US State Department spokesperson spruiks 'terrific' US-Australia ties
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SBS Australia
27 minutes ago
- SBS Australia
How many Australians are fighting with Israel's military in Gaza? This group is monitoring
An Australian legal group says it is preparing a formal criminal complaint to the federal police seeking investigations into Australians serving with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for any potential offences committed. The Australian Centre for International Justice (ACIJ) reached out to the government in early June, requesting it issue warnings to the Australian public about the risks for Australians fighting for the IDF. It said such warnings should ensure citizens were aware "that engaging in hostilities with the Israeli military in the unlawfully occupied Palestinian Territory, may expose them to criminal investigation and prosecution under Australian law", or elsewhere "where there is evidence that they have participated in the commission of international crimes". Lara Khider, acting executive director of ACIJ, told SBS News: "We are currently monitoring at least 20 individuals who are serving or have served in the Israeli military, and are preparing criminal complaints to the AFP [Australian Federal Police] seeking investigations into potential offences against the Commonwealth." A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesperson confirmed to SBS News the department "does not track the movements of Australians overseas". "The Australian government encourages all Australians who seek to serve with the armed forces of a foreign country to carefully consider their legal obligations and ensure their conduct does not constitute a criminal offence," the spokesperson said. Is fighting for another army legal? Under Australian foreign incursion laws, it's not illegal to serve with a foreign government army — but recruiting someone to do so is. Australian authorities do not actively monitor Australians who may be serving in foreign armed forces, but the Australian Border Force may provide travellers leaving the country with information about their obligations under Australian law. Credit: AP The foreign incursion laws state it's an offence to enter a foreign country with an intention to engage in a hostile activity, unless serving in, or with, the armed forces of the government of a foreign country. It's illegal to recruit people to join an organisation engaged in hostile activities, or to serve in, or with, a foreign military. But the federal attorney-general can allow recruitment of people to serve with an armed force of a foreign country if "it is in the interests of the defence or international relations of Australia". "It is well known that Australians are currently serving in the Israeli military, and there have even been reported instances of recruitment occurring on Australian soil," Khider said. The exact number of Australians who've served or are serving has not been confirmed by Australian authorities. A freedom of information request in 2024 revealed ABF had intervened with three of four Australian citizens suspected of departing for Israel for military service since 7 October 2023. The Australian Border Force (ABF) previously confirmed that when it becomes aware that a person is departing Australia with the intention of travelling to a potential conflict zone, it "provides the traveller with information on their obligations under Australian law". The AFP said it cautioned all Australians who seek to engage in hostilities overseas to carefully consider their legal obligations and ensure their conduct does not constitute a criminal offence. "Any Australian suspected of committing a criminal offence while in a conflict zone may be investigated by the AFP, and, where appropriate, may face prosecution," a spokesperson told SBS News. The Australian Centre for International Justice is monitoring at least 20 Australians who have served or are serving in the Israel Defense Forces. Source: EPA / Abir Sultan The ACIJ pointed to the 2024 ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that ordered Israel to prevent acts of genocide in its war on Gaza . In the ruling, the ICJ called on Israel to "take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide", and ordered Israel to "prevent the commission of acts" that fall under under the Genocide Convention — which include "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"; and "killing members of the group". The ACIJ said Australia, as a state party to the Genocide Convention, has legal obligations to take all possible measures to prevent genocide. Australia is also party to a number of international human rights treaties and recognises the ICJ and its jurisdiction on international law matters. IDF spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari said last year the IDF is "a professional military committed to international law". Government warns Australians at the border SBS News obtained a copy of a letter from Attorney-General Michelle Rowland addressed to the ACIJ about the issue, in a reply dated 28 July. In the letter, Rowland said while it was not appropriate for the government to provide specific legal advice, "the government has been clear that all parties to the conflict must comply with international and relevant domestic legal obligations". Rowland said the government "continues to discourage" Australians from engaging in conflict overseas, and advocates for the protection of civilians, the upholding of international law and the unhindered flow of aid to the region. "The government continues to caution