Aussie Affairs

Tas. and S.A Elections

2006-03-17T01:57:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow on the 18th March both Tasmania and South Australia go to the polls.

Tasmania currently has a Labor Government lead by Paul Lennon and it looks like Labor will win tomorrow but will they win enough seats to form a majority government. Experts are predicting that the Greens will win around 17% of the primary vote and will hold the balance of power. Thus there is a strong liklihood that Labor and the Greens will have to form a minority government.

The Greens have previously formed a minority government. In the early 1990's they held minority government will the Liberals. Indeed it was one of the most reforming terms of government in Tasmania's history in terms.

Therefore if the outcome tomorrow does lead to the Greens holding the balance of power Tasmania is in for a very interesting political climate.

In South Australia there is also currently a Labor Government lead by Mike Rann and they too are predicted to win tomorrow however the Liberal opposition lead by Rob Kerin are "still confident of an upset".

It will be interesting to see the outcomes of both elections.

Iran's Nuclear Stance

2006-03-16T20:55:00.000-08:00

Iran continues to argue for the right to develop nuclear power facilities. However the west lead by the USA state that Iran would use these facilities and technology to establish a nuclear weapons program and under no circumstances will the USA and in general the west allow this to occur will escalating rhetoric being used on both sides.

There are many issues here that surround whether Iran should develop nuclear facilities.

Firstly the USA has no right to act unilaterally on international matters unless they are responding to an attack against them or an attack against them is eminent. The unilateral action undertaken by the USA in Iraq ignoring the UN Security Council can not be continued. International matters should be resolved by the international community. The USA should not act as a sole arbitrator on international matters, they are not the world police. When they act as if they have a global jurisdiction as the last super-power all nation-states’ sovereignties are undermined and the world under goes the regulation of USA foreign policy which always first and foremost serves the USA national interest.

Secondly within the middle east there is the on-going conflict between Israel and Palestine, and Israel and the other Muslin states. Israel with its nuclear arsenal leads naturally to the other states wanting their own nuclear arsenal, an nuclear arms race. Thus when dealing with the Iran nuclear issue there should also be serious consideration given to making Israel disarm.

Thirdly what position will Australia take on the Iran issue. Of course Australia does not support Iran developing nuclear weapons or even nuclear power as that technology and the related facilities may be used later to produce nuclear weapons. More over Australia opposes strongly any nation-state developing Nuclear weapons.
However the real issue for Australia is what role it will play as the USA’s strongest ally. As the issue goes to the UN Security Council there may be the repeat of the Iraq process, this is first sanctions and weapons inspections then eventually armed intervention.
Thus would Australia support the USA as it did in Iraq with troop support, or would it only give diplomatic support…?
Furthermore would Australia act with the USA if there was no clear UN resolution permitting armed intervention, as it arguable did on Iraq…?

I strongly want to state that I do not support Iran obtaining nuclear weapons however I also strongly would argue for nuclear disarmament by all nuclear powers including the USA, Russia, France, UK, India, China, Pakistan and Israel. This remains very unlikely.

What is more important about the Iran issue is by what method the issue is resolved. There is no doubt that Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons but whether they will be given permission to develop nuclear energy under the strictest checks and controls is unclear. It is this latter point that may divide the UN Security Council and could lead to the west either acting multilaterally or the USA again acting unilaterally.

We will watch how the issue develops…..

Australian Uranium Sales

2006-03-16T05:11:00.000-08:00

The Prime Minister John Howard’s recent visit to India was dominated by debate over whether Australia would sell its uranium to India. India which possess nuclear weapons is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and as it stands Australian’s policy is to not sell uranium to those nations which will not sign the NPT. This policy of the Australian Government’s is well justified. The mere possibility that Australian uranium could end up being used for nuclear weapons is unthinkable.

Despite assurances by India and there is no reason to doubt them that all Australian uranium would only be used in nuclear power any change in the Australian Government’s policy on this issue would be distressing.

The Prime Minister’s visit came just after the President of the USA George Bush’s visit to India which saw the USA and India sign a major new agreement to share nuclear technologies. The deal came with stringent checks and controls however represents a dramatic strengthening of India and USA relations to the extent they now have what can be described as a strong strategic alliance.

Following this historic agreement reached between the two nuclear powers and given Australia’s strong relationship with the USA it is within reason that the Australian Government will then give serious consideration to the possibility of negotiating with the Indian Government over uranium sales.

It has also been reported that Australia is currently negotiating with China to export uranium to them.

Australia which has around 40% of the world’s uranium reserves with no real nuclear power plants of its own has to ensure it has a morally and strategic strong policy on the issue of exporting its uranium. Under no circumstances should Australia be exporting its uranium to nations where there is a real possibility it will be used in nuclear weapons.

If Australia is satisfied after negotiating and discussing the issue with the nation in question that the exported uranium will only be used for nuclear power and after been given explicit guarantees as to this it should then deliberate and debate on the matter at length. If it is agreed that the uranium should be exported it should then only be done where there can be the highest level of scrutiny and openness.

Therefore Australia should have negotiations with India and China over exporting uranium and the fact that they possess nuclear weapons should not automatically forfeit them.

However the possibility however remote that Australian uranium could become part of a nuclear weapon may be frightening enough to make the Australian Government decide not to go ahead with such a deal.

Your thoughts….

Global Warming

2006-03-08T22:14:00.000-08:00

Global Warming is a looming international environmental crisis. While there has been much debate about global warming one area that has been largely ignored is the real possibilty that millions of enviornmental refugees will be created if sea-level rises.

This specfic consequence of global warming was briefly discussed on ABC's FOUR CORNERS program this year and I recently heard Senator Kerry Nettle speak of her concerns about Pacfic Islands being 'washed' away by rising sea-levels and the potential humanitarian problem.

If sea levels do rise is Australia responsible for these people as the largest nation in the region to rescue them? Does Australian have a humanitarian and moral duty to these people? There is also the arguement that as the largest green house gas emitters per captia in the world that Australia is the cause of their problem and therefore should assist these people.

As the "War on Terrorism" continues a real possibilty is that in the future a new form of terrorism will emerge, eco-terrorism. People who loose their homeland and nation may be enraged to the level that they feel a just cause to attack those industrial counrties who greatly contributed to the greenhouse effect and therefore to them losing their homeland and nation. This is a frightening but realistic prospect

Your views......?

Principles and Goals

2006-03-08T22:02:00.000-08:00

This site's goals are to:
- to promote discussion on Australian Affarirs with specific emphasis on politics, international relations, the environment and national security
- inform the Australian People accurately on current events
- to not only report on issues but also suggest solutions

This site is based on the key principles of:
- journalistic integrity
- generating debate on current national issues

Thank You