Friday, September 17, 2021

How we got here: A timeline of Alberta’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic

By Richie Assaly
Toronto Star
Thu., Sept. 16, 2021

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has declared a state of public health emergency and announced a broad range of new measures, including the introduction of vaccine passports and far-reaching public health restrictions.

The announcement — which comes as Alberta battles a deadly fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic that has threatened to overwhelm the province’s hospitals — marks a major reversal for Kenney’s United Conservative Party, which for months had resisted further restrictions and pushed back against the idea of vaccine mandates.

All that changed on Wednesday, just hours after Alberta Health Services reported that 24 people had died from the virus in a single day. The new measures are a culmination of a tumultuous few months since Kenney declared the province “open for summer” on July 1.

Here’s a look back at how the Alberta government has dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic since its arrival in March last year.

March 17, 2020

Premier Jason Kenney declares a public state of health emergency to combat the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic. Several restrictions and social distancing rules are introduced, including a ban on organized gatherings of more than 50 people.

March 27, 2020


As the number of cases in the province surpasses 500, Kenney introduces more restrictions, limiting outdoor and indoor events to 15 people. Some non-essential businesses are closed.

April 20, 2020

As the first wave continues to grow, the Cargill meat processing plant in High River, Alta., temporarily closes after the operation is linked to more than 350 cases of COVID-19.



Spring/summer 2020

Though some restrictions are lifted following the peak of the first wave on April 30, all mass gatherings and events are called off for the remainder of the spring and summer. The Calgary Stampede is cancelled for the first time in a century.

Aug. 21, 2020

Teachers, parents and students across the province hold rallies to protest the UCP’s school re-entry plan, which does not include funding to reduce class sizes. Concerns also grow around topics such as ventilation, sanitation and staffing.


Sept. 1, 2020

Kenney says his government has accepted that COVID-19 infections in schools are inevitable and don’t warrant closing down all classrooms: “It’s time to go back to some kind of normal.”

November 2020

New restrictions, including limits on indoor and outdoor gatherings, are introduced as the second wave arrives. Grades 7 to 12 move to online learning.

December 2020

Through December, more than 1,000 Alberta schools report at least one case of the virus, including more than 300 where in-school transmission was suspected, according to the Calgary Herald.

Dec. 8, 2020

Kenney introduces strict lockdown measures to combat the rapidly growing second wave. The lockdown includes a ban on indoor and outdoor gatherings, the shuttering of non-essential businesses, and mandatory mask mandates. By mid-December, Alberta has the highest rate of active COVID-19 cases in the country.




January to March 2021

As cases slowly subside from a peak in mid-December, the Alberta government introduces a step-by-step framework to ease restrictions contingent on hospitalization rates.

April 6, 2021

Citing widespread rule-breaking and new COVID-19 variants, Kenney announces that Alberta is in a third wave of the pandemic, as the province averages 1,000 new cases each day. The government announces it will return to “Step 1” of its reopening framework, introducing new restrictions on dining, gyms and other non-essential businesses.

April 7, 2021

Fifteen UCP MLAs release a public letter criticizing new measures, despite the fact Alberta has the highest case counts and some of the loosest public health restrictions in the country.

May 4, 2021

After months of resisting the type of stay-at-home orders seen in Ontario, Kenney reverses course with a suite of new pandemic restrictions. This includes online learning for students, closing indoor dining and new limits on gatherings.

Mid-May 2021

Alberta makes national headlines as its case rate rises to one of the highest in North America. The third wave was “unrivalled in Canada, and propelled by what experts argue is a miasma of lacklustre policy, political unwillingness to alienate the province’s libertarian fringes, and dependency on a flagging oil industry that was struggling even before the pandemic,” wrote the Star’s Alex Boyd and Omar Mosleh.

May 26, 2021

The Alberta government announces a new reopening plan, replacing the “Path Forward” framework with a plan aimed to make the province “open for summer.” Tied to both vaccination rates and hospitalizations, the plan aims to drop all restrictions by July.

July 1, 2021

Alberta becomes the first Canadian jurisdiction to drop all restrictions after hitting the government’s goal of getting a first dose into 70 per cent of the eligible population. “Don’t live in fear,” Kenney told Albertans, before promising the “best summer ever.”

July 9, 2021

The Calgary Stampede returns, marking the first major event in Canada since the start of the pandemic. Kenney, who was spotted tossing pancakes at a traditional Stampede breakfast, tells reporters that Alberta will not have a vaccine passport.



July 28, 2021

Despite rising case counts and a vaccination rate that lags other parts of the country, Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Deena Hinshaw announces that by Aug. 16, masks will no longer be required in taxis or on transit in Alberta; that children won’t be required to wear masks in schools; and that there will no longer be a legally required isolation period should someone test positive for COVID-19.

Aug. 9, 2021

As concerns about the highly infectious Delta variant grow, the Alberta Medical Association section of pediatrics pens a letter to Kenney expressing grave concern over Alberta’s decision to eliminate COVID-19 testing and tracing, and its plan to end mandated isolation for positive cases.

Aug. 13, 2021

Following weeks of pressure, the Alberta government reverses course, extending remaining public health restrictions for six more weeks. “We are not going backwards. We are pausing to monitor and assess before taking a step forward,” Hinshaw said.

Late August 2021

Doctors begin to raise the alarm as Alberta’ fourth wave continues to grow. By late August, the province had about 34 per cent of the total active cases in Canada, with just 11 per cent of the country’s population.



Sept. 1, 2021

Kenney addresses Albertans for the first time since Aug. 9, after modelling from a team of independent pandemic researchers suggests a health crisis is unavoidable unless there is strong action. It is later confirmed that Kenney took a two-week vacation in Europe in late August.

Sept. 3, 2021

Kenney offers $100 gift cards to Albertans who aren’t vaccinated to try to curb the fourth wave. “For the love of God, please get vaccinated now,” Kenney told the media. “If you are unvaccinated, it is urgent that you protect yourself.”


Early September

Alberta Health Services announces it is postponing elective surgeries and outpatient procedures in an effort to create “sufficient ICU and in-patient capacity.” By Sept. 13, access to surgery decreased by up to 70 per cent in the Edmonton Zone.

Sept. 7, 2021

Twelve Alberta mayors call for Kenney to bring in provincewide COVID-19 vaccine passport rules.

Sept. 13, 2021

Hinshaw admits lifting all public health restrictions in July was the wrong move. “The expectations did not match the reality,” she said.



Hinshaw says she looked at evidence, consulted with colleagues and watched modelling in early summer — all which led her to recommend that Alberta move toward “endemic” at the outset of summer.

“Clearly, the move to endemics was too early,” she said.

Sept. 15, 2021

Kenney declares a state of public health emergency and introduces a slate of new measures, including the introduction of vaccine passports and wide-ranging public health restrictions.

Kenney defends his decision to lift restrictions during the summer, but says he is sorry for being “too enthusiastic” that the province would be open for good and for underestimating the virus.

Kenney also announces a number of new measures regarding social distancing as recommended by provincial health authorities, including a ban on any organized gatherings of more than 50 people.

Despite having promised for weeks that the province would not do so, Kenney told the news conference a vaccine passport system will be brought in for some businesses beginning on Sept. 20. These include restaurants, some events and non-essential businesses.

Eligible businesses and events that agree to require proof of vaccination or proof of a negative test will be exempt from other public health restrictions being brought in on Sept. 20.

Sept. 16, 2021

At least eight post-secondary schools in Alberta temporarily cancel in-person classes as they work to adapt to a new range of provincial COVID-19 health restrictions.


