AUKUS vs China: Inching Toward War

September 21, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - Australia, the UK and the US announced the formation of “AUKUS,” an amalgamation of the three nation’s initials, as a tripartite “defense alliance.”

Despite claims that the alliance is aimed at no particular country (and no particular country was mentioned during its announcement), the Western media has not reported it as such, and China – the obvious target of this “AUKUS” alliance – doesn’t perceive it as such.

The Guardian in its article, “Alliance with Australia and US a ‘downpayment on global Britain’,” would explicitly state:

 Britain’s post-Brexit foreign policy is taking shape, and the early moves are hardly very surprising: a tripartite defence alliance with the US and Australia – handily compressed to Aukus – clearly designed to send a message to Beijing.

Chinese state media, Global Times, would make it abundantly clear that China understood this with a headline reading, “AUKUS another hostile signal to China, worsens Asia-Pacific security.”

AUKUS begins with the three nations announcing plans to design, develop, and deliver nuclear-powered attack submarines to Australia, which currently has 6 Collins-class diesel electric submarines delivered between the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.

The abovementioned Guardian article noted that Rolls Royce and BAE Systems would likely win contracts as part of this deal. Considering the 18 month period the Guardian reported would be used to plan this process and the several years it takes for BAE Systems to build and commission nuclear-powered submarines, Australia may put these new submarines into service around 2030.

The Price of this New Alliance

As an extra caveat, and perhaps warning to Australia, the new deal is likely to result in a French-Australian submarine deal falling through. Worth 65.6 billion US dollars, this will not be the first time US machinations have cost Paris dearly. In 2015 France was forced to reimburse Russia when it failed to deliver two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships after Paris was pressured to cancel the deal by Washington.

The adage, “no honor among thieves,” comes to mind. France, an eager accomplice in Washington’s various wars of aggression since the turn of the century now finds itself on the receiving end of American exceptionalism. France’s misfortunes today will almost certainly be Australia’s tomorrow as “AUKUS” runs its course.

Australia's Self-Inflicted Economic Woes Continue

April 15, 2021 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Australia had until recently been enjoying economic growth alongside the rise of China. This all changed when Canberra began following Washington's lead, antagonising China, and in what would snowball into a costly, self-inflicted economic crisis. 

Today, Australia not only faces mounting barriers to trade erected by China in response to Australia's systematic antagonism, but now is seeing what had been temporary trade disputes transform slowly into a Beijing strategy to permanently eliminate dependency on Australian imports. 

Once set into place, the ability for Australia to return to previous levels of lucrative trade with China will be unlikely. 

Australia's Self-Inflicted Economic Ruination 

In 2018, Australia buckled under US pressure to ban Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei from nationwide 5G infrastructure contracts citing still unfounded "national security concerns."

The BBC in an article titled, "Huawei and ZTE handed 5G network ban in Australia," would claim: 

"...the Australian government said national security regulations that were typically applied to telecoms firms would be extended to equipment suppliers.

Companies that were "likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government" could present a security risk, it said.

Even the BBC and the Australian government were clear to use the word, "could present," versus the demonstrated security risk US-made hardware poses as revealed by the Western media itself in articles like MIT Technology Review's, "NSA’s Own Hardware Backdoors May Still Be a “Problem from Hell”," which would note: 

In 2011, General Michael Hayden, who had earlier been director of both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, described the idea of computer hardware with hidden “backdoors” planted by an enemy as “the problem from hell.” This month, news reports based on leaked documents said that the NSA itself has used that tactic, working with U.S. companies to insert secret backdoors into chips and other hardware to aid its surveillance efforts.

Quite clearly then, the threat of compromised hardware is not the real reason this ban has been leveled against Chinese companies since similar bans have not been used to target US-made hardware. Instead, the most likely motivation fits in with Washington's wider strategy of encircling and containing China, including the blunting of its economic rise as a whole, and the sabotage of individual Chinese companies poised to overtake their Western rivals. 

What is Australia’s Problem with China?

April 8, 2021 (Brian Berletic - LD) - Australia continues to double down on its growing trade and political row with China. 

It is costing the Australian economy significantly, and backing it into a strategic corner only greater belligerence toward China and subordination to US regional ambitions will remain as options.

I explain in this video the deadend this represents as a foreign policy, and the foreign special interests encouraging Australia's current government to move the nation in this direction.

References: 

Nikkei Asia - China determined to build iron ore hub in Africa as Australia goes Quad: 

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Commodities/China-determined-to-build-iron-ore-hub-in-Africa-as-Australia-goes-Quad

Reuters - Africa's miners and winemakers toast China's row with Australia: 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-africa-china-trade-idUSKBN2AA0SO

ABC Australia - Australia to produce its own guided missiles as part of billion-dollar defence manufacturing plan: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-31/government-weapons-facility-guided-missiles-made-in-australia/100039990

Australian Strategic Policy Institute - Funding: 

https://www.aspi.org.au/about-aspi/funding

Australian Strategic Policy Institute - Funding (PDF):

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2021-03/ASPI%20by%20the%20numbers%2019-20.pdf?7zWjlTgji6uCH5SOC14LFLjAcsyOckue=

Brian Berletic, formally known under the pen name "Tony Cartalucci" is a geopolitical researcher, writer, and video producer (YouTube here, Odysee here, and BitChute here) based in Bangkok, Thailand. He is a regular contributor to New Eastern Outlook and more recently, 21st Century Wire. You can support his work via Patreon here. 

