters received, from military records showed that he had skipped out on a physical exam to keep flying and that he had been grounded for reasons unknown. Any pilot grounding required a Board of Inquiry hearing and report, but Bush’s was missing from his file.

Bush left Ellington Airfield outside Houston for Montgomery, Alabama, to work on a U.S. Senate campaign for a friend of his father’s. Although there were dozens of pilots home from Southeast Asia wanting to keep their certificates up to date with “stick time,” Bush was still given a commission that cost taxpayers a million dollars in a failed attempt to make him competent in fighter jets. The only result was to keep him out of the jungles of Vietnam. As president, however, he got to play brave fighter pilot when he donned a flight suit and joined an actual pilot who landed a jet on the deck of an aircraft carrier. More vacuous performative crap to make him feel the courage he does not possess.

There has been too much historic revisionism around the Bush presidency. Trump’s incompetence and lack of intellect have shifted the paradigm a bit for presidential performance. Bush, his apologists argue, would be great to have around in Trump’s stead; not much of a recommendation since even the waste control manager of Rio Grande City offers more accomplishment than Trump. Bush, unnecessarily set the Mideast to flame, and it is still burning. The Lancet Report estimates that 650,000 Iraqis, soldiers and civilians, died during the U.S. invasion and occupation while around 4500 American soldiers and 3500 civilian contractors all lost their lives. Meanwhile, in the Basra region of Southern Iraq, dust from depleted uranium used in weapons by the U.S., has caused a dramatic increase in congenital birth defects and various forms of cancer among Iraqis. The war president will keep counting casualties for generations.

Bush is a man without conscience, though, who sleeps well at night thinking about the facile paintings he has left on canvas. No thought for Iraqi dead or American soldiers lost in a conflict that only led to continued destabilization of the Mideast. The blood and treasure he wasted on Iraq was not his. The Bush’s were safe, protected from loss of life or capital. No risk existed for him to authorize weapons and facilitate lies about WMD in Iraq when intelligence said there were none and everyone in his administration was involved in cooking the data to make the case for war. I am not sure why a person like Kamala Harris would want, or even accept, an endorsement from a war criminal like George W. Bush. Nothing she should worry about, though.

Cowards do not endorse.

This article was originally published on Texas to the world.

James Moore is the New York Times bestselling author of “Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential,” three other books on Bush and former Texas Governor Rick Perry, as well as two novels, and a biography entitled, “Give Back the Light,” on a famed eye surgeon and inventor. His newest book will be released mid- 2023. Mr. Moore has been honored with an Emmy from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for his documentary work and is a former TV news correspondent who has traveled extensively on every presidential campaign since 1976.

He has been a retained on-air political analyst for MSNBC and has appeared on Morning Edition on National Public Radio, NBC Nightly News, Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, CBS Evening News, CNN, Real Time with Bill Maher, and Hardball with Chris Matthews, among numerous other programs. Mr. Moore’s written political and media analyses have been published at CNN, Boston Globe, L.A. Times, Guardian of London, Sunday Independent of London, Salon, Financial Times of London, Huffington Post, and numerous other outlets. He also appeared as an expert on presidential politics in the highest-grossing documentary film of all time, Fahrenheit 911, (not related to the film’s producer Michael Moore).

His other honors include the Dartmouth College National Media Award for Economic Understanding, the Edward R. Murrow Award from the Radio Television News Directors’ Association, the Individual Broadcast Achievement Award from the Texas Headliners Foundation, and a Gold Medal for Script Writing from the Houston International Film Festival. He was frequently named best reporter in Texas by the AP, UPI, and the Houston Press Club. The film produced from his book “Bush’s Brain” premiered at The Cannes Film Festival prior to a successful 30-city theater run in the U.S.

Mr. Moore has reported on the major stories and historical events of our time, which have ranged from Iran-Contra to the Waco standoff, the Oklahoma City bombing, the border immigration crisis, and other headlining events. His journalism has put him in Cuba, Central America, Mexico, Australia, Canada, the UK, and most of Europe, interviewing figures as diverse as Fidel Castro and Willie Nelson. He has been writing about Texas politics, culture, and history since 1975, and continues with political opinion pieces for CNN and regularly at his Substack newsletter: “Texas to the World.”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

How U.S. Influence Keeps Neoliberalism Alive in Australia

September 14, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
3 Replies

By Denis Hay

Description: U.S. Influence

Explore how U.S influence and military interests keep neoliberal policies in Australia, and what Australians can do to push for social justice and sovereignty.

U.S. Influence Shapes Neoliberalism in Australia: Corporate, Political, and Military Control

Neoliberal ideology has held a firm grip on Australian politics for decades, affecting everything from healthcare to education, employment, and the environment. However, it’s not just domestic forces that support these policies. The United States, through its corporate interests, military-industrial complex, and global influence, plays a significant role in keeping Australia aligned with neoliberalism.

This article explores the profound influence that the U.S. has on Australia’s political landscape, why both major political parties continue to support neoliberal policies, and what Australians can do to push for change.

1. Historical Overview of Neoliberalism in Australia

Neoliberalism became entrenched in Australia in the 1980s, much like in the United States under Ronald Reagan. Successive Australian governments, both Labor and Liberal, adopted neoliberal principles of deregulation, privatization, and a reduction in government spending on public services. This shift was a response not only to global economic pressures but also to the influence of U.S. economic policies that advocated for free markets and reduced government intervention.

Australia’s close relationship with the U.S., politically and economically, has made it a loyal ally in promoting neoliberalism. This alignment has been cemented through trade agreements and military partnerships, making it difficult for Australia to pursue alternative paths that focus on social welfare and environmental sustainability.

2. Why Both Major Political Parties Support Neoliberalism

Australia’s two main political parties, Labor and Liberal, have both embraced neoliberal policies, albeit for different reasons. But their continued commitment to this ideology is not solely due to internal economic rationale. The United States’ extensive influence, especially through its corporate and political interests, plays a pivotal role.

Labor’s Shift Toward Neoliberalism

Labor, once a party dedicated to the working class, started to embrace neoliberalism in the 1980s under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. The U.S. government and multinational corporations exerted significant pressure during this period, emphasizing the need for economic liberalization to compete globally. Labor’s adherence to these policies can be seen in its moves to deregulate financial markets, privatize state assets, and open trade with the U.S. and other major economies.

