Has the USA infiltrated Australian politics?

actually romania has come a long was since the old days...it really used to be a shit hole...40W light bulbs , highway pirates, complete meltdown...at least now they are a semi shit hole like serbia for example...romania used to be a really sad place so you cant blame them for being where they are now...it will be a long journey for them still

 

I agree, before you could only find Romanian hookers and petty criminals in Romania but now you can find them on every corner in Europe.

 

The WikiLeaks cables and the US-Australia alliance

Leaked US diplomatic cables have detailed the extraordinary level of involvement of the American state in the day to day functioning of Australian politics, laying bare the real character of the diplomatic relationship between Washington and Canberra.
Through a web of secret informants and agents, who are active in every parliamentary party, the trade unions, the media, and the various state institutions, the US government and intelligence agencies function as active participants in political life. The primary conduit for these forces is the Australian Labor Party—the party that has postured, throughout the past century, as the representative of the working class, but which has played the most critical role in subordinating that class to the Australian capitalist state.

The WikiLeaks’ material demonstrates that it would by no means be far-fetched to describe Australia as a client state of Washington. This is certainly not a recent development. But never before have the sordid, behind the scenes machinations of US “diplomacy” been so openly exposed before the eyes of ordinary people, demonstrating where power really lies in the country’s so-called “democratic” system.

The most significant aspect of the WikiLeaks’ material is that it leaves no doubt that the ousting of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last June was a coup made in the USA.

American concerns with Rudd emerged as early as February 2008, within three months of the Labor government’s election, and intensified during the next two years. They focussed on the prime minister’s penchant for launching diplomatic initiatives—such as the proposed “Asia Pacific Community” in mid-2008—without first getting the go-ahead from Washington. Rudd’s various manoeuvres were not intended to run counter to Washington’s interests, but they nevertheless jarred with the US administration’s efforts to maintain American hegemony in East Asia and internationally against its rival, China.

Mounting regional tensions expressed profound shifts in the global geo-strategic balance of forces, driven by the intractable decline of US capitalism and the reckless drive by the American ruling elite to use its military might to maintain global dominance. As far as Washington was concerned, Canberra’s role was to take its assigned place in the anti-Beijing diplomatic and military cordon. In return, Washington would continue to support Australian imperialism’s own predatory operations in the South Pacific.

Throughout 2008 and 2009, Rudd was increasingly viewed by US operatives in Canberra as a somewhat erratic figure. He could not be trusted in relation to China and was insufficiently committed to the war in Afghanistan. In collaboration with their Australian informants, embassy officials began to canvass alternatives. In mid-2008, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard was identified as Rudd’s most likely successor. Labor Party and trade union figures privately assured American officials that her origins in the party’s “left” were no blot on her right-wing, pro-US credentials. Gillard, clearly conscious of the opportunities opening up for her, responded by currying favour with the US embassy and with the Israeli government—one official wondered whether she had suddenly developed greater sympathy for Washington’s views, or whether her actions merely reflected an “understanding of what she needs to do to become leader of the ALP”.

This off-hand remark points to the political physiognomy of the Labor Party. The Labor apparatus has become nothing but a vehicle for the implementation of big business interests against the working class at home, and the transmission belt for Washington’s global agenda.

The anti-democratic coup against an elected prime minister was carried out behind the back of the Australian people by right-wing factional leaders in the Labor Party and trade unions, all of whom enjoyed close relationships with American officials. Moreover, the leading apparatchik involved, Senator Mark Arbib, is now known to have been one of the embassy’s secret “protected sources”.

Washington has a long record of interference in Australian politics—most notably in 1975, when the CIA mounted a destabilisation campaign against the elected Labor government of Gough Whitlam, which culminated in the November 11 coup.

In the immediate aftermath of Rudd’s axing, the World Socialist Web Site pointed to the key role of Washington in the sordid events of June 23-24. It was the only publication to do so.

A statement by the Socialist Equality Party, issued four days after Gillard’s installation explained: “Thirty-five years ago, in the midst of the last major global crisis of the capitalist system, the Whitlam Labor government was sacked in a coup involving the highest levels of the state apparatus, as well as intelligence agencies including the American CIA. No doubt these same forces were either directly involved in, or at least had knowledge of, the ousting of Rudd.”

The statement continued: “Australia is extremely sensitive to geo-political shifts. The Whitlam government was sacked within just seven months of the defeat of US imperialism in Saigon, in conditions of great uncertainty for the United States in South East Asia. Today, one of the central features of the geopolitical situation is the increasing tension between the US and China, under conditions where Australia is economically dependent on China but politically subordinated to the United States. Throughout the South Pacific and Southeast Asian region, the ‘China factor’ is now a major issue in political affairs.” (See: “The Australian Labor Party coup: a warning to the working class”)

In less than six months, this analysis has been entirely vindicated. The coup itself was an expression of the fact that the explosive geo-strategic tensions identified in the SEP statement—together with deepening class antagonisms in Australia fuelled by unprecedented levels of social inequality—could no longer be managed within the old parliamentary framework. Moreover, it demonstrated that there exists no section of the official political establishment that retains any commitment to the democratic rights of the Australian population.