Australia: Willing Pawn in US Struggle with China

August 8, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Upon reading Australia's new defense strategy, one might think its authors believe they are surrounded by nations invaded and destroyed by China with Australia next in line.

News headlines declare, "Australia's new defence strategy unveils a significant strategic shift in foreign policy to meet new threats from China," "China the unspoken threat at centre of new defence strategy," and "Australia to buy ship-killing missiles and shift focus to Indo-Pacific" to "to protect overseas forces, allies and the mainland against rising threats including China."

The "threat" of China - the articles and the new defense strategy argue - requires Australia to spend billions on weapons bought from the United States and to depend more heavily on the US for Australia's protection.

Yet in the same breath, Australia's media openly admits that up until now, Australia's military has spent much of its time contributing to America's many and still-ongoing wars of aggression around the globe from Libya and Syria to Iraq and Afghanistan. Most recently, Washington has recruited Australia to help bolster its presence in the Strait of Hormuz in an effort to menace Iran as well.

In one of the above mentioned articles it's admitted that:

For decades Australia has been quick to send troops, naval vessels and planes to help the United States wage wars on distant shores.

Despite all but admitting the US - not China - is engaged in a global campaign of armed aggression and that Australia is a willing accomplice - Australia's new defense strategy points the finger at China as the ultimate global threat.

A likely explanation for this contradictory worldview among Australian policymakers is the possibility that deep-pocketed lobbyists from Washington still hold more sway over Australia's political levers than Australian businesses and certainly the Australian public - and plan to collectively squeeze Australia for billions in arms sales for missiles and other weapon systems pointed at what is otherwise Australia's largest and most important economic partner - China.

Not only does this fill up the coffers of corporations like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and others, but Australia's apparently hostile posture toward China will most certainly taint relations between the two nations, creating further conflict, and requiring continued and increased weapon sales well into the future.

Should any conflict erupt between the US and China, Australia will find itself a much closer target than the US - a sacrificial pawn of sorts that will bear the full brunt and consequences of any potential US-Chinese hostilities.

Well-Timed "Cyber Attacks" Help Sell an Otherwise Unappealing Defense Strategy 

The new defense strategy - long in the works - was unveiled only after a healthy dose of recent and mysterious "cyber attacks" Australian security agencies attributed with no evidence to China.

Again - the irony here is that the US has by far demonstrated itself to be as much a threat in cyberspace as it is to sovereign nations and their physical territory, and much more so than China.

Regarding Australia specifically, a 2013 Guardian article titled, "NSA considered spying on Australians 'unilaterally', leaked paper reveals," would note that a:

The US National Security Agency has considered spying on Australian citizens without the knowledge or consent of the Australian intelligence organisations it partners with, according to a draft 2005 NSA directive kept secret from other countries.

The US National Security Agency (NSA) has been revealed to have compromised communications worldwide, hacked the phones of national leaders both friend and foe, infiltrated and created backdoors in Western-manufactured high tech hardware, and carried out offensive cyber attacks against nations around the globe.

There is also a growing body of evidence that suggests many attacks attributed to nations like Russia and China - like the one recently carried out against Australia - were either fabricated entirely, or in fact carried out by actors in the US itself.

But what better way is there to sell the otherwise unpopular idea of Australia buying billions of dollars of weapons from America and poisoning relations with China than to cite an alleged act of aggression from China that is nearly impossible to attribute one way or the other? The Western media's clout has in the past and continues to be much more persuasive than fact or common sense in the short-term.

Other analysts have pointed out Australia's new defense policy is out of touch with reality. It will also do much more to undermine Australia's national security than underwrite it.

New US Ambassador to Australia Obsessed with China

March 17, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - US Ambassador to Australia Arthur Culvahouse Jr. wasted no time at his new diplomatic post to begin strong-arming Canberra into adopting Washington's confrontational policy vis-à-vis Beijing.

A Reuters article published by the South China Morning Post titled, "China using ‘payday loan diplomacy’ in the Pacific, claims new US ambassador to Australia," would claim:

China is using “payday loan diplomacy” to exert influence in the Pacific, the new US ambassador to Australia said on Wednesday, in comments that threaten to inflame regional tensions. 

The United States and its regional allies have been battling China for greater influence in the Pacific – a region that has votes at international forums like the United Nations and controls vast swathes of a resource-rich ocean.

The geopolitical competition has seen both sides increase foreign aid to the region in recent months, which the West says is needed to prevent the Pacific falling into financial distress and becoming susceptible to diplomatic pressure from Beijing. 

The Reuters article would continue by claiming:

The arrival of Culvahouse, the first US ambassador to Australia in more than two years, comes at time of bilateral tensions between Canberra and Beijing. 