--------------

Richie Assaly is a Toronto-based digital producer for the Star. Reach him via email: rassaly@thestar.ca


Posted by at No comments:
The Kenney effect? Alberta premier’s COVID-19 reversal could see O’Toole’s Tories ‘bleed both to the left and right’ in election race, observers say


By Alex McKeen
Vancouver Bureau
TORONTO STAR
Thu., Sept. 16, 2021

As a tight federal election race enters its final days, the Conservative party is suddenly faced with the possibility of paying a political price for the actions of one of its highest-profile alumni — Alberta Premier Jason Kenney.

This week, facing a COVID-19 crisis for which many have blamed his government, Kenney dramatically reversed course, bringing in sweeping pandemic restrictions and acknowledging that his province’s health system is on the verge of collapse.

Some experts are now speculating that Kenney, a former cabinet minister in the federal government of Stephen Harper, could have the same kind of ballot-box impact on the fortunes of Erin O’Toole’s Tories that Ontario Premier Doug Ford had on Andrew Scheer’s in 2019.

That is to say, an unpopular Conservative premier could end up inadvertently driving voters to the Liberals or New Democrats on the federal stage.

In Alberta, such a shift could be a major blow to the party’s base.

The premier’s move Wednesday night to declare a public health state of emergency and launch a slate of new restrictions pointed to how serious Alberta’s fourth pandemic wave has become — only months after Kenney lifted almost all provincial restrictions in anticipation of what he boasted would be Alberta’s “best summer ever.”

On Thursday, federal leaders faced questions over how they would do better as prime minister.

Facing the most scrutiny was O’Toole, the Conservative leader who has previously said he supported Alberta’s approach to the pandemic and that it was better than the approach taken by the federal government.

O’Toole did not rescind that support when asked about Alberta’s crisis Thursday. He just said he, as prime minister, would work with all premiers to rein in the pandemic.

The developments in Alberta have brought COVID-19 back into the election conversation, experts say.

“For much of the campaign, it didn’t seem COVID would be an effective wedge issue for the Liberals, despite them trying to make it such,” said Stewart Prest, a political science lecturer at Simon Fraser University, in an interview with the Star.

“But when Premier Kenney pretty much admitted that their approach to moving beyond COVID had failed, and failed badly, it threw that back into the fray as a difference between the parties.”

The issue, of course, is whether voters will inherently link Kenney’s much criticized efforts to his federal counterpart, O’Toole.

Prest says the greatest impact will be in the province of Alberta itself, where voters tired of Kenney may turn to the NDP or Liberals, and voters who wanted Kenney to stick to his original, restriction-free reopening plan may give their votes to the far-right People’s Party of Canada.

It set the stage, Prest wrote on Twitter, for the CPC to “bleed both to the left and right,” in Alberta, and potentially beyond.

“Kenney is one of the two most notable Conservative premiers in the country right now,” Prest said. “It creates this new opportunity for the Liberals to use this as a wedge issue.”

Mark Winfield, a York University professor in the faculty of environmental and urban change with expertise in politics, said the way Kenney’s COVID-19 about-face may influence the 2021 election is not too different from how Ford’s unpopularity in 2019 may have affected the federal election that year.

“Ontarians expressed their displeasure with the Ford government by voting Liberal in 2019,” he said. “And I suggest strongly that you may see a parallel event where people express their displeasure with their UCP government by voting most likely NDP.”

It may be a message that strengthens support for the Liberals or NDP among voters who want to avoid a Kenney-style COVID-19 response, he said.

“If they’re not prepared to distance themselves from Mr. Kenney on this what does that say? Are they really moderated or not?” Winfield said.

Even if Kenney’s apparent missteps only resonate in Alberta, that could still be significant for the Conservatives, who took all but one riding there in 2019.

“I think if the Liberals and the NDP pick up seats in Alberta — and they were already poised to pick up one or two — but if it becomes four or five, there’s going to be finger pointing at the premier,” said Duane Bratt, a political scientist with Mount Royal University in Calgary.

“And if O’Toole loses, and, you know, he’s been on a downward slide this past week, there’s going to be a lot of people looking at the role of Alberta in this.”

When the other party leaders were asked about the Alberta situation Thursday, and what it means about the Conservative approach to handling COVID-19, the harshest criticism of the Alberta premier came not from Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who simply said things would have been better in Alberta right now if Kenney had taken action sooner on the fourth wave of the pandemic. It came instead from both the left and the right: NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and PPC Leader Maxime Bernier.

Singh said in no uncertain terms that he condemns Kenney’s leadership on the pandemic.

“Mr. Kenney is a failure in leadership; the people of Alberta are suffering because of that failure, there’s no doubt about that,” he said in Toronto.

He also criticized Trudeau for calling an election rather than staying focused on the pandemic.

In a campaign stop in Oakville, Ont., Bernier took aim at Kenney not for reopening too soon and allowing COVID-19 to surge, but for reversing course.

“Jason Kenney, as you know, said a couple of weeks ago that he doesn’t want a vaccine passport, but today he flip-flopped like O’Toole on the vaccine passport,” Bernier said. “Shame on them.”

On Wednesday night, Kenney seemed to acknowledge that the province’s aggressive reopening in July had been a mistake. Despite previously vowing not to, he unveiled a vaccine-passport system, and brought back a series of public health restrictions.

The province is nonetheless in the throes of its fourth wave of the pandemic. In 24 hours this week, 24 people died from COVID-19. Kenney said the intensive-care units of his province could be overwhelmed in just over a week.

It will likely take weeks, officials added, before the effect of the new measures is felt in reducing pressure on the heath system.

With files from Alex Boyd

Alex McKeen is a Vancouver-based reporter for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @alex_mckeen


RELATED STORIES
Posted by at No comments:
Australia Will Get Nuclear-Powered Subs In New Partnership With US, UK

Dubbed AUKUS, the new security partnership will increase focus on the Indo-Pacific.


A Collins-class guided missile submarine is moored at Royal Australian Navy base HMAS Stirling, Australia.
 U.S. NAVY / MASS COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST 2ND CLASS JEANETTE MULLINAX


BY JACQUELINE FELDSCHER
SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT
SEPTEMBER 15, 2021
Updated to add Biden remarks at 5:32 p.m. ET.

Australia will get its first nuclear-powered submarines under a new trilateral relationship with the United States and United Kingdom intended to improve security in the Pacific, President Joe Biden announced Wednesday.

The move will put nuclear-powered submarines, which have longer range than Australia’s current conventional subs and can stay underwater for months, in China’s backyard as the administration seeks to pivot its foreign policy to the Indo-Pacific region.

“This is about investing in our greatest source of strength—our alliances—and updating them to better meet the threats of today and tomorrow,” Biden said at the White House, flanked virtually by leaders from the United Kingdom and Australia. “This initiative is about making sure that each of us has a modern capability, the most modern capability we need to maneuver and defend against rapidly evolving threats.”

A senior administration official expanded a bit on the idea.

“We undertake this effort as part of a larger constellation of steps including stronger bilateral partnerships with our traditional security partners in Asia...and also stronger engagement with new partners like India, Vietnam, and new formations like the Quad,” the official said.

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., applauded the deal, saying that it is a “concrete” step to counter Beijing.

“Partnering with Australia on a new nuclear-powered submarine fleet is a huge investment in the long-term health of our alliances and sends a clear message of strength to Chairman Xi,” Sasse said in a statement. “The President’s Asia team deserves credit for jumpstarting this important work — but we still need more urgency.”Chinese officials have yet to respond to the news. The increased presence of more capable submarines in the Pacific could be viewed by Beijing as a threat, but Narang pointed out that there are already American nuclear submarines patrolling in the Pacific and the South China Sea, which could soften China’s reaction. It will also likely take years before the submarines are actually in the water with trained crews onboard, which gives China a long time to respond and prepare if needed.

China has a fleet of 60 submarines, including six nuclear-powered attack subs, according to a Nuclear Threat Initiative report from February.