The WikiLeaks’ material has revealed that Rudd urged US Secretary of State to consider the use of force against China, while in 2006, then Labor leader Kim Beazley promised American officials that Australia would fight alongside the US in a war against China. These extraordinary commitments were never made public.

In World War I, Labor leaders promised their British superiors that Australia would fight to “the last man and last shilling” in defence of the Empire. A century later, their counterparts have endangered the safety of the population by tying its fate to the increasingly reckless US war machine as it plunges towards a regional conflagration, involving rival nuclear-armed powers.

The Australian ruling elite has committed to a nuclear catastrophe. The pressing task confronting the working class is to develop its own independent political response. This requires a conscious break with the Labor Party, the trade unions, and their various adjunct organisations, including the Greens, and a fight for the development of a new mass revolutionary socialist party in unity with the American, Chinese, and international working class. That party is the Socialist Equality Party, the Australian section of the International Committee of the Fourth International.

Patrick O’Connor
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/pers-d15.shtml

 

@Bushranger: Nice thread. So I laid down the challenge:

And you respond with 1) leaked cables showing our diplomats have opinions about your diplomats and 2) a write up about alleged CIA involvement in a 1975 Australian parliamentary dispute(most of those people are dead FYI).

Did you catch the challenge? It was to connect the dots making a strong, black and white, case for American(Obama Admin) involvement of Kevin Rudd in 2010? Your thread is two pages now, and you have completely failed to spell out any kind of argument at all, so I'll take a crack at it. If you feel I am twisting your words, by all means correct me. Perhaps your argument goes something like this:

"Look, the Americans were accused of meddling in our affairs in 1975, and they obviously had negative opinions about dear Kevy, so they must have been responsible for his resignation"



Seriously, how does one respond to such an argument other than facepalm and ridicule.

Uh, you might want to study up a bit on your "Democracy". Similar misconceptions are equally prevalent here in America. If you google the words "Australian form of democracy", the very first link that pops up is from one of your .edu sites, with some liberal professor explaining the Australian form of government, citing the need of a parliamentary system to override the popular opinion(not that you have that on your side) to protect the rights of minorities. A few choice clippings:

of particular interest to you

Of course there are many, many, many other equally credible and less opinionated links that could explain your system of government to you, but this one should suffice. In essence, Dear Kevy fell on his own sword because he had lost the confidence of Parliament, which means he had likely lost the support of the Australian people. If we had a similar system of government here in American, Obama would already be out on his ear. Maybe I could start a website blaming the Chinese!

Ahh, mudslinging for profits. Now that is a concept I am familiar with. At least you were honest enough to call it what it is.

 

@Obamanation - What you seem unfamiliar with is the concept of a mass of evidence that points to a particular situation just might lead somewhere enticing...you might hear of a few Israeli agents using Palestinian passports to assasinate some crazy guy in Australia... but are you really that lucky? Now whilst I have not yet 'proven beyond reasonable doubt' in my own mind, I will use this thread to collect and gather the stuff I do find.

And yes, this is absolutely about creating an interesting website for my hoards of readers. I really don't think it will generate a 'profit' as such but I certainly won't knock it back if it ends up being the one that does make me millions. I'll probably even sling you a quid for setting me off on this particular adventure. But, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Look I really don't know why I persist with you, brains are not part of your makeup. Kevin Rudd was doing EXACTLY what he said he was going to do. It was the USA who didn't like it, as witnessed throughout the cables. The Australian people were shocked when he was knifed during his first term by Gillard and still haven't got over it. I aim to find out exactly how and why it happened. Keep reading.

 

LoL. I saw this video, and thought of your "research" and "truth". The guy is kind of annoying, but he makes some interesting points.

[video=youtube;0S7Vw7Wfu5g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S7Vw7Wfu5g[/video]

Don't bother. I tend to idealize the selling snake oil in various forms, laughing at the morons who buy the stuff, applauding the profiteers who peddle it, but its a grubby business that produces nothing of value. I'd much rather get rich peddling something that actually benefits people, but to each their own.

 

Must be a right-winger, talked about everything other than his point. Went off on some rant that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject then blamed everything wrong on her. He says his side was all "facts and evidence" whereas her side is all a baseless argument.

Notice he used half as many 'facts' as me, lol. Half of none is well, none isn't it?

 

If you are saying you presented no facts, I have to agree.

As to whether or not he presented any facts, are you trying to say there are actually people piling onto makeshift rafts trying to the US for the socialist dream of Cuba? If not, you have to agree he presented at least one fact.

 

Fair enough comment, I guess I meant 'evidence' rather than facts then. At least I'm using other people's opinions, he made his story up in his head.

Whilst it may 'sound' feasable that there's noone fleeing America for communism what did he have to back it up, apart from his 'own' opinion? Out of 600 million+ people you would have to be crazy to 'assume' that every single possibility (terrorists, nazis, communists) isn't happening at least 10 times. To openly say that is NOT happening is absolutely wrong.

BTW: you do know the right-wing Liberals that you are supporting here are anti Islam?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-06/geert-wilders-coming-to-australia/2872928

 

/cough are you now providing your own evidence that your liberals are to the right of our conservatives on a geo-political basis?