Imperialist alliances strengthen in Asia-Pacific

 

(Above: PM visits Japan - Day 2 by UK Prime Minister CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.)

Written by: Ali K. on 19 November 2022

Recent developments suggest that the Japan and the UK are set to embark on a pact which aims to strengthen military co-operation and deter what they call the rising threat that China poses. This deal, known as the “Reciprocal Access Agreement” will remove the bureaucracy associated with military exercises and operations between the two countries and is also a significant symbolic agreement given the high levels of tension between the Americas and countries in the Pacific. 

The past two years have seen both the US and Japan increasing military efforts to prepare for a potential conflict between China and Taiwan. Recent statements from the UK show us that Rishi Sunak is no less hawkish than his predecessors – the Japanese Foreign Minister stated that both Japanese PM Kishida and Sunak had pledged to accelerate the consultation of a Reciprocal Access Agreement. What this shows us is that the American imperialist bloc is widening: no longer are Asian partnerships restricted to just the US, but other US allies can serve as deployment bases for other partners. It is clearly not “democracy” that the US and their allies are vying for in the Asia-Pacific but the strengthening of military imperialist relations and a monopoly on the extraction of value from the manufacturing hubs of the Global South.   

What does this mean for Australia?   

The UK and the US are not alone in their warmongering. In January this year, the Japan-Australia RAA agreement was signed in the name of bilateral security and defence cooperation under the Morrison government. The Australia-Japan Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation was also recently signed, again in response to a Chinese threat. The declaration for the original RAA which was signed suggests cooperation between Japan and Australia so as to “resist economic coercion and disinformation”, a dig at China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific. That the strengthening of Australia’s ties with Japan happened with the US and Japan engaging in joint military exercises is no coincidence. It points to a clear agenda of the Australian ruling class to participate in US and UK led imperialism, beholden to these ties by a history of economic cooperation and direct investment in key sectors of the economy. That the Joint Declaration was signed under the government of a Prime Minister to the “left” of the Labor Party ultimately points to a bipartisan commitment to be the running lapdog of US imperialism.   

Along with their military efforts, Japan is securing economic ties in Australian industry. This week, Madeleine King, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia is visiting Japan to welcome further investments in Australian energy and resources. In 2020, Japan was Australia’s second-largest source of foreign investment, approximating $132 billion. Far from a healthy partnership as members of the ruling class may suggest, investments in Australian industry increase the stakes that Japan has in directing the production and distribution of key LNG ports. It is necessary to look past the appearance of foreign direct investment and into its actual content – which in Australia’s case is a greater reliance on investment from neighbouring countries to fund domestic programs.   

There is a solution – nationalising key industries will ensure a delinking from international finance capital and funding for key domestic programs like education, health and the well-being of all Australians.   

What we need is an independent, working-class and socialist agenda!  

Spy ships and underwater drones

 

(Above: Anduril underwater drone      Source: Anduril website)

Written by: (Contributed) on 15 November 2022

Hidden in recent budget papers, reference to a sensitive defence project involving the acquisition of a ship to form part of a network of sensors and drones, has carried all the hallmarks of clandestine operations. It also indicated US control of the sensor network, although Australian tax-payers have footed the $155 million for the vessel. There has been no comment from the present Albanese government; the acquisition originated in government and military planning during the previous Morrison government.

Recent federal budget papers provided the required authorisation for the acquisition of a new $155 million spy ship to form part of a newly established network of underwater sensors 'to detect foreign submarines and autonomous underwater vehicles'. (1) The use of underwater sensors is nothing new: its origins go back decades through the application of science and technology to warfare techniques. (2) The funding of the vessel was, however, given very little publicity or reference to the newly established nature of the network as ‘the US navy's primary means of submarine detection.’ Described as ‘one of its most closely guarded secrets', it is evidence of a highly sophisticated modern defence and security system. (3)

Submarines are used by governments primarily for intelligence-gathering, possessing the ability to move close to adversaries to monitor areas of interest. Their geographical range together with specific information about sophisticated equipment is rarely openly publicised. The US uses Australian military bases for regional operations, which host sensitive intelligence facilities; they remain notoriously secretive about the extent of their involvement in Australia. Information elsewhere contained in research papers, media releases and defence publications, however, reveals a great deal about their research and development program.

