Nuclear weapons Archives - Friends of Socialist China

AUKUS at five

In the following article, which was originally published in the Morning Star, Jenny Clegg notes that five years have passed since the shock announcement of AUKUS – a three-way military pact between Australia, Britain and the US.

It is also, she notes, five years since Labour CND’s emergency motion opposing the deal gained over 70 per cent of the vote at the Labour Party conference. AUKUS, the motion stated, was in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) stipulation that exchanging non-nuclear for nuclear technology must be for peaceful purposes.

But it is, Jenny continued, as if this vote never happened, “the Labour government now has not only embraced Aukus but expanded its commitment”.

“Australia has become the first country to break its non-nuclear status by acquiring nuclear-powered submarines. In the absence of proper public debate, peace groups and trade unions have now launched an independent public inquiry into the project sponsored by a new initiative – the Australian Peace and Security Forum.”

Adding that now seems as good a time as any to take stock of what it is exactly the British government has committed to, Jenny proceeds to give a detailed breakdown and concludes that former prime minister Keir Starmer had “saved AUKUS”:

“Britain then is deeply implicated in the violations of the NPT, in placing Australia on the front line of a US war on China and stoking a new arms race. As well Australia has become alienated from its regional neighbours — the south-east Asia states and Pacific Islanders, who after decades of nuclear testing now see their hard-won Nuclear Weapons Free Zones brushed aside.”

The government, Jenny writes, “claims that Aukus offers a ‘generational chance to revitalise the UK industrial base’ but CND’s Alternative Defence Review (2025) exposes the wastefulness of ‘military Keynesianism’ sucking desperately needed funds and skills from areas more beneficial to the economy. By the 2050s, when they are made fully operational, the submarines will likely be outdated. Spending billions is clearly a decision heavily influenced by the profit motives of the arms industry.

“Progress is slow too on Pillar 2’s Darc — Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability system — in Wales linking with facilities in North West Australia and Texas as part of Trump’s Golden Dome. Local opposition is building.”

Jenny concludes: “With the US military now swarming over Australian bases, the independent inquiry, due to report later this year, has been holding hearings in different locations around the country. Supported by crowdfunding through trade unions, environmental and other NGOs as well as individuals, the inquiry is led by a former environment minister with a team including a former admiral, a former state politician and leader of the Australian Labour Party, a human rights lawyer and a representative of the country’s First Nations.

“With a remit covering costs and jobs, strategic rationale, nuclear non-proliferation and environmental impact, it provides the space to conceive a different future for Australia which may prove to be the spark for a really broad popular front against militarisation. The anti-war movement in Britain should take note.”

Full details of the Australian inquiry, including all the submissions it has received, can be found here.

Japan is further down the road of remilitarisation than at any point since 1945

18 September marked the 95th anniversary of the September 18th Incident, the staged explosion in Northeast China that Japanese forces used as the pretext for the invasion and occupation of Manchuria – and the opening act of the Second World War in Asia. China Daily marked the anniversary by speaking to commentators and peace campaigners in China and Europe, among them our co-editor Carlos Martinez.

Carlos told the paper that the anniversary finds Japan further down the road of remilitarisation than at any point since 1945, pointing to a record military budget, deepening military integration with the United States, and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s provocative statements on Taiwan. The danger, he argued, is that Japan is being turned into a forward military platform in Washington’s strategic competition with Beijing – a country that already hosts around 50,000 US military personnel and occupies the central position in the US alliance system in East Asia.

He described the nuclear question as particularly serious, citing the warning from Tomoko Tamura, chair of the Japanese Communist Party, that the introduction of US nuclear weapons would make Japan a frontline base in a possible nuclear conflict. “In the only country ever subjected to atomic attack, that is the measure of how far the US alliance has hollowed out Japan’s postwar pacifism. The peoples of East Asia have every interest in refusing it.”

The other contributors make a related point: that remembering this history is not a matter of stoking hatred but of understanding how aggression escalates when the international community fails to respond – as the League of Nations failed to respond in 1931 – and that a broad rightward shift in Japanese society is drowning out the ordinary Japanese people who want peace.

China says no to star wars

On 15 September the BBC reported that the United States had confirmed it deployed a space weapon in Earth’s orbit, the first time it has acknowledged such offensive capabilities. The article went on to note that China had responded by warning against an “arms race” in space. A foreign ministry spokesperson in Beijing said: “We urge the US side to stop expanding its military capabilities and preparing for war in outer space.”

On 17 September, the Xinhua News Agency published a commentary, “No new ‘Star Wars’ in space”. It said that “the Moon should not become a new battlefield. Preventing the militarisation of space must remain a basic principle as humanity ventures beyond Earth.”

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty was established precisely to prevent outer space from becoming another arena of confrontation, it noted, adding:

“There is little to be gained by extending the logic of arms rivalry into an environment that humanity is only beginning to explore. More weapons and more military preparations in space would not make the space environment more secure… China has consistently called for the peaceful use of outer space and opposed its weaponisation, militarisation and an arms race. Its recent donation to the United Nations of a lunar soil sample collected by the Chang’e-6 mission from the far side of the Moon offers a tangible example of what space exploration can serve: scientific discovery, multilateral cooperation and the common interests of humanity.”

