Speaker 1: We are full steam ahead.
Speaker 2: We are full steam ahead.
Speaker 3: At the direction of the President.
Speaker 2: Aucus is full steam ahead, as he said, and I
Speaker 2: know the new market in word.
Speaker 3: It's as if they had the same speech writer.
Speaker 4: Finally, as we move, as was mentioned, full steam ahead.
Speaker 4: On August, we applaud Australia's upcoming delivery of an additional
Speaker 4: one billion to help expand US submarine production capacity.
Speaker 1: When Richard Miles and Penny Wong stood beside the US
Speaker 1: counterparts in Washington this week, everyone sang from the same songbook,
Speaker 1: talking up the alliances, bright future and planning to visit
Speaker 1: each other.
Speaker 2: So we're very grateful that you were willing to come
Speaker 2: here and join us, and we look forward to reciprocating
Speaker 2: in the new year by visiting you in Australia as
Speaker 2: I look forward to and it's one of my I
Speaker 2: actually have never been, and I need to go.
Speaker 3: When you see such alignment, I'm in four different peoples
Speaker 3: from two different countries saying essentially the same thing. You
Speaker 3: have to wonder, gee, what's going on here? Is there
Speaker 3: no point of disagreement at all? But no, apparently not,
Speaker 3: And they're all quite convinced that we're powering ahead.
Speaker 1: But behind those assurances is a Pentagon review of ORCUS
Speaker 1: that the public isn't allowed to read and in camera,
Speaker 1: a handpicked orcast committee that will mostly meet in secret,
Speaker 1: raising questions about what our government is trading away to
Speaker 1: stay friends with our most powerful ally.
Speaker 3: Frankly, this seems to me a distortion of reality, but
Speaker 3: it's certainly enthusiastic, and I have to give them credit
Speaker 3: for that.
Speaker 1: I'm Ruby Jones, and you're listening to seven am today.
Speaker 1: Former Director of War Studies for the Australian Army and
Speaker 1: adjunct professor at the University of New South Wales, doctor
Speaker 1: Albert Plazzo, on the US military's plans for expansion on
Speaker 1: Australian soil and what the secrecy surrounding ORCUS is really hiding.
Speaker 1: It's Wednesday, December tenth, Albert. During this press conference, there
Speaker 1: was a lot of talk about AUCUST going full steam ahead,
Speaker 1: but not a lot of detail about what that actually
Speaker 1: looks like. So tell me what you gleaned from what
Speaker 1: we actually heard.
Speaker 3: Well, they trotted out all the traditional remarks, including the
Speaker 3: ones that you know, Australians and Americans are fought side
Speaker 3: by side in every major war since the First World War.
Speaker 2: But it is our only ally that has fought with
Speaker 2: us in every war over the last over the certainly
Speaker 2: over the last four or five decades, and we're very
Speaker 2: grateful to them for that, and this is a very
Speaker 2: strong partnership.
Speaker 3: Why that is relevant, nobody has ever said, but it
Speaker 3: certainly is used to indicate that we're closer than ever
Speaker 3: and closer than any two countries could ever be. But
Speaker 3: the last time I checked, Australia and the United States
Speaker 3: were different countries, and being different countries, you would expect
Speaker 3: us to have different interests.
Speaker 1: And perhaps the most detail that we did get was
Speaker 1: from Pete Hegseeth, the Secretary of Defense. So let's talk
Speaker 1: about what he said about how exactly the US and
Speaker 1: Australia are set to deepen their defense ties.
Speaker 4: On the defense side, we're working on force posture. We're
Speaker 4: working on defense industrial cooperation first on forced posture initiatives.
Speaker 4: We're upgrading infrastructure on air bases in Queensland and the
Speaker 4: Northern Territory that allows for additional US bomber rotations.
Speaker 3: We already have a significant US presence on Australian territory
Speaker 3: and now they're talking about bringing in more basing ospreys
Speaker 3: here so that the Marines could rapidly deploy on an
Speaker 3: offensive operation.
Speaker 4: Upgrading logistics and infrastructure in Darwin. Some more US Marines
Speaker 4: can do rotational deployments and prepositioning MB twenty two ospreys.
Speaker 4: This establishes new and resilient logistics networks across Australia.
Speaker 3: We've even had the US Air Force mounting attacks from
Speaker 3: Australian soil to foreign soil when they conducted that raid
Speaker 3: on the Houthi militants in Yemen, and they based out
Speaker 3: of Amberley.
