I have had some time to pause and think more carefully about the AUKUS Treaty and the longer I think about it, the more that I am convinced that it changes literally nothing.
In terms of the parties who have signed up to it, the United States and Australia have already been bound by the remnants of the ANZUS Treaty which dates back to 1951, the UK and the US have been boasting about the "special relationship" since the beginning of Tony Blair's premiership, and Australia has been sent on military errands by Mother Britain since before there was the Commonwealth of Australia. Binding the three merely restates what already existed.
This doesn't really change the military arrangements between them either. Australia has always been seen as an airstrip and resupply station by the United States, and Britain and the United States have shared various bits of military hardware since the Second World War.
Presumably the treaty was signed with the intention to be a signal to China that its meddling in the South China Sea wasn't going to be tolerated. There's quite a lot of conflicting weirdness going on here because part of the AUKUS deal involves Australia buying $90bn worth of nuclear submarines which don't yet exist, to defend against an enemy which also doesn't officially exist but is absolutely China except we're not naming it. At the same time, China is Australia's biggest trading partner and the Chinese Government leases Port Darwin to ship goods and resources through.
China has had a policy for a very long time of the 'minimum credible defence'. This is similar to India's Credible Minimum Deterrence strategy upon which India's nuclear capabilities are arranged. It assumes no first use and states in principle that there will be a second strike.
China is more likely to just buy what it wants and build the necessary infrastructure to get it, than to run down the road of stupid aggression which the United States has engaged in since WW2.
The actual opinion of China about AUKUS is different depending on where you are getting your news from. If you have been watching Sky News Australia then you will assume that President Xi Jingping is utterly livid. If you have been watching the BBC or the ABC then you will assume that they are cautious. If you read the Chinese state media outlet Xinhua, then AUKUS appears to be of practically zero importance. Xinhua has report that AUKUS exists but that's really as far as they go. America is still America; Australia is still the flea on the big dog's back; and Britain is far away.
As for the French response which seems very typically French. On the 17th of September, France recalled its ambassadors from Australia and the United States (but not the UK) and the French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian calling the deal a "stab in the back".
He appeared to be more concerned with the cancellation by Australia of a French–Australian submarine deal; which happened almost unilaterally by Australia. Australia for its part has replaced submarines which do not yet exist with other submarines which do not yet exist.
To be perfectly honest France's reaction can be fairly easily explained in terms of its own security issues, as France is actually the fourth closest country to Australia; as weird as that sounds. New Caledonia is legally a sui generis collectivity of overseas France in the southwest Pacific Ocean; which means that New Caledonia is part of France in the same way that Tasmania is part of Australia. It's just that the distance between it and the mainland is a lot bigger.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/us/politics/us-france-australia-betrayal.html
"American officials insist it was not their place to talk to the French about their business deal with Australia. But now, in light of the blowup, some officials say they regret they did not insist that the Australians level with the French about their intentions earlier."
- New York Times, 17th Aug 2021
From this standpoint, both the Australian and United States Governments look like untrustworthy actors; facing off against an equally untrustworthy actor in the French Government.
If the French Government caught wind of the fact that Australia was going to scupper one of the biggest military contracts in their history, then they almost certainly would have tried to sabotage the plan. By operating downwind, Australia and America didn't even let a sniff of what was going on float in on the breeze; so France had no opportunity to take the wind out of the sails of either Australia or America. This is ironic given that submarines operate below the water line.
France would have probably been liked to be included in this pact as it is worried about its own citizens in this region.
The only other player which might have been interested is New Zealand and they weren't even consulted about the pact; due to their existing suspension from ANZUS and their existing continued stance on not wanting nuclear warships in its waters. New Zealand's defence policy mainly involves being a decent global citizen and not stirring up trouble with anyone. It also doesn't really have lots of unused resources like Australia.
The most comical take on AUKUS came from Russia's Pravda which decried the security pact as:
"AUKUS: Australia decides to die for USA's war with China"
It also talks about 'floating Chernobyls' which is ironic given that Russia already has nuclear submarines, and the nuclear powered submarine Kursk exploded in August 2000, in the Barents Sea; killing all 118 souls on board.
I do not think that AUKUS actually materially changes anything in any practical terms. Why do it then?
President Joe Biden faces criticism at home over the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has had a cabinet reshuffle. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has a government which has just lost its Attorney General. All three face criticism over their nations' handing of the Covid-19 pandemic.
This is an announceable; which cheap and easy PR. I don't know what else it does, of any discernable difference to the arrangements which were already in place.
No comments:
Post a Comment