AUKUS, we have come to believe, is about nuclear-powered submarines, national defence and Australian sovereignty.
It is about much more than that. And much less.
At a stage-managed event in Cornwall in September 2021, US President Biden and then-prime ministers Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison cheerfully told Australians that the US and UK would provide nuclear-powered submarines and Australia would pay for them.
After 18 months of consultation, the AUKUS package is to be unwrapped next week. But inside will be only what the governments of the US, UK and Australia allow the Parliament and the people to see.
They should produce details such as what submarines Australia will get, where they will be built, who will crew and maintain them, who will command them, what they will cost, when they will be delivered, and what will replace the Collins-class boats until then. Important as all these details are, and already much debated, there’s more in the AUKUS package than that.
We know it contains Mark II Abrams tanks, B52 nuclear bombers and possibly B21s, which are to be “stationed” in upgraded bases near Darwin. None are intended to defend the Australian continent; rather they’re for deployment abroad.
Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong has said the US won’t be required to confirm or deny if the bombers coming and going from Australia are armed with nuclear weapons. That’s been the practice in Japan for decades. American plans to expand military bases in Okinawa and Guam are opposed by local populations. Like protesters in Darwin, they have been ignored.
Since 2014, Australia has allowed “unimpeded access”, exclusive control and use of agreed facilities and areas to US personnel, aircraft, ships and vehicles. Former defence ministers Marise Payne and Linda Reynolds talked to the US about possible future stationing in Darwin of missiles whose range of 5500 kilometres could reach southern China. They could be in the AUKUS package too.
There’s more to AUKUS than submarines, and more than we will be told about. There’s less too. The package actually shrinks the sovereignty that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his ministers have lately been saying it protects. Australia’s “sovereign interest” is now a buzz phrase in Canberra.
But AUKUS diminishes our sovereignty by locking in unimpeded US access to bases and interoperability and interchangeability with the Australian Defence Force. In effect this gives the US a command role over our forces. As former PM Paul Keating has recently argued, the result will be less Australian independence and more compliance with US policy — which is to encircle China.
We could be at war with China if, for example, an American or Australian ship or aircraft is attacked in the South China Sea, and if the US invokes ANZUS. In a war over Taiwan, Australia could be a proxy fighter.
Australia is permanently in East Asia, which the US is not, and sovereignty means choosing how to pursue our interests there in our own way, with less aggression. It’s about our survival, not America’s.
There’s less detail than we need about the prospective AUKUS treaty. The commentary focuses on the what, how, when and how much elements but tells us little about why we need it.
Why, for example, if Australia’s sovereign interest includes sea-borne trade with China, should we go to war and block off our trade routes? Why should Australia commit itself far into the foreseeable future to projecting armed force against China?
Why should Australia foment an arms race in our region that makes no country safer? Why do our leaders assume that we or the US would win a war against China? Why not seek peaceful resolution of our differences, and abide by the treaties we have all signed to that effect? Why is Australia signing up for AUKUS — which serves America’s interests not ours?
These questions should be debated in Parliament before anything in the AUKUS package is accepted.
Has Australia been duped into joining AUKUS? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Because religious whackjob fundie buddies Pompeo and Morrison had their very special relationship, and because for reasons unexplained, Labor insists on refusing to deviate from LNP policy almost everywhere it matters.
Sure would need nice if a few more peeps noticed that…
A huge disappointment from Albo and Marles. The latter is a would-be warmonger (What is it? Hairs on the chest?), but some bold steps to can the subs and invest in drones and modern, techno assisted defence mechanisms would be ten times more sensible. And best to work WITH China than do everything to antagonise them as a lackey of the USA.
I think Marles and Alnbanese are too stupid to see that they are being duped big time.
Wong is smart enough to see it, but not strong enough to stick her neck out and cop the maelstrom of US and local abuse that would instantly ensue.
Marles is a dimwit, who is only Deputy PM because Labor needed a Vic rightwinger to balance the NSW (former) “left winger” who is now our PM.
It’s interesting how, like its fast food multinationals, the US has franchises for protection and promotion of its exceptionalist global hegemony and influence. They are war NIMBYs. The last time US territory (and not the mainland) was attacked was 7 December 1941 when the Japanese raided Pearl Harbour.
Prior to that, Roosevelt could not overcome the “America First” sentiment prevailing in the US but that did not stop the Americans from making a lot of money selling arms to the UK. No altruistic defence of democracy there.
Pearl Harbour changed everything and the price the Japanese ultimately paid was to be nuked twice. Of course they did not have access to H-bombs to return fire.
It’s all different now. Neither Russia, nor China nor the US would tolerate an attack on their mainland and so wars have to be fought by proxy, by the franchisees. Note how Biden flew to Ukraine and declared the war was part of the fight to save democracy (it’s not – it’s about invasion of territory). However, the US is not so committed to saving democracy that it will commit its own troops to the struggle in Ukraine. Let them fight for democracy.