Asked if this is a military move aimed at China, the senior administration official stressed that “this partnership is not aimed [at] or about any one country. It’s about advancing our strategic interests, upholding the international rules based order and promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.”

More broadly, the new trilateral partnership, which will be known by the acronym AUKUS, will include increased cooperation on cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, as well as more integration of industrial bases and supply chains, the senior administration official said.

But the group’s first priority will be sharing technology with Australia to help it develop and field nuclear-powered submarines, the senior official said. This is only the second time the United States has shared this type of sensitive technology with an ally. The first was with the United Kingdom in 1958.

“This is a fundamental decision that binds decisively Australia to the United States and Great Britain for generations,” the official said.

Officials from the three countries will begin an 18-month consultation period during which they will determine details about things such as the workforce, training requirements, production timelines, nuclear nonproliferation and safety, Biden said. The effort will be led by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in consultation with officials from the Energy Department and State Department.

The partnership will include only nuclear propulsion, and Australia has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons or a civil nuclear capability, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said.

Some nuclear experts raised concerns about any proliferation of nuclear technology. James Acton, co-director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Policy Program, called it a “mistake” and worried that the partnership would establish a dangerous precedent that could make nuclear material more widespread around the globe.

“If the US and UK help Australia acquire nuclear submarines, will they say no to, for example, South Korea, whose nonproliferation credentials are less than perfect (sorry) and which has stronger potential incentives to proliferate?” Acton wrote on Twitter.

Others disagree, saying that Australia is not a proliferation risk. Vipin Narang, a professor of nuclear security and political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argued that, because Australia is so far south with so much ocean to patrol, the benefits of the increased range offered by a nuclear-powered submarine outweigh the potential risks,

“If there’s any country I trust, it’s really Australia,” Narang said. “I know there are proliferation risks, but to me they’re offset by the warm fuzzy feeling I get from Australia having SSNs to help us out.”

The senior administration official pushed back on the idea that this could spark nuclear proliferation.

“This technology is extremely sensitive. This is frankly an exception to our policy in many respects,” the official said. “We view this as a one-off.”

One open question is whether the Australian subs will be powered by highly enriched uranium, a weapons-grade power source that fuels both American and British submarines, or low enriched uranium, which powers the French nuclear navy and can not be used directly for bombs, said Kingston Reif, the director of disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association. Using low-enriched uranium could help calm fears about nuclear proliferation, Reif said.

The United States is also expected to run out of the highly enriched uranium that powers its subs and aircraft carriers by 2060, and it’s unclear how giving fuel to Australia might affect that supply, Reif said.

Australia, which is planning to refurbish its six conventionally powered Collins-class guided-missile submarines, had also intended to buy another 12 conventional subs designed by French shipbuilder Naval Group. The first ship in the $90 billion program was expected to be delivered in the early 2030s. That program will reportedly be canceled so that Australia can pursue acquisition of nuclear subs instead.
Posted by at No comments:

Aussie/UK/US pact threatens global efforts to stem spread of nukes

September 17, 2021
Ceasefire.ca
Blog
A “terrible decision” for nuclear non-proliferation

On September 15, 2021 the American, British and Australian presidents announced a new strategic partnership, with the acronym AUKUS, intended to improve security in the Indo-Pacific.

President Biden stated:

Today, we’re taking another historic step to deepen and formalize cooperation among all three of our nations, because we all recognize the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long term.

This partnership comes with the further “bombshell” announcement that the United States and the UK will transfer highly sensitive nuclear-propulsion technology to Australia. Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in an article entitled The new Australia, UK, and US nuclear submarine announcement: a terrible decision for the non-proliferation regime, Sébastien Philippe states:


Such a decision is a fundamental policy reversal for the United States, which has in the past spared no effort to thwart the transfer of naval reactor technology by other countries, except for its World War II partner, the United Kingdom….

If not reversed one way or another, the AUKUS decision could have major implications for the nonproliferation (sic) regime.

Philippe recalls American opposition to Canadian efforts in the 1980s to acquire French or British nuclear-powered submarines, although he overstates the role of the USA in Canada’s cancellation of the programme.

RI President Peggy Mason, then working in the office of Foreign Minister Joe Clark, comments:


The arrogant, heavy-handed American reaction gave Canadian nuclear-powered sub proponents the rallying cry of “arctic sovereignty”, making it harder for those of us within the Foreign Ministry opposed to this plan on non-proliferation grounds to make our case.

What ultimately killed the deal, however, was the spiralling cost since neither the French nor the British had under-ice capable submarines.

On the content of the nuclear non-proliferation concerns that were conveyed to Canada at the time by officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Philippe explains:


[T]he nonproliferation treaty has a well-known loophole: non-nuclear weapon states can remove fissile materials from international control for use in non-weapon military applications, specifically to fuel nuclear submarine reactors. These reactors require a significant amount of uranium to operate. Moreover, to make them as compact as possible, most countries operate their naval reactors with nuclear-weapon-usable highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel.

With tons of weapons-grade uranium out of international safeguards, what could go wrong?

Arms control experts have long been concerned about the naval propulsion loophole, particularly when Brazil in the 1960s began its long (and still-ongoing) effort to acquire nuclear-propelled submarines.

Whether it is Brazil or Australia that is first to deploy a nuclear-powered naval submarine, that country will be the first non-nuclear weapons state party to the NPT to remove fissile material — uranium — from international safeguards to non-monitored military use.

Potential cascading effects of this decision

Philippe speculates on the potential demonstration effect of this action by Australia, heretofore considered a staunch defender of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Among the highly negative effects he outlines are:
France may relax its position on not transferring naval reactor technology to Brazil as they continue to help that country build its first nuclear-powered attack submarine;
South Korea may ask the USA or other nations for an arrangement similar to Australia’s, citing threats from North Korea;
Russia could begin new naval reactor cooperation with China to boost that country’s submarine capabilities; and
Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan could explore new transfer opportunities in relation to this technology.

Note that Iran in 2012 expressed interest in enriching uranium to HEU levels for a possible submarine programme.

Philippe concludes:


Until now, it was the US commitment to nonproliferation that relentlessly crushed or greatly limited these aspirations toward nuclear-powered submarine technology.

With the new AUKUS decision, we can now expect the proliferation of very sensitive military nuclear technology in the coming years, with literally tons of new nuclear materials under loose or no international safeguards. [emphasis added]

Huge technical hurdles, unknown costs lie ahead for Australia


There are huge technical hurdles for Australia to overcome, given its almost complete lack of civilian nuclear power infrastructure. And the cost is “anyone’s guess”.

But the biggest challenge will undoubtedly be that of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even if Australia voluntarily agrees to international monitoring, Philippe describes the IAEA dilemma:


The agency, which is currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information.

The AUKUS agreement provides 18 months for the parties to hammer out the details. In the meantime, domestic opposition is brewing and the current Australian Prime Minister is struggling in the polls.

China and France denounce US nuclear sub pact with Britain, Australia

The title above is also a 16 September 2021 Reuter’s headline, demonstrating that this ill-conceived deal has united in opposition both a close American ally and the very adversary that the new defence pact is intended to guard against.

China’s opposition is two-fold, citing both nuclear non-proliferation concerns and an “obsolete cold war zero sum mentality”. In the words of the Foreign Ministry spokesperson:


The nuclear submarine cooperation between the US, the UK and Australia has seriously undermined regional peace and stability, intensified the arms race and undermined international non-proliferation efforts.

The export of highly sensitive nuclear submarine technology to Australia by the US and the UK proves once again that they are using nuclear exports as a tool for geopolitical game and adopting double standards. This is extremely irresponsible.

As for France &mash; whose $90 billion dollar contract with Australia for diesel-powered subs was summarily cancelled to make way for the nuclear-powered subs — one quote from Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian suffices to underscore the intensity of their reaction:


It’s a stab in the back. This unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision is very similar to what Mr. Trump used to do.