Liberal Party’s Longstanding Neoliberal Commitment

The Liberal Party has long aligned itself with neoliberal principles, advocating for deregulation, reduced taxes, and privatization. This pro-business stance fits well with U.S. corporate interests, particularly those looking to invest in Australia. The U.S. corporate lobby has been instrumental in ensuring that both political parties support policies that favour large multinational companies, often at the expense of ordinary Australians.

The Role of U.S. Corporate Influence

Both Labor and Liberal parties receive large donations from multinational corporations, many of which are U.S.-based. These donations significantly shape policy decisions. U.S. tech giants, mining companies, and pharmaceutical corporations have lobbied for deregulation, lower corporate taxes, and favourable trade agreements. These influences keep Australia tied to the neoliberal agenda, limiting the political will for progressive reforms.

3. The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex and Its Influence on Australia

Australia’s alignment with the U.S. is not just economic but also military. The U.S. military-industrial complex has had a significant impact on Australia’s political direction, particularly in its adoption of neoliberalism. Through defence agreements, military cooperation, and joint bases, Australia has become increasingly dependent on U.S. military support. This partnership reinforces neoliberal policies by prioritizing defence spending over social welfare programs.

AUKUS and Military Spending

The recent AUKUS pact between the U.S., the U.K., and Australia highlights how U.S. influence extends into military affairs. AUKUS promotes massive investments in defence, including nuclear submarines, drawing significant public money away from areas like healthcare, education, and environmental protection. The military-industrial complex, driven by U.S. corporate interests in arms manufacturing, benefits directly from these deals, further embedding neoliberal priorities in Australian policy.

Pressure to Maintain U.S. Strategic Interests

Australia’s geopolitical position in the Indo-Pacific region makes it a crucial ally for the U.S. in countering China’s influence. This strategic relationship ensures that Australia is still committed to U.S. interests, including supporting neoliberal economic policies that favour multinational corporations. The U.S. government, through its military alliances and foreign policy influence, encourages Australia to prioritize military cooperation over social investment, preventing progressive reforms that could reduce corporate profits.

4. How Trade Agreements Lock in Neoliberalism

Australia’s trade agreements, particularly with the U.S., have historically embedded neoliberal principles such as free markets and investor rights, often at the expense of national sovereignty. Many of these agreements contain Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses, allowing multinational corporations to sue governments if their policies are seen as detrimental to profits. This has been a significant barrier to implementing progressive reforms, but Australia has shown resilience, notably in the case of its anti-smoking strategies, where it successfully overcame legal threats from Big Tobacco.

Australia’s Anti-Smoking Campaign: A Case Study in Resistance

In 2012, Australia introduced one of the world’s most stringent anti-smoking measures: plain packaging laws. These laws required cigarettes to be sold in standardized packaging with graphic health warnings and removed all branding, logos, and colours from cigarette packs. The legislation aimed to reduce smoking rates and public health costs associated with tobacco use. However, this move triggered a significant legal battle with tobacco giants, particularly Philip Morris.

Philip Morris Asia, a subsidiary of the U.S.-based tobacco giant, used the ISDS clause in a trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong to challenge the plain packaging laws. The corporation argued that Australia’s policy violated their intellectual property rights and sought billions in damages. This was a prime example of how trade agreements can empower corporations to challenge public health policies that may affect their profits.

Australia’s Victory in Overcoming Legal Threats

Despite the legal challenge, Australia successfully defended its anti-smoking laws. In 2015, an international tribunal dismissed Philip Morris’s case, ruling that the company had engaged in “treaty shopping” by shifting its operations to Hong Kong solely to exploit the trade agreement. This victory showed that even in the face of powerful corporate and legal threats, a nation can assert its sovereignty and prioritize public health over corporate profits.

Australia’s win was a pivotal moment, not only for public health policy but also for showing that a country can push back against the neoliberal framework imposed by trade agreements. It paved the way for other nations, such as the U.K., France, and New Zealand, to introduce similar plain packaging laws, reinforcing that progressive reforms can be implemented even in a globalized, neoliberal economy.

Implications for Trade Agreements

Australia’s experience with Big Tobacco underscores the need to reform trade agreements that limit national sovereignty, particularly provisions like ISDS clauses. While Australia succeeded in this case, it highlighted how easily corporations can exploit these mechanisms to challenge public policies. Going forward, Australia and other countries should push to renegotiate trade agreements to remove ISDS provisions, ensuring that public interest policies – whether related to health, labor rights, or the environment – are not vulnerable to corporate lawsuits.

Australia’s triumph against Big Tobacco serves as a reminder that while neoliberal trade agreements create significant hurdles, determined resistance and international legal strategies can protect national interests and public welfare.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Mechanisms

Many of these trade agreements include ISDS clauses, which allow U.S. corporations to sue the Australian government if they believe their profits are being affected by local regulations. This has a chilling effect on the introduction of progressive policies, as the threat of costly lawsuits makes governments hesitant to enact laws that would help citizens but harm corporate interests.

Blocking Progressive Reforms

The U.S. government and its corporate backers have, on multiple occasions, pressured Australia to block reforms that would prioritize social justice. Environmental regulations, worker protections, and labour laws have been weakened or delayed due to threats from U.S. corporations working under the protection of these trade agreements.

5. The Social and Environmental Costs of Neoliberalism

The U.S.’s influence in supporting neoliberalism in Australia has severe social and environmental consequences. Ordinary Australians withstand the worst of these policies, while U.S. corporations and a small elite reap the benefits.

Growing Inequality

\Neoliberal policies have widened the gap between the rich and the poor in Australia. U.S. multinational corporations, often working with little regulation, extract significant wealth from Australian resources while offering low wages and insecure jobs. Meanwhile, the top 1% benefit from tax cuts and financial deregulation, leaving the average worker struggling with stagnant wages, high living costs, and rising debt.

