Brian Berletic

Overshadowed by ongoing fighting in Eastern Europe and the Middle East as well as growing tensions between the US and China, the ongoing conflict in Myanmar nonetheless constitutes a critical component of what is a larger global conflict.

Depicted by Western governments and Western media as an isolated, internal conflict between a “military dictatorship” and the forces of “democracy,” in actuality the conflict represents decades of Anglo-American attempts to reassert Western control over the former British colony.

Much of the fighting is taking place between the central government and armed ethnic groups that had at one point been a part of the British Empire’s occupation force, utilized by the US and UK during World War 2 against the Japanese, and used ever since to disrupt Myanmar’s ambitions for independence and self-determination.

Alongside these armed ethnic groups, the US has constructed a parallel political establishment, eventually installed into power through compromised elections in 2020.

In 2021, Myanmar’s military removed from power the US client regime headed by Aung San Suu Kyi, advised by literal British and Australian citizens, and supported by a collection of US government-funded and backed political organizations, media platforms, and educational institutions both within and beyond Myanmar’s borders. The US has been semi-covertly backing attempts by the ousted regime to retake power through armed violence ever since.

Psychological Warfare Aims to Break Central Government Resolve 

The fighting has continued mainly along Myanmar’s frontiers, regions that have hosted US-backed armed ethnic groups pursuing separatism for decades, but also at times and to a lesser degree, inside some of Myanmar’s urban centers.

While the US-backed opposition has failed to oust the central government or even significantly threaten it militarily, Western governments and the Western media have attempted to pass off temporary (and eventually reversed) gains as an impending opposition victory. Opposition strikes on central government and military facilities, including in the nation’s capital have also been passed off as growing opposition competence.

The Diplomat in its May 1, 2024 article, “Myanmar’s Revolution Has Entered a New, More Complicated Phase,” claimed:

Naypyidaw, the capital, has also come under unprecedented attack. In early April, a dozen resistance drones breached the city’s defenses and attacked military facilities across the sprawling city. Days later opposition forces fired several rocket attacks which hit a junta airbase next to Naypyidaw’s International Airport. 

Zachary Abuza, a professor at the National War College in Washington, D.C. who focuses on politics and security in Southeast Asia, said that the attack on the capital will have dented the junta’s morale. 

“The drone and rocket attacks on Naypyidaw have caused little physical damage or casualties, but they have caused psychological damage; it is their fortress capital, and the physical manifestation of the bubble that the generals live in,” he said. “Attacks in Naypyidaw are meant to show that there is no place where the generals are safe.”

The very fact that Myanamr’s US-backed opposition must rely on symbolic gestures indicates its military deficiencies.

A similar strategy is being used by US-NATO-backed Ukraine. Missile and drone strikes are carried out against targets deep in Russian territory primarily to generate headlines for a proxy war Washington, London, and Brussels are otherwise decisively losing.

It is a strategy also used throughout the US proxy war in Syria from 2011 onward, with attempts to create psychological momentum designed to panic Damascus and its allies into breaking and fleeing. It too failed.

Another US Proxy War 

US support for the opposition is a full spectrum. Political, media, and militant groups receive huge sums of money and support from the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Weapons and military training are provided by Americans and Europeans working with “humanitarian aid and advocacy organization” like the “Free Burma Rangers,” headed by a US Army veteran revealed to be in direct contact with the US Consulate in Chiang Mai in neighboring Thailand, according to US diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks.

Despite the flow of resources into Myanmar’s opposition, the nature of post-colonial Myanmar constitutes vicious ethnic, religious, and political divides, meaning opposition forces are just as likely to fight with one another as they are the central government.

See-Sawing Battles 

At the moment, the fighting remains stagnant despite headline-grabbing developments like the opposition’s seizure of the town of Myawaddy along the Myanmar-Thailand border. The New York Times reported the capture of the town by opposition fighters in an April 12, 2024 article titled, “Myanmar Rebels Take Key Trading Town, but Counteroffensive Looms.”

By April 24, 2024, less than two weeks later, the New York Times would publish an article titled, “Myanmar’s Junta Recaptures Town That Was a Significant Gain for Rebels.”