And this condemnation was followed on Friday by France taking the extraordinary step of recalling its ambassadors to the US and to Australia.

New Zealand PM: these subs will not be permitted in our waters

As for Australia’s neighbour, New Zealand, while careful not to criticize the new defence pact per se, Prime Minister Ardern made it clear that the nuclear-powered subs would not be welcome:


New Zealand’s position in relation to the prohibition of nuclear-powered vessels in our waters remains unchanged.

In the view of Ceasefire.ca, the agreement to transfer highly sensitive nuclear technology and nuclear material to Australia should be condemned on both arms control and non-proliferation grounds and we concur with the following conclusion by Sébastien Philippe:


It is difficult to understand the internal policy process that led the Democratic Biden administration to the AUKUS submarine announcement. It seems that just like in the old Cold War, arms racing and the search for short-term strategic advantage is now bipartisan.

Whither Canada?

Like New Zealand, Canada has soft-pedalled the significance of this new pact, and made no public comment on the negative non-proliferation implications.

That Conservative leader Erin O’Toole would seek Canada’s participation in this misconceived deal is entirely unsurprising.

What is truly astonishing and disturbing, however, is the apparent concurrence of NDP leader Jagmeet Singh:


The pact seems like a potential avenue to add more pressure [on China]. Canada was absent.

Since the NDP has a strong, long-standing position in support of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, we can only assume that Singh was not briefed on the highly problematic implications of the AUKUS deal for containing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Election Call:

We call on all federal parties to recommit publicly to the goals of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament enshrined in the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The growing chasm between China and the USA

For some balance and context that is utterly lacking in most Canadian media coverage of China, we draw readers’ attention to an excellent webinar hosted by the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy (IPD) entitled Ambassador Chas Freeman: The Sino-American split.

The event webpage includes a transcript of the ambassador’s opening remarks as well as a link to the full webinar. The ambassador concludes his opening statement thusly:


And that is why it distresses me as an American to say that, while China will not gain from the Sino-American split, the United States seems likely to lose from it.

We strongly recommend reading the opening remarks in their entirety, as well as listening to the one-on-one discussion between Ambassador Freeman and Dr. Wenran Jian, an IPD advisor, by clicking here.

Call from across party lines to end Canadian arms sales to Saudi Arabia


So long as the arms continue to flow, this war is just going to get worse

Four former members of Parliament, from four different parties, joined together to pen an opinion piece for the Ottawa Citizen urging Canada to stop arming Saudi Arabia. They are Libby Davies (NDP), Daniel Turp (BQ), Douglas Roche (PC) and Adam Vaughan (Liberal).

They write:

[A]s former members of Parliament from four of Canada’s five major political parties, we find ourselves in agreement on a pressing foreign policy issue that must transcend party lines: Ending Canada’s arms exports to Saudi Arabia must be a priority of the next government, regardless of its political stripe….

The next government of Canada should follow in the footsteps of several European countries and immediately suspend arms exports to Saudi [Arabia], expand humanitarian assistance to Yemen, and play a diplomatic role in bringing an end to this brutal conflict.

Upcoming webinar on Afghanistan on 23 September from 11:00 to 12:30 EST

Further to our many recent posts on the situation in Afghanistan, we are pleased now to announce a webinar hosted by the University of Ottawa Centre for International Policy Studies (CIPS) and the Fragile States Research Network entitled Afghanistan 360 Degrees… So Now What? The poster accompanying the event announcement reads in part:

Join us for a deeper look at Afghanistan and the post-9/11 path to 2021 and beyond.

Professor and development practitioner Nipa Banerjee will moderate a discussion featuring former Afghanistan Ambassador to Canada Omar Samad and current Rideau Institute President Peggy Mason. This will mark the first public engagement together for Samad and Mason since their online Globe and Mail moderated discussion on 18 May 2006.

Don’t miss this timely discussion! To register on Eventbrite, click here.

Photo credit: Wikimedia (UK Trafalgar class nuclear-powered submarine)

Posted by at No comments:



Inspiration4: How much does SpaceX’s all-civilian space launch cost?
Adam Smith
Thu, 16 September 2021

The Independent
Inspiration4, an all-civilian private space flight from SpaceX, is set to launch on 15 September.

A team of four astronauts – including a teacher, a cancer survivor, a raffle winner, and an internet entrepreneur - will leave Kennedy Space Center in a SpaceX Dragon capsule will be put on top of a Falcon 9 rocket. They will journey upwards to a maximum of 600 kilometres from Earth, and descend into the Atlantic Ocean after three days.

The mission’s purpose is predominantly marketing for private space travel, and the amount of money spent on the mission remains unknown. Jared Isaacman, the billionaire chief executive of Shift4 Payments, has an estimated net worth of $2.4 billion, and agreed a confidential deal with SpaceX to travel into orbit, but there are clues to how much it might have cost.

“This mission has been secured by a private transaction between Jared Isaacman and SpaceX. The terms are not being disclosed. Separately, Inspiration4 has a goal of raising over $200 million dollars for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital with Jared Isaacman personally committing $100 million”, says a statement on the space company’s FAQ page. The choice of charity is because its global impact “really resonated with Jared”.

Mr Isaacman’s company apparently “did not invest in the mission [and this] is very much a private transaction between Jared Isaacman and SpaceX.”

While it is not exactly clear how much money would have changed hands between Mr Isaacman and SpaceX, CEO Elon Musk has said since 2016 that the launch cost of a Falcon 9 rocket is $62 million, and SpaceX director of vehicle integration Christopher Couluris said in a briefing in 2020 that the company can “bring launches down to below $30 million per launch.”

″[The rocket] costs $28 million to launch it, that’s with everything,” Couluris said, adding that reusing the rockets is “bringing the price down.”

The Inspiration4 mission is likely to have accrued extra costs, however, given the additional resources needed because it will include a crew. Unlike most of its missions – the launch of its Starlink internet satellites, for instance – SpaceX will also have to make sure the crew are safe in orbit as well as when they land on the ground.

The cost of the launch is also likely to cost less than the money raised by the raffle ticket sales. Almost 72,000 people entered the competition, raising around $113 million – with the winner being chosen at random.

Critics of private space launches, who have levied complaints against billionaire CEOs including Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson taking vanity trips to high altitudes rather than spending their money solving the multitude of problems on Earth, will argue that this flight has little other meaning bar advertising for SpaceX.

On its FAQ, the company has an answer: that “hardship and suffering have unfortunately been present throughout human history, but we can no sooner turn away from the great need all around us than we can put innovation and progress on hold. We have to find ways to do both”.

It goes on to claim that Inspiration4 “represents an investment in the future, so we can solve the problems of tomorrow”, comparing it to the Manhattan Project, which resulted in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the subsequent development of nuclear medicine.

“There have been a number of significant innovations and recent progress that we can attribute to space travel in our recent history alone, ranging from the health and medical advances such as improved water purification technology, greatly-improved human prosthetics, even bringing the world closer together through SpaceX Starlink program, would have been unaffordable had it not been for investments made years ago in reusable rocket technology”.

Read More

SpaceX launch live: Inspiration4 latest updates as crew reaches orbit

When will SpaceX’s Inspiration4 be visible?
Posted by at No comments:
50-year-old UAE to pour billions into UK
Thu, 16 September 2021


Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan met Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson at Downing Street (AFP/JUSTIN TALLIS)More

HM BUTTMAN

The United Arab Emirates will invest billions into the UK under a strategic partnership marking 50 years since its founding after British rule, both governments announced Thursday.

The five-year investment worth £10 billion ($13.8 billion, 11.7 billion euros) will focus on technology, infrastructure and climate-focused energy transition, according to a joint statement.

It was announced following talks in London between Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, the UAE's de facto ruler.

