The Isocracy Network

Position Paper by Labor Against War

The AUKUS military agreement and acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines is a major strategic foreign policy commitment and will be the most expensive defence procurement in Australian history. The Australian use of nuclear technology for military purposes is unprecedented and represents a sharp break with previous policy. The agreement was announced by the Morrison Government in September 2021 and endorsed with haste by the then opposition Labor shadow cabinet.

Given the unprecedent nature of the agreement, there has been little coherent rationale provided as to how AUKUS nuclear submarines will actually contribute to the defence of Australia. There has also been remarkably little proper public analysis, scrutiny and democratic debate about the immense costs and risks of the AUKUS agreement.

The AUKUS agreement is presented as a fait accompli, beyond the realm of genuine democratic consideration and decision making. Often a series of essentially political arguments are made to assert that there can be no challenge or change made. Apparently, we must commit to a deeply flawed plan because it would reflect poorly on the Government or Australia's standing to admit a mistake or decide a change of course.

The death of Henry Kissinger in November 2023 was, as could be expected, met with a combination of disappointment and relief. Disappointment that this war criminal had lived so long (Verso have managed to just release a book on Kissinger appropriately entitled: "The Good Die Young"), and disappointment that he never was given the well-deserved opportunity to defend his actions at The Hague. There was a relief too, relief that finally this stain on the human species had been rubbed out and fortunately, before medical advances provided the opportunity for life extension and rejuvenation. Another emotion can be added here; concern that Kissinger's actions and the foreign policy decisions that he implemented and influenced will be forgotten with the passing of time. This remembrance hopefully will contribute to his lasting notoriety.

Kissinger's major appointments were as Secretary of State and National Secretary Adviser for the US Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. His approach was one of partisan international realism, that is, he argued that the United States should act in the interest of the United States in the lawless environment of international relations without regard to the cost to the lives of real, flesh-and-blood, human beings. In the eight years that he served in these positions, it is estimated that he was, directly and indirectly, responsible for the deaths of millions of people. As war crimes prosecutor and human rights advocate, Reed Brody has remarked; "few people who have had a hand in as much death and destruction, as much human suffering, in so many places around the world as Henry Kissinger". Now circulating as a popular meme, celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain has some very blunt words:

"There are only ninety thousand people out there. Who gives a damn?"
-- Henry Kissinger on the Marshall Islander people affected by the US nuclear test programme

Like every other part of the world, as the Europeans developed their age of "guns, germs, steel, and sail", discovery, conversion, imperialism, and colonisation would follow in subsequent centuries. Often there is confusion over these terms, especially imperialism and colonialism. Given their importance, brief definitions are provided, before exploring the history, effects, and solutions. The four definitions that follow typically will occur in a temporal order.

Important Definitions

"Discovery" seems obvious enough, but is often used to deny the existing presence of indigenous peoples. Perhaps the most obvious examples are phrases like "Christopher Columbus discovered America", which of course is inaccurate in the sense that he and his crew "discovered" Cuba, the Bahamas archipelago, and then the island later named Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic). Of course, people had already discovered these lands and had settled there, the Taíno people. Arguably, one could say that if there was a discovery, it was of the mid-North Atlantic. Columbus, for what it's worth, was a religious fundamentalist and apocalypticist who refused to believe that the islands and coastlines that he visited were not part of Asia. As Matthew Inman has pointed out he was not a very nice person at all.

The phrase "conversion" refers to the religious conversion of populations which already had their own faith, and can be carried out through a continuum of forced conversion to persuasion by proselytism, and both means can be backed by State power, including State atheism. Persuasion by proselytism is typically more effective, organised with missionary zeal and acumen (c.f., the Jesuits), and especially when the converting faith, backed with wealth and influence, can incorporate or adapt existing elements of a mythos and social norms into their religious schema. Conversion of existing rulers is an effective means to soften resistance to a forthcoming imperial conquest.

This is a seemingly impossible proposition; that all people are deserving of universal rights. That the life of a Palestinian has equal value to that of an Israeli, not because they are Palestinian or Israeli, but because they are people. That the life of a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, or an atheist has equal value, not because they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or an atheist, but because they are people. One could even argue that all people are entitled to inalienable rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that these are self-evident and axiomatic. Of course, such a "simplistic" approach, coming from a perspective of universal moral rights, stands in stark contrast to the behaviour of state and organisational actors and their followers.

The current context, of course, refers to the latest outbreak of violence in historic Palestine. On October 7, following a rocket barrage, Hamas-led fighters broke through the Gaza barrier and attacked Israeli military bases and civilian population centres, including a music festival, with around 1200 killed (859 civilians, 354 soldiers, and police) and over 200 hostages taken, the latter drawing attention to the 1000 Palestinians in "administrative detainees", that are indefinitely incarcerated without charge. Israel declared that it was at war, activating its reservists and beginning airforce bombings of Gaza followed by an invasion of the territory, all of which is ongoing. At the time of writing, more than 1300 Israelis have been killed, and along with some 11,250 Palestinians, including almost 4700 children.

In part one I gave a broad overview of Germany, how its unique history (with Russia in particular) led to Berlin becoming a semi-witting enabler of Vladimir Putin's imperialist ambitions. “Semi-witting” as this enabling did not come about due to malign intent, but rather through a combination of historical guilt for World War Two in general and the death and suffering inflicted on the people of the Soviet Union especially, and Germany's constructed post-Cold War identity of a nation of hard workers who desire only trade and peace. Prussia, as Napoleon famously put it, was a state hatched from a cannon ball, however its modern descendent, the Federal Republic of Germany, has become soft and accomodating by design, both from within and without. Putin smelled this weakness and capitalised. Even as Ukraine mounts its 2023 counter-offensive, with German Leopard tanks now a key part of Kyiv's newly acquired heavy armour, Berlin continues to avoid taking on a true leadership position in the defence of Europe. And the roots of this hesitation are old and deep.