The see-sawing nature of the fighting is depicted by the Western media and the Western officials and analysts they interview as a sea change in the opposition’s favor, however Myanmar’s post-colonial history has consisted of decades of such fighting, including the changing of hands of various towns and cities along the edges of the central government’s control.

Just as the opposition is using drones and rockets to symbolically strike at key government and military facilities because they lack the military means to actually threaten them, it is taking vulnerable frontier towns and cities where government forces are spread out thinnest precisely because of its inability to fight and defeat Myanmar’s forces in pitched battles.

Target China 

While ultimately the US seeks to re-install its client regime into power in Myanmar, preventing peace and development in Myanmar is a secondary objective.

The Southeast Asian country serves as an important partner for China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which includes a port and hydrocarbons pipeline running the length of the country to China’s Kunming region. This allows China to move hydrocarbons from the Middle East to China without transiting the Strait of Malacca and other waters that could potentially be blockaded by the US’ growing military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

China’s BRI infrastructure has been repeatedly targeted by the US-backed militancy several times since 2021 as have Chinese businesses operating across Myanmar. Far from a battle between “democracy” and “dictatorship,” the conflict instead is one part of a much wider strategy of encirclement and containment by the United States of China stretching back to the end of World War 2. The US seeks to either control or destabilize nations along China’s periphery either creating US client regimes hostile to Beijing, or security crises along China’s border preventing trade, development, and economic growth of China itself.

An Ambiguous End Game 

The final conclusion of Myanmar’s current conflict is far from clear.

While similar fighting has ebbed and flowed for decades, always ending in the central government’s favor, there are several factors that will determine whether or not this cycle will continue. While Myanmar’s military possesses resources and capabilities beyond the reach of the US-backed militants it is fighting, the ability and will to use them effectively is up to Myanmar’s central political and military leadership.

In terms of the opposition, among the many weaknesses of US-backed armed groups is their inability to work together with other ethnic and political fronts the US is sponsoring. Just as was the case in Syria, while at times the central government was overwhelmed by large numbers of militant operations across the country, the inability to coordinate them allowed government forces to defeat in detail each organization involved before moving on to the next.

A similar strategy appears to be in use by Myanmar’s military. Government forces withdraw where they are stretched, then return in force when resources can be redeployed effectively against opposition deployments. That the opposition is essentially engaged in “hit-and-run” operations exploiting gaps in the central government’s force deployments demonstrates a fundamental weakness requiring asymmetrical strategy and tactics.

Unless the opposition acquires more manpower and resources and/or can coordinate better among themselves, it is unlikely they will get the upper-hand over the central government, barring a fundamental mistake made by the government itself.

Of course, much depends on the wider global conflict the fighting in Myanmar fits into. With the US losing its proxy war in Ukraine, its influence eroding in the Middle East, and the disparity between a rising China and a waning United States continues to grow, Washington’s ability to sustain support for opposition groups within and beyond Myanmar’s borders may come into question. Should that happen, the cycle of deadly, destructive fighting debilitating Myanmar’s development as a nation for decades could begin coming to an end.

The above-mentioned Diplomat article would note the inability of opposition groups to work together.

It cited Aung Thu Nyein, director of the US government-affiliated “Institute for Strategy and Policy Myanmar” based in Chiang Mai, Thailand, saying:

Aung Thu Nyein says that the coming phase of the war could be tricky, and that more junta defeats could paradoxically divide the country further. He says the NUG remains popular in Myanmar among the general population but some of the ethnic groups are moving away from its leadership, forging their own paths and pursuing their own political agendas. 

“The problem is a common agenda against the common enemy and building an alliance to fight together,” he said. But “the ethnic armed organizations can’t do that, and the National Unity Government can’t lead that.”

This means that even if the US-backed opposition was successful in ousting the central government and military, Myanmar itself would only descend further into chaos. The central government stands the only real chance of unifying the nation and moving it forward together with the rest of a rising Asia, but only if US-sponsored subversion and militancy ends or is successfully overcome.