SCO adopts Bishkek Declaration: “More countries can now be expected to explore this alternative path”

The website of the President of Russia carried the text of the speech delivered by President Vladimir Putin at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit 2026 recently held in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek.

Vladimir Putin noted that: “The SCO has covered a really long path during these 25 years. I would like to remind you that the organisation, which was established in 2001 at the initiative of six states – Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – has grown to become stronger, turning into an independent and influential centre of the emerging multipolar world. It has, de facto, become the largest regional association not only on our shared Eurasian continent but in the world as a whole. Nearly half of the global population lives in its countries, which account for over one-third of global GDP.”

Referring to the draft protocol on amending the fundamental SCO Charter, he explained that “all current observer states and dialogue partners will receive the newly-introduced SCO partner status. This decision will help streamline and expand mutually beneficial cooperation between the SCO and countries and international organisations which are interested in this cooperation.”

President Putin went on to note that: “Reciprocal trade and investment exchanges continue to expand each year. For example, Russia’s trade with the SCO member states exceeded US$400 billion last year. Our states use national currencies in mutual settlements more actively. Their share exceeds 98 percent in Russia’s operations with the organisation’s members.

“The SCO Business Council and the SCO Interbank Consortium make a major contribution to implementing joint mutually beneficial economic projects. The Development Bank, being established within the framework of our organisation, could take part in this work in the future. In my opinion, this bank should receive maximum independence from the financial systems of the states which weaponise economic tools in order to obtain unilateral advantages in international affairs.”

“Yesterday”, he continued, “we attended the opening ceremony of the World Nomad Games, which are currently taking place in the Kyrgyz Republic and in which representatives of many SCO member states, including Russia, are participating. Our country stands ready to host the next games in 2028 in Kazan, Russia. We will be pleased to welcome teams from all interested states.”

Concluding he noted: “I would like to remind you that today is September 1 – the day on which the Second World War began. We must do everything in our power to prevent a return to the global practice of instigating armed conflicts. I am convinced that our efforts are directed precisely towards this objective.”

The official website of the Russian head of state also reported that: “In conclusion of the meeting, the leaders signed and adopted the final documents, including the Bishkek Declaration, decisions of the SCO Heads of State Council on joint initiatives on combatting drug addiction and on countering the spread of synthetic drugs and their precursors for the period until 2030; initiatives for the conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity and a joint action plan for their implementation for 2026–2031; as well as scientific and technological cooperation programmes for creating the SCO Green Technology Corridor for 2026–2030.

“The SCO leaders also adopted decisions on declaring the city of Lahore (Pakistan) as the SCO Tourism and Cultural Capital for 2026–2027, and on signing a Memorandum of Understanding between the SCO Secretariat and the African Union Commission.

“The following documents were adopted without signing: the Declaration of the SCO Heads of State Council on Strengthening Multilateral Partnership for Nuclear and Physical Nuclear Security, statements of the SCO Heads of State Council on expanding interaction in energy conservation and energy efficiency, energy systems, on supporting and strengthening the institution of the family, and on assistance to states affected by disasters.”

The Morning Star newspaper carried a feature article by Kenny Coyle analysing the significance of the Bishkek Declaration.

According to Kenny: “If you wondered where world leaders were this past week, you certainly wouldn’t have found them in London, Brussels or Washington, not even Kiev. In fact, many of the most significant leaders were in Bishkek, capital of Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet republic, from August 31 to September 1 at the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

“Despite disagreements on many critical issues, a joint statement, the ‘Bishkek Declaration’, was signed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, as well as other leaders of SCO member nations.”

Also underlining the growing economic significance and focus of the SCO, he writes: “This central concern, over the past quarter century, has been to break the US stranglehold over international finance and trade. The Bishkek Declaration strongly promotes the transformation of existing structures. ‘Member states support reform of the international financial architecture aimed at increasing the representation and strengthening the role of developing countries in the governing bodies of international financial institutions, including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund’.”

The declaration also states that: “Member states, reaffirming their support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran, call for the conflict to be resolved exclusively through political and diplomatic means. In this regard, they welcome all efforts aimed at reducing tensions in the region.”

“On Afghanistan, which is a neighbour to several SCO members, it was stated that: ‘Member states reiterate that only an inclusive government with broad representation from all ethnic and political groups can bring lasting peace,’ and support ‘establishing Afghanistan as an independent, neutral and peaceful state free from terrorism, war and drugs.’ [Afghanistan also has observer status in the SCO. However, since the return to power of the Taliban its participation has largely been dormant.]

“On nuclear weapons and disarmament, the declaration reaffirmed support for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by SCO ‘signatory members’. This is an important caveat, since neither India nor Pakistan are NPT signatories.”