In 2017, then Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull accused China of meddling in domestic affairs. In 2018, Canberra banned companies linked to foreign governments from investing in its nascent 5G network, effectively blocking China’s Huawei.

The article also mentions counter-pressure applied on Australia regarding coal China imports, but describes it instead as, "how Beijing is using trade to punish Canberra for its criticism," despite already admitting it is in direct retaliation for Australia's use of trade to punish China first.

The American people for whom Ambassador Culvahouse is a representative, must be perplexed over this diplomat's obsession with China rather than fulfilling his duties of representing the United States in Australia itself.

As the United States does with many other allies, it is attempting to turn Australia into a partner-proxy in Washington's own confrontation with China.

In the process of this otherwise unsustainable confrontation, Washington risks dragging Australia down with it, when Australia could instead be bilaterally resolving issues with China and building constructive relations throughout Asia-Pacific, all while redefining for itself a more positive role in the region, breaking free from its historical role as an extension of Anglo-American hegemony.

Geography 101: China is Located in Asia, the United States is Not 

Interestingly enough, Reuters failed to notice that China is actually located in Asia-Pacific, while the United States is not.

Just as the US is expected to exert a certain amount of influence in North America where it is actually located, it is not unreasonable to expect China to do likewise in Asia. That US foreign policy seems formed around the notion that the US, not China, should hold primacy in Asia is both counterintuitive and fundamentally flawed.

The "Shape-Shifting Sheik" and the "Sydney Siege"

Suspect had multiple aliases, granted political asylum by Australian government, interviewed by Australian media, spent years as fake pro-Western "Shia'a cleric" condemning Iran and Syria before recently "converting" to Sunni and supporting ISIS. 

December 16, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Another embarrassing chapter has unfolded for Western intelligence and security communities in the wake of the so-called "Sydney Siege." The suspect named by the media as "Man Haron Monis" also has gone by the names "Manteghi Boroujerdi" and "Mohammad Hassan Manteghi" and was an individual now confirmed to have long been on the radar of the Australian government, media, law enforcement, and court system since his arrival on Australian shores almost two decades ago.

Image: Anti-Western ISIS Wahabi terrorist, pro-Western "liberal" Shia'a cleric, and secular common man. As with any long-time actor, the "Sydney Siege" suspect has been cast for many diverse roles, with many different names, and an extensive wardrobe. He had played both the hero and the villain. It is beyond bizarre that he has remained in the spotlight across Australia's political stage for nearly two-decades with a growing criminal record, increasingly disturbing and disruptive behavior, and yet somehow "eluded" Australia's indiscriminate and all-invasive  surveillance network and multiple terror sweeps made just in the past several months. It appears that this "shape-shifting sheik" played a central role in manipulating the Australian public at integral junctures of the West's "War on Terror." 

Claiming he was a "lone wolf" attacker whose violence and extremism could not have been foreseen is betrayed by an extensive criminal record including murder, preceded by the suspicious circumstances that brought him to Australia to begin with.

Two-Decades in the Spotlight 

He fled Iran in 1996 for unknown reasons, claiming in a 2001 Australian ABC interview that he was formerly of Iran's "Ministry of Intelligence and Security." He claimed in the same interview to have been in contact with the UN about "secret information" he had regarding the Iranian government.

Who Created Cartoon Character "Man Haron Monis" Behind "Sydney Siege" Circus?

Previously an outspoken critic of Iranian government, was interviewed by Australian media in 2001, loved Western society...

December 15, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) As predicted, the suspect amid the "Sydney Siege," has long been on the radar of Australian law enforcement, as well as a frequent visitor to Australia's court system.

Before that, however, he came to Australia as a political refugee, an opponent of what he called the "Iranian regime," and was even interviewed by Australia's ABC network in 2001 as part of an ongoing anti-Iranian propaganda campaign. 

It has been revealed that long-time agitator, alias "Man Haron Monis," also known as "Manteghi Boroujerdi," was the suspect amid the so-called "Sydney Siege" hostage crisis. Monis/Boroujerdi claims to be a Shia'a religious leader and is often seen in press photos dressed as one.

Despite this, he was at the center of a hostage crisis requesting the flag of the "Islamic State" terrorist organization be delivered to him while claiming association with other ISIS "brothers."

Neither Islamic nor a state, ISIS is led by US, Israeli, and Saudi-backed Wahabi terrorists, promoting a perversion of Sunni Islam - the bane to both genuine Sunnis and Shia'a worldwide and against which both the nations of Syria and Iran are fighting.

Monis/Boroujerdi rose to infamy amid two notable incidents - one being his involvement in the stabbing death and burning of his ex-wife - the other being his controversial campaign of sending hate-letters to the families of dead Australian soldiers killed during the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The latter was used extensively to stir up division across the pro and anti-war political divide.

The Australian in a September 2013 article titled, "'Cleric' Man Haron Monis punished for offensive letters written to families of dead Diggers," reported that:

A SELF-styled Muslim cleric has been sentenced to 300 hours of community service for penning "grossly offensive" letters to families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan. 

Man Haron Monis, also known as Sheik Haron, was also placed on a two-year good behaviour bond. 