The pair inspected a British Army honour guard as the energy-rich UAE builds up to the December celebration of its founding in 1971, after Britain had relinquished control over its constituent emirates.

Mubadala, Abu Dhabi's sovereign wealth fund, said its investment plans would "drive a significant increase" across the three target sectors, building on an existing deal.

In March, Mubadala committed an initial £800 million to UK life sciences including healthcare research over five years.

The new investment is a boost to the Johnson government's vows to boost trade with the rest of the world, including the Middle East, after Britain left the European Union fully in January.

"This partnership has gone from strength to strength and its expansion is evidence of its effectiveness and what we can achieve with important trade and investment partners like the UAE through investment," Minister for Investment Gerry Grimstone said.

UK-UAE trade was worth £18.6 billion in 2019 and two-way investment came to £13.4 billion, according to British government data.

"Today's expansion of our Sovereign Investment Partnership will help accelerate funding and innovation in key sectors that are foundational to economic growth of both nations," said Mubadala chief executive Khaldoon Al Mubarak.

In the run-up to Britain hosting the COP26 summit in November, the new partnership envisages energy giant BP collaborating with the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and renewables firm Masdar on climate-focused investments.

Those potentially include "low-carbon hydrogen hubs" and the creation of a carbon-neutral air corridor between the two countries, the statement said.

The partnership also encompasses reinforcing strong military ties between Britain and the UAE, whose relations with Gulf neighbour Iran are tense.

Britain said it planned to increase land exercises in the UAE.

Abu Dhabi and foundation linked to Ikea invest in full fibre broadband

August Graham
Thu, 16 September 2021

Vodafone and TalkTalk are among the companies that use CityFibre’s network. 
(Dominic Lipinski/PA) (PA Wire)

The Government of Abu Dhabi and a foundation linked to furniture giant Ikea have thrown £825 million at an effort to roll out full-fibre broadband in the UK.

CityFibre said that it had secured more than £1.1 billion to invest, including £300 million worth of new loans.

It is money that will help the company reach into a third of UK homes by the middle of the decade, it said on Thursday.

Investors include Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, the Mubadala Investment Company, and Interogo Holding – which is owned by a foundation set up to “safeguard the IKEA Concept”.

The UK is open for business and attracting investments like this as a high-value, high-growth science superpower, specialising in industries of the future
Boris Johnson

“This new capital will not only underpin our rollout to up to eight million homes across 285 cities, towns and villages, but will also enable our participation in the Government’s Project Gigabit programme to extend our future-proof infrastructure to rural areas and ensure no one is left behind,” said the CityFibre chief executive, Greg Mesch.

“If nurtured and protected, infrastructure competition at scale will continue to unleash huge investment from the private sector as well as catalyse investment from incumbent operators.”

CityFibre’s network is used by Vodafone and TalkTalk among other internet providers. It is live in 46 places around the UK.

Prime Minister, Boris Johnson said: “The Government is committed to making high-speed broadband available for every part of the UK, and this exciting investment will turbocharge the UK’s full-fibre rollout. It will revolutionise people’s lives and generate huge economic benefits, jobs and growth.

“The UK is open for business and attracting investments like this as a high-value, high-growth science superpower, specialising in industries of the future.”


Posted by at No comments:
UPDATED
World Bank kills business climate report after ethics probe cites 'undue pressure' on rankings


By Andrea Shalal and David Lawder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The World Bank Group on Thursday said it ended publication of its "Doing Business" report on country investment climates after a probe of data irregularities cited "undue pressure" by top bank officials, including then-Chief Executive Kristalina Georgieva, to boost China's ranking in 2017.

The World Bank said in a statement https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2021/09/16/world-bank-group-to-discontinue-doing-business-report 
that the decision came after internal audit reports had raised "ethical matters, including the conduct of former Board officials as well as current and/or former Bank staff" and a board investigation conducted by the law firm WilmerHale.

The Wilmer Hale report https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/84a922cc9273b7b120d49ad3b9e9d3f9-0090012021/original/DB-Investigation-Findings-and-Report-to-the-Board-of-Executive-Directors-September-15-2021.pdf 

cited "direct and indirect pressure" from senior staff in the office of then-World Bank President Jim Yong Kim to change the report's methodology to boost China's score, and said it likely occurred at his direction.

It also said that Georgieva, now the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and a key adviser pressured staff to "make specific changes to China's data points" and boost its ranking at a time when the bank was seeking China's support for a big capital increase.

China's ranking in the "Doing Business 2018" report published in October 2017, rose seven places to 78th after the data methodology changes were made, compared with the initial draft report.

The Doing Business report assesses regulatory environments, ease of business startups, infrastructure and other business climate measures.

"I disagree fundamentally with the findings and interpretations of the investigation of data irregularities as it relates to my role in the World Bank’s Doing Business report of 2018," Georgieva said in a statement issued by the IMF. She added that she had met with the IMF's executive board to discuss the matter.

The WilmerHale report also cited irregularities in the data used to determine rankings for Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan in the "Doing Business 2020" report published in 2019, but found no evidence that any members of the bank's Office of the President or executive board were involved in these changes.

"Going forward, we will be working on a new approach to assessing the business and investment climate," the World Bank said in a statement.

(Reporting by David Lawder and Andrea Shalal; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

IMF chief called out over pressure to favor China while at World Bank

Andrea Shalal and David Lawder
Thu, 16 September 2021, 


IMF chief called out over pressure to favor China while at World BankFILE PHOTO: International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva speaks during a news conference in Washington

By Andrea Shalal and David Lawder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - World Bank leaders, including then-Chief Executive Kristalina Georgieva, applied "undue pressure" on staff to boost China's ranking in the bank's "Doing Business 2018" report, according to an independent investigation released Thursday.

The report, prepared by law firm WilmerHale at the request of the bank's ethics committee, raises concerns about China's influence at the World Bank, and the judgment of Georgieva - now managing director of the International Monetary Fund - and then-World Bank President Jim Yong Kim.

Georgieva said she disagreed "fundamentally with the findings and interpretations" of the report and had briefed the IMF's executive board.

The World Bank Group on Thursday canceled the entire "Doing Business" https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2021/09/16/statement-on-release-of-investigation-into-data-irregularities-in-doing-business-2018-and-2020 
report on business climates, saying internal audits and the WilmerHale investigation had raised "ethical matters, including the conduct of former Board officials, as well as current and/or former Bank staff."

The U.S. Treasury Department, which manages the dominant U.S. shareholdings in the IMF and the World Bank, said it was analyzing what it called the "serious findings."

The WilmerHale report https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/84a922cc9273b7b120d49ad3b9e9d3f9-0090012021/original/DB-Investigation-Findings-and-Report-to-the-Board-of-Executive-Directors-September-15-2021.pdf

 cited "direct and indirect pressure" from senior staff in Kim's office to change the report's methodology to boost China's score, and said it likely occurred at his direction.

It said Georgieva, and a key adviser, Simeon Djankov, had pressured staff to "make specific changes to China's data points" and boost its ranking at a time when the bank was seeking China's support for a big capital increase.

Kim did not respond to a request for comment. Djankov could not be immediately reached.

China's ranking in the "Doing Business 2018" report, published in October 2017, rose seven places to 78th after the data methodology changes were made, compared with the initial draft report.

The "Doing Business" report ranks countries based on their regulatory and legal environments, ease of business startups, financing, infrastructure and other business climate measures.

'SERIOUS FINDINGS'

The report comes nearly two years after Georgieva took over as IMF chief, shortly before the biggest global economic crisis in the Fund's 76-year history, prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The U.S. Treasury is analyzing "serious findings" in the WilmerHale report, Treasury spokeswoman Alexandra LaManna told Reuters. "Our primary responsibility is to uphold the integrity of international financial institutions.”