[A more striking caveat is to be found in the part of the declaration dealing with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. It reads: “The Republic of Belarus, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan, and the Republic of Uzbekistan reaffirmed their support for the People’s Republic of China’s joint construction of the Belt and Road initiative, affirming the efforts of all parties to jointly implement the initiative, including promoting the alignment of the Belt and Road with the construction of the Eurasian Economic Union.” In other words, BRI is endorsed by all SCO members with the sole exception of India.]

At just over 4,200 words, the declaration also deals with a huge range of other issues.

Kenny concludes: “While far from perfect, the Bishkek Declaration is an example of what used to be understood in the West as ‘diplomacy’, the focus on multilateral discussions and agreements, however limited, stands in stark contrast to what is currently on offer from Washington. More countries can now be expected to explore this alternative path.”

Wales mobilises against AUKUS

Campaigners in southwest Wales say that their campaign against the local installation of US ‘space war’ radar is continuing to grow following an August 7 demonstration along the Pembrokeshire coastline.

Local group PARC Against DARC has been campaigning against Ministry of Defence (MoD) plans to build 27 radar dishes at the local Cawdor Barracks. They are considered to be an integral part of the tripartite AUKUS project that threatens war against China. (PARC = Pembrokeshire Against Radar Campaign; DARC = Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability)

Reporting the launch of the project on December 2, 2023, the Pembrokeshire Herald wrote: “This pioneering initiative aims to significantly bolster the defence capabilities of AUKUS nations (Australia, the UK, and the US) by providing 24/7, all-weather capabilities to monitor objects as far as 36,000 kilometers away from Earth.”

Uncritically regurgitating British government propaganda, it added: “AUKUS, a landmark security and defence partnership, is set to benefit significantly from DARC, marking a significant step forward in delivering enhanced security capabilities among the partner nations and supporting a free and open Indo-Pacific region.”

The paper did however report a spokesperson for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) as insisting that “The huge sums of money involved would be far better spent building fairer and more equal societies here rather than further militarising space.”

Reporting the August 7 protest, the Morning Star quoted PARC Against DARC campaigner Jim Scott as saying: “ “We believe [it] is intended to allow the US to make a first strike against… China without fear of retaliation, threatening to encumber the world with even more economic and military subservience to America at a time when it has such little regard for international law that it is openly arming a live-streamed genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.”

The following article was originally published in the Morning Star.

More information on the excellent work of PARC Against DARC, including a short introductory video, can be found on its website. It reports that, at its October 2024 conference, the Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru unanimously voted to support the campaign. Current polls suggest that Plaid Cymru, which celebrated its 100^th birthday on August 5, has become the most popular party in Wales, with support for Labour collapsing. Elections to the Senedd (Welsh Parliament) are due in 2026.

Public opposition to plans for a US space radar array in Pembrokeshire “just seems to grow and grow,” campaigners said today, following a demonstration on the famous Welsh coastline.

In action organised by the pressure group PARC (Pembrokeshire Against Radar Campaign), locals linked hands on Newgale beach to protest against Ministry of Defence (MoD) plans to build 27 radar dishes at Cawdor Barracks in Brawdy, Pembrokeshire, known as Darc.

PARC campaigner Jim Scott said: “Although Darc is a hangover from Biden’s AUKUS pact between the US, the UK and Australia, its purpose of allowing the US to target and shoot down other nations’ satellites is exactly in line with Donald Trump’s outrageously aggressive and wasteful plan to create a multi-trillion-dollar ‘Golden Dome’ of satellite weaponry.

“We believe [it] is intended to allow the US to make a first strike against other superpowers like China without fear of retaliation, threatening to encumber the world with even more economic and military subservience to America at a time when it has such little regard for international law that it is openly arming a live-streamed genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.”

The group has “no intention of easing up our pressure on UK and Welsh Labour decision-makers, and their refusal to live up to their jobs as public servants,” he added.

Brian Jones, of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Wales, said: “I do wonder how much longer we can walk that tightrope of countries having nuclear weapons poised to launch at a moment’s notice, and there won’t be time to check if something was just a mistake, a false reading, or a miscalculation.”

A nuclear free world is the answer to the war drive against China – Sophie Bolt

In the below article, which was originally published by China Daily on June 27, Sophie Bolt, the General Secretary of Britain’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), reports on the mood of the June 21-22 Hague summit, held to counter the 77th annual meeting of NATO, in which peace campaigners from over 17 countries participated.

Sophie notes that: “The NATO summit endorsed a higher defence spending of five percent of GDP in response to a demand made by US President Donald Trump. It is clear that all Trump is interested in is securing funding for his global war. As the largest security alliance in the world, NATO’s military spending amounted to $1,506 billion last year, which was 55 percent of the global military expenditure, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.”

Some key European members of NATO, including Britain, are recklessly whipping up international tensions to justify these huge spending hikes. The British government’s newly published Strategic Defence Review asserts a “landmark shift” in the UK’s nuclear weapons use and Britain has also reasserted its role within the trilateral AUKUS treaty with the US and Australia, pledging the construction of nuclear-powered submarines to be “shared” with non-nuclear weapons state Australia, which will only further increase tensions in the Asia Pacific.

