AUSTRALIAN Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his colleagues were basking in a flag-waving congratulations from patriotic Australians for his success in pulling off the Aukus agreement to intensify military cooperation between Australia and its two Western allies against what the trio have identified as their common enemy – China.
So, how big and momentous a deal is it exactly? According to former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott: “This is a historic and important decision made by the Australian government. Historic because it overturns decades of strategic caution and announces to the world that we take national security seriously. Important because it acknowledges the scale of the strategic challenge from China and declares that Australia will play our part in meeting it.”
Hugh White, an academic from Canberra’s Australian National University, similarly noted that “the new agreement will make Australia the only non-nuclear armed country in the world to operate nuclear-powered submarines”.
“That is a very big deal indeed ... In the escalating rivalry between America and China, we’re siding with the United States and we’re betting they’re going to win this one.”
More critical Australians have denounced it as a big mistake with former prime minister Paul Keating arguing that Australia’s sycophancy to the US was only damaging its own interests. Weeks earlier, Keating had chastised the government for leading Australia into a “Cold War” with China.
“Australia is a continent sharing a border with no other state. It has no territorial disputes with China. Indeed, China is 12 flying hours away from the Australian coast. Yet the government, both through its foreign policy incompetence and fawning compulsion to please America, effectively has us in a cold war with China.”
Clearly, this advice is being ignored by Morrison, who is committed to winning a coming khaki election where according to one Australian wag, he can show off to the electorate the new hair on his chest grown with US and British assistance.
Is Joe Biden the big winner? With the US retreat from the Taliban inflicted ignominious Kabul and numerous domestic challenges to overcome, he now can show off one achievement, with the assistance of “that fella from down under”. But is it such a big victory for the US?
Available data confirms that the US has an overwhelming military superiority over China in the Indo-Pacific and South China Sea regions. Although the number of US military bases in these two regions has not been publicly disclosed, what is known is that there is a large number of US military bases ringing China.
The US maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries around the world, with several hundred thousands of land, sea and air troops and other military personnel ready to take out any enemy.
The latest addition of Australian nuclear submarines and another military base does show that Biden is more macho than Trump in foreign policy. But it will not count in the US’s troubled national politics or enhance America’s national security.
Instead, the exercise smacks of nuclear overkill. The US has presently 400 intercontinental missiles. The warheads on the intercontinental ballistic missiles only represent one quarter of deployed US strategic warheads.
More than half of deployed US strategic warheads are mounted on submarine-launched missiles. The remainder are nuclear bombs and warheads on cruise missiles bunkers that can reach Beijing, Pyongyang
China, on the other hand, has one military base – not in Latin America or the Indo-Pacific region but in Djibouti, Africa. Not only is China’s military power in land, sea and air much less than the US but its military budget is considerably smaller. See: https://armedforces.eu/compare/ country_USA_vs_China.
Boris Johnson appears to be the bigger winner. This latest flying of the British flag in a region where it has been reduced from colonial giant to post-colonial third-tier status may provide gratification and a sense of
self-importance for the domestic audience. But more significant to the British power elite is the mouth-watering US$90 billion (RM377 billion) contract that Morrison tore up, and which the British armament industry and mass media are drooling over.
The fact that it is Macron and France that this Anglophone initiative has killed off makes this perhaps the most important English victory over the French since the Battle Of Agincourt.
To sooth French outrage but scarcely believable and more hypocritical to anyone who has followed British politics since Brexit is the British prime minister’s most recent declaration that “Our love of France is ineradicable”.
Notwithstanding the British PM’s “forever” love declaration and reminders from Australian leaders of how tens of thousands of Australians have died to defend France in past wars, France – as the big loser – will be looking for revenge.
Gerard Araud, a former French ambassador to the United States, noted on twitter that the deal blind-sided France. “The world is a jungle”, “France has just been reminded of this bitter truth by the way the US and the UK have stabbed her in the back in Australia. C’est la vie”.
Harsher words have come from France’s top officials. “There has been duplicity, contempt and lies,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian declared on France 2 television, adding that relations with Australia and the United States were in “crisis”. “You can’t play that way in an alliance.”
The loss of the “contract of the century” submarine deal is not just a massive economic blow. It is also a huge political setback for French President Emmanuel Macron, who is running for re-election next year.
Further comments by Morrison and his Cabinet members on the need for Australia to replace the “obsolete” French designed Shortfin Barracuda programme with a technologically superior British submarine have rubbed more salt into the open wound.
Meanwhile, the French outrage has been greeted with disapproving and contemptuous feedback from the British and Australian public. A satirist commentator pointed out that the major problem of the French design is that it could only go into neutral or reverse drive. These and similar comments in social media may yet come back to haunt the Aukus partners. Expect interesting times ahead for British-French relations.
Beware the unintended consequences
Lord Peter Ricketts, former British ambassador to France warned that the recall of ambassadors from the US and Australia by the French government is just “the tip of the iceberg”.
According to him, “there is a deep sense of betrayal in France because this was not just an arms contract. This was France setting up a strategic partnership with Australia, and the Australians have now thrown that away and negotiated behind the backs of France with two North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) allies, the US and UK, to replace it with a completely different contract.
I think for the French, this looks like a complete failure of trust between allies. Therefore, causing them to doubt, what is Nato for? This may yet turn out to be a case study for an introductory course on “Classic foreign policy bungling and disasters”.
Away from Nato, China has warned the three countries to “abandon the obsolete cold war zero sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical concepts, and respect regional people’s aspiration. And to do more that is conducive to regional peace and stability, and development – otherwise, they will only end up hurting their own interests”.
Also shattered for now and for good is the campaign for a nuclear-free Pacific, backed by New Zealand and countries of the Indo-Pacific region. Australian disregard and disdain for its “little brother” and the Pacific island nations has never been more obvious.
And in the contested South China Sea region, Indonesia and Malaysia in immediate responses have expressed deep concern over the arms race being intensified by the new tripartite military pact; and called on nations to avoid provoking a nuclear arms race, as well as meet their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Western hypocrisy over nuclear proliferation and the key role of its armament merchants, and supporting politicians in determining foreign policy is not only again exposed from this new military pact.
North Korea, Iran, Turkey and a host of other countries wanting to join the nuclear weaponry club will have greater justification for crossing what the West has set up as an elastic red line.
As for Morrison, he has instigated a new round of the cold war, which has him pinning the target on his own country’s back as well as the backs of Asia and Pacific neighbours.
Lim Teck Ghee’s Another Take is aimed at demystifying social orthodoxy. Comments: email@example.com