The WilmerHale report also cited pressures related to data used to determine rankings for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Azerbaijan in the "Doing Business 2020" report published in 2019, but found no evidence that any members of the World Bank's Office of the President or executive board were involved in these changes.

Saudi Arabia climbed 30 places to 62nd in the "Doing Business 2020" report https://www.reuters.com/article/us-worldbank-regulation-rankings-idUKKBN1X304R.

"Going forward, we will be working on a new approach to assessing the business and investment climate," the World Bank said.

WilmerHale said it was hired by the lender's International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in January to review the internal circumstances that led to the data irregularities. It said the bank supported the probe, but it was wholly independent.

CAPITAL INCREASE

The report said the push to boost China's ranking came at a time when the bank's management was "consumed with sensitive negotiations" over a major capital increase, and China's disappointment over a lower-than-expected score.

Georgieva told WilmerHale investigators that "multilateralism was at stake, and the Bank was in 'very deep trouble' if the campaign missed its goals," the report said.

The World Bank in 2018 announced 


a $13 billion-paid in capital increase that boosted China's shareholding stake to 6.01% from 4.68%.

WilmerHale said Georgieva visited the home of a "Doing Business" manager to retrieve a hard copy of the final report that reflected changes that boosted China's ranking, and thanked the employee for helping "resolve the problem."

The report said a "toxic culture" and "fear of retaliation" surrounded the Doing Business report, and said members of that team "felt that they could not challenge an order from the Bank's president or CEO without risking their jobs."

Nonprofit group Oxfam welcomed the bank's decision to discontinue the Doing Business report, saying it had long encouraged governments to slash labor regulations and corporate taxes in order to improve their spot in the rankings.

Former World Bank chief economist Paul Romer first voiced concerns about the integrity of the "Doing Business" report in 2018, saying Chile's ranking may have been biased against socialist then-President Michelle Bachelet. Romer left the bank shortly after his comments.

(Reporting by David Lawder and Andrea Shalal; Editing by Marguerita Choy, Heather Timmons, and Jon Boyle)

Posted by at No comments:
Facebook boosts fight against conspiracies and violent groups

Thu, 16 September 2021,

Facebook unveiled a new effort to fight malicious information on its platform (AFP/Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV)

Facebook has launched an effort targeting users working together on the platform to promote real-world violence or conspiracy theories, beginning by taking down a German network spreading Covid misinformation.

The new tool announced Thursday is meant to detect organized, malicious efforts that are a threat but fall short of the social media giant's existing rules against hate groups, said Facebook's head of security policy Nathaniel Gleicher.

Facebook has been under relentless pressure to guard against being a platform where misinformation and hate can spread, while at the same time remain a forum for people to speak freely. It has struggled to respond.

Under the new effort, users who work together to "amplify their group's harmful behavior" and repeatedly violate the platform rules can have their accounts shut down.

Facebook is looking for groups of users that do things like "brigading," or ganging up on other accounts, to flood them with comments or complaints.

"We recognize this challenge is complex," Facebook threat disruption director David Agranovich told a press briefing.

"We need to be careful and deliberate... to distinguish between people who organically come together to organize for social change, and the types of adversarial networks that can cause social harm," he added.

A series of recent Wall Street Journal articles has cast a harsh light on the company for failing to protect teenage users of its photo app Instagram, but also for shielding VIPs from some of the network's own restrictions.

Under the new effort, Facebook has removed fewer than 150 accounts, pages, or groups operated by people associated with the Querdenken movement, which opposes anti-Covid measures like mask-wearing and lockdowns.

People behind the accounts, some of which were on Instagram, boosted content that portrayed violence as the way to overturn German government efforts against the virus, according to Facebook.

The social network cited public reports that the group took part in violence against journalists, police and medical practitioners in Germany.

The new enforcement tool will take aim at groups with histories of violating Facebook's rules and trying to dodge accountability.

Gleicher said the network has been developing this new tool since before the start of this year, as harmful social media campaigns increasingly enlisted real users to spread posts.

He noted bad actors "deliberately blur the lines" between real people expressing their ideas and deliberate manipulation, in order to be harder to catch.

gc/jm

Facebook deletes accounts of German anti-lockdown group

The tech giant says the Querdenken (Lateral Thinking) movement was causing "social harm" by promoting conspiracy theories against coronavirus restrictions.



The Querdenken protests have attracted a group of coronavirus skeptics and anti-vaxxers

Social media giant Facebook deleted nearly 150 accounts, pages and groups linked with Germany's Querdenken (Lateral Thinking) movement, the platform's representatives said on Thursday. The movement made its reputation by accusing the media and politicians of lying about the coronavirus pandemic.

"The people behind this activity used authentic and duplicate accounts to post and amplify violating content, primarily focused on promoting the conspiracy that the German government's COVID-19 restrictions are part of a larger plan to strip citizens of their freedoms and basic rights," Facebook head of security policy, Nathaniel Gleicher, told reporters.

The clampdown included both Facebook's own platform and Instagram, which is owned by Facebook. The company blocked domains linked with the movement from being shared. Accounts of Querdenken founder Michael Ballweg have also been affected.
Facebook to monitor, 'take action' if needed

The group gained popularity during anti-lockdown protests in Germany, and attracted various fringe groups including people from the far-right. At several anti-lockdown protests, police officers and journalists were attacked by the members of the movement.

According to Facebook, individuals linked with the Querdenken movement repeatedly violated the platform's standards against spreading health misinformation, incitement of violence, bullying, harassment and hate speech. Gleicher said the group was causing "coordinated social harm."

However, Facebook said it was not banning all Querdenken content. The company was "continuing to monitor the situation and will take action" if necessary, according to Facebook representative Gleicher.
Deleted from YouTube

The clampdown is the first time Facebook is taking action against the so-called "social harm" campaigns. Such campaigns "typically involve networks of primarily authentic users who organize to systematically violate our policies to cause harm on or off our platform," Gleicher said.

In May this year, YouTube removed the Querdenken 711 channel with its parent company Google accusing it of violating YouTube's misinformation guidelines.







Posted by at No comments:
Pandemic-hit Qantas weighs new pay structure to keep key executives


Thu, 16 September 2021, 

FILE PHOTO: A crew member walks from a Qantas plane at a 
domestic terminal at Sydney Airport in Sydney


SYDNEY (Reuters) - Qantas Airways Ltd said on Friday it was considering new ways to structure pay to ensure it could retain key executives as it enters the third financial year affected by the pandemic-driven slowdown in travel.

Qantas Chairman Richard Goyder said executives had faced a high workload with no annual bonuses for the last two years, and a continued wage freeze at a time when attrition was rising across the airline.

"Our executive cohorts are talented and in increasing demand across a range of industries, many of which, unlike aviation and tourism, are experiencing high rates of growth and activity, with financial rewards to match," he said in the airline's annual report.

In the case of CEO Alan Joyce and executive management, any incentive plan would take the place of the traditional annual bonus plan, Goyder said, adding that a decision was expected in the second half of the financial year.

Joyce's total annual pay rose to A$1.97 million ($1.44 million) in the 12 months ended June 30, up 13% from a year earlier, when he had taken a period of zero base pay, but his pay remained 80% below pre-COVID levels.

Joyce has said he expected to stay in his role until at least July 2023 to complete a three-year recovery plan designed to cut ongoing annual costs by A$1 billion.

In a separate note to staff seen by Reuters, Goyder said the company would look to reward all employees if the recovery plan is completed successfully by that date.

"Nothing is finalised but we look forward to sharing more detail in the first quarter of next year," he said.

Other companies in the travel sector, including Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd and Air New Zealand Ltd, have offered shares to all employees as part of retention efforts.