According to Sophie: “Successive NATO Strategic Concepts characterise China as a strategic competitor and a threat to NATO’s interests, security and values. In short, European NATO states must pay for Trump’s global war drive against China… On the one hand, we face a future Europe bristling with even more nuclear weapons and the constant threat of nuclear confrontation with Russia. On the other hand, we see a global confrontation led by the US against China, which also risks nuclear conflict.”

Outlining the fightback, Sophie notes that: “Protests at US bases like RAF Lakenheath are growing in frequency, size and intensity. In April, hundreds of people from across the country, the US, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Europe took part in a debate and nonviolent protest at the base… The counter-summit in The Hague reflected this international solidarity and reasserted the need to build a nuclear-free world based on peace and global cooperation.”

Although it was billed as a demonstration against NATO’s “warmongering” and its huge military spending drive, the swelling opposition to Israel’s ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip and to the bombing of Iran by Israel and the United States was clearly palpable.

A summit to counter the 77th annual meeting of NATO, a 32-nation security alliance, was held on Saturday and Sunday in The Hague, in which people from over 17 countries participated.

The NATO summit endorsed a higher defense spending of 5 percent of GDP in response to a demand made by US President Donald Trump. It is clear that all Trump is interested in is securing funding for his global war.

As the largest security alliance in the world, NATO’s military spending amounted to $1,506 billion last year, which was 55 percent of the global military expenditure, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Some European countries and key NATO members, like the United Kingdom, are recklessly whipping up international tensions to justify these huge spending hikes.

Over 800 billion euros ($928 billion) has reportedly been secured for a massive European rearmament program. New US B61-12″tactical” nuclear bombs — designed for use on the battlefield — are reported to be already forward-deployed to NATO bases across Europe.

Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron’s nuclear deterrent proposal for Europe risks the deployment of Rafale jets armed with nuclear weapons in Poland — on Russia’s border.

UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer has put a NATO-first defense policy at the heart of his government’s political program.

The newly published Strategic Defence Review asserts a “landmark shift” in the UK’s nuclear weapons use “to war-fighting readiness to deter threats and strengthen security in the Euro Atlantic area”.

The UK reasserts its role within the trilateral AUKUS treaty with the US and Australia, pledging the construction of nuclear-powered submarines to be “shared” with nonnuclear weapons state Australia, which will only further increase tensions in the Asia Pacific.

The review also recommends “enhanced UK participation in NATO’s nuclear mission”. This reflects talks between Starmer and Trump regarding Britain’s purchase of nuclear-capable F-35A fighter jets, designed to launch the US B61-12 nuclear bombs. This increases the likelihood of these bombs being stationed at RAF Lakenheath in the UK, and also opens up the possibility of other US bases being upgraded.

While countries such as France and Germany have been trying to present the war drive as an alternative to Trump’s militarism, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has made absolutely clear this is all about ensuring that US plans to shift toward Asia are “coordinated with European allies”. Successive NATO Strategic Concepts characterize China as a strategic competitor and a threat to NATO’s interests, security and values. In short, European NATO states must pay for Trump’s global war drive against China.

For those who participated in the debates at the counter-summit in The Hague over the weekend, there is great fear and outrage over the prospects of a possible nuclear war.

On the one hand, we face a future Europe bristling with even more nuclear weapons and the constant threat of nuclear confrontation with Russia. On the other hand, we see a global confrontation led by the US against China, which also risks nuclear conflict.

And Trump’s bombing of Iran indicates how dangerous the world can be under his leadership.

In response, there is an acceleration in the opposition to this disastrous direction. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of Rome, Italy and the UK. It is estimated that some 300,000 took part in demonstrations — almost all supporting Palestine and voicing their concerns over strikes on Iran.

Alongside this growing opposition to the austerity accompanying militarism, there is also a rising opposition to Britain’s so-called special relationship with the US.

Polling shows an increasing opposition to US nuclear weapons being based in Britain — now at 61 percent of the population.

People rightly see the UK’s military alliance with the US as deeply dangerous that risks drawing us into more wars. At a time of heightened nuclear threats, stationing US nuclear weapons in Britain puts us all on the nuclear frontline.

There is also huge anger at the undemocratic nature of hosting US bases. There has been no debate in the British Parliament on whether the UK should host these nuclear bombs and absolutely no consultation with residents, who will be at immediate risk if there is a nuclear attack or nuclear accident.

Protests at US bases like RAF Lakenheath are growing in frequency, size and intensity. In April, hundreds of people from across the country, the US, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Europe took part in a debate and nonviolent protest at the base.

Certainly, the counter-summit in The Hague reflected this international solidarity and reasserted the need to build a nuclear-free world based on peace and global cooperation.

Building a peaceful, nuclear-free tomorrow

The following text is of a speech by Sophie Bolt, incoming general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), at the World We Want conference held in London on 12 October 2024.