Just as is the case with Eastern Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region, Myanmar’s fighting is among an array of conflicts presented to the general public as spontaneous, unrelated crises the US must respond to, when in reality it is the US primarily driving them all, and all in order to preserve its ability to determine the outcome of regions around the world rather than the people actually living in these regions themselves.

The outcome of Myanmar’s ongoing fighting depends largely on the rest of the world’s ongoing efforts to either aid and abet US hegemony, or confront, oppose, and ultimately dismantle it. Until then, Myanmar’s fate remains suspended in perpetual armed conflict.

Joe Biden. (CNN)

REUTERS

President Joe Biden on Wednesday publicly warned Israel for the first time that the US would stop supplying it weapons if Israeli forces make a major invasion of Rafah, a refugee-packed city in southern Gaza.

“I made it clear that if they go into Rafah …, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,” Biden said in an interview with CNN.

Biden’s comments represent his strongest public language to date in his effort to deter an Israeli assault on Rafah while underscoring a growing rift between the US and its strongest ally in the Middle East.

Biden acknowledged US weapons have been used by Israel to kill civilians in Gaza, where Israel has mounted a seven-month-old offensive aimed at annihilating Hamas. Israel’s campaign has so far killed 34,789 Palestinians, mostly civilians, the Gaza Health Ministry said.

“Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers,” he said when asked about 2,000-pound bombs sent to Israel.

Israel this week attacked Rafah, where more than one million Palestinians have sought refuge, but Biden said he did not consider Israel’s strikes a full-scale invasion because they have not struck “population centers.”

A senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Washington had carefully reviewed the delivery of weapons that might be used in Rafah and as a result paused a shipment consisting of 1,800 2,000-pound (907-kg) bombs and 1,700 500-pound bombs.

The interview was released hours after Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III acknowledged publicly Biden’s decision last week to hold up the delivery of thousands of heavy bombs was taken out of concern for Rafah, where Washington opposes a major Israeli invasion without civilian safeguards.

Israel’s campaign in Gaza was triggered by Hamas ‘ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. That killed about 1,200 people with about 250 others abducted, of whom 133 are believed to remain in captivity in Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.

Biden said the US would continue to provide defensive weapons to Israel, including for its Iron Dome air defense system.

“We’re going to continue to make sure Israel is secure in terms of Iron Dome and their ability to respond to attacks that came out of the Middle East recently,” he said. “But it’s, it’s just wrong. We’re not going to – we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells.”

[…]

Via https://themuslimtimes.info/2024/05/09/biden-says-us-will-withhold-weapons-from-israel-if-it-invades-rafah/

Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance

Peckford42

Dear President Trump,

I’m grateful to you for calling attention to the rigged polling methodologies that biased DNC-influenced media have used against you. We have this concern too, and I’m happy to show you the deceptive methodologies used by DNC-allied pollsters who pretend that I’m in single digits. You have correctly characterized these as “fake polls.”

This is why we did our own poll with Zogby — the largest and most accurate poll of this election cycle.

We had Zogby ask about head-to-head matchups. (1) You versus President Biden. (2) Me versus President Biden. (3) Me versus you. The results? You beat President Biden handily. I crush him as well, by even more. And against each other, I beat you in a nail-biter.

In a three-way, you are ahead but I’m coming up strong. Two new polls (CNN and Quinnipiac) have me above the 15% debate threshold. Another (Activote) has me at 26% among young voters. And you and I are tied among America’s 70 million Independents.

I’m also drawing a lot of voters from your former supporters. They are upset that you blew up the deficit, shut down their businesses during Covid, and filled your administration with swamp creatures.

So I’d like to make you an offer.

We’re both going to be speaking at the upcoming Libertarian convention on May 24 and 25. It’s perfect neutral territory for you and me to have a debate where you can defend your record for your wavering supporters. You yourself have said you’re not afraid to debate me as long as my poll numbers are decent. Well, they are. In fact, I’m the only presidential candidate in history who has polled ahead of both major party candidates in head-to-head races. So let’s meet at the Libertarian convention and show the American public that at least two of the major candidates aren’t afraid to debate each other. I asked the convention organizers and they are game for us to use our time there to bring the American people the debate they deserve!