all Australians who seek to serve with the armed forces of a foreign country to carefully consider their legal obligations and ensure their conduct does not constitute a criminal offence," Rowland said in the letter. "Where appropriate, the AFP may work with foreign law enforcement agencies and international bodies as part of any potential investigation." However, ACIJ said it had been raising its concerns on the issue with the Australian government since December 2023 and said the government's reply was "manifestly inadequate". "The limited cautions issued to date do not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the atrocities occurring against the Palestinians in Gaza," Khider said. "Issuing vague or weak cautions does not discharge Australia's obligations under international law. "The government must act with urgency and clarity to ensure that its international legal responsibilities are met, and that Australians are not complicit in atrocity crimes." An Australian war crimes investigation unit Greens senator David Shoebridge said his office had inquired nine months ago into why the Australian government was not tracking people fighting in the Israeli and Russian militaries, and had yet to receive a reply. "The Australian government's current policy is 'head in the sand'," Shoebridge said. "If you don't look for war crimes, you won't find them. "The conflict in these areas has only intensified, and concerns about people being implicated in war crimes have only heightened." "We know that thousands of people have been travelling to Israel over recent months, many to fight in the IDF, which is a concern when the government does not track or monitor who is fighting in this appalling war," Shoebridge said. The number of Australians serving or having served with the IDF has not been confirmed, but News Corp in 2023 reported there could be up to 1,000 who have served or were active reservists at the time. The Greens want a War Crimes Investigation Unit set up in Australia. "Other countries have these bodies, and they are effective. The lack of one in Australia makes everyone less safe."
ABC News
39 minutes ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump says he wants to stop Vladimir Putin's 'war machine' but his sanctions–tariffs combo could backfire
Donald Trump is searching for a way to end the bloodshed in Ukraine and the US president's latest plan involves combining two of his favourite punishments: more sanctions, more tariffs. This time, it's where they're going — far from the front lines — that's important. And some analysts are warning it could backfire. After weeks of bluster, things got real on Wednesday with an executive order for an additional 25 per cent levies on all US imports from India. Combined with the 25 per cent "reciprocal" tariff announced last week, it becomes a 50 per cent tariff on a country Trump said was fuelling the "war machine" by buying billions of dollars of Russian oil. The White House has flagged more announcements in the coming days. Trump is trying to dig an economic hole around Moscow so big it forces his counterpart there, Vladimir Putin, back to the negotiating table. It's a simple strategy. Measures designed to hurt Russia's finances that have been in place for years will effectively be expanded to include those who line the Kremlin's pockets. India and China have already been singled out for what's known as secondary sanctions. Combined with new tariffs, like those announced on Wednesday, the US could end up being the one that pays the price. Russia has already been subjected to a multitude of penalties imposed by Western governments, including Australia, and their allies, before and after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Moscow's banks are blocked from accessing global financial markets. Oligarchs' assets abroad are frozen. Many countries have shunned trade. All this was designed to stop Putin's ability to fund his military. And yet, more than three years later, it continues to fight. It's become clear that ending the war will take something more. That's where the US president's new plan comes in. India's external affairs ministry released a statement on Wednesday calling the extra tariffs "extremely unfortunate" and warning the country would "take all actions necessary to protect its national interests". Michael O'Kane is a senior partner at London's Peters&Peters law firm and the co-founder of the Global Sanctions website, which tracks the latest developments in this space. He's sceptical about the effectiveness of secondary sanctions, because the West "continually underestimates Russia's ability to pivot and evade any new measures that are being put in place". "And I don't see any reason why that isn't going to continue." One of the main ways the Kremlin does this is by exporting its oil via a so-called "shadow fleet" of ships. It's estimated this force comprises around 1,400 aging tankers that supply a black market of exports and evade the West's naval net with flags of convenience and convoluted ownership structures. "We now have an under-the-radar network of vessels, agents and brokers who are engaged in this activity," O'Kane says. "The two main buyers are India and China, and they are hugely complex, enormous economies where there's a great deal of difficulty in putting some kind of stranglehold on them." Trump's sanctions/tariffs combination will have different repercussions for China, India and Russia, but experts say the US will be affected too. India's new 25 per cent levies are set to begin in 21 days, while previously announced 25 per cent tariffs will come into effect on Thursday. It