So too was his co-accused and partner, 34-year-old Amirah Droudis, who pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting him.

In December of 2013, the Australian Daily Telegraph would report in an article titled, "'Hate' sheik Man Horan Monis and girlfriend Amirzh Droudis granted bail on murder charges," that:

Monis is charged as an accessory before and after the fact to the murder of Noleen Hayson Pal, 30, who was stabbed 18 times and set alight outside a western Sydney unit in April.

Monis/Boroujerdi's Origins Story 

But before Monis/Boroujerdi's recent run-ins with the law and his role as chief "Muslim boogeyman" in Australia, he was "Manteghi Boroujerdi," a "victim" of the "Iranian regime" who was in love with Western society.

America's Terrorist Mercenaries Wreck Havoc in Sydney

Image: Serving no purpose besides giving the West increased justification for
executing total war against Syria and then Iran as it has desperately sought for
years, the latest "terror attack" in Australia unfolds amid a community with
infiltrated mosques filled with eager supporters of America's proxy war on
Damascus. 

December 15, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Reports indicate that a gunman dressed in Al Qaeda or "Islamic State" (ISIS) attire has taken hostages in a cafe in the Australian city of Sydney. Demands made by the gunman include being allowed to contact Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and bringing him the Al Qaeda/ISIS flag. 

The latest incident should be examined in the context of ISIS' genesis and the source of its ability to seemingly menace the entire planet with violence and acts of terrorism with seemingly inexhaustible resources. 

The United States, Saudi Arabia, Israel and several other European and Middle Eastern partners openly conspired to use Al Qaeda as a regional mercenary force in a proxy war against Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon as far back as 2007. Having then materialized this force in 2011 and having openly trained, armed, funded, equipped, and harbored this terrorist force since then - up to and including today - the "Sydney Siege" is but the latest, predictable fallout from the West's global state-sponsored terrorism.

The so-called "Islamic State" - neither "Islamic" nor a "state" - is in reality simply a rebrand of Al Qaeda - Al Qaeda itself the terrorist front created by US and Saudi intelligence agencies as part of another covert, proxy war - then, against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. 

Image: NATO's proxy forces in Libya in 2011 attempted to cover
their ties to Al Qaeda. Today, they openly fly the "ISIS" flag. The
only constant is the West's continued financial and military
sponsorship.  

As evidence of this "rebrand," nearly all organizations from North Africa, across the Middle East, and their affiliates in southern Russia, Central Asia, and even China which had previously operated either affiliated to or directly under the banner of Al Qaeda have seamlessly realigned themselves with ISIS. These groups include Libyan terrorist organizations such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) - both of whom received NATO air cover, weapons, and cash during the West's 2011 bid to reorder the nation of Libya. 

In all, from attempting to directly overthrow the Syrian government with a massive, regional armed terrorist front, to using this front as a pretext for direct military intervention, the story of ISIS' rise is also the story of America's hegemonic designs across the greater Middle East. The campaign of destruction across Syria and in neighboring countries is but one Western objective ISIS helps serve - the other is manipulating public perception through staged terror threats worldwide to create a climate of fear across the West and build support for expanding direct military intervention in both Syria and Iraq.

One must ask themselves, who truly possesses the ability - financially, strategically, tactically, and logistically - to conduct a regional war spanning three nations all while planning and carrying out terror attacks globally from the US to Australia?  The answer is, the same interests that plotted to destroy US civilian airliners to provoke a war with Cuba in the 1960's and carried out an extensive terrorist campaign across Europe during the Cold War to frame the Soviet Union and its sympathizers while advancing its own political agenda among member nations. The answer is the US, NATO, and their allies. 

Sydney is ISIS Heaven - and the Government Knew for Decades  

A torrent of fighters in Syria have streamed into the country from Sydney, Australia. Reuters would explain why in an article titled, "Crime and gangs: the path to battle for Australia's Islamist radicals," stating that: 

Russian Sanctions Expose West's "Global Disorder"

August 8, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - In a report by the Sydney Morning Herald titled, "Julie Bishop says 'petulant' Russian sanctions reflect its lack of acceptance for role in MH17 disaster," it claims:

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says Russia's "petulant" trade sanctions on Australian food imports is yet another example of Moscow trying to evade responsibility for the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.

However, Bishop fails to indicate why Russia should or would accept responsibility for downing an aircraft when no evidence whatsoever even suggests such culpability. Canberra, Washington, London, and Brussels are citing dubious YouTube videos, Facebook, and other forms of "social media," while Russia has provided radar and satellite pictures and has repeatedly called for and supported a proper, independent, impartial investigation into the incident.

Since no such investigation has been concluded, Julie Bishop is not citing the conclusions of such a process, but merely repeating baseless accusations. These are the same variety of baseless, tenuous lies the West used to sell interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria that have devastated entire regions of the planet and left well over a million innocent human beings dead.

This latest from Canberra is the continued leveraging and exploitation of human tragedy to advance a political agenda, not ascertain the truth or seek true justice. Australia's latest comments represent the greater truth behind the West's international agenda - that it is global anarchy dressed up as global order - the law of the jungle sporting the fig leaf of "rule of law."

