Close to Home

Since 2001, military-police operations have been conducted every year to accustom public opinion to the sight of heavily-armed troops in cities and suburbs...In Canberra last July residents..were subjected to low-flying helicopter movements and simulated bomb explosions. That exercise was held, according to a military statement, to ensure that “the highest level of capability” existed for “times of civil emergency.”

Australian military stages “anti-terrorist” exercise in Sydney

WSWS ,

8 May, 2013

Australia’s military conducted a training exercise in Sydney’s central Martin Place at 1 a.m. last Thursday, involving about 50 heavily-armed Special Air Services (SAS) commandos. It was one of the most visible mobilisations of troops in a city centre during any of the frequent domestic exercises conducted since 2001 on the pretext of combatting potential terrorist threats.

Although staged on a far smaller scale, there were strong similarities to the martial law-style lockdown imposed on the US city of Boston two weeks earlier, which included curfews, house-to-house searches, roadblocks, and the shutdown of transport.

DONATE

During the hour-long exercise, soldiers effectively sealed off the surrounding area, which houses major banks and finance houses. According to the Daily Telegraph, soldiers “kept guard at checkpoints”, “secured the area” and maintained “sentry positions.”

The Telegraph described the scene as follows: “[A] convoy of dark Toyota 4WDs, with their spotlights blazing, sped down Macquarie St and burst onto Martin Place to unload a team of highly specialised Australian Defence Force counter-terrorism soldiers.

“With rifles drawn, faces covered in balaclavas and gas masks, and night vision goggles perched on their helmets, about 50 camouflaged soldiers fanned out through Martin Place in near-perfect silence in search of mock terrorists that had overtaken the underground Martin Place train station.”

A media alert issued by the military two days earlier referred to “counter- terrorism training exercises,” justifying the operation in broad terms, saying it was “conducted to ensure that the Australian Defence Force has the highest level of capability to support Australia’s national interests.” This language raises many issues. Exactly what are these “national interests” and what other preparations are being made by the government and the military to protect them?

According to the media alert, the Martin Place operation was just one of a number to be conducted in and around Sydney between April 30 and May 10, some in conjunction with the state police. There was to be a “maritime training exercise” around the waters surrounding two Sydney Harbour naval bases, an exercise at Sydney Airport, and helicopter training around the Holsworthy army base, Parramatta gaol and the Sydney International Equestrian Centre.

“The soldiers involved in these exercises will be carrying weapons and tactical equipment, and will also use simulation ammunition and hand-held pyrotechnics as part of the training,” the alert stated, but “local residents and bystanders should not be alarmed if they notice an increased movement of vehicles, military personnel and helicopters.”

Defence Media Operations refused to answer a written list of questions from the W orld S ocialist W eb S ite about the exercises, including about which units were involved, when the operation was planned, whether the frequency of exercises would increase in the light of the Boston bombings, and what legal powers were invoked.

The defence media office would only confirm that exercises were conducted “in and around Sydney” and that “all relevant authorities were consulted.” Its email message concluded: “In order to protect operational techniques, tactics and procedures, Defence is unable to provide imagery or further detail regarding this activity.”

Wide legal powers do exist to deploy the military internally, along the lines seen in Boston. Military callout legislation was introduced, with no public debate, in 2000, on the pretext of protecting the Sydney Olympics, and expanded in 2006, in the name of shielding the Melbourne Commonwealth Games.

In an “emergency,” two government ministers or the armed forces chief can call out the military. Soldiers can then can seize buildings, places and means of transport, detain people, search premises and seize possessions. If the ministers declare a “general security area,” these powers expand to include personal searches, erection of barriers and stopping means of transport. If a “designated area” is declared within a general security zone, troops can control all movements of traffic and people, and issue directions to individuals.

Military personnel can also interrogate people and order the handing over of documents. No one has the legal right to refuse on the grounds of self-incrimination. Instead, they can be jailed for non-compliance.

These powers can be invoked in broad and vague circumstances—a supposed threat to “Commonwealth interests” or “critical infrastructure,” or the danger of undefined “domestic violence.” These terms could cover any eruption of major social unrest. They go well beyond combatting terrorism, which has also been defined in sweeping terms, with the potential to cover many traditional forms of political or industrial protest.

Since 2001, military-police operations have been conducted every year to accustom public opinion to the sight of heavily-armed troops in cities and suburbs. Far from scaling back these exercises, the Labor governments of Rudd and Gillard have widened their scope, beyond “counter-terrorism.”

In Canberra last July, for example, residents of suburban Belconnen were subjected to low-flying helicopter movements and simulated bomb explosions. That exercise was held, according to a military statement, to ensure that “the highest level of capability” existed for “times of civil emergency.”

Two weeks later, the army’s Special Operations Command conducted a fortnight of “maritime counter-terrorism and emergency response scenario training” around Melbourne’s Port Phillip Bay. The purpose was said to be wider than responding to a terrorist threat. Special Operations Commander Australia, Major General Gus Gilmore, said the military “provides support to civil authorities, should it be required in the event of a civil emergency.”

Over the past decade, the SAS has spearheaded the Australian involvement in the US-led invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, specialising in night-time raids on homes, in which countless civilians have been killed. During the same period, two SAS contingents have been established for domestic interventions—Tactical Assault Group (TAG)-East, based in Sydney, and TAG-West, based in Perth.

The simultaneous deployment of the SAS at home and abroad underscores the close connection between the drive to war—with the Gillard government unconditionally backing Washington’s preparations for war against China—and plans to suppress popular resistance to the agenda of militarism and austerity.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is acutely aware of the potential for political and social unrest. In 2011, she personally held a discussion with Australian Federal Police chief Tony Negus to review the measures that would be taken in response to riots like those that had just occurred in Britain (see: “In wake of British riots, Australian government preparing for youth unrest”).