($1 = 1.3689 Australian dollars)

(Reporting by Jamie Freed. Editing by Gerry Doyle)
Posted by at No comments:
PERMANENT WAR ECONOMY


'Great power rivalry' fuels Pacific arms race frenzy

AFP - 1h ago

A quick barrage of missile tests and bumper defence deals in the Pacific have highlighted a regional arms race that is intensifying as the China-US rivalry grows.

"There's a little frenzy in the Indo-Pacific of arming up," said Yonsei University professor John Delury. "There's a sense of everyone's doing it."

Within 24 hours this week, North Korea fired off two railway-borne weapons, South Korea successfully tested its first submarine-launched ballistic missile, and Australia announced the unprecedented purchase of state-of-the-art US nuclear-powered submarines and cruise missiles.


© STRExperts say defence spending increases across the Pacific are a reaction to China's military expenditure

A remarkable flurry, but indicative of a region spending apace on the latest wonders of modern weaponry, experts say.

Last year alone, the Asia and Oceania region lavished more than half a trillion US dollars on its militaries, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.


© John SAEKIGraphic on nuclear submarines around the world

"You've really seen an upward trend for the last 20 years," the institute's Lucie Beraud-Sudreau told AFP. "Asia is really the region where the uptick trend is the most noticeable."

She points to a perfect storm of rapid economic growth -- which puts more money in the government kitties -- and changing "threat perceptions" in the region.

- Big brothers -

China accounts for about half of Asia's total and has increased defence spending every year for the last 26 years, turning the People's Liberation Army into a modern fighting force.


Beijing now spends an estimated $252 billion a year -- up 76 percent since 2011 -- allowing it to project power across the region and directly challenge US primacy.

But defence spending in Australia, India, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere is also gathering pace.

Michael Shoebridge, a former Australian defence intelligence official, now with the Australia Strategic Policy Institute, believes that spending is a direct reaction to China.

"The actual military competition is between China and other partners that are wanting to deter China from using force," he said.

"That reaction has just grown, particularly since Xi (Jinping) has become leader. He's clearly interested in using all the power that China gains fairly coercively and aggressively."

Today around 20 percent of the region's defence spending is on procurement, notably on maritime assets and long-range deterrence designed to convince Beijing -- or any other adversary -- that the cost of attack is too high.

Shoebridge points to Australia's landmark decision Thursday to acquire at least eight US nuclear-powered submarines and an unspecified number of Tomahawk cruise missiles.

"They're all focused on raising the cost to China of engaging in military conflict. They're a pretty effective counter to the kinds of capabilities the PLA has been building."

But even South Korean spending "is as much driven by China as North Korea," he said. "There's no explanation for (Seoul's decision to build) an aircraft carrier that involves North Korea."

Similarly, "India's military modernisation is clearly driven by China's growing military power," Shoebridge added.

For its part China -- fond of describing its relationship with the United States as "great power rivalry" -- accuses the United States of fuelling the arms race.

In the words of state-backed tabloid the Global Times, Washington is "hysterically polarising its alliance system."

If fear of China is the driving force behind regional defence spending, then the United States has appeared happy to speed the process along, actively helping regional allies to beef up.

As China and Japan were "blazing forward" with defence programmes, Delury says Washington has been "aiding and abetting" allies "in the name of deterring China."

"We're not seeing arms control here, we're seeing the opposite," he said.

seb-arb/jfx/mtp


Australia shrugs off China anger on nuclear subs

Issued on: 17/09/2021 - 
The deal extends US nuclear submarine technology to Australia as well as cyber defence, applied artificial intelligence and undersea capabilities
 Jamica Johnson US NAVY/AFP/File

Sydney (AFP)

Australia on Friday shrugged off Chinese anger over its decision to acquire US nuclear-powered submarines, while vowing to defend the rule of law in airspace and waters where Beijing has staked hotly contested claims.

US President Joe Biden announced the new Australia-US-Britain defence alliance on Wednesday, extending US nuclear submarine technology to Australia as well as cyber defence, applied artificial intelligence and undersea capabilities.

Beijing described the new alliance as an "extremely irresponsible" threat to regional stability, questioning Australia's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and warning the Western allies that they risked "shooting themselves in the foot".

China has its own "very substantive programme of nuclear submarine building", Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison argued Friday in an interview with radio station 2GB.

"They have every right to take decisions in their national interests for their defence arrangements and of course so does Australia and all other countries," he said.

In a series of media interviews, the Australian leader said his government was reacting to changing dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region where territory is increasingly contested and competition is rising.

Australia is "very aware" of China's nuclear submarine capabilities and growing military investment, he told Channel Seven television.

"We are interested in ensuring that international waters are always international waters and international skies are international skies, and that the rule of law applies equally in all of these places," he said.

The first contingent of US Marines to be deployed in Australia arrived in Darwin in 2012
 Christopher Dickson AUSTRALIAN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE/AFP/File

Australia wanted to ensure that there were no "no-go zones" in areas governed by international law, the prime minister said.

"That's very important whether it is for trade, whether it is for things like undersea cables, for planes and where they can fly. I mean that is the order that we need to preserve. That is what peace and stability provides for and that is what we are seeking to achieve."

- 'Stab in the back' -

The Australian move also infuriated France, aghast at losing a contract to supply conventional submarines to Australia that was worth Aus$50 billion (31 billion euros, $36.5 billion) when signed in 2016.

Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said it was a "stab in the back" from Australia.

But the main backdrop to the alliance is China's rise.

China claims almost all of the resource-rich South China Sea, through which trillions of dollars in shipping trade passes annually, rejecting competing claims from Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

Beijing has been accused of deploying a range of military hardware including anti-ship missiles and surface-to-air missiles there, and ignored a 2016 international tribunal decision that declared its historical claim over most of the waters to be without basis.

An aerial shot of Chinese development on the disputed Subi reef in the Spratlys 
TED ALJIBE AFP/File

China has also imposed tough trade sanctions on a range of Australian products, widely seen in Australia as a reaction to Canberra's opposition to Chinese investment in sensitive areas and to its questioning of the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.

- 'The forever partnership' -

Morrison said the new defence alliance, prepared in 18 months of discussions with the United States and Britain, will be permanent.

"It involves a very significant commitment not just today but forever. That is why I refer to it as the forever partnership. It is one that will see Australia kept secure and safe into the future," he said.

Australia's defence spending will rise, Morrison said, as the new alliance also requires greater investment in cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and undersea capabilities.

Morrison told Australian media that the defence alliance had been "well received" in his discussions so far with leaders in Japan, India, Singapore, New Zealand, Fiji, and Papua New Guinea.

Indonesia's government said it took note "cautiously" of the agreement. "Indonesia is deeply concerned over the continuing arms race and power projection in the region," the foreign ministry added in a statement.

Dutton said Australia was willing to host more US Marines on rotation through the northern city of Darwin and wanted to see air capability enhanced.

© 2021 AFP



Australian submarine deal boosts Ultra Electronics takeover prospects


James Titcomb
Thu, 16 September 2021

Submarine - PA/PA Wire

A new security pact between Britain, America and Australia has weakened the rationale for blocking the US private equity takeover of Ultra Electronics, which supplies kit for Britain's nuclear submarines, experts have said.

Advent International's pursuit of Ultra is thought to be more likely to succeed after the three countries agreed to share sensitive data under the so-called Aukus agreement.

Ministers last month ordered a national security review into the £2.6bn takeover of Ultra amid concerns over top-secret technology developed by Ultra for the Royal Navy falling into another country's hands.

Ultra makes electronic equipment which is so vital for Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent that it was feared security could be endangered even if the company was owned by a business in a close ally such as the US.

However, the new pact means that the UK and US are now committed to sharing even more information than before. The three countries will be collaborating on nuclear propulsion technology to help the Royal Australian Navy build attack submarines.