Julie Bishop demands Russia take "responsibility," but will she take responsibility for leveling baseless accusations against an entire nation? Defamatory accusations would be grounds for resignation - at least in an administration guided by justice and truth. Each day now that Bishop retains her post is an indictment against the government of Australia's utter lack of both.

Western "Exceptionalism" Crumbling as Aussie Senator Deported from Malaysia

Senator was to meet with Wall Street-London funded faux-democracy front Bersih, IMF frontman Anwar Ibrahim.

February 17, 2013 (AltThaiNews) - The Australian reported in its article, "Xenophon deported by Malaysia," that Australian Senator Nick Xenophon has been detained and then deported in Malaysia as part of an "unofficial parliamentary delegation to review the electoral system."

In reality, Senator Xenophon was part of a Western effort to assist Malaysia's Wall Street-London backed opposition into power as part of a wider geopolitical strategy to align Southeast Asia against China's emerging regional influence. 

Confirming this, the Australian also reported that:

"He and other Australian MPs were to meet opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, as well as Malaysia's minister in charge of parliamentary affairs, Mohammed Nazri, and members of the group Bersih, the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections."

Image: (RT) Despite Bersih's best efforts to portray itself as apolitical, it is clearly led for and by Malaysia's US-backed opposition, with the IMF's Anwar Ibrahim leading the coalition. Here, Anwar Ibrahim (center) can be seen speaking to a Bersih rally in Malaysia.

....

Bersih of course, is admittedly funded by the US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as well as convicted criminal George Soros' Open Society. According to a Malaysian Insider report on June 27, 2011, Bersih figurehead Ambiga Sreenevassan herself "admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 [2011] march."

Australian Militarism in the Asia-Pacific Century

Nile Bowie
NileBowie.blogspot.com
January 22, 2012

For a nation who has historically subordinated itself to larger powers, Australia’s Labour-led foreign policy shows little divergence away from being wholly complicit to American full spectrum dominance in the region. For all of its pristine natural beauty, the continent-nation has become a treasure chest of precious natural resources managed by a monopolistic elite, and a martial subsidiary of the world’s most militaristically aggressive empire. While the potential exists for Australia’s economy to hemorrhage in the absence of Chinese trade and demand, the permanent force of 2,500 US marines building up in the Northern Territory certainly does not appear to be in the public interest.

A document issued by the Australian Ministry of Defense in 2009 entitled "Defending Australia in the Asia-Pacific Century: Force 2030" cites the introduction of an expansive military program, which seeks to enable a “comprehensive set of reforms that will fundamentally overhaul the entire Defense enterprise, producing efficiency and creating savings of about $20 billion.” The agenda’s efficiency and the savings it can potentially yield however, are unquestionably a subject of speculation. Reconfigurations of Australia’s armed forces under Julia Gillard’s Labour government have ratified a $100 billion program to purchase advanced military hardware from the United States, such as F-35 jet fighters, missile-guided frigates and submarines.

With naval expansionism being cited as a high priority, Australia seeks to maintain twelve submarines, three destroyers equipped with SM-6 long-range anti-aircraft missiles, eight new frigates and a fleet of LHD amphibious ships by the mid 2030s. Australia has also recently purchased ten C-27J aircrafts equipped with missile warning systems and radar from the United States, to the tune of $95 million. While the Gillard government pays lip service to China by welcoming its rise, the zeros on her defense receipt suggest otherwise. With regards to China, the Ministry of Defense document states “China’s rise in economic, political and military terms has become more evident. Pronounced military modernization in the Asia-Pacific region is having significant implications for our strategic outlook.”

By heavily depending on China in the economic sphere and aligning itself militarily with the United States, playing both sides of the coin may prove to be most injudicious. Australia’s involvement in the ostensibly anti-Chinese multilateral trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) appears to be fencing China into an economic exclusion zone at the behest of US corporate interests. Much like the detested US-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the TPP requires participating countries to restructure their economies to benefit transnational entities. The carbon tax-pushing Gillard has also aligned closer to India in the form of a new trilateral security pact, which also incorporates the United States. The Chinese perspective on these developments remains plausible; commentators such as People’s Liberation Army Major General Luo Yuan reiterate, “The intent is very clear - this is aimed at China, to contain China".

As a means strengthen the foundation of the new trilateral pact, the Labour government has overturned its own ban on selling uranium to countries that are not signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). By giving India access to 40% of the world’s identified uranium reserves (possessed by Australia), the country plans to build 30 nuclear power stations in the next 20 years, earning billions for the Australian corporate elite. Australian uranium is also sold to the General Atomics Corporation; a producer of unmanned aerial drone aircrafts, which are frequently deployed against sovereign nation-states to indiscriminately exenterate any living being in its focus. The Australian leadership’s contribution to such unethical forms of warfare is truly against the will of the Australian people.