And it would be similar for Australia if/when the US gets the fight it so desperately seeks with China. We won’t be invaded by the Chinese – what would be the point? But we will be a target and we will be punished for hosting the weaponry the US will use against China. So, once again, no attacks on the US mainland, but the franchises in Japan, South Korea, Guam, Australia etc can foot the bill.
Interestingly, the US does not have a base on Taiwan. They closed that in 1979 in order to maintain stable relations with China, ie in recognition that the territory was part of the one Chinese nation. And they won’t be putting one there either because that would be a red line to China, who would see it as an invasion of their sovereign territory.
Surely Albo and Wong and some others in the Caucus can figure all this out and stand up and say “Wait up, this is not good for Australia and does not serve our national interests.
As for the disgraceful and treacherous rubbish being spruiked by Hartcher and his hand-picked posse of hawks with no expertise on China in the Nine media – it is beneath contempt.
ASPI, as usual, is also all over this. ASPI claims to be focused on Australian strategic policy yet when it opened a second office, outside Australia, it didn’t choose somewhere in Australia’s actual vicinity, like Jakarta, Singapore or Tokyo, but rather Washington. This alone demonstrates clearly that Australia’s national interest has been subsumed into the US’ national interest and we are just a defence colonial outpost, a 51st state for the national interests of the US.
“Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear.” – Douglas MacArthur
Marles is a galah, who is only Deputy PM because Labor needed a Vic rightwinger to balance the NSW (former) “left winger” who is now our PM.
It’s interesting how, like its fast food multinationals, the US has franchises for protection and promotion of its exceptionalist global hegemony and influence. They are war NIMBYs. The last time US territory (and not the mainland) was attacked was 7 December 1941 when the Japanese raided Pearl Harbour.
Prior to that, Roosevelt could not overcome the “America First” sentiment prevailing in the US but that did not stop the Americans from making a lot of money selling arms to the UK. No altruistic defence of democracy there.
Pearl Harbour changed everything and the price the Japanese ultimately paid was to be nuked twice. Of course they did not have access to H-bombs to return fire.
It’s all different now. Neither Russia, nor China nor the US would tolerate an attack on their mainland and so wars have to be fought by proxy, by the franchisees. Note how Biden flew to Ukraine and declared the war was part of the fight to save democracy (it’s not – it’s about invasion of territory). However, the US is not so committed to saving democracy that it will commit its own troops to the struggle in Ukraine. Let them fight for democracy.
And it would be similar for Australia if/when the US gets the fight it so desperately seeks with China. We won’t be invaded by the Chinese – what would be the point? But we will be a target and we will be punished for hosting the weaponry the US will use against China. So, once again, no attacks on the US mainland, but the franchises in Japan, South Korea, Guam, Australia etc can foot the bill.
Interestingly, the US does not have a base on Taiwan. They closed that in 1979 in order to maintain stable relations with China, ie in recognition that the territory was part of the one Chinese nation. And they won’t be putting one there either because that would be a red line to China, who would see it as an invasion of their sovereign territory.
Surely Albo and Wong and some others in the Caucus can figure all this out and stand up and say “Wait up, this is not good for Australia and does not serve our national interests.
As for the disgraceful and treacherous rubbish being spruiked by Hartcher and his hand-picked posse of hawks with no expertise on China in the Nine media – it is beneath contempt.
ASPI, as usual, is also all over this. ASPI claims to be focused on Australian strategic policy yet when it opened a second office, outside Australia, it didn’t choose somewhere in Australia’s actual vicinity, like Jakarta, Singapore or Tokyo, but rather Washington. This alone demonstrates clearly that Australia’s national interest has been subsumed into the US’ national interest and we are just a defence colonial outpost, a 51st state for the national interests of the US.
“Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear.” – Douglas MacArthur
Do not underestimate the arrogance of advisors in DFAT and Defence. The former, in particular, rival those of Treasury in their smug sel-assurance. You can be pretty sure they think, and are telling their ministers, we are actually playing the Americans. Historically this has some truth, we have bought very cheap security in terms of money and lives. Those with links to those who have died doubtless see it otherwise.
US imperial policy takes no account of the lives of their own people and certainly not of people in any other countries. China poses no military threat to us. The US, however, poses a military threat to China. This is not because China poses any threat to American national security; it is because China is an independent nation. The threat China poses is to the free lunch the US empire, (successor to various European empires), has enjoyed at the expense of the Africa, and South America and Asia.
The coming war with China is not about Taiwan. Taiwan provides a convenient pretext, but do not imagine that the businesses, homes, or lives of Taiwanese people matter to the imperial strategists – any more than did or do the lives of people in Syria, or Libya, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Yemen, or Laos, or Cambodia or Vietnam to name but a few. I suggest the real strategy, inasmuch as it relates to us, is to entirely sever any economic relationship between Australia and China – to deny Chain access to Australian resources and the Australian market. The damage this will do to our actual national interest is of no consequence.
It’s about advanced tech dominance – superconductors etc. Taiwan has the edge over China, thanks to the US who have massive tech interests there.
There is no clearer example than that of the treatment of our truth teller Julian Assange by both the USA and the UK, of exactly we should not believe , or trust, or align to either of them.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
For those here of the St Plibersek faction, look up her, far too many, comments on Assange from 2010 along with her Syrian insurgency spokebottery – straight off the Langley VA telex.