A published list of four major Australian universities researching the 'scale and test creation of magnetic field sensing optical fibres to use for remote undersea surveillance …(which) was of great interest to both Australian and US defence forces', in a mainstream Australian media outlet, has left little to the imagination about the role of academia in conjunction with the US-led military-industrial complex. (4)

There has also been reference to the manufacturing of three prototype autonomous undersea vehicles (XL – UAV), by US company Anduril Australia, capable of conducting missions along the sea floor at depths of up to 6,000 metres for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tasks. Their role is to 'have really sophisticated sensor processing on the vehicle so it can do things, like analyse the signature of the propulsion system, sonar reflections and so on to identify a vessel of interest'. This provides clear evidence of the nature of research and development. (5)  
 
References in an official defence media release revealed a carefully-worded statement about the ship carrying 'small teams … working with un-crewed remote and autonomous systems', indicating its use with drone warfare. (6) The sensor system would appear strongly linked to intelligence provision, with reference in budget papers to 'integration of undersea warfare and surveillance systems'. (7)

The sensor network would also appear to have 'fixed undersea rays … placed strategically … at key choke points on our approaches', which together with references to 'remote' would suggest off-shore sitings particularly in areas of traditional interest, including the South Pacific countries, revealing both range and capacity of the sensor system. (8)

Recent US-led criticism of moves by the Sogavare government in the Solomon Islands to establish a defence agreement with China, therefore, may have to be viewed in this light. The nature of the US-led diplomatic hostility toward the Sogavare government would appear out of usual context toward the small South Pacific country. The secrecy surrounding the Australian Defence Force construction of an Eastern Border Outpost on the remote Temotu province, however, might provide a suitable explanation for the US diplomatic position.

Recent high-level diplomatic initiatives with PNG, likewise, may have also followed similar intelligence assessments of the US regarding their sensor network as vulnerable. Moves by Canberra to follow US regional military planning and establish a Defence Co-operation Agreement with PNG, and upgrade Milne Bay facilities would also appear part of the main plan. The Milne Bay facilities face the sensitive and strategic Coral Bay and Solomon Sea.

Moves by the US to also establish an Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and updating of their Island Chain Theory of regional demarcation across the Indian Ocean has also carried a similar indication of their new sensor network being used in a wider context of defence and security provision.

The spy ship acquisition followed directives issued with the Australian Defence 2020 Force Structure Plan, which requested investment in the sensor network and recent tenders have revealed the system will use 'fixed, mobile and deployable acoustic rays designed to detect diesel- and nuclear-powered submarines operating in Australia's maritime approaches, and to provide tactical cueing to Australian Defence Force and allied anti-submarine warfare forces'. (9) It should be noted that while the acquisition of the spy ship has been the legacy of the previous coalition government in Canberra and their overtly pro-US policies, Labor’s Defence Minister Richard Marles is strongly supportive if US imperialism, having been mentored in that role by former Labor leader Kim Beazley.   

While the US have maintained a tight-lipped approach with their government and military planning, Australian tax-payers have, nevertheless, been left to foot the bill:

                                           We need an independent foreign policy!

1.     Ship to help detect underwater hostile activity given go-ahead, Australian, 28 October 2022.
2.     See: Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS), Official US Government Website.
3.     Australian, op.cit., 28 October 2022.
4.     Co-operating brings results, Defence Research – Special Report, Australian, 30 April 2021.
5.     Autonomous undersea vehicles must be smart, Defence Report, Australian, 27 October 2022.
6.     Australian, op.cit., 28 October 2022.
7.     Ibid.
8.     Ibid.
9.     Ibid.