Sincerely, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

[…]

Via https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2024/05/08/robert-f-kennedy-jr-challenges-president-trump-to-a-debate-at-the-libertarian-convention-both-will-be-attending-here-is-the-written-challenge/

Episode 17 Tuthmosis III – King at Last

The History of Ancient Egypt

Professor Robert Brier

Film Review

The stepson of Egypt’s first female pharaoh, Tuthmosis III (1479-1425 BC), was 36 when Hatshepsut died and he assumed the throne. He was Egypt’s greatest military pharaoh, having adopted a redesigned two-horse chariot from the Hyksos (see Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period and Foreign Rule by the Hyksos). With wheels made from flexible ash or popular, it  was extremely light to improve maneuverability in battle. It carried two men (a driver and archer) who stood on a small platform made of woven leather. Typically the king (pharaoh) would lead the charge in a chariot with a specially trained archer.

The walls of Tuthmosis’s III’s mortuary temple in Karnak (near Thebes) describe a campaign during the second year of his reign (in in which he marched his infantry 15 miles a day to the city of Megiddo (in modern day Israel). There they laid siege for seven months, employing a primitive tank invented by his army engineer,  because the city had ceased sending tribute to Egypt.

Thuthmosis III also marched north to invade Syria every year for 18 years, as well as making war on Nubia. His troops carried round top shields made of a piece of wood stretched with hide and a spear or sword or sometimes both. When they camped, they used their shields to form a picket fence around their campsite.

Despite Egypt’s more or constant state of war under his reign, neither Tuthmosis III nor any other pharaoh ever occupied any of the cities they conquered, owing to their religious belief that one had to die and be buried in Egypt to become immortal.

Tuthmosis III also produced a botanical book describing all the plants and wildflowers he saw in Syria and the presence of snow on the mountains of Lebanon.

Although there’s no written record, historians surmise that Tuthmosis III married his half-sister and Hatshepsut’s daughter Neferure. Three of the women in his harem have been identified as Syrian from the gold necklaces and bracelets found in their tombs.

He had his own tombed carved into a high cliff near the Valley of the Kings. Like most pharaohs, he covered it walls with religious texts. The commoners he ruled covered theirs with scenes from daily life. Only 20% of the population of ancient Egypt was literate.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/1492791/1492832

Students and community members protest at Sydney University in 2023 about the institution’s contract with French defence company, Thales. Photo: Bipasha Chakraborty for Honi Soit

Stephanie Tran and Eve Cogan

The US military and arms dealers are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to ‘educate’ Australians at our leading universities.

[…]

The United States Defense Department has funded $394 million to Australian universities via grants and contracts since 2007, an exclusive investigation by Declassified Australia can reveal.

Using figures obtained through an extensive examination of official US government records for grants and contracts, and Freedom of Information applications in Australia, a startling picture had emerged of the increasing involvement of the US Department of Defense in providing funding to Australian universities.

Over a 17-year period, the US Defense funding to Australian universities has jumped from $1.7 million in 2007 to $60 million annually by 2022, the year after the AUKUS agreement’s surprise announcement. The funds are backing expanded research in fields of science that enhance US military development and the US national interest.

29 of Australia’s 41 universities (70%) have received funding from the US Defense Department.

Between 2007 and 2024, the University of New South Wales received the highest amount of funding, an extraordinary $72 million.

The University of Queensland received the second-highest amount at $60.5 million and the University of Melbourne came in a close third with $60.4 million.

Australia’s premier Group of Eight Universities (Go8) received $202.1 million between them, being 79 percent of the total funding.

What is the money being used for?

In many of these arrangements, the US Defense Department provided funds to major defence companies which were then used to subcontract universities for defence and intelligence-related research.

In 2022, one of the top weapons producers in the world, the US defence contractor Raytheon, funded the University of Sydney with $105,000 for ‘Basic Research’ in the Pentagon’s Quantum Benchmarking Program.

Raytheon produces a multitude of weapons and components, from cruise missiles to surveillance sensors to missile defence systems. Raytheon is supplying weapons to Israel in the current bloody conflict in Gaza, as well as to Saudi Arabia, which has caused the deaths of many innocent civilians in Yemen since 2016.