An issue of ongoing academic debate is how pacifist Germany has been since 1945. (For the purposes of this argument the focus will be on West Germany, the defence and foreign policy of communist East Germany was really dictated by the Soviet Union, and while the official term describing what happened in 1990 is “reunification”, it would be more accurate to describe the former GDR being absorbed into the political and legal structure of the FRG.) This “pacifism” needs to be understood more as a sort of a national mood, not like the (in)famous Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan that forbids that country from ever declaring war. As covered in part one, West Germany's position as a NATO member on the front line of the Cold War meant that it had to be something of a military power in addition to hosting foreign troops. But as Japan has a “Self-Defence Force” that isn't technically a military, so too did Germany have an army, but for most citizens the idea of these soldiers deploying overseas was considered unlikely to deeply undesirable.

Certainly one could, and must, be sympathetic and in solidarity to those who are doing the absolute best they can with the power, knowledge, and community they at hand have to engage in valiant conservation efforts, especially given the effectiveness of such local efforts. All of this does not take away from grim facts that many conservation scientists are alerting us to the possibility that the planet is facing an atrocity exhibition that is becoming known as the Anthropocene extinction, which affects so many numerous species across all biological domains is being called a mass extinction event. To fend off accusations of histrionic alarmism is is necessary to begin with established definitions and apply the facts available. Recognising there is significant debate over matters of quantity and time, a mass extinction event is defined as a sudden loss of quantity and diversity of life where the rate of extinction far exceeds the background extinction rate (Sudakow et al, 2022).

With this definition in mind, this inquiry first seeks to quantify the extent of the extinction to see if there is similarity with other events that are considered mass extinctions, and reviewing the debate within conversation and ecological research communities exists on whether we are at the verge of this extinction event or in the midst of it. Following this there is a review of the degree that human or natural causes have contributed to biodiversity loss, and finally a discussion of proposals for mitigation or solutions.

Background to The Voice

On the 14th of October, Australians have been asked to make an alteration to their Constitution to establish a body known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice as follows:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The proposal for the Voice has a long history; eight years previously, as then Prime Minister Tony Abbott was considering constitutional recognition for ATSI people, Indigenous representatives argued than symbolic recognition was required. Noel Pearson, now a chief advocate of the Voice suggested a committee made of up Indigenous representatives to be able to review legislation that affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. "I'm proposing an alternative, that on some views is a higher alternative, in that it gives our people an active say in the laws that affect us, rather than a High Court adjudicated provision".

Around the world, the combined effects of landlordism and the structural changes resulting from the special COVID-19 period - which is still ongoing - have led to serious issues concerning interest rates, inflation, productivity, and rental prices. In Australia this has come to a particular debate with two somewhat progressive political parties - the governing Australian Labor Party and the minority Greens party - having very different views on solving the various issues relating to housing. The matter has particular interest for the Isocracy Network, as being the initiating body of the (now largely defunct) Labor-Green Alliance, and with several previous articles on housing and land related matters; including the concerns relating to negative gearing and capital gains and several articles on the benefits of land tax.

The two sides of the debate can be fairly summarised as follows. From the Labor Party, they wish to introduce a Housing Australia Future Fund. This involves making a capital investment of some $10 billion AUD and using the returns of some $500 million per annum to build social housing. For their part, the Greens have argued for $2bn of direct investment along with at least $1bn to for the States and Territories to institute a rent freeze for two years. The difference has come to a head with the Greens teaming up with the conservative coalition of the Liberal and National Parties to vote down the legislation and even potentially force a double-dissolution election. Labor's policy, for what it's worth, is supported by all the major housing advocacy groups in the country, including the Grattan Institute, Community Housing Industry Association, the Housing Industry Association, the Urban Development Institute, the Property Council, the CMFEU (construction), Industry Super Australia, and National Shelter, even if some have a preference that the HFFA should be even larger still.

June 21st was the northern hemisphere's Summer Solstice this year, however, it was June 23-24 that was the longest day in Russia. While there had been occasional cross-border attacks by Ukrainian forces as well as incursions by anti-government Russian nationalists fighting in Ukraine, for the most part, blowback from the massive escalation in the war launched by Vladimir Putin in February 2022 had not come home. However, within the space of a day, a heavily armed mercenary army was approaching Moscow, facing almost no resistance along the road. Yevgeny Prigozhin's Wagner Group can claim to be mostly responsible for Russia's only military accomplishment (victory would be too strong a term) in Ukraine this year, the capture of Bakhmut, but only after nine months of fighting and 20,000 casualties. But in not much more than nine hours they had effective control over two oblasts and were heading towards the capital (while it was rumoured Putin had already fled) when the rebellion ended. If that is what it even was in the first place.

by Jon Hillström. There is a lot of incoherence many communists when it comes to the invasion and war in Ukraine. People will claim to be "anti-war", that they support neither Russia nor Ukraine then try to frame it as an inter-imperialist proxy war despite the fact that it was directly caused by Russia's unilateral decision to invade. Often enough the same people will (1) oppose any and all sanctions on trade with Russia and (2) oppose supplying any arms or equipment to Ukraine.

Such a position leads to the situation where Western capitalists selling electronic/computer components to the Russian military-industrial complex (comparable to the US, making up >20% of global arms exports and 20% of all manufacturing jobs in Russia) which turn up in cruise missiles and drones that end up hitting shopping malls, apartment blocks, maternity hospitals etc. is apparently acceptable but sending missile defence systems that actually prevent such weapons systems from killing civilians is not?