SA Unions’ Strong Support For First Nations Voice

(Above: Uluru Statement of the Heart       Photo by BrownHoneyAnt CC BY-SA 4.0)

 Written by: Ned K. on 14 November 2022

On Friday 11 November, SA Unions held its annual Organizing Conference. The theme for the Conference was "Building A Stronger Movement, Together". 

"Together" did not only refer to members of all Unions building a stronger workers’ movement but a movement committed to campaign for a "Yes" vote in next year's Referendum to see a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Australian Constitution and the formation of a Makarrata Commission for Treaty and Truth telling.

Guest speaker at the Conference was Lara Watson, National Indigenous Officer of the ACTU. She said that despite strong Union and community support for the Uluru Statement From The Heart, nobody should have illusions about the determination of the most reactionary forces in Australia to run a successful "No" vote campaign leading up to the Referendum to be held in late 2023.

She said a grass roots campaign by Unions on the scale of Your Rights At Work, Worth Fighting For to topple the Howard Government in 2007 was possible to ensure a "Yes" vote for the Referendum. 

Timing of the SA Unions Conference on 11 November, the day in 1975 that the Whitlam Government was dismissed by the agent of the British Crown and US Intelligence forces had significance in relation to the coming Referendum and the Uluru Statement From The Heart.

The Whitlam Government's dismissal was partly due to its mere consideration of the closing of the US military base, Pine Gap, also in Central Australia as is Uluru. First Nations People were also well aware of the danger of Pine Gap to their very existence as it was sure to be a nuclear target in any Australian Government support for a US instigated war against another big power, such as China.

On 11 November 1983, First Nations women led 700 women to Pine Gap gates and had 11 minutes silence for Remembrance Day. This was followed by a two week, women's only Peace Camp called Women For Survival. Several women were arrested for "trespassing" on to the Base.

The action of First Nations women in protests at Pine Gap in years gone by show that The Uluru Statement From The Heart and the coming Referendum for a First Nations Voice demonstrate their understanding of the need for Australian Governments to not only support the First Nations Voice but also to remove US military bases like Pine Gap which place First Nations land and very existence under threat. 

Make the Rich Pay...and then get rid of them!

 

Written by: Nick G. on 10 November 2022

In 2013, in response to people’s demands to know how much – or how little -tax was being paid by businesses on revenue from sales for products and services in Australia, the Australian Tax Office began publishing an annual spreadsheet of entity (companies) income and taxation.

Such disclosures had been fought for years by the Business Council of Australia, by the huge multinational corporations that were notorious as tax avoiders, and their supporters in the Liberal and National Parties.

The figures really only dealt with the tip of the iceberg: in 2013, only companies with a sales revenue of $100 million or more were subject to scrutiny.

The Liberal argued that for privately-owned companies (those without shareholders), the data was an invasion of privacy and the Turnbull government exempted them in November 2015. The exemption didn’t last long, but when they were put back into the scheme the threshold was raised to $200 million, thus limiting the number of companies involved.

The thresholds currently stand at $100 million or more for Australian public and foreign-owned corporate tax entities, and $200 million or more for Australian-owned resident private companies.

In other words, we still don’t know in general what capitalist entities earning income in Australia are paying, or avoiding, in terms of their taxation requirements.

What we do know is that around one-third of those entities that are the biggest companies in Australia (most of these are foreign-owned) are still not paying tax, and that this figure of one-third has been quite consistent since the ATO began publishing the data in 2013.

As a matter of record, the latest data set, for the 2020-21 financial year, shows that 2521 companies had income above the current thresholds, but 801, or 32%, paid no tax.

US multinational Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd is not included in the 32% because, on Australian earnings of $9,163,203,498 it paid a massive $30! 

Two other Chevron entities, Chevron Australia Downstream Holdings Pty Ltd (income of $ 1,720,618,927) and Chevron Australia Products Pty Limited (income of $ 1,599,962,958) paid no tax. We suggest these latter two chip in $10 each to help out their unfortunate sibling.