Similarly, weapons manufacturer Boeing’s subsidiary, HRL Laboratories, a maker of microelectronics and lasers, has entered two subcontracts with the University of Technology Sydney totalling $747,115. This funding was also for “Basic Research” under the Pentagon’s Quantum Benchmarking Program. The first subcontract was entered into in 2022, with further funding provided in 2024.

According to the US Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency (DARPA), the Quantum Benchmarking Program “will estimate the long-term utility of quantum computers by creating new benchmarks that quantitatively measure progress towards specific, transformational computational challenges.”

Militarisation of Australian universities 

The increase in funding from the US Defense Department to Australian universities occurred alongside the Australian Federal Government’s claims to strengthen the country’s defence.

This upsurge began with the 2016 Defence White Paper under Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and continued with the AUKUS partnership announced by the Morrison government in 2021.

AUKUS has enjoyed bipartisan support, with the Albanese Labor government supporting the initiative while in opposition and adopting it once in power after May 2022.

The Turnbull government signalled greater funding to defence research in the 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement which flagged the establishment of the Defence Innovation Hub. According to the launch document, its aim was “to increase the level of engagement between businesses, universities and the research sector to commercialise ideas.”

In April 2023, the Albanese government put their own stamp on increased funding to defence research when it announced that the $3.4 billion Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator (ASCA) had replaced the Defence Innovation Hub.

Touted as “the most significant reshaping of defence innovation in decades”, ASCA says that it provides “opportunities for Australian industry and universities to partner with Defence (…) to explore emerging and disruptive technologies, and discover and nurture innovations that will address priority capability needs.

”According to a new Times Higher Education Summit outcomes report, universities are well placed to aid the government with “strategic messaging and building social license for AUKUS”.  Indeed, university representatives describe themselves as “enablers of operationalising the strategic intent around AUKUS”, or, in other words: building social license for AUKUS.

Australia’s Chief Defence Scientist, Tanya Monro, who is responsible for overseeing and guiding the nation’s defence science research and development, stated in Washington in 2023:“Our aim has been to align the work done in our universities and our industry. The bulk of our research and development happens in our universities, which gives us a tremendous opportunity to try to align that work to these bigger national missions”.

Monro revealed that the Albanese government’s new defence ‘accelerator’, ASCA, was modelled after and directly shaped by American intelligence agencies.These US intelligence agencies have proliferated over recent decades and can be a bit of an alphabet soup.“[ASCA has] quite a bit of [the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office] flavour, a lot of [US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] and a sprinkling of [the US Defense Innovation Unit],“ she said.

“And I’d like to pay tribute to all my friends and colleagues in DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], SCO [the US Strategic Capabilities Office] and DIU [the US Defense Innovation Unit] for really having those rich conversations with us as we figured out how to make something like this work for Australia,” said Monro.Americanisation of Australian universities 

ASCA draws from all three of these US Department of Defense agencies. ASCA works to partner with Australian universities with defence organisations , providing the opportunity for the US government and industry to funnel money into projects of interest. ASCA told Declassified Australia that it presently “does not receive any funding from any Department within the United States Government.”

DARPA, known for its innovations in national security, also has a history marked by contentious if not illegal projects, These include extensive surveillance programs and the development of lethal autonomous weapons, raising ethical and privacy concerns. Controversially, DARPA has funded research into how social media can influence social campaigners and activists.

SCO adapts existing defence systems to new uses by integrating them with advanced technologies. This includes an autonomous lethal drone swarm that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have duped as ‘the future weapon of mass destruction”.

DIU incorporates innovations into national security and military applications, by funding commercial ventures to make the new generation of military components and weaponry.

Another initiative similar to ASCA in accelerating Australian universities’ focus on defence is Security and Defence PLuS, an academic research and educational collaboration between three universities – Arizona State University, King’s College London, and the University of New South Wales. It aims to “advance the AUKUS agreement”.

The Security and Defence PLuS program has spurred the creation of programs such as “Cyber Security Fundamentals,” which addresses evolving cyber threats and best practices, and “Introduction to Naval Combat and Weapons Systems,” focusing on maritime warfare and technology, especially pertinent to Australia’s expanding naval capabilities​​.