means by the end of the month, New Delhi will face some of the highest levies on exports of all the US's trading partners. "With such obnoxious tariff rates, trade between the two nations would be practically dead," Madhavi Arora, an economist at Emkay Global, told the Reuters news agency. While that will hurt India more than the US, slapping new taxes on an important strategic partner could cause significant geopolitical consequences for Washington. "The United States security competition with China in the South China Sea and down into the Indian Ocean is a matter of significant concern to the White House," O'Kane says. "They need to have formidable allies. That's why we've seen this AUKUS arrangement being set up, it's all with the view of being able to contain China from a security perspective. "India plays an important role too, and it would seem to me as though taking action against India at this stage could undermine this effort." While India has begun to learn its fate, new US tariffs and secondary sanctions on China — a superpower with which it is currently locked in trade negotiations — haven't yet been revealed Beijing also welcomes Russia's oil, and immunity from Trump's wrath appears unlikely. Dr Patricia M Kim is a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Centre for Asia Policy Studies and John L Thornton China Centre. "It's hard to imagine Beijing would publicly side with Washington against Moscow or appear to bow to American pressure by cutting purchases of Russian oil," she says, adding any new tariffs announced by the White House would have consequences for Beijing and "deal a blow to Chian's export-driven sectors, especially those heavily reliant on the US market". "But it would hurt the US as well." Unlike its trade relationship with India, the US imports masses of cheap electronics and consumer goods from China's manufacturing hubs — all of which could become a lot more expensive for Americans already complaining about the cost of living. It also relies on rare earths from China, which accounts for almost 70 per cent of global production, to build things like planes, missiles and cars. Earlier this year, the US got a taste of how Beijing reacts to being targeted, when a suite of new tariffs were met with swift reciprocal measures. The world's two largest economies got into the ring, and while they've temporarily stopped throwing punches, the White House has hinted this week it may start again. Trump's new plan to try and put pressure on Russia may seem straightforward, but it could pave the way for a new reality after the guns fall silent in Ukraine, and some will find it frightening. Russia exploiting its new, lucrative black market. India cosying up to the Kremlin. And a disrespected China searching for new ways to punish a country that can't do without its wares.
News.com.au
39 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Kiama MP Gareth Ward to fight expulsion attempt by Labor government in Supreme Court
Convicted rapist and sitting MP Gareth Ward will return before the Supreme Court in Sydney's CBD today as he fights attempts by the Labor-controlled state government to have him expelled from parliament. The Kiama MP was taken into custody on remand last week while awaiting sentencing after he was found guilty by a jury of three counts of indecent assault and a fourth count of intercourse without consent. The charges relate to acts against two young men – an 18-year-old at Meroo Meadow in 2013 and a 24-year-old man in Potts Point in 2015 – and sparked calls for the south coast MP to resign from parliament. A motion was expected to be introduced by Labor to the Legislative Assembly to expel Ward, with support from the Coalition earlier this week. If successful, it would mark the first expulsion from the NSW lower house since 1917. Instead, the matter was set down for a full-day hearing at the Supreme Court after an 11th hour injunction was applied for by Ward's lawyers, who argue the state parliament does not have the power to expel him. The last-minute legal move makes it almost impossible to expel Ward, who is still being paid by parliament and is the current member for Kiama, before the Legislative Assembly adjourns until next month. Leader of the House Ron Hoenig earlier in the week said the court did not have the authority to stop matters being but before legislators, but that the state government would abide by the injunction out of respect. The matter sets the stage for a peculiar legal challenge. Premier Chris Minns told 2GB on Tuesday morning most people would 'appreciate it's an unconscionable situation to have someone who's currently sitting in jail in Silverwater convicted of serious sexual offences who is demanding to remain a member of parliament and continue to be paid'. Asked why Ward had not resigned, Mr Minns said 'clearly, he's got no shame'. Opposition Leader Mark Speakman said that, if the government was prepared, they could resume 'in the interim with a small quorum of MPs'. 'We would be willing to do that. It would be possible, for example, to have just 20 MPs, the quorum deal with the matter,' he said. Mr Speakman said 'As a general principle, we are supporting the government's efforts in court. 'That includes as a general principle the arguments that it's putting in court and the outcome that it seeks, which is that the injunction is lifted and the parliament can proceed to expel Mr Ward.' The injunctive orders issued by the court, 'pending further order', restrain the defendant, Mr Hoenig, from 'from taking any steps to expel or otherwise resolve to expel' Ward between July 30 and 10am on Friday.