Sophie’s speech outlines the current geopolitical situation, in particular the risk of nuclear war, and the need for a mass movement to demand peace and disarmament. She observes that US global dominance is the number one obstacle in the way of a “peaceful, just, sustainable and nuclear-free world”. While many may have hoped that the end of the Cold War would have brought about a more peaceful world, the US developed an aggressive new strategy – the “Wolfowitz doctrine” – which aimed to prevent the rise of any rival power that could challenge US hegemony. “Using its political, economic and military might, the US has attempted to force countries to subordinate their economic and political interests to it. A carrot-and-stick approach, in which the US nuclear arsenal is the ultimate stick.”

Sophie notes that the global economic and political situation is changing, particularly with the emergence of China and the rise of BRICS. In a state of relative decline, the US is increasingly resorting to the use of military power to maintain and reassert its hegemony. “This is the key driver of global tensions which is pushing the world to the brink of destruction.”

The speech calls on the peace movement to mobilise against the US-led drive to war – including the New Cold War on China – and to support peace initiatives emerging from the Global South. For example, Brazil and China are coordinating towards peace talks between Russia and Ukraine; meanwhile South Africa has been blazing a trail on international legal action against Israel for its war crimes in Gaza.

Sophie concludes:

We must take hope and courage from these significant, progressive developments taking place across the global South. And the determined, committed movements that are growing here in the global North.

The text of the speech was first published in the Morning Star on 14 October 2024.

So, the world we want to see! For the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, we want a peaceful, just, sustainable and nuclear-free world. But, given where we currently are, how can we secure such a world?

From CND’s perspective, central to this question is overcoming the major obstacle — which is US global dominance.

Since the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the US has pursued a military doctrine that allows no rival economic or military power to emerge that can challenge it.

Far from ending the second world war, the dropping of these nuclear bombs was a ruthless, barbaric act to ensure the US emerged as the major superpower. It was a warning to every other country.

The bombing unleashed the nuclear arms race and started the cold war, taking the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, this doctrine was explicitly formalised, coined the “Wolfowitz doctrine,” after Paul Wolfowitz, under-secretary of defence to Dick Cheney. This is why — rather than disbanding Nato — the US aggressively expanded the nuclear-armed alliance right up to Russia’s borders.

Using its political, economic and military might, the US has attempted to force countries to subordinate their economic and political interests to it. A carrot-and-stick approach, in which the US nuclear arsenal is the ultimate stick.

But today, China’s economic growth has overtaken the US, and it is now the biggest economy in the world. Economic co-operation between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — known as Brics — means these combined economies are larger than the G7. And this economic co-operation is growing, with Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates joining this year.

New Zealand leaning towards AUKUS

The following article, written by independent journalist Mick Hall, details the growing danger that New Zealand may join the AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom, United States) agreement, an aggressive military alliance directed against China. The planned deployment of nuclear-powered submarines by Australia is at the heart of the AUKUS project. New Zealand has hitherto followed a strict non-nuclear policy since the adoption of the Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act in 1987. According to Marco de Jong, historian and co-director of Te Kuaka NZA, an organisation advocating an independent and progressive foreign policy, if New Zealand did join the US-led bloc it would effectively compromise this long-held anti-nuclear policy.

The move comes after a new coalition government, led by the right wing National Party, and including ACT, a far right libertarian party, took office on November 27, 2023, following the defeat of the previously governing New Zealand Labour Party in the country’s October 14 general election.

Early statements by ministers in the country’s new government indicate that its foreign policy will be much more in synch with the ‘Five Eyes’ Anglosphere and US strategic interests than the previous Labour government, which took a relatively independent stand. However, pre-election, Labour Prime Minister Chris Hipkins had indicated that, he too was open to at least some type of relationship with AUKUS. Hipkins became Prime Minister on January 25, 2023, following the resignation of the relatively more progressive and popular Jacinda Ardern, a factor that many believe contributed to Labour’s subsequent defeat at the polls.

According to Marco de Jong, a New Zealand move towards AUKUS is not wanted either by other nations in the Pacific nor by the country’s indigenous Maori population:

“Deeper integration with the military industrial base of the Anglosphere is something that we should be incredibly concerned about for New Zealand and its standing in the region and in the world.”

New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy has also been a factor in the country’s good relations with China, which is its largest trading partner.

Te Pati Maori, also known as The Maori Party, a left wing party representing the country’s indigenous people, and which won six seats in the October general election, wants New Zealand to be non-aligned. Its co-leader Rawiri Waititi said his party feared for the nation’s sovereignty if an alignment with AUKUS was pursued.

“We’re deeply concerned with the implications this has on Aotearoa’s independence and ability to remain militarily neutral,” he said, adding:

“As Maori we cannot allow our sovereignty to be determined by others, whether they are in Canberra or Washington. Aotearoa should not act as a Pacific spy base in the wars of imperial powers. Joining AUKUS will severely undermine our country’s sovereignty, constitution, and ability to remain nuclear free. There is too much at stake for our government to make a commitment of this magnitude without a democratic process.” (Aotearoa is increasingly used as the name for the country in place of New Zealand.)

