{"id":25542,"date":"2022-02-25T18:10:55","date_gmt":"2022-02-25T10:10:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/?p=25542"},"modified":"2022-03-02T18:29:03","modified_gmt":"2022-03-02T10:29:03","slug":"the-albanese-doctrine-dont-play-politics-with-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/the-albanese-doctrine-dont-play-politics-with-security\/","title":{"rendered":"The Albanese doctrine: \u2018Don\u2019t play politics with security\u2019 – By Greg Sheridan"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/span><\/p>\n

If Australia does end up getting nuclear-powered submarines through the AUKUS agreement with the US and Britain, these powerful boats will have a most unlikely hero.<\/span><\/p>\n

Scott Morrison initiated the idea and brought the process to agreement. So he\u2019s the prime mover. US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson made it happen.<\/span><\/p>\n

But one other individual could have stopped it and had to make the biggest political adjustment of any of them to support it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Anthony Albanese, Labor Party leader, was uniquely positioned to destroy, or to enable, the nuclear-powered subs initiative. He led Labor to support nuclear-powered subs, a genuinely historic change.<\/span><\/p>\n

In his most wide-ranging interview on foreign affairs and national security, Albanese, fresh from a fortnight\u2019s scolding from the government for allegedly being soft on China, explains to Inquirer: \u201cI don\u2019t think it\u2019s much understood that a precondition of American support was that there be bipartisan support for it in Australia. Without Labor\u2019s support, it wouldn\u2019t have happened.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In the past the idea of nuclear-powered submarines was widely discussed in Liberal and Nationals circles. But one obstacle always was the idea that Labor would oppose it. Modern strategic threats, and Albanese\u2019s leadership of Labor, changed that.<\/span><\/p>\n

To effect that historic change, Albanese moved fast but followed proper Labor Party process: \u201cWe were briefed on the Wednesday by the (security) agencies and the Defence Department. As an example of our good faith on national security issues, I didn\u2019t speak to any journalist about it but the Prime Minister\u2019s office briefed out the fact of our meeting.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Present at that critical first briefing were Albanese, his deputy Richard Marles, opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong and defence shadow Brendan O\u2019Connor.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI was convinced by our capacity needs, that these could be filled by nuclear propulsion rather than by conventional subs. I was convinced it was necessary. It was the right call based on our changing strategic needs,\u201d Albanese says.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe had a number of preconditions: that it not breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and that it not lead to a domestic nuclear industry. We came to a preliminary view quickly and called a shadow cabinet meeting for very early the next morning. Then we called a full caucus meeting and by 11.30 we had gone through our processes.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThat was an example of our determination to look after the country, to protect our national security and to not play politics with it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Albanese, naturally for an opposition leader, has criticisms of the government on defence and national security policy, but not on the basic structures of that policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

He is resentful, in a generally good-natured way, about the government claiming he\u2019s soft on China: \u201cThis government seems to really not like it when you agree with them. It looks for distinctions when they\u2019re not there. On national security we\u2019ve been very consistent for a long time.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBut the government impugned the motives of the entire Labor Party. That says more about the desperation of the Prime Minister and government than about our positions.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

So let\u2019s go through national security issues one by one.<\/span><\/p>\n

What does he think about the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Moscow\u2019s actions, he says, show \u201ccontempt for the rule of law, for international law, for the sovereignty of Ukraine\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

And the de facto alignment of Russia and China? \u201cThe tragedy is that there was great hope when communism fell that we would see the rise of democracy in Russia, and what we\u2019ve seen is the development of an authoritarian regime which centres power on one man and his cronies. The joint statement by China and Russia, which was quite belligerent, which was done during the Olympics, that is a great concern.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The alignment of autocracies, Albanese says, is a challenge to democracies and \u201cthat is one of the reasons that democratic countries need to stand together\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

So why, in Albanese\u2019s view, does Australia have such problems with Beijing? \u201cChina has changed under Xi Jinping. It is more forward leaning, it is more aggressive. An example of that is the quite extraordinary list of 14 policy changes they expected of Australia. For that to be forwarded was a very provocative move against a democratic state. It was quite rightly rejected by the government and the opposition.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Albanese is referring to a list of 14 preposterous demands<\/a> of the Morrison government made by the Chinese embassy in Canberra.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span>
\n