Spare a thought too for Nature's Care Holdings Pty Ltd which, on an income of $ 107,981,823 could not see its way clear of having to pay $1 in tax.  Surely their accountants could have avoided that for them. The company has nothing to do with environmentalism but is a manufacturer of vitamins which in 2018 was taken over by a Chinese state-backed consortium China Jianyin Investment Ltd (JIC) and private equity fund Tamar Alliance owned by Chinese firms Citic Pacific Ltd and Dah Chong Hong Holdings 1828.HK.

Years ago, our Party advanced the tactical slogan “Make the Rich Pay”.  It was based on the premise that the rich weren’t paying enough for the social programs of the people.  It now transpires that the rich constantly strive, and often successfully, to pay nothing at all, year after year.

As an immediate demand, “Make the Rich Pay….something, anything” still resonates.

However, the days when we continue to tolerate the rich at all are drawing to a close.

Privatisation and the Cost of Living

 

(Above:Woodside Flame      Photo: by Jim Bendon CC BY-SA 2.0).

Written by: Jed J. on 8 November 2022

Many Australian workers are struggling to make ends meet. What they earn is not keeping up with the steep rise in the cost of living, especially the rise in the cost of electricity and gas which is predicated to go through the roof in the near future.

Electricity and gas are not commodities that consumers can choose to buy or not buy. They are essential. Life without them in this day and age is unimaginable.

Businesses are also feeling the pinch. The higher charges for power could send many small businesses to the wall and the consequences for the economy could be catastrophic. 

The provision of these necessities was once under government control. That was before privatisation. Since then, like many other essentials such as education, health and public transport they have become commodities.

We used to live in a society. Now we live in a market.

Since privatisation the availability of these essential services has been in the hands of private companies whose main aim is to maximise profits. They do this by reducing their costs to the minimum and charging consumers the maximum they can get.

Now consumers are not just paying for the provision of these necessities they are also contributing to the massive profits the energy companies are making.

Due to the shortages of gas and electricity in the world today these energy companies are profiteering from the situation at the expense of households and businesses who are struggling to pay their bills.

Clearly in the minds of these capitalist enterprises the need to make profits is all that matters. If they can make higher level of profits by selling Australian gas overseas, they do so even though that means that Australian consumers will pay more.

They treat consumers as cash cows to be milked for every dollar they can get.

In a report recently released by the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analyses and reported on the ABC website, the extent of energy companies’ profiteering is exposed. Journalist Michael West is red hot summing up solutions to this grand theft. 

The report shows that between 2014-2021 households and businesses were charged $10 billion more than the “normal” level of profit.

According to the report the justifiable level of profit for this period would have been about $15 billion.

However, the regulator approved charges to customers that allowed for $25 billion to be milked from the consumers.

Some network companies in the Eastern States and South Australia, the report claims, gained super profits by persistently charging too much for network charges which make up to half of their customers’ bills.

This shows how their local customers have been funding super profits for the last eight years.

Why should Australian resources developed by Australian labour benefit only the local and overseas capitalist class?

Why shouldn’t Australian workers who are, after all, responsible for turning raw materials into products, benefit by paying less not more for electricity and gas?

Without the input of their labour there would be no products to sell.

The new Labor government can and should take steps to ensure that all Australians benefit from the money made from selling Australian resources. But will they do it? 

Currently they are “talking with business”, inviting a hungry fox into the henhouse. 

Renationalise the energy sector and taking over the development and distribution of electricity and gas on a cost recovery basis is the way to go.

This couldn’t happen through parliament alone. There has to be a mass movement led by the organised working class to demand that all Australians, not just a few greedy local and foreign capitalists, benefit from the country’s natural resources. 

 

 

Book Review: Rent

 

Written by: Duncan B and Alex M on 5 November 2022

Joe Collins, the author of Rent (Polity Press) is a lecturer in Political Economy at the University of Sydney. Rent is the sixth in a series titled What Is Political Economy? The other titles in the series are Work, Austerity, Money, Value and Consumption. 