As the US faces economic torpidity and abject bankruptcy, it’s clear that a restored focus on Asia is not solely in the interest of economics, as professed by Hillary Clinton in her manifesto, America’s Pacific Century. The skulking encroachment of American militarism beneath the public relations-jargon of the State Department is increasingly evident in dealings with Australia. Although the Gillard government criminalized certain lethal armaments such as Cluster munitions under Australian law, US personnel transit and stockpile the weapons at US military facilities in Darwin. The people of Australian cannot tolerate a foreign military power illegally conducting operations on their territory and a foreign President asserting, “we’re here to stay.”

The underlining initiative of recent US foreign policy has been to continually thwart Chinese economic interests in various parts of the globe, irrespective of moral and ethical consequence. The moment that it’s provocations appear too reckless, China may incite a collapse of the US dollar by dumping its holdings of US treasury bonds. While the current Labour government spends an unjustifiable amount of money on military expansion, the original inhabitants of Australia have the shortest life expectancy of any of the world’s indigenous groups. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has reported that half of the Indigenous people in the Northern Territory do not have adequate housing, while various communities are unable to access potable water.

Australia is the only developed nation where cases of blinding trachoma still exist. While basic infrastructure and housing in Aboriginal communities is abjectly insufficient, clearly, owning amphibious warships is more of a priority for the Australian leadership, who sheepishly play junior to American authority. While the rate of Aboriginal imprisonment in the state of Western Australia is eight times the figure than that of South Africa’s apartheid regime, the scene of mining bulldozers demolishing invaluable Aboriginal artwork on the walls of expansive natural caves situated on traditional tribal land is truly the weltschmerz of an entire people. Canberra’s allegiances are evidently not to its population, but to amoral mining enterprises and the military industrial complex.

For more on Australia, please see the Australian Archives.

Permanent US Military Presence in Australia

Another "Obama policy" long-ago decided by corporate-fascist think-tanks.
by Tony Cartalucci

November 15, 2011 - After months of assuring a skeptical and disgruntled Australian public that the US military would not be getting a permanent base in Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald has reported a "US Marine Base for Darwin." US President Barrack Obama is credited with the decision, one overtly declared to be in direct response to the rise of China. Despite Obama getting credit, however, one shadowy "institution" is overly ecstatic over the announcement, and while Australian Defense Minister Stephen Smith attempts to reassure the public that Australia will not have "US bases," this institution's "news blog" has already declared the decision as potentially the moment "where Australia fundamentally cast its lot in with the US," vis-a-vis China. This institution is particularly ecstatic because despite the media giving credit to Obama, it was their idea, one they've been promoting openly since at least June.

The Lowy Institution, which masquerades as an Australian think-tank, is in actuality funded and representative of the global-corporate-financier oligarchy. Described in detail in, "Globalists' Australian Nexus ," it was specifically noted as far back as June 2011 that the Lowy Institute was behind a call for establishing US military bases throughout Australia. The Australian specifically named the Lowy Institute as one of the unelected "planners" behind making "the case for US Bases." As in the recent Lowy Institute affirmation of this policy as Obama prepares to unveil their corporate-funded agenda in Darwin, Australia next Thursday, Lowy back in June also cited China and the inclusion of Australia in a more aggressive strategy being pursued by Wall Street and London to maintain their financial, economic, and strategic hegemony throughout Asia.

While Lowy's fake news blog the "Interpreter" claims most Australians should feel content with this announcement, in reality, they should be up in arms over it. A corporate-funded, unelected think-tank is dictating policy to an entire nation, not even for their own best interests but overtly to enhance a foreign corporate oliagrchy in its projection of power throughout Australia's own backyard. Instead of cultivating a constructive relationship with Asia on its own terms - Australia has now been manipulated through duplicitous self-serving organizations like the Lowy Institute to adopt a stance of confrontation, encirclement, and unsustainable militarism leaving Australians as the first line of defense for Wall Street and London if their house of cards collapses.

Australians need to ask themselves sincerely if they are ready to shed blood and jeopardize all they have built for the sake of Anglo-American global hegemony (read: empire). There is absolutely no reason Australians on their own can't produce a strong defensive military to deter future aggression - where ever it may come from, while establishing reasonable ties with their sovereign neighbors. Instead, their military is off in far-flung Afghanistan fighting Wall Street and London's wars, expending money, resources, and brave lives that could better serve Australia domestically and regionally.

It is imperative that people understand just where this policy came from - neither elected representatives in Australia nor America, but rather a corporate-funded think-tank full of unelected and largely unknown policy makers. This is your real government, and the price paid for continuing on ignorant of this is living a destiny not written by the people, but by a cleverly disguised corporate-fascist oligarchy that will bleed you and your nation to death for their own agenda.

Globalists' Australian Nexus

A globalist rat's nest amidst the rise of Asia.
by Tony Cartalucci

Addendum: A description of Lowy Institute's involvement regarding the formation of a planetary regime, as illustrated in selected articles:

Regarding the climate change hoax: The [Australian] PM's Address to the Lowy Institute via The Australian.

Regarding US-Australian military integration: "Planners make the case for US bases" via The Australian.

Regarding the contrivance of an World Internet Organization to regulate the Internet globally: "The Shadow of Cyber Regulation" via ISN, by Lowy Institute's Jonas Rey.