Environmental Degradation

Neoliberalism, driven by U.S. corporate interests, prioritizes profits over environmental sustainability. Mining giants, many of which are U.S.-owned or influenced, exploit Australia’s natural resources with little regard for environmental damage. The destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity is a direct result of policies that favour corporate profits over ecological protection.

6. What Australians Can Do to Push for Change

While U.S. influence over Australian politics is significant, there are ways that Australians can push back against these neoliberal policies and move towards a more just and sustainable society.

Support Grassroots Movements

Grassroots movements play a vital role in challenging entrenched neoliberal policies by mobilizing ordinary citizens to advocate for change. These movements often operate outside traditional political frameworks, leveraging collective action, social media, and local organization to press for reforms that prioritize people and the environment over corporate profits. In Australia, movements like GetUp! and Extinction Rebellion have shown the power of grassroots activism in raising awareness and pressuring governments.

– GetUp!: This progressive movement has been instrumental in advocating for social justice, environmental protection, and economic fairness. Through campaigns on climate action, refugees’ rights, and corporate accountability, GetUp! mobilizes large groups of citizens to engage with politics in new and impactful ways.

– Extinction Rebellion: Known for its civil disobedience tactics, Extinction Rebellion pushes for urgent action on climate change. By organizing protests, blockades, and mass mobilizations, it forces governments to confront environmental issues often sidelined by corporate agendas.

To support these movements:

1. Participate in campaigns: Sign petitions, attend protests, and engage in their advocacy efforts.
2. Donate: Grassroots movements rely heavily on public funding. Contributions help them expand their reach and influence.
3. Spread awareness: Sharing information through social media and personal networks amplifies the movement’s message and encourages wider participation.

Grassroots movements are essential for creating bottom-up pressure, directly challenging the neoliberal structures that benefit corporations at the expense of the public good.

Electoral Accountability

Electoral accountability is critical in dismantling the grip of neoliberalism on Australian politics. By holding politicians accountable, voters can demand that their representatives prioritize policies that benefit the majority rather than a small elite. This is especially crucial in a political landscape influenced by U.S. corporate interests.

To ensure electoral accountability:

1. Demand transparency in campaign finance: Push for reforms that limit or ban corporate donations to political parties. This reduces the undue influence that corporations, particularly U.S. multinationals, exert on Australian politics. Voting for candidates who reject corporate funding can also signal a clear message that voters want politicians to serve public interests.

2. Support Independent Candidates and Smaller Parties: While major parties like Labor and Liberal are often entrenched in neoliberalism, smaller parties (such as the Australian Greens) or independent candidates may prioritize social justice, environmental sustainability, and corporate accountability. Shifting your support to these alternatives can create political diversity and foster policies that challenge the neoliberal status quo.

3. Stay Engaged Beyond Election Cycles: Voting is essential, but so is continuous engagement with elected officials. Writing to your representatives, participating in town halls, and joining political advocacy groups can ensure that your voice is heard year-round, not just during election time.

By exercising electoral accountability, Australians can push for a political system that serves the people, promotes social equity, and protects the environment from corporate exploitation.

Renegotiate Trade Agreements

Australia must push to renegotiate trade agreements that lock in neoliberal principles. By removing provisions like ISDS clauses, Australia can regain control over its economic policies and introduce reforms that help its citizens rather than multinational corporations.

Challenge Military Spending

Australians can call for a reduction in defence spending, especially in areas that directly help the U.S. military-industrial complex. By reallocating these funds to healthcare, education, and social services, the government can begin to address the needs of its citizens instead of prioritizing foreign military interests.

Conclusion

U.S. influence over Australia, particularly through corporate and military interests, has been instrumental in keeping neoliberal policies that help the few at the expense of the many. The U.S. government, multinational corporations, and military-industrial complex exert immense pressure on Australian politics, making it difficult for progressive reforms to take root. However, through grassroots activism, electoral accountability, and renegotiating harmful trade agreements, Australians can challenge these policies and push for a more fair and sustainable future.

Question for Readers:

How do you think Australia can better assert its sovereignty in policymaking and resist U.S. corporate influence?

Call to Action:

Share this article to raise awareness of U.S. influence on Australian politics and encourage discussions about how we can push for a fairer, more just society.

This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

How to pick REAL Independents

September 13, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
3 Replies

By Jane Salmon

Thank you to The Sydney Morning Herald for bridging the information gap when it comes to Council elections.

The guide offered is comprehensive.

With so many candidates, the choice can still seem overwhelming.

Many candidates claim independence but then caucus within a Council as party members.

How to pick REAL Independents:

They are not selfish or encouraging self-interest.

They have a profession and financial strength.

Someone local knows them for their volunteering.

They understand politics but have not recently resigned from a major political party simply in order to stand.

They have been scrutinised by their community peers.

They listen.

They have a specific field of knowledge relevant to broad public good.

They are driven to take action on a key area of community interest.

They are strategic and will do more than grandstand.

They have insight when you grill them on legislation or Council regulations.

It is not actually “all about them”.

They are supported at polling booths by more than just family.

They are usually efficient and relaxed.

They don’t seem star-struck by leaders of major parties.

Nor do they mimic foreign electioneering slogans.

They use social media competently to discuss issues, not just share selfies.

They comprehend regional as well as local context.

Happy voting!

Some of the 1635 candidates (image from The Sydney Morning Herald)

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Australian Futures: Can a United Front Be Forged Against Vacuous Political Marketing?

September 13, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
21 Replies

By Denis Bright

Cheered on by rhetoric from the various branches of the Murdoch Media, the LNP is poised for victory in Queensland on 26 October 2024. A close result to follow in the next national elections. A more balanced critical perspective on democratic processes has yet to be consolidated to replace the auctioneering style of adversarial politics with its seductive populist rhetoric.

Australia’s Public Service Commission released a survey in 2023 to monitor the level of trust in national institutions. There are low levels of trust in political parties (only 29 percent). Public funding of mainstream political parties has distanced them from grassroots concerns. The Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ) notes the extent of this public support for registered political parties:

For state elections and by-elections held during the 2024-25 financial year, including the 2024 state general election, the election funding rates are:

• for candidates – $3.33 for each formal first preference vote

• for registered political parties – $6.66 for each formal first preference vote for each eligible candidate.