It is designed to develop AUKUS’s ‘disruptive maritime power projection’ and ‘strategy of denial’ to counter the claimed Chinese military build-up and assertions of sovereignty in the South China Sea.

The most recent university defence program announced is the Digital Disruption in Defence Research Consortium (D3RC)  which involves a partnership between the University of Adelaide, the University of South Australia and five universities in the United Kingdom and the United States to support the AUKUS alliance.

The D3RC is tasked with conducting commissions from government, which involve developing models of cyber influence, exploring new paradigms in defence decision-making, managing defence assets and platforms on a global scale, and innovating in designing resilient supply chains. They plan to intercommunicate with allied nations like the US and publish research quarterly.

These fundamental changes to the funding and research base of many Australian universities warp the traditional pure research in order to feed the awesome appetite of the AUKUS industries. The changes have been described as provocative by some strategic thinkers, such as former prime minister Paul Keating, who describes AUKUS as a sign of Australia’s “commitment to the United States hegemony”.

The American model

Critics are raising concerns about the co-opting of universities to fulfil the government’s defence and national security interests.

Dr Binoy Kampmark is an academic at RMIT University who specialises in the institution of war, diplomacy and international relations.

“I find it deeply problematic that the education enterprise is becoming a military one,” Dr Kampmark told Declassified Australia.

“The Australian model, until fairly recently, has been fairly separate and segregated from military activities. But now, with AUKUS, university management is essentially delighted because of the prospect of additional student places and additional degree programs specifically about submarine acquisition and nuclear technology.”

Kampmark explained that Washington is encouraging Australian universities to follow the American model, and they’re finding an open door.

“The Americans are very familiar with the military-industrial complex and how universities are essentially a vital pillar of the defence establishment”, he said. “They’re trying to replicate that with the Australian model,” referring to research collaborations between universities, government, and defence contractors.

“It’s indoctrination. What they’re essentially doing is peddling the prospect of war.

“If you want to wage a war, you want to prepare the populace and educate them to say that war is a good thing and call it ‘defence’.”

According to an analyst who works within the Australian defence and national security sector who requested anonymity, ASCA mimics the American model, prioritising the aims of defence primes and government. Defence primes are large multinational defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon.

“The Americans have used this model for a long time in the US, but this is the first time they’re using it outside the US”, he says.

The analyst emphasised the need to accommodate the interests of defence primes in designing ASCA.

“The defence primes run the show here.”

“They drive their agenda, and they can because they’re so big and powerful. You don’t want innovation to be stifled because it conflicts with what one of the big primes wants to do.”

How universities and their students are responding 

With rising enrolments and decreasing funding, Australian universities have increasingly turned to the private and corporate sectors for financing, a 2022 report from the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work revealed. University revenue from private sources reached record highs at 43% in 2019.

Federal funding for higher education declined by over 46% from 1995 to 2021.

In the UK, universities facing similar financial challenges have turned to defence companies for funding, raising ethical concerns over their involvement with companies that arm conflict zones, such as assisting Israel’s onslaught against Gaza.

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing, all with troubling records in conflict zones, are embedded in both the Australian and British university sectors, according to a recently released report by the UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade.

In response to these financial pressures and in the wake of the announcement of the AUKUS submarine agreement, Catriona Jackson, then CEO of Universities Australia, embarked on a significant trip to Washington in April last year. Her visit aimed to meet key stakeholders to discuss potential partnerships between universities and defence organisations.

“Universities have a major role to play in developing the capability needed to deliver the project, including through the provision of skilled workers and world-class research and development,” Jackson said.

Belinda Hutchinson, who holds dual roles as the University of Sydney’s Chancellor and the Board Chair of defence contractor Thales Australia, has been a key figure in driving the university’s pursuit of private funding.

Her influence was instrumental in forging a contentious Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the University of Sydney and Thales. This MoU, signed in 2017 and renewed in December 2022, formalises a collaborative relationship for joint research in high-tech weaponry and military systeThales Group, a French defence and technology multinational, generated over $38 billion in revenue in 2022. The company’s dealings have included supplying arms to regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which have been implicated in human rights abuses, particularly in the conflict in Yemen.