When we think of rent we usually think of it as the amount of money paid regularly to a land-owner for the use of their landed property especially for farming or housing. This was the original meaning of rent and the one that affects many Australians trying to keep a roof over their heads. We constantly read of the problems of renters such as the shortage of affordable rental properties and constantly rising rents.

In this book Collins traces the history of rent from mediaeval times to the present day. He also traces economic theories of rent from pre-capitalist times, through economists such as the Physiocrats to classical economists such as Adam Smith, Ricardo and J S Mill. 

Collins discusses the work of Karl Marx who made extensive investigations into rent. The results of his investigations can be found in Capital Volume III. Marx saw rent as a relationship between classes, in this case the landowners and the capitalists, in the same way as wages are a relationship between the workers and the capitalists.

Collins continues his tracing of rent theory from classical economic theory through to what he calls mainstream rent theory and to modern political economy.

Under the influence of these theories the meaning of rent has broadened to include economic rent which means a component of the price paid to the owner of a factor of production above the amount necessary to maintain that factor in its current use, due to the monopoly position of the owner or the scarcity of that factor. With this scenario there can be many different types of payments which can be classed as rents.

Collins also discusses rent-seeking behaviour. He says (p46), “firms lobbying the state to enact laws or to implement regimes of regulation that manipulate the degree of competition in markets where they operate are considered to be engaging in rent-seeking behaviour.”

Rent-seeking occurs in all capitalist countries, (we can all think of plenty of examples in Australia!), but is very common in countries where the level of corruption in the government and public service is much higher than in Australia.

Perhaps due to the strictures of a word limit (the book is 116 pages in total) Collins states that it is not the objective of the book to ”advocate on behalf of a preferred view” of rent. Yet intriguingly he mentions that “here is one – the SoP framework – but it is of no concern in this current study to stake claims as to its superiority” (p.89). All very well, but then why mention it if you are not going to at least outline why such an approach to rent compares more favourably with others? Sometimes the brevity of Collins’ text makes for a somewhat challenging read, but this does not detract from his timely and important intervention into this area of political economy.

Anyone who has tried to study the concept of rent and its role in the economy will find this book useful in helping them to gain a better understanding of rent.

 

 

US plans to keep the two Koreas apart

 

(South Korean Missiles      Photo by danielfoster437 CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.)

Written by: (Contributed) on 5 November 2022

The US-led war-drive across the Indo-Pacific has raised diplomatic tensions in several sensitive areas of the region, including the Korean peninsula in recent weeks. What was officially reported as a relatively minor incident was, in fact, a major diplomatic incident between South Korea (ROK) and North Korea (DPRK), revealing a dramatic return to the darkest days of the Cold War, as the US seeks to reassert traditional hegemonic positions in the face of a changing balance of forces with China.

In late October media coverage of warning shots being fired between ROK and DPRK shipping vessels received scant attention. (1) It, nevertheless, highlighted the problem of effective and mutually agreed maritime boundaries between the two states. The incident also followed three earlier related matters in the Indo-Pacific: from 22 August to 1 September, US-led Ulchi Freedom Shield military exercises with ROK and Japanese forces were conducted off Hawaii; a senior former Pentagon official and defence analyst Elbridge Colby, called for the US, Australia and Japan to mobilise 'for potential war with China … as … Beijing intended to seize Taiwan'; Australia and Japan formally signed an upgraded security agreement which included stronger 'intelligence sharing and to enhance the interoperability of military capabilities', in what is essentially a US-led triangular diplomatic relationship. (2)

The three matters were responsible for raising diplomatic tensions in several sensitive areas of the Indo-Pacific, most notably the Korean peninsula.