A quarter of the population surveyed admits a limited or slight understanding of democratic processes.

Closer examination of the level of each of these categories of understanding of democratic processes is an assessment of varying levels of satisfaction with democratic processes:

For a quarter of the electorate with a self-perceived limited understanding of democratic processes, there is a willingness to accept the brand-new world offered by political marketing processes. There are occasional tidal waves of populist triumphs every few years in Queensland.

Back on 24 March 2012, the LNP’s tidal wave result brought a parliament produced a parliament of 89 members where the potential opposition was reduced to seven Labor members, two conservative members of Katter’s Australia Party (KAP) in Dalrymple and Mt. Isa as well as two Independents in Nicklin and Gladstone.

Swings against Labor after preferences exceeded 20 percent in three electorates gained by the LNP.

Current opinion polling in Queensland offers the threat of a similar level of political volatility as summarized from the Poll Bludger site (11 September 2024):

The Brisbane Times has published a state voting intention results from the Queensland components of Resolve Strategic’s monthly national polls from June through to September. This suggests seemingly no end to Labor’s slide, their primary vote down three points from February-to-May to 23%, with the LNP up one to 44%, the Greens down one to 12% and One Nation steady at 8%. While the size of the minor party and independent vote allows for a wide range of uncertainty, I would conservatively put the LNP’s two-party lead at 58-42 based on these primary votes. The sample for the poll was 939.
Nine’s television news reports a RedBridge Group poll showing the Liberal National Party with a two-party lead of 54.5-45.5, the least bad result for Labor government in some time. However, all that’s reported beyond that the Labor is at 29% on the primary vote and the LNP 42%. RedBridge Group director Kos Samaras relates that Labor is in “a very strong position along the Brisbane River,” but “travel out further from that and it gets very ugly.”
The aforementioned Wolf & Smith results were not far off Resolve Strategic’s: Labor 24%, LNP 42%, Greens 12% and One Nation 8%, with the LNP leading 57-43 on two-party preferred. The poll was conducted August 6 to 29 from a sample of 1724.

Writing for the Courier Mail before the transition back to a Labor Minority Government in 2015, journalist Lorann Downer correctly interpreted the auctioneering style of LNP communications:

The Can-Do brand, which emerged during Newman’s run for Brisbane lord mayor in 2004, was skilfully crafted and marketed. The brand name is catchy, memorable and meaningful… The brand name is also the brand promise; that action-man Newman will get things done. During the campaign, the brand promise was cleverly brought to life with images of Newman energetically filling potholes in roads.

With the vast resources available to the LNP from both public and corporate funding, voters in Queensland can expect a personalized letter from the LNP with attached postal vote application forms that are returnable to a Postal Vote Application Centre (PVA) which is a post office box operated by the LNP to harvest votes from more apathetic constituents. Just how this practice is compatible with the requirements of the Electoral Act and the ECQ’s commitment to transparent campaigning processes is difficult to understand.

Labor’s best defence is continuing to offer an updated Plan for the Future in juxtaposition with the absence of detail in the LNP’s policy alternatives. Treasurer Cameron Dick has set a high standard to finance a responsible commitment to social housing, relief for the homeless, alternative energy as well as cost of living relief in electricity changes and urban public transport (Budget Paper 2 for 2024-25).

Fortunately, increases in mineral royalties once opposed by the LNP brought a state budget surplus in 2023-24 have added to the authenticity of the budget parameters.

With 45 per cent of Queensland state revenue derived from Canberra in GST allocations and grants, informed constituents should be asking which areas of state expenditure should be curtailed to restore an ideological commitment to a more balanced budget in this era of cost-of-living politics with worse to follow if Peter Dutton makes it to the Lodge in 2025.

The loss of the Miles Government to the LNP would be a disaster for Queenslanders. Current capital works in the LNP’s regional heartland was made possible by increases in mineral and gas royalties which must not be handed back to the corporate sector. The 2024-25 budget is delivering $1,300 in electricity bill credits as part of an overall $3.74 billion cost-of-living relief package and urgent attention to crime hotspots which are ignored by the negativity of LNP political marketing strategies.

As some former ministers in the Newman Government (2012-15) plan their return to the corridors of power, expect the swings to the LNP to be greatest in the Labor heartlands that warm to LNP’s Law and Order Agendas. Some resistance can still be expected to the LNP in environmentally aware electorates if Labor and the Greens can offer a more united front of co-operative opposition to far-right political fundamentalism. agendas.

Regrettably, the Greens are too interested in defeating Labor members in inner-city electorates. Any united front with the Greens would require more campaigning efforts in disadvantaged outer – metro and regional areas where political populism is deeply entrenched through the influence of preference allocations to the LNP by One Nation and other far-right parties.

Denis Bright (pictured) is a financial member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA). Denis is committed to consensus-building in these difficult times. Your feedback from readers advances the cause of citizens’ journalism. Full names are not required when making comments. However, a valid email must be submitted if you decide to hit the Replies Button.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

SA’s experience of truth in political advertising at odds with concerns: report

September 13, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
1 Reply

Susan McKinnon Foundation Media Release

South Australia’s truth in political advertising (TiPA) laws enjoy widespread support among the state’s political establishment, contrasting with concerns raised about the prospect of TiPA laws in other jurisdictions, according to new research supported by the Susan McKinnon Foundation.

The study involved conducting in-depth interviews with a range of current and former MPs (including premiers and ministers), party officials, electoral commissioners, and civil society organisations in South Australia and other jurisdictions to gain insights about TiPA laws. (See full list below).

SA participants noted TiPA laws had undoubtedly changed the electoral campaigning, with state party directors working with lawyers to closely scrutinise the wording of all political ads to ensure they are accurate.

Electoral commissioners from jurisdictions outside of South Australia expressed concerns about administering TiPA laws due to the fear of their impartiality being affected and being distracted from their main task of delivering an election. However, South Australian participants in the study were unanimous that the South Australian Electoral Commission’s reputation for impartiality over time has been unaffected by administering TiPA laws, and that the Electoral Commission continues to enjoy strong public confidence for neutrality.