One of Thales’ notable projects, a Turkish satellite venture, has sparked concerns regarding surveillance in Turkey. The project, involving the development and deployment of advanced satellite technology, raises red flags due to the potential misuse of such technology by the Turkish government for oppressive surveillance and monitoring activities. This concern is amplified in Turkey’s complex political landscape and history of clamping down on dissent and freedom of expression.

In 2022, Thales also faced scrutiny under a corruption probe related to a submarine deal with Malaysia in 2002. Allegations that Thales and DCN International offered kickbacks to secure a contract for the sale of three submarines to Malaysia in 2002 highlight the company’s lack of transparency and practice of co-opting war for profit.

Some students and activists in Australia have begun protesting against defence sector funding, including at ANU, the University of Adelaide, UTS and the University of Sydney.

Lilli Barto is a University of Sydney alumni engaged in protests against defence companies like Thales.

“We’re seeing the instrumentalisation of education”, Barto told Declassified Australia. “The only purpose of education is to work in an engineering firm or a weapons company rather than educate yourself or address problems in your community. Especially in science and technology disciplines.”

The submission of the Go8 Universities to the Defence Strategic Review in 2022 highlights the enthusiasm the universities have to “work much more closely together” with the defence industry and “allies in AUKUS, the 5-Eyes, and the QUAD”.

The submission stated that partnerships with the defence industry could lead to a “solution relevant to the industry partner; a highly qualified employee who is industry ready in an area of skills need; and deeper connections between industry (…) run at a modest cost split.”

Universities Australia (UA) echoed this sentiment in their Submission to the Defence Strategic Review in 2022.

UA’s key goals included developing programs to train personnel specifically for the defence industry, increasing the number of partnerships with industry such as defence and arms companies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and diversifying funding sources to support these initiatives. This approach reflects a broader strategy to deepen academic research and education integration with Australia’s defence sector.

Their submission also emphasised the “rapidly evolving threats in the Indo Pacific”, highlighting growing tensions with China.

The NSW government and the ACT, Victoria, and Queensland have all banned weapons companies as primary and high school education sponsors.

Other industries banned from sponsoring schools in those states include tobacco, alcohol and gambling products. While the primary and secondary education systems have flagged the defence industry as comparable to tobacco, alcohol and gambling, the tertiary system has yet to do the same.

Lack of transparency around this issue

The research collaborations between universities, government and defence contractors are often secretive, with the nature of the projects and amounts of funding remaining undisclosed.

Throughout this 14-month investigation, we encountered significant barriers to accessing information. Time and time again, our multiple FOI [Freedom of Information] requests were delayed for months and eventually refused.

“The universities don’t have to explain the distribution of funds, they don’t have to reveal the source of the funds, and they don’t have to disclose the nature of the funding trail between the private corporations and the university, and that’s really disturbing,” said Dr Kampmark.

“Not only can you mobilise the university sector and co-opt it for the defence sector, but you also can be reassured about the system’s total opacity, its total lack of transparency and accountability, which means this information will never see the light of day.”

“People are afraid to speak up, so it’s a brilliant environment to park sensitive military projects in, when you think about it,” he said.

Greens Senator David Shoebridge expressed concerns for Australia’s growing sub-imperial defence relationship with the US and defence companies.

“One of the few ways universities can get additional R & D funding is if they make it relevant to the arms industry…It’s all secret,” Shoebridge told Declassified Australia.

How does this affect university education? 

The confluence of universities and the defence industry raises serious questions about the future of academic freedom.

“Can we still see universities as places to learn and produce knowledge that, at the risk of sounding naïve, is for the greater good of humanity, independently of transient geopolitical skirmishes?” asked Professor Wanning Sun from the University of Technology, Sydney in a recent Crikey op-ed about the impact of AUKUS on universities.

“The history of universities during the first Cold War era tells us that it is precisely at times such as this that our government and our universities need to fight tooth and nail to preserve the precarious civil society that has taken millennia to construct.”

[…]

Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2024/05/07/revealed-the-pentagons-infiltration-of-australian-universities/