By Anthony Galloway and Rob Harris September 15, 2021 — 8.52pm https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...gent-meeting-in-canberra-20210915-p58rzn.html Several federal cabinet ministers were called to a top-secret meeting in Canberra on Wednesday ahead of a major international development expected out of the United States on Thursday morning. Sources familiar with the development said some members of cabinet were granted border exemptions to urgently fly to Canberra for the hastily arranged meeting, which sources say will have international significance. The announcement, also significant to the United States and British governments, will be made at 7am Australian time. The White House on Thursday night announced Mr Biden will deliver “brief remarks about a national security initiative”.
Biden to announce joint deal with U.K. and Australia on advanced defense-tech sharing One source said there is a nuclear-defense infrastructure to the three-way pact known as AUUKUS. The Australian flag flies. | Darrian Traynor/Getty Images By ALEXANDER WARD and PAUL MCLEARY 09/15/2021 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/15/biden-deal-uk-australia-defense-tech-sharing-511877 President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a congressional staffer told POLITICO. The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the three countries to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities. One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure. There’s nothing explicitly mentioning China in the three-way deal, the people said, but both noted that the subtext of the announcement is that this is another move by Western allies to push back on China’s rise in the military and technology arenas. “This is a surprising and extremely welcome sign of the Biden administration’s willingness to empower close allies like Australia through the provision of highly advanced defense technology assistance — something that Washington has rarely been willing to do,” said Ashley Townsend, director of foreign policy and defense programming at the United States Center in Sydney. “It suggests a new and more strategic approach to working collectively with allies on Indo-Pacific defence priorities.” Australia’s Financial Review newspaper reported Canberra will abandon a $90 billion submarine deal with France and will now acquire an American-made nuclear-powered submarine. The French deal had long been in trouble, with the Naval Group, the French shipbuilder tasked with constructing the 12 submarines, and the Australian government sparring over design changes and cost increases. A new class of nuclear-powered submarines would give Washington and its allies in the Pacific a powerful new tool to attempt to contain Chinese military expansion, and would follow on the current deployment of a British aircraft carrier to the region, and recent transits by French and German warships to the South China Sea. The U.S. and U.K. have long partnered on their nuclear-powered submarine programs, sharing technology across their various classes of ships. Bringing Australia into the fold would would a major step in increasing the ability of the three countries to operate together undersea across the Pacific, as well as adding a powerful allied punch in the region that is currently lacking. Beijing has a growing missile arsenal at its disposal and its forces are increasingly aggressive, sailing naval ships near Japanese and American waters in recent days. It’s part of China’s effort to assert its primacy in the Indo-Pacific and lay claim to disputed territories. Chinese officials say territory that falls within the country’s “nine-dash line” in the South China Sea belongs to Beijing. In response, the U.S. continues to build partnerships with other nations that serve as a bulwark against China. One such group is known as “the Quad” and has the U.S., Japan, Australia and India as members. Formed in its current iteration in 2017, the four-nation team never says that its economic, technological and military cooperation is about thwarting Beijing’s aims, but analysts say the Quad wouldn’t be as robust today if it weren’t for China’s continued aggressions. On Sept. 24, all four Quad-nation heads will meet at the White House for the first-ever in-person, leader-level gathering of the group. A trade war between China and Australia has also worsened relations between the countries. The dispute, which began in April 2020 after Prime Minister Scott Morrison asked for an inquiry into the origins of Covid-19, has cost the two nations roughly $4 billion. Josh Frydenberg, Australia’s treasurer, this month accused Beijing of trying to exert “political pressure” with penalties on Australian products. And China-India relations have also been tense, with recent fatal standoffs at their long-disputed border high in the Himalayas.
Hmmmmm, this a first, nuclear power vessels in Australia. NZ not mentioned, this probably because their govt mandated an anti nuclear policy many years ago. The AFR article mentions submarines (plural).