South Australian participants were furthermore unanimous that the TiPA laws have had no ‘chilling’ effect on freedom of speech over the 39 years they have been in effect. This could be because the laws are narrowly formulated to statements of fact, rather than opinions or predictions.

What some of those interviewed said:

Former SA Premier Mike Rann: “Why should consumers and shareholders be protected from fraudulent and dishonest claims but not electors? Why don’t you want electors to be able to make their judgements and cast their votes on the basis of facts and truthful arguments rather than deliberate falsehoods?”

South Australian Electoral Commissioner Mick Sherry: “The truth in political advertising laws work well and are effective… The Commission has and continues to hold a very high regard in the community and in the political parties.”

Kiera Peacock, Marque Lawyers: “In jurisdictions without TiPA laws, there was little that anyone could do about disinformation unless the conduct was defamatory or somehow violated discrimination laws.”

Dr. Catherine Williams, Executive Director of Centre for Public Integrity: “Truth in political advertising laws can shift political culture… the culture is such that misleading and deceptive advertising is not an issue in the same way it is in the federal jurisdiction and other jurisdictions.”

List of interviewees for the report:

South Australia

• Jay Weatherill (Former Premier)
• Mike Rann (Former Premier)
• John Rau (Former Deputy Premier and Attorney-General)
• Josh Teague (SA Member of Parliament)
• Mick Sherry (Electoral Commissioner)
• David Gully (Former Deputy Electoral Commissioner)
• Aemon Bourke (Labor Party State Secretary)
• Sascha Meldrum (Former Liberal Party State Director)
• Sam Hooper (Lawyer and Liberal Party Volunteer)

Other jurisdictions

• Nathan Rees (Former NSW Premier)
• Chris Rath (NSW Shadow Special Minister of State)
• Dominic Ofner (NSW Labor Party Secretary)
• Matt Phillips (New South Wales Electoral Commissioner)
• Chris Stone (NSW Liberal Party State Director)
• Denis Napthine (Former Victorian Premier)
• Sven Bluemmel (Victorian Electoral Commissioner)
• Liz Williams (Former Victorian Deputy Electoral Commissioner)
• Dee Madigan (Founding Partner, Campaign Edge)
• Bill Browne (Australia Institute)
• Catherine Williams (Centre for Public Integrity)
• Kiera Peacock (Marque Lawyers)

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Why Aged Care Funding Scrutinised, but Military Spending Not

September 13, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
6 Replies

By Denis Hay

Description

Examine why Australia questions aged care funding but not military spending, despite the country’s monetary sovereignty.

Introduction

Australia is grappling with rising demands for aged care services as its population grows older, leading to a $5.6 billion reform package to improve the sector. Yet, every dollar given to aged care is met with scrutiny, with questions about sustainability and affordability. In stark contrast, military spending – including the $368 billion given for the AUKUS submarine deal – goes ahead with far less financial scrutiny.

Why do we ask, “At what cost?” for aged care, yet overlook the same question for military projects? This article explores these double standards and how Australia’s currency sovereignty means the government has the financial capacity to fund both without compromising one for the other.

Disparities in Spending Scrutiny

I. Aged Care Reforms: Why “At What Cost” is Constantly Asked

A. Key Changes in Aged Care

The Australian government’s $5.6 billion aged care reform package aims to improve services for more than 1.4 million older Australians, helping them stay at home longer before entering institutional care. However, the reforms include higher means-tested contributions from seniors, raising concerns about affordability for lower-income individuals.

B. Challenges in Aged Care Funding

Australia’s aged care sector is facing significant challenges, even with the new reforms:
1. Workforce shortages – More than 300,000 workers are needed to meet the demand for aged care services, but underfunding is making recruitment and retention difficult.

2. Underfunding – The sector is still underfunded despite the reforms, with many care facilities still struggling to provide adequate services.

3. Increased demand – With Australia’s aging population expected to double by 2050, more funds will be needed to provide quality care.

Despite these growing challenges, aged care funding is constantly questioned. The $5.6 billion reform package was seen as necessary, but it came with a public narrative focused on budget concerns and intergenerational equity, suggesting the government is walking a financial tightrope when funding such social services.

C. Public and Political Scrutiny

Aged care spending is consistently subjected to public and political debate, with media coverage often emphasising the “cost to the taxpayer“ and generational fairness. Yet this intense scrutiny stands in stark contrast to how military spending is viewed, where multibillion-dollar defence projects move forward with little financial questioning.

II. Military Spending: An Unquestioned Cost

A. Overview of Military Expenditures

In 2023, Australia committed $368 billion over the next 30 years to the AUKUS submarine program, making it one of the largest military spending commitments in the country’s history. The overall defence budget for 2023-2024 alone reached $50 billion, marking a significant increase compared to previous years.

B. Justifications for Military Spending

Proponents of military spending often argue that defence investments are critical for national security, particularly with the growing military presence of China in the Indo-Pacific region. The AUKUS deal, which promises to deliver nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, has been framed as necessary for safeguarding Australia’s interests in the future.

However, this narrative ignores the question of cost. While $368 billion has been committed for submarines over the next three decades, far less attention is given to the financial opportunity costs – what else could be funded with such vast sums?

C. Limited Scrutiny on Defence Budgets

In contrast to aged care, military expenditures are rarely subject to serious financial scrutiny. Public debate around defence spending typically focuses on national security threats rather than the financial burden of these projects. Even when media coverage addresses military budgets, it rarely compares them to the costs of social services, leaving aged care and defence spending to occupy entirely different public conversations.

Australia’s Currency Sovereignty and the Real Limits

III. Australia’s Currency Sovereignty: Why “At What Cost” Shouldn’t Matter

A. Understanding Currency Sovereignty

Australia is a sovereign issuer of its own currency, the Australian dollar. This means the federal government is never financially constrained in funding domestic programs, including aged care. While resource limitations – such as the availability of workers and infrastructure – are real constraints, the government’s ability to fund these services is not limited by revenue or borrowing. Despite this, debates around aged care are often framed as if Australia runs like a household, with limited money to distribute.

B. The Real Limits: Resource Allocation, Not Finances

The real limitations on government spending are resource-based, not financial. With Australia’s monetary sovereignty, the government can fund both aged care and military spending without needing to ask, “at what cost.” The real issue should not be whether aged care is affordable but whether Australia is making the best use of its available resources, including labor and infrastructure. The conversation should focus on what kind of society we want to build rather than on artificial financial constraints.