Excellent analysis from Broinowski. I fear the urgent questions she poses re AUKUS, for debate in Parliament, will fall on very deaf ears.
‘We are being led in our anti-China hysteria by the United States which is not concerned that China will attack us, or even the United States, but is concerned that it’s world hegemony is being challenged’.
John Menadue (Nov22)
Australia has a much more potent weapon that China would rightly be afraid of – it could destroy their economy overnight……………….
………….. a $500/ton export tax on iron ore.
No iron ore – no China.
Australia does not need nuclear boats to defend Australia, these nuclear boats are there to help the US in force projection away from Australia.
The US, UK, the former USSR, now RFR and France have such nuclear boats for use with their so called nuclear deterrent. They then also have other nuclear boats as hunter killers for dealing with such missile carrying boats.
Back in 2005, USS Ronald Reagan a newly constructed $6.2 billion dollar aircraft carrier, sank after being hit by multiple torpedoes.
This did not occur in actual combat, but was a war game simulation with a carrier task force including numerous antisubmarine escorts against HSMS Gotland, a small Swedish AIP diesel boat displacing 1,600 tons. Yet despite making multiple attacks runs on USS Reagan HSMS Gotland was never detected.
This war game exercise took place as the USN was concerned about how well its anti submarine warfare capacity would fare against normal diesel/battery powered boats.
HSMS Gotland was able to evade USS Reagan’s elaborate anti submarine defences, involving multiple ships ad hunter killer boats as well as aircraft employing a multitude of sensors, and it was a cheap boat costing around $100 million—roughly the cost of a single F-35 stealth fighter today.
Gotland-class boats, introduced in 1996, were the first with Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) systems using a Stirling engine.
The Stirling engine charges the submarine’s seventy-five-kilowatt battery using liquid oxygen in its operation.
Gotland-class boats can remain undersea for up to two weeks sustaining an average speed of 8-10 KPH or speed up to 40KPH using batteries.
A conventional diesel engine is used for operation on the surface or with a snorkel.
Stirling-powered AIP Gotland class run more quietly than nuclear-powered boats, which need their noise making coolant pumps always running in the reactor, shutting the pumps down can be done but then the heat has to be vented externally making them detectable by other means.
This outcome was replicated time and time again over two years of war games, with opposing destroyers and nuclear attack boats succumbing to the stealthy Swedish boat.
Naval analyst Norman Polmar said the HSMS Gotland “ran rings” around the American carrier task force.
Another source claimed that the US antisubmarine specialists were “demoralised” by the experience.
These nuclear boats will just be another very , very expensive US boondoggle, like the Abrams tanks and the F-35 Joint Strife Fighter.
I wrote yesterday in support of these subs but no-one is going to listen. Albanese is going to commit us to providing the US with another nuclear powered sub at our expense.
I have been told by an ex RAN friend that one of our Collins class subs. did exactly the same to a USN Carrier.
Got into a US Battle Group took a photo of the Carrier and departed without detection. Later sending the photo to a very embarrassed USN.
This story was recently confirmed be a recent News story.
I was told the same story by a very senior Australia naval officer years ago.
I remember being on Garden Island, Perth for work purposes (where the Collins are based) and the overwhelming opinion there was that they were fantastic. If the people who operate them say this then that is enough for me. (I too have heard the story of one inserting itself in the middle of a US fleet undergoing simulated war based tactical training, much to the consternation of the US).
The whole business of this latest bending over a desk for the Yanks is everything to do with politics and nothing at all to do with defense as how do we defend ourselves if we lose our life giving Chinese markets and find ourselves being attacked by missiles for which we have no defense? I’d like to know what they’re drinking in Canberra because it could be fatal for the rest of us. And given the history of the Yanks as described elsewhere here we would be mugs to assume they would die in a ditch for us. Just have a look at the latest articles appearing simultaneously in the NY Times, the Washington Post, the BBC and a conglomerate of German papers and magazines basically throwing Ukraine under a bus over Nord Stream 2 as the optics for Joe Biden and his team of blood suckers is increasingly looking lousy.
Correct in much of what you say, except the nuclear boats that it is proposed we obtain are the hunter-killers (like the Virginia’s or the Astutes) not missile boats (like the Ohio’s, Vanguards, or Dreadnoughts).
And the Collins class boats have sunk US carriers in exercises too. Which is hardly surprising as they share much in common with the Goathlands
“Why has Australia signed up for AUKUS, a deal serving America’s interests, not ours?”
Because the former and now disgrace PM thought there were some votes in it. Simples. So now we don’t have a useless expensive white elephant and we’ve paid to not have it. Genius.
He’s a marketing genius. Look at all the marketing jobs he’s had. Even God has signed him.
Our fear of the United States goes a lot deeper than the rampant stupidity of Morrison and Dutton, as well it might – with friends like the USA, who needs enemies?
According to a bit of Googling, it was either Charles Degaulle or John Foster Dulles who said:
“The United States has no friends, only interests.”