Promoting Australia's commitment to endless war in Afghanistan: "More to do in Oruzgan " via The Sydney Morning Herald, by Lowy Institute Non-Resident Fellow, Dr Rodger Shanahan.

....

Bangkok, Thailand July 5, 2011 - Meet the Lowy Institute. Filled with big business interests, it poses as an "independent international policy think tank," whose objective is to "generate new ideas and dialogue on international developments and Australia’s role in the world." The word "independent" is somewhat confusing, but what is clear is that it is yet another Fortune 500 run policy and propaganda clearinghouse serving not Australia, but rather the global corporate-financier elite.


Notable corporate members include JP Morgan, Rothschild, Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, and Cheveron. While Australian brands like Qantas, BHP Billiton, and the National Australian Bank appear more "indigenous" in nature, the reality is that their boards, like everything in the globalist realm, are an ongoing game of musical chairs between all of the worlds globalist, multinational corporations. For example, BHP Billiton's board of directors alone features Jacques Nasser, formerly of Ford Motor Company and JP Morgan, John Buchanan formally of British Petroleum and Vodafone, Carlos Cordeiro formally of Goldman Sachs, David Crawford formally of Bank of America, and the list goes on and on.

The Lowy Institute's board of directors is something to behold. Sitting at the top, is 80 year-old, accused tax evader, Australian-Israeli Frank Lowy, after whom the institute is named. He currently oversees the Westfield Group, was a board member of the Reserve Bank of Australia, and sits upon the board of directors of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) - not of Australia, but of Israel. Joining him is son Peter Lowy, who is also a Lowy Institute board member, a RAND Corporation trustee, and a board member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council - not of Australia, but of the United States. Also on the board amongst several others, is Professor Ross Garnaut of the University of Melbourne as well as Australian National University (ANU), Ian Macfarlane formally of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Goldman Sachs, and Temasek Holdings, Professor Robert O'Neill of the corporate-stacked International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), and a former head of ANU's Strategic and Defense Studies Centre.

Perhaps most disturbing however is the inclusion of Brookings Institution's Martin Indyk, the co-author of the, frankly speaking, insane "Which Path to Persia?" report where Indyk, fellow Lowy associate Michael O'Hanlon, and others conspired against the nation of Iran to fund known terrorist organizations, engineer fake street protests, buy off members of the Iranian military, and even attempt to provoke Iran into a war it was disinterested in fighting - not for national security, but for what Indyk, O'Hanlon, and others called, "American interests and influence throughout the Middle East."

It then appears that the Lowy Institute is nothing more than a collection of banksters, criminal conspirators, and multinational multi-corporate interests. It is an institute of big business, by big business, and for big business. What is alarming is the vast reach it has within Australia's universities and the alleged "free-press." The name Australian National University comes up more than once and various members of Lowy's staff are also contributors to both Australian and international papers and television networks. Also alarming is the "cross pollination" reflected in Lowy's staff between the institute and other notorious corporate-funded corporate-serving organizations like the Brookings Institution, the International Crisis Group, the fraudulent Harvard Belfer Center, and the warmongering Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Our People: Ties to globalist think-tanks and the media.

Dr. Khalid Koser: Non-Resident Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution.

Dr. Michael Fullilove: Non-Resident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, Rhodes Scholar, has published articles in The New York Times, the Financial Times, The Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune, Slate, The Daily Beast, the Los Angeles Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Australian, the Australian Financial Review, The Spectator, The Washington Quarterly, The National Interest and Foreign Affairs.

Whit Mason: International Crisis Group while in Kosovo, then speechwriter for the UN Kosovo mission, and USAID in Pakistan.

Paul Kelly: Editor-at-large of The Australian, previously Editor-in-Chief of The Australian. Is a regular commentator on ABC television (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

Dr. Michael Wesley: Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Fiona Cunningham: Interned at the Belfer Center at Harvard University and the International Crisis Group.

Fergus Hanson: Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Own Harries: Published over 200 articles in leading journals and magazines, including Foreign Affairs, Commentary, New Republic, Harper's, Orbis, The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, The American Scholar, National Review, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Times (London), The Spectator, The Reader's Digest, as well as in his own journal, The National Interest, and in various Australian publications, including Quadrant , The Bulletin, Policy , The Australian Outlook, The Australian, The Australian Financial Review, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. (It should be noted that the "National Interest," Harries' own publication, features such warmongering, illegal conspiratory articles as "Free Baluchistan," and "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis" where it is suggested that the United States should fund and arm rebels inside Pakistan to carve up the nation to balk Chinese-Pakistani relations.)

Ties to the Australian National University
The Lowy Institute appears to maintain close ties with all of Australia's prominent universities. The Australian National University, however, is one that is stumbled across over and over again, with Lowy co-hosting events, tapping ANU's professors for research papers, and airing its propaganda under a pseudo-academic light. Additionally, many of Lowy's own members have been drawn from ANU's alumni as well as prominent heads of various ANU departments.

Martine Letts: Lowy Institute Deputy Directory, appointed to the ANU Council in 2004.