The following article was originally published by Consortium News.

Concerns are rising for peace and sovereignty in the Pacific after strong signals from New Zealand’s new government that it wants to swiftly join the U.S.-led military alliance AUKUS.

If New Zealand does join the U.S.-led military bloc it would effectively compromise the country’s long-held anti-nuclear policy, Marco De Jong, historian and co-director of the New Zealand foreign policy group Te Kuaka, told Consortium News.

He said the decision would put an end to what is left of the nation’s independent foreign policy, as well as its image as an “honest broker” in a region already divided by increasing militarization.

The 2021 AUKUS agreement among Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. centers on the tripartite development of a nuclear submarine fleet within a security partnership geared to upholding the “rules-based international order,” as well as a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” Though not stated explicitly, it is seen as an anti-China alliance, based on a hyped-up threat of Beijing to the region.

It is controversial in Australia because the decision to join AUKUS with an AU$368 billion price tag for the submarines was continued by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (following its initiation by the previous prime minister Scott Morrison) without any consultation with Parliament, let alone the public.

There is dissension in Albanese’s Labor Party, and former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, four days after the event in San Diego, publicly ripped the deal.

Keating said Australia was

“now part of a containment policy against China. The Chinese government doesn’t want to attack anybody. They don’t want to attack us … We supply their iron ore which keeps their industrial base going, and there’s nowhere else but us to get it. Why would they attack? They don’t want to attack the Americans … It’s about one matter only: the maintenance of U.S. strategic hegemony in East Asia. This is what this [AUKUS] is all about.”

By subordinating itself, Keating said Australia is forfeiting its sovereignty to rely on Britain, which abandoned its former colony years ago, to build nuclear submarines that serve U.S. — and not Australian — interests.

Nevertheless the deal is still on track. It was announced in March that SNN-AUKUS nuclear submarines would be delivered to Australia by the early 2040s and the U.K. by the late 2030s.

A bill passed in the U.S. Congress on Thursday cleared the way to sell three-to-five Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the interim by the early 2030s.

The Global Security Initiative could drastically reduce nuclear risks

The Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding (SACU) organised a webinar on May 30 to discuss the Global Security Initiative (GSI) put forward by President Xi Jinping. Speakers were Minister Wang Qi from the Chinese Embassy in London; Tom Unterrainer, Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND); Dr. Zeno Leoni, Lecturer in Defence Studies at King’s College London; John Gittings, long-term China specialist and peace activist and former assistant foreign editor at the Guardian newspaper; and Dr. Jenny Clegg, retired senior lecturer in Asia-Pacific studies, peace activist, Vice-President of SACU, and member of the Friends of Socialist China advisory group. The webinar was introduced and chaired by Keith Bennett, SACU member and Co-editor of Friends of Socialist China.

In his contribution, Tom noted that the GSI has a focus on nuclear weapons, reiterating that, “a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought.” Yet today, “rather than a reduction in nuclear risks the world is faced with the most acute set of such risks since the opening of the atomic age.” The famed ‘Doomsday Clock’ of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is now set at 90 seconds, Tom said, adding:

“It goes without saying that if the proposals contained in China’s GSI were to become the norm through which states and groups of states interacted on the global stage, then we would expect to see a drastic ‘winding back’ of the minute and second hands of the ‘Doomsday Clock’.”

China’s policy with regard to nuclear weapons, Tom explained, is not new, but dates back to the country’s first test of an atomic bomb on 16 October 1964, when the Chinese government noted that it has, “consistently advocated the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. If this had been achieved, China need not have developed nuclear weapons. But our proposal was met with stubborn resistance…The Chinese Government hereby solemnly declares that China will never at any time or under any circumstances be the first to use nuclear weapons.”

These policies have remained consistent to the present day.

Tom further noted that it is a matter of public record that China has been repeatedly threatened with nuclear attack, including by Truman in 1950, by Eisenhower in 1953, and then consistently through the 1950s. The UK’s National Archives also reveal that the British government considered threatening China with nuclear attack in 1961.

The GSI, he observed, “offers a number of straightforward measures that could drastically reduce these [nuclear] risks.”

We reprint below a slightly expanded version of Tom’s contribution to the webinar, which was originally published on END Info, a blog produced by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation for European Nuclear Disarmament (END). The full webinar can be viewed here.

I want to focus on nuclear weapons questions as they relate to the Global Security Initiative but in so doing, it would be wrong to conceive of nuclear risks as entirely separate from the general security issues that the GSI seeks to address. I’d go further and say that eliminating the existential risks posed by the prospect of nuclear use is a central aspect of any coherent approach to security.

Priority 3 of the concept paper addresses nuclear questions and opens with a reaffirmation of the 2022 joint statement of five nuclear-armed states, China included. This statement was, of course, a reaffirmation of a similar statement by Reagan and Gorbachev in the 1980s: “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”.