C. Double Standards in Public Discourse

The double standard in how we view social versus military spending is stark. While aged care is framed as a financial burden that requires higher contributions from individuals, military spending is accepted without the same level of scrutiny. Why is it that investments in the well-being of citizens are questioned while investments in military equipment go ahead without question?

Rebalancing Australia’s Budget Priorities

IV. A Balanced Approach to Spending

A. Reallocating Funds for a More Compassionate Society

Australia’s government has the financial ability to distribute more resources toward aged care without compromising national defence. By reallocating just, a fraction of the $368 billion earmarked for submarines, the aged care system could receive the necessary funding to address worker shortages, improve infrastructure, and ensure that no senior is left without quality care.

B. The Long-term Benefits of Social Investments

1. Job Creation and Economic Growth: Investing more in aged care creates long-term economic benefits, including job creation in health and social services.

2. Improved Public Health Outcomes: Providing better care for the elderly reduces strain on the healthcare system and improves overall public health.

3. Greater Social Stability: A well-funded aged care system ensures that Australia’s elderly population is cared for, creating a more stable and compassionate society.

Why We Need to Ask Different Questions

When comparing the $5.6 billion given to aged care reforms with the $368 billion planned for submarines, it becomes clear that we are asking the wrong questions. Instead of focusing on the cost of aged care, we should be questioning why military spending escapes scrutiny. Australia’s currency sovereignty means it has the financial power to fund both defence and social services without needing to choose one over the other. It’s time to shift the conversation toward resource allocation and societal priorities rather than focusing on artificial financial constraints.

Question for Readers

Should Australia reallocate more of its budget from military projects to social services like aged care, or is national defence spending justified as it is?

Call to Action

If you believe Australia should prioritize the well-being of its citizens alongside national defence, share this article, and start a conversation about how our government can better use its financial resources. Explore more on how currency sovereignty can lead to more compassionate policymaking on our website.

Social Sharing

Share this article on social media to raise awareness of Australia’s budget priorities.

Reference

Aged care changes to ‘improve generational fairness’

This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Public money for renewables should come with strings attached: report

September 13, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
6 Replies

Centre for Future Work Media Release

The Australian Government should leverage its position as financier of renewable energy projects to guarantee strong labour standards in new energy and manufacturing jobs, according to a new report by the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

According to the report, ‘Strings Attached: How Industry Policy Could Strengthen Labour Standards Through Australia’s Renewable Energy Transition,’ The Australian Government should:

Extend the Secure Australian Jobs Code beyond procurement to apply to all renewable energy developers and to new manufacturing facilities receiving Commonwealth subsidies and incentives
Extend the Australian Skills Guarantee program to publicly funded renewable projects
Implement limits on minimum and maximum pay, and strong health and safety protections

“Jobs in renewable energy jobs can and should be quality jobs that genuinely support families and communities,” said report author Charlie Joyce.

“Unfortunately, too many of the jobs being created in sustainable energy and manufacturing industries are insecure, temporary, and do not provide adequate training opportunities. That undermines the development of the stable, top-quality workforce that these industries will need in the future.”

“The Australian Government needs to do a much better job of leveraging its position as funder to require subsidized projects to do the right thing by employees.

“Using public money to fund the net zero transition makes sense, but public money ought to come with strings attached. Mandating the provision of quality Australian jobs is a fantastic opportunity to strengthen the social license of renewable projects, especially in regional areas where unemployment is a real issue.

“The great news is the templates for what the government needs to do already exist. In many cases all that needs to happen is to port existing schemes across to the renewable sector. The Secure Australian Jobs Code, for example, should be expanded to renewable energy projects, and the Australian Skills Guarantee program likewise.

“The transition to net zero is obviously a win for the environment, but it can and should be a win for Australian workers too.”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Kamala sliced Trump like sashimi, when he wasn’t doing it himself

September 12, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
12 Replies

By Bruce Wolpe

The prosecutor put the convicted felon away.

First, Kamala Harris made her case on where she wants to take the country. The polls have been telling Harris the voters do not know her well enough. She got the message and provided more depth on the economy, on energy, and on America’s leadership abroad. She attacked the “Trump sales tax” from his tariffs. She was relentless on what Trump did to abortion rights.

Then she sliced Trump like sashimi. Harris used ridicule as her weapon of choice. “The American people are exhausted. World leaders are laughing at you. Putin is a dictator who would eat you for lunch.” Trump, she said, is “a weak, pathetic man”.

Trump wanted to monster her off the stage by defining her as the radical, elite, Marxist, immigrant, extremist – and he called her that. Trump always goes on the offensive but his heavy hand boomeranged. “Biden hates her and can’t stand her.” Trump went on rants that had dead ends. Illegal immigrants are eating cats in Ohio, apparently.

So how does Trump win from here?

He does not change strategy or tactics. Vindicated by the latest polls going into the debate that showed him as popular as ever and more trusted on the hot-button issues of inflation and immigration, Trump will continue to double down. He echoed throughout the debate what he told Sean Hannity on Fox News: “You gotta vote for me – even if you don’t like me … We can’t be politically correct any more … Make America great again – that’s all we have to do … She has no idea what the hell she is doing … We’re headed into World War III territory.”

A month after Harris came out of the box at warp speed, Trump gave up the wild hope that he could flip Democratic states like Virginia, New Hampshire and Minnesota. He is back to going all-out on the states be won in 2016 – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia – and making a big play for Nevada, Arizona and North Carolina. If Trump can win Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina – even if it means ceding the rest of the swing states to Harris – Trump wins.

Trump will keep hammering Harris on inflation and soaring prices, immigration and crime. The message from the debate: I am far better at managing these issues than she is, and you know it.

Trump will seal the deal with nonstop playing of the race card and the sex card. He believes that just as America had had enough of eight years of Barack Obama before granting him the presidency, that in 2024 the country is not viscerally ready for a black female president. Trump knows that his voters do not want or respect Kamala Harris, that she makes his base uneasy, and he knows they want to vote for him to evict her from the White House.