But will Biden get to announce it, or will the DEEP STATE hit the sekret mute button and cut him off? Lol
Call the first nuclear sub the ‘Xi Jinping’ Australia sub deal 'full of risks': expert Matt Coughlan Published: Thursday, 16 September 2021 https://www.afr.com/politics/federa...st-pace-in-almost-50-years-un-20210916-p58s02 China's President Xi Jinping is expected to take a dim view of Australia's nuclear sub deal. Credit: AAP A leading security analyst has warned Australia's nuclear-powered submarine deal with the US and UK is "full of risks" linked to the rise of China. The new AUKUS pact will pave the way for Australia to acquire nuclear technology for a fleet of submarines. Australian National University defence and strategic studies analyst Hugh White said China retaliating to the agreement could not be ruled out. "That is a very big deal indeed, full of risks and certainly changing the way Australia approaches the region," he told ABC radio on Thursday. Professor White said it would be seen as a further demonstration that Australia had sided with the US in the face of a rising China. "It will further amplify the already very loud signals that are being sent that we are seeing a new Cold War in Asia," he said. The trilateral pact would serve American interests by giving a key ally stronger submarine capacity in the Pacific, he added. "In the escalating rivalry between America and China, we're siding with the United States and we're betting they are going to win this one," Prof White said. "The Chinese are making things very difficult for us. "But the fact is, that when we look 10 or 20 years ahead, I don't think we can assume the United States is going to succeed in pushing back effectively against China." The deal paves the way for Australia's troubled $90 billion submarine deal with a French company to be scrapped. Prof White said describing the deal as dysfunctional was a mild assessment. Australia will become the only non-nuclear armed country in the world with nuclear-powered submarines. Prof White said the fact that the UK needed American permission to share the top-secret nuclear technology was behind the trilateral nature of the deal. It showed how seriously America was taking the need to "muscle up" in the Asia-Pacific. "I don't think there'd be any chance of the UK or US sharing nuclear sub propulsion technology if it were not for China," he said. "It's a very significant enhancement, you might say escalation of the cooperation of between the three in response to the China threat." Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings said China's bullying and coercion had led to the deal. "We should call the first submarine in this new category the Xi Jinping (after China's president) because no person is more responsible for Australia going down this track," he told the ABC. Foreign affairs commentator Keith Suter said Prime Minister Scott Morrison had made one of the most significant international relations announcements in decades. "It's clearly part of America's sort of ganging up against China, which will feed China's paranoia," he told the Seven Network. "When the Chinese look out on the world, they are surrounded by countries that are antagonistic towards them. That is a problem."
In psychology class, the teacher had us all stand up and get in a line at the front of the class and told us to sort ourselves in order from the most influential to the least influential. Any class member was allowed to make a change in the order. It only took a bout a minute, actually, seemingly less, for the class to be satisfied with the ranking. It would be interesting to do the same experiment with world leaders, if they could only be honest about it. Trying to put bias and patriotism aside, what would be your ranking of world leaders in order of influence? Would your ranking be based on perceived leader effectiveness? I would rank Xi as number one for his display of generally constructive initiative in the furtherance of his country’s national interests. Sure, lesser countries will squeal as he pushes the status quo, but it is was it is. China is now top of the pecking order, in my opinion. China has secured agreements for resources from many of the top producers or those with large reserves, such as Brazil, Russia, and presumably Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see how China gets reserve currency status given all the financial restrictions they place on foreigners, but the world is seemingly their sandbox as the West seems to lack strategic vision. if you want to play in China’s global sandbox, at least in the not too distant future, you’ll have to play by their rules. Putin is probably number two. Under his leadership, Russia has improved its economy, military, and finances. Simultaneously, all while under US sanctions. They could do even better through more effective legal protections for foreign companies, especially if, or when US sanctions end. While it might seem appropriate to put Biden next, especially since the US does still have a lot of influence, but just how effective has the US actually been advancing her national interests? It is fundamental to prosperity and national security to have plentiful and cheap energy, yet the Biden Administration has been imposing restrictions on fossil fuels. The importance of maintaining a leading position in fossil fuel infrastructure cannot be overstated and deserves its own post. With proper management, along with a currently favorable demographic environment in younger generations, the US could possibly actually spend its way to a better economy. However, this takes good investment decisions, where there is some form of long term positive return on investment, a subject for another post as well. Influence goes to the effective. While the US had its moments, we are now a seemingly a former shell what we were once were. For those who may not understand why or accept what I’m saying, simply compare the media between various countries, including TV shows, movies, and news to see what is emphasized. So while I’m partial to the US, those who are most effective at acquiring and utilizing resources, not just natural resources, are the ones who will end up having the most influence in world politics.
Australia just needs to dig up Skippy and clone her. Maybe five Skippys. China won't stand a chance. OK, five is overkill, four Skippys.