After Boston bombing, Australian media escalates “war on terror”

WSWS ,

24 April, 2013

The response of the Australian media and political establishment to the state of siege imposed on Boston following the April 15 bombings is a clear indication that the ruling elites are prepared to use the same kind of anti-democratic methods in Australia.

In the extensive media coverage, the unparalleled military-police lockdown of a major American city in order to hunt down a single 19-year-old youth allegedly responsible for the bomb blasts was barely mentioned, let alone criticised. It was the photographs, rather than the words, that gave a glimpse of what was taking place—heavily-armed police and national guard troops in combat gear, armoured humvees patrolling the streets, “suspects” being handcuffed.

The military and police-state methods that have been used for more than a decade to terrorise the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq—curfews, house-to-house searches, roadblocks, the shutdown of transport—are now being deployed in the United States. Yet the imposition of what is tantamount to martial law in Boston and the trampling on democratic rights is not questioned in the slightest by Australian politicians or in the media.

Instead, the Boston bombings have seized upon to justify the reactionary agenda of the ruling class in Australia, including the further beefing up of the intelligence agencies and police. As on every other issue, the federal Labor government immediately took its cue from Washington. Within hours of the bomb blasts, long before any evidence had emerged, Foreign Minister Bob Carr was already raising the spectre of terrorism, declaring that it was “legitimate to be concerned... that this does represent a domestic terrorist strike.”

The media, with Murdoch’s Australian in the lead, took up the issue. Its editorial on April 22, entitled “The people of Boston prevail,” hailed the “grit and resilience” of the people of Boston, which provided “an inspiring lesson in how to confront terrorism.” There was no mistaking that it was not the “people of Boston,” but rather the massive military manhunt that was being praised. “Optimism that after Osama bin Laden was killed, terrorism would go into decline was misplaced. The need for vigilance is as important now as ever,” the editorial concluded.

An article in Murdoch’s tabloid, the Daily Telegraph, on April 19 railed against the Gillard government for allegedly reducing the budgets for the Australian intelligence services by $80 million over the coming four years. In reality, the funding for the six civilian and military agencies has massively expanded over the past decade, trebling to over a billion dollars by 2010 and enabling a huge expansion of staff. The Boston bombs, the writer declared, “should be wake-up calls to governments who think they can use the public perception of reduced threat levels to cut budgets from the intelligence agencies.”

The Chechen background of the alleged Boston bombers is also being used to justify draconian measures against immigrants and refugees. Under the Labor government’s “border protection” regime, asylum seekers arriving by boat are held indefinitely in remote detention camps. Even those deemed to be refugees are subject to assessments by the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), the country’s internal spy agency. Currently 55 Sri Lankan Tamils are in a legal black hole following adverse assessments—still detained and unable to challenge the secret findings.

In its April 22 editorial, “When migrants turn terrorist,” the Australian went one step further. Declaring that the Boston bombings posed “significant questions for every country processing migrants and asylum seekers,” it insisted that “future security measures must focus more on identifying and intercepting likely terrorists.” Arguing that “authorities, including those in Australia, must overcome their nervousness about profiling,” it declared: “There is nothing discriminatory in identifying cohorts from which terrorists might be recruited and concentrating finite resources on tracking their movements.”

In other words, entire immigrant communities should be targeted by the police and intelligence agencies, and ASIO’s screening of immigrants should be further tightened. There is no limit to the “cohorts” who would be subject to systematic surveillance, harassment and interrogation—Chechens, Sri Lankan Tamils, virtually anyone from the Middle East, including longstanding Australian residents. This is an open-ended recipe for whipping up prejudice and justifying persecution.

Just as politically significant is the support in what passes for the liberal media in Australia for strengthening the police-state apparatus. An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald on April 21 declared: “The capture [of the surviving suspect] should provide reassurance about the skills of law enforcement officials. But the lessons to improve security will have to be learnt. Chances are people in the US and Australia will be asked to be on heightened alert and accept tougher security checks at public events.”

The newspaper’s only caveat was to urge caution in branding entire communities as a threat. “Guilt by association is dangerous. Policy by fear is unwarranted. The Boston marathon bombs, while tragic, are not an excuse for witch-hunts,” it declared. However, the editorial had nothing to say about the state of siege that was imposed on Boston and made no criticism of the “skills of law enforcement officials” in riding roughshod over basic legal and democratic rights.

Likewise, the Greens have made no statement on the Boston bombings. And the Australian civil liberties fraternity has been remarkable only for its complete silence on the abrogation of basic democratic rights in Boston.

This response has a significance of its own. The entire political establishment is complicit in erecting the scaffolding of a police-state in Australia. Under the rubric of the “war on terrorism,” the state now has powers to detain without trial, conduct secret interrogations, outlaw organisations and hold semi-secret trials. 

Surveillance and search powers have been augmented. Control orders and “preventative detention” can be imposed.

Moreover, the federal government has the power to impose a military state of siege akin to the Boston lockdown. Under legislation passed, without public debate, for the 2000 Sydney Olympics and extended in 2006, the prime minister, or two other “authorising ministers” acting together, can in the case of a “sudden and extraordinary emergency” activate the armed forces. The military will then have the right to seal off designated areas, establish road blocks, issue orders to civilians, seize property, search premises without warrants, detain people and shoot to kill.

The scope for the use of these powers is exceptionally broad and vague—a supposed threat to “Commonwealth interests” or the danger of “domestic violence” that is beyond the capacity of a state or territory. “Terrorism” is simply the convenient pretext for the establishment of authoritarian mechanisms that can be used to deal with popular opposition and resistance to the regressive agenda of militarism and austerity being imposed in Australia, as in the United States.