How does Harris win from here?

The ground game is everything for Harris. Trump has a ceiling of 45-47 per cent of the popular vote. Harris must keep him there. What is particularly daunting is that almost all the polls in 2016 and 2020 undercounted the Trump vote by two to three points nationally. In 2020, Trump won 46.9 per cent of the popular vote; the poll averages had him at 44 per cent. Biden won enough – 51 per cent of the vote – to beat him.

But Harris is still short. While she’s winning back the Democratic voters who gave up on Biden, she still trails the support Biden had in 2020 from under-30 voters by 12 percentage points. She is still 10 points under Biden’s support from black voters, six points under Biden with Latino voters, four points under Biden with men, and – still – two points under Biden with female voters. Harris’ trajectory is on course, but she has not yet locked in those votes.

This debate will help her do that.

Harris is also targeting more voters who are not committed to Trump, especially women on abortion rights. For women under 45, abortion rights – not the economy – is their No.1 issue. Harris wants to garner some of the 15 per cent of Republicans who did not vote for Trump in the primaries. The endorsements from staunch conservative Republicans Liz Cheney and her father, former vice president Dick Cheney, will help.

Harris reached those voters in this debate and gave them reasons to break with Trump.

Harris is carpet bombing her campaign with the jet fuel of politics: money. She raised US$361 million in August (US$230 million more than Trump). She has US$110 million more in cash on hand. This means she can fund the field offices and armies of volunteers in the suburbs and exurbs of Republican states to cut Trump’s margin, if not beat him outright. If Harris carries Pennsylvania and Georgia, she is all but assured of victory.

Trump saved his best – his most effective remarks – for last: that Harris has had three and a half years to do all the things she talked about, “but you haven’t done it”.

It’s a great argument. But it was too late to recover from what will go down as a genuinely shocking performance.

And Taylor Swift agrees.

This article was originally published on The Sydney Morning Herald and United States Study Centre and has been republished with permission.

Bruce Wolpe is a Senior Fellow (non-resident) at the United States Studies Centre. Bruce is a regular contributor on US politics across media platforms in Australia. In recent years, Bruce has worked with the Democrats in Congress during President Barack Obama’s first term, and on the staff of Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He has also served as the former PM’s chief of staff. From 1998-2009, Bruce was a senior executive at Fairfax Media in Sydney.

Bruce is author of Trump’s Australia, an examination of Donald Trump’s possible return to the presidency and the issues presented to Australia (Allen & Unwin, 2023), The Committee, a study of President Obama’s legislative agenda in Congress (University of Michigan Press, 2018, 2d Edition September 2021) and Lobbying Congress: How The System Works (Congressional Quarterly Books, 1990, 1996).

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Can we believe that the Australian government will really refuse to take USA/UK nuclear submarine waste?

September 12, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
8 Replies

By Noel Wauchope

The tangled nuclear web of lies and half-truths – can we believe that Australia will refuse to take USA toxic wastes?

Today comes one of those amazing bits of news that a national government, in this case, Australia it seems, has actually listened and responded to the many voices of peace and environment activists who are shocked at the proposed Naval Nuclear Propulsion Treaty. This Treaty would benefit the USA, but not Australia, and would make Australia responsible for high level nuclear wastes from U.S/UK nuclear submarines.

If we can believe the Labor government – they are going to stand up to the USA and the UK, and refuse to accept high level toxic radioactive trash from USA.

The latest information on Australia getting nuclear submarines is that as early as 2027, the United States will begin rotational presence in the Western Australia facility. Ultimately, there will be up to four U.S. Virginia-class submarines and one United Kingdom Astute-class submarine at HMAS Stirling.

So these nuclear submarines will be stationed in Australia, but owned by the USA and UK, not by Australia.

Well, here are a couple of clauses from this jargon-filled proposed Treaty:

Article IV – D

Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants transferred pursuant to this Article, including radioactive waste generated through submarine operations, maintenance, decommissioning, and disposal.

Annex B: Section 1 – Special Nuclear Material

Such Power Units shall contain highly enriched uranium and, only with respect to irradiated fuel, may contain plutonium.

Friends of the Earth are among the many who have sounded the warning:

“Minister for Defence Richard Marles has stated that Australia would not accept radioactive waste from overseas, but this has not been explicitly ruled out in the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 currently before Parliament. The words of an under-pressure defence minister in 2024 are unlikely to count for much decades hence if Australian legislation and the Agreement between Australia, the UK and the US do not prohibit the acceptance of foreign spent nuclear fuel.”

It is important to acknowledge Australia’s poor history regarding radioactive waste disposal facilities.

How is the Australian government going to twist their way around THIS ONE!

I’d really like to believe Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who once was a noble opponent of the military-industrial-nuclear complex.

PM Albanese has been adroit at making himself a “small target” for both the Opposition nuclear enthusiasts, and for his own Labor Party members who deplore the AUKUS nuclear deal. No doubt he will rely on the mealy-mouthed USA-sycophant defence Minister Richard Marles to spin the story on this.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

New hate speech laws prioritise freedom of speech over safety

September 12, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
2 Replies

RMIT University Media Release

The federal government today released its long-awaited hate speech bill alongside other laws designed to crack down on big tech and the safety of online users.

RMIT expert, Dr Nicole Shackleton, Graduate School of Business and Law says:

“The federal government’s decision to water down promises to introduce new laws criminalising serious vilification, instead relying on changes to sedition laws, capitulates to those who prioritise freedom of speech over the safety of minority groups, particularly online.

“These new laws send a strong message to the community that hate crime is unacceptable but overlook a key underlying cause of hate crime – hate speech which denigrates a person or community simply because of who they are.

“The creation of enhanced penalties for doxxing is a clear indication that the federal government recognises the increased weaponisation of technology against minorities.

“However, the reliance on criminal penalties and incitement to violence, rather than hatred or ridicule, means these new laws would only target deliberate acts that seek to incite violence or cause harm.”