Speaker 5: Airbase, America, and the United Kingdom joining forces with Australia
Speaker 5: in tow to bomb Yemen. The Allies are targeting an
Speaker 5: Iran backed militant group which has been launching attacks on
Speaker 5: international ships. Just minutes ago. The Houthis responded saying the
Speaker 5: US and UK would pay a heavy price for the
Speaker 5: blatant aggression.
Speaker 3: Now I find this all very concerning because bit by bit,
Speaker 3: our government is allowing the United States to go to
Speaker 3: war from Australian soil as if it's not of any
Speaker 3: importance to.
Speaker 1: US and Albert Earlier this year, the Pentagon ordered a
Speaker 1: review of AUCUS. That review was delayed It still hasn't
Speaker 1: been publicly released, but some lawmakers in Australia and the
Speaker 1: US have actually seen it. Now, So what do we
Speaker 1: know about that review and what it says.
Speaker 3: Well, we know very little because the government has not
Speaker 3: released it and there's no indications that the Minister of
Speaker 3: Defense will release it. But what he has said is
Speaker 3: that everything's great, it's all wonderful. We're powering ahead. Whatever
Speaker 3: UCUS is meant to deliver, it's going to deliver it.
Speaker 3: And whatever is going to cost, well, we don't know,
Speaker 3: but it'll be paid for and everything's going to work
Speaker 3: out swimmingly well. And the United States is standing by
Speaker 3: us steadfastly as our most important ally.
Speaker 5: It really was a very constructive, warm, frank meeting between
Speaker 5: the four of US which took the alliance forward another year.
Speaker 3: Now they're continuing to believe that we're going to get
Speaker 3: these submarines. But as the US Navy's Chief of Naval
Speaker 3: Operations has already pointed out, the US build rate has
Speaker 3: not budged. They are not building enough submarines for their
Speaker 3: own needs. They're not maintaining enough submarines for their own needs.
Speaker 3: It has not shifted in the slightest. That's not been
Speaker 3: the slightest improvement in four years. And essentially they have
Speaker 3: to double the build rate in order for Australia to
Speaker 3: get its submarines. There's just no way it's going to double.
Speaker 3: That's just an impossibility. And we're now scheduled, according to
Speaker 3: the Osman Dialogue, as scheduled to give them another billion
Speaker 3: dollars next year to put towards the US submarine industry.
Speaker 3: That frankly is a drop in the bucket, although where
Speaker 3: our money is going is not ever explained. So the
Speaker 3: US cannot build enough submarines, and if they can't build
Speaker 3: enough submarines it would be madness on their part to
Speaker 3: give us a few.
Speaker 1: Coming up is Australia tagging along into nuclear war with China,
Speaker 1: so albert At the same time as all of this
Speaker 1: has been happening, the Albanese government here in Australia has
Speaker 1: announced its own review mechanism. It's the Orcus Committee. So
Speaker 1: what is that in practice?
Speaker 3: Well, the Albanese government, along with the opposition leader Susan Lee,
Speaker 3: have decided to establish an Orcus Review Committee with within
Speaker 3: parliament and it'll consist of up to seven parliamentarians and
Speaker 3: up to six outsiders. So we can fairly expect that
Speaker 3: anyone who gets this job will be fully committed to
Speaker 3: the Orcus agenda. So this is not so much as
Speaker 3: a review committee as a rubber stamp committee. And it's
Speaker 3: also largely going to be held in secret, so the
Speaker 3: Australian public will never really find out what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: And how concerned are you by that concept.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm an Australian citizen and I like to think
Speaker 3: that I have a right to know what the government
Speaker 3: is doing, and I like to think that in a
Speaker 3: strong viper democracy, the government can actually trust the people. Now, yes,
Speaker 3: there are certain things that will need to be kept secret,
Speaker 3: such as how many missiles will carry and what's its
Speaker 3: range and the exact parameters of its sensors and communications
Speaker 3: devices absolutely require secrecy, but most of it is in secret,
Speaker 3: and most of it is things that we as Australian
Speaker 3: citizens have a right to know, such as who's going
Speaker 3: to control these submarines. Is it going to be controlled
Speaker 3: by the United States or by Australia. And if Australia
Speaker 3: decides to do something that the United States doesn't approve of,
Speaker 3: will the submarines still function or will there be a
Speaker 3: kill switch that will prevent them from doing stuff unless
Speaker 3: the United States agrees. Now, I think that's fairly important
Speaker 3: and that should be confirmed to the Australian public. And
Speaker 3: the same way, are we planning to operate with these
Speaker 3: submarines in the East China Sea or in the Straits
Speaker 3: of Taiwan in the face of potential Chinese opposition? Again,
Speaker 3: fairly important thing to know. And I have very little
Speaker 3: expectations that the government will tell us what their broader
Speaker 3: strategic planning is in the use of these platforms.