Since the January 2022 statement, rather than a reduction in nuclear risks the world is faced with the most acute set of such risks since the opening of the atomic age.

As evidence, we need look no further than the decision of the Atomic Scientists to set the hands of their ‘Doomsday Clock’ to ’90 seconds to Midnight’. This cautionary metaphor – signalling the perils we all face resulting from the combined dangers nuclear war, climate catastrophe and technological threats – has never been as close to ‘Midnight’ as it is now. The Atomic Scientists were clear about the contribution of nuclear threats, arising from the terrible events in Ukraine, to their decision.

Aukus might create jobs – but at what cost?

This article by Jenny Clegg, originally published in the Morning Star, discusses the recent announcement by Britain’s Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (CSEU) that it welcomes the Aukus trilateral security deal on the grounds that it will ostensibly create thousands of well-paid jobs for British engineers.

Jenny points out that, even on the basis of purely economic calculations, directing Britain’s advanced engineering sector towards a project like Aukus is utterly self-defeating. It will adversely affect ties with China – trade with which is connected to orders of magnitude more jobs than Aukus is. Furthermore, it means divesting from far more promising and worthwhile projects, particularly in relation to preventing climate breakdown.

Aukus is part of an escalating US-led drive to war against China, and what’s more it violates the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is patently foolish for Britain to attach itself to such a project, and particularly so for the British working class. Jenny asks of CSEU members: “Do they want to be building a world of conflict, tension and destabilisation for decades to come? Is that the kind of future they envisage for their children and grandchildren?”

THE Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (CSEU) has welcomed the benefits of Aukus, creating thousands of well-paid jobs, securing thousands more across the supply chains for years to come.

But what about the costs?

Within Britain’s constrained budgets, creating one job in the defence sector means cutting significantly more jobs — quite possibly those of trade union members — in sectors, for example, that provide for social welfare.

The £3 billion defence spending increase recently announced by PM Rishi Sunak to go on supporting the delivery of Aukus is enough to pay the junior doctors’ claims in full one-and-a-half times over. And it is just the start.

The benefits to the supply chain might not be that great either since over a third of MoD supplies are purchased from overseas.

The reactors to power the Aukus submarines are to be built by Rolls-Royce in Derby using weapons-grade highly enriched uranium.

Thousands of jobs will be created, yes, but these vessels are for war-fighting so this will breach the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) stipulation that the exchange of nuclear technology must be “for peaceful purposes.”

This also violates the spirit of the Nuclear Weapon Free Zones of the south Pacific and south-east Asia. There, the expanding authority of the Anglosphere is not something that is welcomed.

It goes against hopes to make the region a zone of peace, instead increasing the likelihood of regional nuclear proliferation and an escalating arms race.

A recent meeting of former Pacific leaders raised complaints about the “staggering” amount of money committed to Aukus which “flies in the face of Pacific Islands countries … crying out for climate change support,” the “threat … challenging our future existence,” they said, “is not China but climate change.”

The gross overexpansion of Britain’s military industrial base is to prepare for war with China. But China has not fought a war for 40 years; it maintains a defensive military posture with just one overseas base and only a small nuclear arsenal kept under “no first use.” By treating China as the enemy, Aukus will surely turn it into one.

China in fact is Britain’s fourth-largest trading partner; economic links have generated at least 150,000 jobs across the country and there is great potential for this to grow.

Not long ago Chinese companies stepped in to help in the rescue of Jaguar Land Rover and saved 3,000 jobs at British Steel.

Why put all this at risk? China should be seen as an opportunity not a threat.

By the time the submarines become operational in the 2040s, the world will be massively transformed.

The emerging markets of the Brics countries already exceed the G7 in economic size and will easily double this in 20 years.

A paradigm shift is under way as these rising powers reset world agendas — it is their priorities on climate change, health and tackling poverty that are now driving the world economy.

Yet Britain continues on the path of disproportionate military influence even as it drops out of the world’s top 10 economies in the coming years.

The CSEU is working with the Australian engineering unions, yet the Australian Council of Trade Unions (Actu), which brings together 36 trade unions, has not endorsed the pact and maintains its backing of Australia’s nuclear-free defence policy.

To support the huge Aukus military expansion, the Australian taxpayer will pay on average US$6bn per year for the next 30 years — a whacking total of US$245bn.

To secure Britain’s high-skilled base requires long-term contracts but the MoD’s seemingly easy solution stokes more problems for the future: the more that is invested in arms production, the harder it is to reverse — the end of a contract means thousands of jobs are at stake and the chase for investment becomes endless.

The British government has just spent over £6bn on the two aircraft carriers, now one is being mothballed. How many more white elephants are planned?

The CSEU needs to think again. Instead of delivering the labour movement into the pockets of BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, instead of driving China onto a war-footing, it should inform its members of the implications of the scheme.

It should ask them: do they want to be building a world of conflict, tension and destabilisation for decades to come? Is that the kind of future they envisage for their children and grandchildren?