Peter Sandeman, an analyst at Navy Lookout, said: “The Aukus agreement shows we are getting closer militarily and that probably means that the ownership of Ultra by a business in an Allied nation is more acceptable.

“We are getting closer to Americans all the time selling industrial businesses to the US and it is obviously not as catastrophic as these businesses being taken over by the Chinese or even European owners.”

Henry Carver, an analyst at Peel Hunt, said: “It should allay some concerns around security in that it highlights how closely the US Department of Defence and UK Ministry of Defence work together.”

He said the Government may require intellectual property to be safeguarded in the takeover, but that will not necessarily mean the deal has to ne blocked.

Advent has agreed a £35.16-a-share offer with Ultra’s directors to buy the company through Cobham, the British defence contractor it took over last year for £4bn. It has committed to legally binding undertakings to assuage national security concerns, but has not yet revealed what these are.

The takeover is controversial since Advent has sold off much of Cobham’s operations since buying the company, raising fears that the same could happen to Ultra.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the Business Secretary, last month ordered the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct a national security review of the deal by January 18. He has the power to block it if significant concerns are raised.

Ultra’s shares were up 0.5pc on Thursday. Ultra and Advent declined to comment.

Separately, Babcock has landed the first export contract for its Arrowhead 140 lightweight frigate design from Indonesia, which will build the two of the ships in local yards.

The FTSE 250 defence company is selling five of the ships to the Royal Navy for £250m each. It has only provided the design to Indonesia and the new contract is understood to be worth less than £20m

Rolls-Royce and BAE set to benefit after Australia spurns French submarines

Alan Tovey
Thu, 16 September 2021, 

Astute

“These are the most complicated machines humans to have ever built,” said a senior officer of one of the Royal Navy's latest nuclear-powered submarines. “The space shuttle doesn’t even come close," he added, showing off the Western world’s most advanced attack vessel.

Not only are they the most complex, but also the most secret assets in a country’s arsenal, containing technology critical to national security.

Thursday's announcement of a pact between the UK, US and Australia to build nuclear-powered submarines, is, therefore, a landmark moment. The partnership will include sharing ultra-classified information to help Australia create at least eight such vessels, which are able to stay submerged and operational until food or the crew’s endurance runs out.

It marks an attempt to counter China's increasingly aggressive military prowess, highlighting the level of threat Western nations think they are up against and the need for co-operation to counter it. A mention of Beijing was, however, avoided in the formal announcement of the tie-up.

The "Aukus" agreement resulted in Australia abandoning a A$90bn (£48bn) contract agreed in 2016 with France for 12 diesel-electric submarines, to replace its ageing Collins class vessels. Deliveries were due to start in the 2030s.

That such an isolated nation, completely dependent on sea trade, was willing to tear up its contract with France's Naval Group and turn to far more expensive vessels shows just how dangerous it thinks China is.

“As a three-ocean nation, it is necessary to have access to the most capable submarine technology available,” the Canberra government said. “We are ready to take the step ... to defend Australia and its national interests.”

Geopolitics aside, the deal is a huge opportunity for British and US defence firms. But building submarines is an incredibly complicated business, even before nuclear power is thrown into the equation.

Under the agreement, Australia will lean on the UK and US navies and their suppliers for expertise needed to construct the submarines’ power systems, and likely also the other technology the vessels contain. The southern nation has no domestic infrastructure to support the nuclear technology, but will need to be able support the new submarines in ports on home soil.

Among British suppliers, BAE Systems is set to be a winner. The defence contractor is currently building the final three of seven nuclear-powered attack submarines, called the Astute class, for the Royal Navy, as well as the first of four Dreadnought submarines to replace the existing Trident nuclear missile models. Both are powered by reactors from engine maker Rolls-Royce.

The two London-listed companies are also involved in the planning of a successor to the Astute, expected to come in mid-to-late 2040s. Shares rose 4pc and 2pc, respectively, after they were namechecked by the Ministry of Defence as it announced the tie-up.

BAE has said it “stands ready to support AUKUS discussions as they progress”, with Rolls adding it that “looks forward to supporting the UK Government in the initial scoping phase for this new endeavour”.

Thales UK - whose French parent owns 35pc of Naval Group - could also be a beneficiary. It supplies the Astute’s highly rated sonar which is able to hear and identify ships hundreds of miles away.

Technology already deployed in the Astute or even its successors could be tapped to go into Australia’s fleet.

Over in America, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries - which both build submarines for the US Navy - are likely to do well from the deal. Both firms produce a class of nuclear-powered fast-attack vessels, named the Virgina, which compete with the UK's Astute for the title of the most capable Western submarine.

What sort of design Australia will actually choose, however, is unknown.

Industry sources say defence companies were caught off guard by the announcement, leaving them to conclude it was driven at the highest political level with little industrial involvement. As such, nothing beyond a broad concept has been decided on.


Virginia class submarine

Working out the requirements for the design is likely to last 18 months, according to the Ministry of Defence. Although details are unclear, insiders say that would not enough time to come up with an entirely new design.

“Building a submarine is mind-bogglingly complex. When you’ve got no nuclear infrastructure, it just adds another order of magnitude of difficulty,” says Pete Sandeman of a military expert at website Navy Lookout.

“What I’d expect to see is an ‘Australianised’ version of the Astute, or possibly a derivation of the US Virginia class. If they go for a blank sheet of paper, that’s going to add another five or ten years before they start to arrive.”

One thing that is certain is the new submarines will be built in Australia, despite expertise coming from abroad.

As the country makes its biggest-ever military purchase, it would not want to see such a vast sum spent entirely abroad. Australia's former contract with France stipulated that at least 60pc of the spend would be at home, with Adelaide chosen as the construction site.

Meanwhile, submarine facilities in the UK and US are full with existing orders. In this area Australia, however, is set for a challenging period ahead in setting up a new yard, which needs vital skills and experience.

The UK 's bitter experience building the first Astute boats is a prime example, resulting in it arriving four years late and £2bn over budget as British industry relearned how to build submarines.

Sandeman says the problem will be even more difficult if Australia tries to do something it has never done before.

“It’s hardly as if there are a load of submarine experts sitting around with nothing to do in the UK and US,” he says. “Abandoning Naval Group may mean that Australia is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire - and it’s worrying because it could be a British fire.”


Still, problems with the French deal may have contributed to Australia’s decision. Costs were spiralling - the project was meant to be about half the price - and delays were creeping in. Reports of disagreements about specifications, how much work would be carried out domestically and that Australia was ready to walk away may have influenced Canberra’s decision to turn to its close allies.

Sandeman says Naval Group’s design - a nuclear-powered vessel converted to diesel-electric - and a mixture of systems from around the world were other factors, possibly along with cultural differences.

“It sounds like it was an uphill struggle,” he says. “A converted French design, with a US command and control system, combined with differences between the Australians and French do things.

“It’s often missed but in something as complex as a submarine, talking the same language and doing things the same way are incredibly important.”

This cultural alignment extends to the deep links between the British and Australian navies, who work closely with their US counterparts.

With Australia having already bought the design for Britain's latest frigate combat ship, the Type 26. Nine are being built by BAE's local arm Down Under.

Sharing technology that makes their submarines more similar, and better able to work together, is perhaps only logical.

The French government, however, labelled the decision a stab in the back with the French ministers saying it was "regrettable, lacked coherence". They added that it "reinforces the need to raise the issue of European strategic autonomy loud and clear".

To view this content, you'll need to update your privacy settings.Please click here to do so.

Twisting the knife a bit deeper, France's ambassador to the US noted in a tweet the decision came “exactly 240 years [after] the French Navy defeated the British Navy in Chesapeake Bay, paving the way for the victory at Yorktown and the independence of the US”.

But with allies like that, and faced with a threat as great as China, perhaps Aukus was inevitable. The only surprise was that it took as long as it did.


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)