Speaker 1: And so what do you think is behind that? Then
Speaker 1: behind this amount of secrecy around orcus? Is this about
Speaker 1: national security or do you see something else underpinning it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's an element of national security here which is legitimate,
Speaker 3: but that is I fear that could be minor element here.
Speaker 3: The larger element is that the government doesn't want to
Speaker 3: trust the Australian public with this knowledge because if they did,
Speaker 3: it's likely to be politicized by the opposition, or by
Speaker 3: the Greens, or by just ordinary people like myself who
Speaker 3: will look at what the government is saying and point
Speaker 3: out where there are failures in logic or failures in
Speaker 3: strategic thinking or risks that they're posing to the country
Speaker 3: without telling the Australian public. So you know, the government
Speaker 3: wants to control the narrative, and the best way to
Speaker 3: control the narrative is to not let anybody in on
Speaker 3: what the narrative is. Politicians may, perhaps rightly or correctly,
Speaker 3: can be concerned about political risks, you know, to their
Speaker 3: own futures and their own ability to win elections, But
Speaker 3: I'm more interested in the national security risk. And we're
Speaker 3: heading down a pathway that can only lead to confrontation
Speaker 3: with China. And that's the full steam ahead. And if
Speaker 3: you look at the national Security strategy that the US
Speaker 3: government published just a couple of days ago, it is
Speaker 3: heading towards a confrontation with China, and Australia is tagging
Speaker 3: along as a good little buddy, you know, doing our
Speaker 3: best to help our long established friend in a war
Speaker 3: with China. That is a risk of enormous magnitude because
Speaker 3: great powers cannot go to war, but our government seems
Speaker 3: to discount that as an outcome. And the worst part
Speaker 3: of all is that both the United States and China
Speaker 3: are nuclear armed, and nuclear armed powers cannot go to
Speaker 3: war because if they do, everyone dies. And I'm saying
Speaker 3: that quite directly because that is the outcome of a
Speaker 3: nuclear war between great powers.
Speaker 1: So yeah, if Orcus is this risky bet on an
Speaker 1: increasingly chaotic partner in the US, what is the alternative?
Speaker 3: Well, there are alternatives. And one of the many areas
Speaker 3: of concern regarding the United States over the last let's say,
Speaker 3: since the end of the Cold War, is that when
Speaker 3: there's a problem, governments have numerous levers in which they
Speaker 3: can solve the problem or try to solve the problem.
Speaker 3: But the US has consistently over the last forty five
Speaker 3: years pulled the military lever. If they've got a problem
Speaker 3: in the world, their default response is to smash it. Diplomacy, talking,
Speaker 3: negotiating are no longer considered first rank levers of governments
Speaker 3: and power. So what you should be doing with China
Speaker 3: is a lot of talking, and that's what Australia should
Speaker 3: be doing. There are international problems to which there is
Speaker 3: no military solution, and this is one of them. The
Speaker 3: US Chinese contest does not have a military solution because
Speaker 3: the military solution is enormously painful. So if there's no
Speaker 3: military solution, find a different government, lever and start working
Speaker 3: that one. But unfortunately that's not what happened. They're doubling
Speaker 3: down on the military one, and the Albanese government in
Speaker 3: the Australian Military, the Australian Defense Force are just happily
Speaker 3: tagging along for the ride, and this could only end
Speaker 3: in a very bad place.
Speaker 1: Albert, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3: It's a pleasure to speak to you.
Speaker 1: Also in the news, interest rates have been left on
Speaker 1: hold at three point six percent. The Reserve Bank's decision
Speaker 1: comes after a recent spike in inflation from three point
Speaker 1: six percent in September to three point eight percent in October.
Speaker 1: In a statement, the RBA Board said that the board's
Speaker 1: judgment is that some of the recent increase in underlying
Speaker 1: inflation was due to temporary factors, but that uncertainty remains.
Speaker 1: And political heavyweights including former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Cabinet
Speaker 1: Minister Tony Burke, and former Queensland Premier and Estata Paliche
Speaker 1: were among the guests at the state funeral of former
Speaker 1: labor powerbroker Graham richardson yesterday. Prime Minister Anthony Albanesi gave
Speaker 1: the eulogy, describing Richardson as colorful and as much as
Speaker 1: a part of Sydney as the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Richardson
Speaker 1: has been mired in controversy throughout his life, with allegations
Speaker 1: ranging from sex scandals to corruption. He was never charged
Speaker 1: or convicted and always denied the allegations. I'm Ruby Jones.
Speaker 1: This is seven am. Thanks for listening.