In mid-October a DPRK merchant vessel crossed the so-called Northern Limit Line (NLL) and received warning shots from the ROK navy; after the vessel departed the area, the DPRK military also fired a number of warning shots into the area. (3)

The serious diplomatic incident then would appear to have petered out. It, nevertheless, highlighted controversy over the maritime boundaries and the legitimacy of the NLL which ‘remains a serious flashpoint for conflict with fears that a relatively small incident could escalate into a larger more violent conflagration'. (4)

Established by US Naval Commander General Mark Clarke on 30 August 1953, the NLL
was regarded 'as a military control line in the West Sea', although no specific military or diplomatic documents ever appear to have existed. (5) The matter remains further complicated by the sovereignty of five Korean islands and agreed international definitions of territorial waters. (6) And the matter remains one of contention to the present day. The DPRK continue to regard the NLL as 'bogus', and it is questionable whether they ever accepted the boundary; then US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, in February 1975, in a subsequently declassified cable stated that 'the NLL does not have international legal status'. (7) The controversy surrounding the NLL became a source of major discontent between the ROK and DPRK during the 1970s period, eventually escalating into open military hostilities in 1999, 2002, and 2009, resulting in loss of life.

The fact the ROK navy, historically, used the disputed area for regular military exercises has also remained a matter of concern for the DPRK. (8)

US regional policy has continued to be conducted in this manner for over seventy years, with perceived adversaries used to justify huge defence budgets with the military-industrial complex used to artificially prop up their domestic economy. It has been marked by a swash-buckling bravado and a mentality that 'might is right'. The problem is now, furthermore, even more serious: the use of Australia and Japan as major hubs for 'US interests' has drawn allies into the forefront of regional diplomatic rivalry with large-scale troop rotations and preparations for 'real war scenarios'. As one US-led military exercise ends, another starts.

In recent years major diplomatic initiatives on the Korean Peninsula in favour of dialogue between the ROK and DPRK were not greeted with enthusiasm by the US. While cordial meetings took place and both sides openly aired their grievances, the US did not take kindly to the ROK being, on occasions, reticent to slavishly follow US directives but to consider alternatives and their own national interests. (9) It is also important to note, for example, that behind the scenes the rise of China has already altered the balance of forces across the peninsula, being the largest trading partner of both Koreas.

The presidential elections in the ROK last May, therefore, showed a power-play between pro-US players, and those who had supported outgoing President Moon Jae-in who had taken a more assertive and progressive role when dealing with Washington and the Pentagon. The election of pro-US Yoon Suk-yeol of the People Power Party, narrowly beating Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party, however, resulted in many of the previous diplomatic initiatives being discarded in favour of a 'normalisation' of ROK-US military relations; previously a down-sizing and halting of exercises and other war-games had taken in recent years. (8)

The situation on the Korean peninsula now remains tense, with all the hallmarks of Cold War diplomacy: recent developments have shown how the US regional war-drive has had serious implications for allies, particularly Australia, which is linked through military alliances and agreements to automatically side with the Pentagon and to provide a logistic hub for US regional military operations elsewhere:

                                         We need an independent foreign policy!

1.     Korean foes swap 'warning shots' across maritime border,  Australian, 25 October 2022; and, North Korea fires, Chosun Ilbo, 19 October 2022; and, North Korea Fires, The Korean Times, 19 October 2022.

2.     The US and South Korea to begin large-scale military drills,  ABC News, 16 August 2022; and, 'Mobilise for war before it's too late', Australian, 20 October 2022; and,  Australia, Japan to reinforce military tie, Australian, 20 October 2022; and, Beijing warns PM over Japan alliance,  Australian, 25 October 2022.  

3.     Australian, op.cit., 25 October 2022; and, Chosun Ilbo, op.cit., 19 October 2022, and, Korean Times, op.cit., 19 October 2022.

4.     The Northern Limit Line, The National Committee on North Korea (NCNK), September 2011.

5.     Ibid., and, Website: Military Wiki, The NLL.   

6.     Ibid.

7.     Website: Wikipedia, The NLL.

8.     Blocking peace on the Korean Peninsula,  People's Voice (Canada), 1-5 March 2011.

9.     See: The reasons behind Washington's push for GSOMIA, Hankyoreh, 12 November 2019; and, Seoul's balancing act between Beijing and Washington set to remain, The Global Times, 27 May 2021.

10.   ABC News, op.cit., 16 August 2022.