Dr Nicole Shackleton is a lecturer in law at RMIT University with expertise in gender and technology. She has specific interest in the regulation of technology to prevent gendered abuse.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Senators To Hear How Government Reforms Will Kill International Education Jobs

September 12, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
Leave a reply

Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA) Media Release

Advice that the Senate has decided to accept further submissions on the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 has been welcomed by the Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA), the peak body representing independent skills training, higher education, and international education sectors.

Just as the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee was holding hearings on the Bill, the Australian Department of Employment and Workplace Relations advised independent Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) of their indicative caps for 2025. This meant that senators couldn’t consider the impacts on high-quality RTOs, including job losses.

“This bill is an attack on independent skills training and higher education providers that deliver quality outcomes for students. It’s important that Senators hear directly from providers about the sad outcomes of what’s planned, including job losses” said Troy Williams, ITECA Chief Executive.

ITECA has previously advised that the Bill’s provisions allowing the Australian Government to impose caps on the number of international students who can come to Australia in 2025 and beyond will destroy jobs.

“ITECA welcomes the extension of the Senator inquiry that will allow our members to tell their stories of the devastation and job losses of the Australian Government’s proposed reforms to international education will bring,” Mr Williams said.

It is expected that ITECA members in the nursing, aged care and aviation sectors will be amongst those to tender a submission to the inquiry.

“Over the past week, ITECA has met with key Senators and pushed for the extension of this inquiry, so this is a great win for our members,” Mr Williams said.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Swift, Harris, Walz: New Eras Tour de Force

September 11, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
13 Replies

By Tess Lawrence

Even before Taylor Swift’s post debate endorsement, one sensed that the Democrats have a presidential winner in Kamala Harris.

Now the Taylor Swift, Kamala Harris, Tim Walz neon billboard signals a New Eras Tour de Force that will add more star power to the stellar juggernaut of Kamala’s Komet

The only ticket required to get into the presidential show is the one you pop into the ballot box. And it’s free. Voters may still have to cope with long queues, especially since the Swift thumbs up will increase the enrollment of first time and younger voters.

Wednesday’s first presidential debate between Trump and Harris was granular fodder for those of us who fancy ourselves analysts and commentators.

Harris certainly won the debate, but more on technicalities, logic and policy, but she was a far cry from the lustre and fire she displayed at her Democratic Convention acceptance speech.

Whilst she was no political dominatrix she nonetheless dominated Trump’s bombast and endless boring self aggrandisement.

Harris took the fight to Trump when she strode over towards his podium with her hand outstretched to shake his hand and introduce herself. Strike one to Harris.

His banging on with the same old same old, suited Harris very well. Her tactics lured him to display his huge ego on the outside of his trouser zipper.

Trump was bereft of original thought. He came across as yesterday’s man. Harris came across as tomorrow’s woman.

Trump’s performance was a perennial downer for the future. Harris was optimistic and excited about the future and its possibilities.

As I wrote elsewhere on this site, Trump was all about Me. Me. Me.

Harris was all about We. We. We.

When she did say “I” it was to promise what sort of president she would be, whereas Trump constantly talked about what he did as President, lying and misrepresenting the truth.

Several times his lies were caught out by the hosts, who cut Trump too much slack. The muted phones did nothing to stop Trump or Harris from speaking over one another.

Several times Trump was merciless in his cruel ridicule of Joe Biden’s age and elderly disposition. Harris scored a major hit when she reminded Trump that she was running for president not Biden. Ouch !

Trump has been cruel about Biden and now he has replaced the old geezer in the room. His ridicule is a red flag to senior citizens and their well being. He has no empathy.

Trump is tired and tiring. Harris represents youth but importantly a possible exuberant reset for America and its political countenance.

We world citizens are so used to polispeak and empty promises from our politiicians. Ergo, the Anthony Albanese led Labor Government.

We must hold onto the fact that the nation that gave us white supremacist Donald Trump had earlier given us the first black President, Barack Obama.

The United States of Kamerica may yet deliver the world the first black female President.

Tess Lawrence is Contributing editor-at-large for Independent Australia and her most recent article is The night Porter and allegation of rape.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Coalition urged to ditch ‘deeply concerning’ push to ask mums to raid retirement savings

September 11, 2024
Written by: The AIM Network
4 Replies

Super Members Council Media Release

The Coalition’s support for paying super on Commonwealth Parental Leave Pay is very welcome – but its bid to make it optional undermines the whole policy intent of boosting the retirement savings of new mums and is a concerning departure from bipartisan principles of universality and compulsion.

The cash-out proposal sends a worrying message to mums that they should sacrifice their future financial security to meet daily living costs – exacerbating women’s retirement poverty risk.

Super Members Council CEO Misha Schubert said the organisation had urged the Coalition to reverse the policy. The proposal, introduced as amendments to the Bill, would see mums asked to take the Commonwealth Parental Leave super payments as cash or additional leave instead of super.

“This opt-out proposal is a deeply worrying departure from bipartisan principles of universality and compulsion in super that are key to a more financially secure retirement for all working Australians.”

“It undermines the policy intent to boost the retirement savings of Australian mums and to start to turn around the gender super gap – which has been widening for women in their 30s.”

“It sends a deeply concerning message to mums that they should sacrifice their future financial security to meet daily expenses.”

“And it risks putting pressure on mums to raid their retirement savings or being forced to by coercively controlling partners. We urge the Coalition to reverse its position.”

Like funding Medicare and wearing seatbelts, super is universal and compulsory for a compelling reason: to protect and grow people’s retirement savings for when they retire. Women already retire with a quarter less super than men.

“Compulsion and universality in super enable millions of Australians to have a far better quality of life in retirement.”

“They are key policy foundations that have built the retirement savings of everyday Australians, if they are undermined or uphauled, all Australian savers will be poorer in retirement.”

Another sector body, Women in Super, have also called on the Coalition to change course.

“Why is it that, once again, women are being asked to choose between financial security now and in retirement?” Women in Super CEO Jo Kowalczyk said.

“The Coalition’s assertion that the value of the superannuation entitlement in a lump sum as it is ‘the same level of financial support’ as a payment into their super accounts is disingenuous.

“Due to compound interest, the impact on a woman’s finances is $7,500 at retirement not simply the $2,900.”

“This proposal does not contribute towards closing the gender super gap or alleviating the risk of women retiring into poverty.”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969