Australia’s defence policy still dictated by US & News Corp

Last week, the United States told Australia to increase its defense expenditures back to 3.5% of GDP – – Different numbers for 3% called in MarchBut I should never expect consistency from Donald Trump. How did he give the American message? A letter between ministers? Communication between Pentagon and Ministry of Defense officials? Acting is a conversation by the US Ambassador?

No, Via News Corp. Trump’s Pentagon staff Australia And he directly associated his increasing expenditure request to AUKUS: “It is vital that they can raise defense expenditures to 3.5% of GDP… If Australia does not increase defense expenditures, we can say that the forces they need to defend Australia will also fight at the same time to fulfill their commitments to others.”

It is particularly not surprising that News Corp is a selected delivery mechanism. This is a US company; It is to serve the interests of American owners. Like other major US companies, it has a complex but ultimately dependent relationship with Trump. And this is not a media company, which may mean that Australian sales points are journalists and therefore have some concept of work on the public interest in the context of Australia.

UNTAPLY Australia It is more like a messenger service to convey demands from the imperial capital to one of the border provinces. Moreover, the national Broadsheet’s wrath of Washington for the first time was not used to transfer Australia to the defense enough (and especially American companies that benefit from these expenditures).

News Corp is not alone in the interests of the US and its institutional interests in Australian defense policy. Lately, Australia Financial Review carried a call By the President of Austtal for more government spending at the Henderson Shipyard in Western Australia as a mechanism for Australia to support Aukus.

Austtal, who is now thrown by the government with the scandal called “sovereign ,, is directly taking advantage of these expenditures. And who is the president? Richard V. Spencer, an old sailorFinance businessman, member of the Pentagon’s Defense Business Committee and the first Trump management defense secretary.

The debate on defense and security is an artificial ecosystem in Australia, where the US interests are always heard. Sydney University United States Research Center Finance adopted by the first Trump administration in 2019Michael is ruled by Green. Australia Excerpts that support the Pentagon. Green worked at the National Security Council of Bush administration.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which is a reliable hawk participant in defense and security debates, is largely benefiting from financing US Department of Foreign AffairsOne of the Great US defense contractors like Raytheon and Hii.

This foreign impact is above the reflexed bending of most of the former defense and security bureaucrats that fill the defense debate ecosystem such as “Strategic Analysis Australia ız, headed by Senior and Shameless Neocon Peter Jennings. They work as a wide copy and paste function for journalists, when they are invited, they offer the same US pro-prose speech points-which is even by real media organizations such as nine newspapers.

It is difficult to find a conscious opinion about defense expenditures not to direct direct or indirect personal interests or an unimaginable pro -Washington mentality. And this is contrary to the fact that the US is our economic enemy, which is determined to intervene in our domestic economic policies, such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Plan.

Strangely, this ecosystem of pro -US interests does not seem to fully understand how good it is right now: Anthony has seen the most strict US defense prime minister in Australia in Albania. He took Morrison’s AUKUS project, continued it, and refused to think about the plan B because the Americans and the British inevitably could not provide any submarines and transcended Julia Gillard’s ambitions and could not integrate Australia more closely into the preparations for the US for a war with China.

He already committed to increase defense expenditures to 2.33% of GDP. In Richard Marles, a man who has the most pro -US defense minister in the history of Albania, a future in the defense committees and post -political life guarantees much more than the prime minister’s fantasies.

To describe Albanian and Marles as a unique Chutzpah of American interests in Australia – especially when the United States, which is the biggest economic threat to Australia – is the most economic threat to Australia. But there is very little to call them.