Professor Hugh White: Lowy Institute Visiting Fellow, professor of Strategic Studies at ANU. Also a regular columnist for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Professor Warwick McKibbin: Lowry Institute Professional Fellow, Director of ANU Research School of Economics, and also a Non-Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Dr. Milton Osborne: Visiting Fellow in the Faculty of Asian Studies at the Australian National University.

Professor Alan Dupont: Senior Fellow at ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.

The first search result that comes up within Lowy Institute's publication archives is an interesting document titled, "Thai studies in Australia." Under "Specialists Consulted," no less than 9 "specialists" came from ANU, including the notoriously intellectually dishonest Andrew Walker of ANU's "New Mandala" blog. Walker is fond of taking regional corporate agendas and shoehorning them into something resembling that of academia to lend them legitimacy they'd otherwise lack. He is also adept at giving the corporatocracy talking points a decidedly liberal spin, drawing in well intentioned people to consider his "work" when otherwise they'd be revolted.

Walker spends his time berating Thailand's self-sufficiency economy, suggesting that encouraging people to be self-reliant agriculturally, the very principle that throughout history has produced the strongest, most resilient nations on earth, somehow excludes them from participating in the "national economy" as well as participating in "electoral democracy." He and his partner, Nicholas Farrelly, post up articles promoting the very worst aspects of the corporate-financiers' NGO creep into sovereign Asia, as progressive and justified.

Right on cue, as National Endowment for Democracy-funded "Bersih 2.0" was preparing for mass demonstrations in Malaysia, Walker's "New Mandala" blog posted the following, "The biggest threat – as perceived by the present administration – to Malaysia’s internal security is a demand for free and fair elections." What Walker failed to research and tell his readership, was the fact that Bersih is on record, with organizers themselves admitting to it, having received funds from the National Endowment for Democracy-funded National Democratic Institute, as well as from globalist bankster George Soros' "Open Society" foundation. The threat then, contrary to what was written on "New Mandala" is not "free and fair elections," but rather foreign-funded sedition led by foreign-proxy, Ibrahim Anwar.

Lowy's propaganda outfit

Walker's "New Mandala" blog also dutifully hits on all the key talking points being pushed by the global corporate-financiers. When an ex-Reuters journalist penned his disingenuous, conveniently timed Wikileaks-based hit piece titled, "Thai Story," Walker was right by his side providing an outlet and badly needed legitimacy for his hackery. But in addition to Walker, there was the Lowy Institute's propaganda mouthpiece, "The Interpreter." After the July 3, 2011 Thai elections, the Interpreter chimed in with "The danger of a Thai civil war" where the elitist think-tank skipped past their client-proxy Thaksin Shinawatra, and laid the blame for Thailand's current political turmoil on the nation's revered monarchy. Citing Marshall's 3,000 unverified, unsubstantiated Wikileaks cables, who Marshall himself claims, is only "believed to have been downloaded by US soldier Bradley Manning in Iraq," the Interpreter suggests it is "journalism of the highest order."

Adding insult to injury, for those who understand how this network operates, the Interpreter cites fellow corporate-serving globalist think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations to bolster their claim.

The Interpreter maintains a partnership of sorts with other globalist connected outlets like "The Diplomat" who echo the globalist consensus on any given issue and itself boasts partnerships with corporate-funded global think-tanks like the Soros-funded Foreign Policy Centre. There is a reason why the Interpreter, the Diplomat, and Andrew Walker's "New Mandala" blog are all on the same page along with other corporate-serving propaganda outfits like CNN, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, and many others. It is because beneath the veneer of objectivity and academia, lies what is an obviously self-serving agenda propagated by a self-evident, omnipresent global despotic corporatocracy.

Conclusion

Upon the Council on Foreign Relation's seal is the word VBIQVE, latin for "everywhere," and manifests itself in the common English word, ubiquitous. Indeed as we see, regarding just the Lowy Institute alone, it contaminates an entire region's news, media, universities, literature, research, studies, and of course, through the papers and propaganda it produces with the clout it puts behind them, the region's politics and laws as well. The global corporatocracy is everywhere, affecting everything, perhaps so profoundly it escapes one's notice.

However, upon seeing this network exposed, the people involved, their history of promoting an unaccountable, self-serving agenda at everyone's expense but their own, we can begin rendering moot the false legitimacy they foist upon society with their fancy logos, lofty titles, disingenuous liberal-esque spin, their insufferable arrogance, and entire institutions co-opted or even contrived to serve their own ends.

We can begin by exposing these frauds for what they really are. We can boycott the corporations that fund and perpetuate these unsavory, dubious, and often well-hidden agendas. We can also begin to replace this nefarious network they've constructed by becoming self-sufficient on a local level. There is good reason why ANU imposter-academic Andrew Walker, along with the Wall Street Journal and the Economist are so adamantly against Thailand's attempt at implementing nation-wide localism - it is because it will set a viable example for all nations to follow out from under the squatting parasites that make up the global elite.

For more on the illegitimate parasites that constitute the "international community" and how to remove them, please read the following:

Big Oil's Tree Huggers: Harvard's Belfer Center
Naming Names: Your Real Government
Wisdom from the Orient: Self-Sufficiency
Self-Sufficiency: A Universal Solution to the Globalist Problem