We are nowhere close to having sufficient green skills to deliver the green transition globally — the CSEU should be encouraging apprentices to hone their skills for a green future; and it should get creative and set up teams of members to come up with alternative ideas not least to serve the new agendas and growing markets of the global South.

People in Britain can only rely now on skilled engineers to ensure the economy remains relevant in the coming decades. Politicians are failing us — it is up to the unions to envisage a different future for the country and to see that Britain’s advanced engineering is put to good use in a vastly changing world.

Wang Yi meets with Sergey Lavrov

As part of the recent week of intensive diplomatic activity in Asia, focused around regional and global gatherings successively in Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Bali, Indonesia, on November 15, on the sidelines of the G20 Summit of major economies.

Discussing the Ukraine issue, Wang Yi said that China has noted that Russia recently reiterated its established position that a nuclear war must never be fought, which represents a rational and responsible attitude of Russia.

The importance of this statement is that it clearly debunks the, deliberate or otherwise, misrepresentation of the comments made by Chinese President Xi Jinping, for example in his meeting with German Chancellor Scholz, opposing the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons in the context of the Ukraine conflict as somehow representing an attack on Russia or indicating a fundamental difference between the two countries.

The following article was first published on the website of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

On November 15, 2022 local time, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who was accompanying President Xi Jinping to the Group of Twenty (G20) Bali Summit, met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of the summit.

Lavrov once again extended warm congratulations on the success of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC). He said that President Xi Jinping’s re-election as General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee by a unanimous vote testifies to the lofty political prestige of President Xi Jinping and the deep trust and strong support from the Chinese people. Russia is ready to work with China to further consolidate the sound momentum of high-level exchanges between the two countries, maintain the continuity of the Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, expand pragmatic cooperation between the two sides, and strengthen international coordination, so as to fully release the potential of Russia-China relations.

Wang Yi said that the success of the 20th CPC National Congress has been in the limelight in China and the world as a whole. The most important outcome of the congress is the election of a new central leadership with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core. That fully reflects the common will of the whole Party and the people across the country. Steered by General Secretary Xi Jinping at the core of the Party central committee and in the Party as a whole, and under the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, China, as a giant ship, will forge ahead toward the established goal of realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation without fear of any winds and storms. China is ready to work with Russia to pursue a well-coordinated approach to high-level exchanges and exchanges in various fields, deepen pragmatic cooperation, and facilitate personnel exchanges.

The world needs cooperation, not cold war

We are pleased to republish the following statement, issued recently by the CPUSA Peace & Solidarity Commission and the International Department.

What the world needs is peaceful international relations, equality, global cooperation, and development

What is needed above all in the world today is cooperation among all nations to address existential threats to humanity and indeed life on earth. What is needed now is for all nations to abide by the UN Charter, to join the Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons, to honor other nuclear weapons treaties, and to pivot national budgets to dismantling and eliminating nuclear weapons. What is needed above all is immediate action to prevent tectonic environmental shifts. All nations must act together to prevent the observable climate calamities from getting far worse and to seek out solutions to material energy needs that benefit all humankind while protecting the health of the planet. What is needed now is global collaboration to significantly reduce the pandemic through immediate universal access to vaccines and medicines. Making the world safe and humanity healthy should top the priority list of all nations. In particular, the two countries with the biggest economies and biggest impact on earth, the United States and China, along with their partners and allies have the responsibility to cooperate to these ends.

The CPUSA welcomes the joint statement by China and the U.S. on climate cooperation and demands its urgent, practical implementation and extension to other critical domains. Such offers of cooperation have to be deepened, widened, and urgently acted upon.

Keith Lamb: Joint world powers’ statement on nuclear war must be backed up by action

This article by Keith Lamb, republished from CGTN, examines the recent joint statement by China, Britain, France, the US and Russia of their shared determination to avoid nuclear conflict. While this is certainly a positive development, Lamb points out that in a geopolitical context of imperialism, hegemonism, unilateralism and war, the danger of nuclear conflict remains ever-present. He calls on the other nuclear powers to follow China’s lead in adopting a no-first-use policy, and in working towards a multipolar system of international relations based on peace, equality, mutual respect, and sovereign development.

The recent joint statement by China, Britain, France, the U.S. and Russia affirming that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought… [and] as long as they continue to exist – should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war” is certainly a step in the right direction, by the five nuclear-weapon states.

However, as tensions heat up in Ukraine and the U.S. continues to ignite a new cold war, with China, concrete actions need to back up this lofty language and the historical context of the brutality of atomic weapons must be laid clear so that the states who have the power to reign peace onto the world can take stock and set the correct course for their future actions.

Historically, only the U.S. has ever used the atomic bomb which killed up to an estimated 300,000 primarily old, women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. Tragically if we believe the likes of General Dwight D. Eisenhower or Admiral William D. Leahy then Japan was already defeated and the atomic option was unnecessary. Thus, the brutal atomic option was more a geopolitical lesson for the USSR.