AUKUS Security Alliance Exposes EU's Fecklessness

by Soeren Kern
September 29, 2021 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17810/aukus-security-alliance

"If an authoritarian nation, such as China, displaces America as the dominant global power, then democracies all over the world will feel the consequences." — Gideon Rachman, columnist, Financial Times.
"Too many European elites still do not want to admit that democracies are in a systemic rivalry with autocracies. Refusing to acknowledge reality is convenient for them since it justifies their inaction. But we need to do the opposite and double down in our defense of democracies." — Andreas Fulda, China expert, University of Nottingham.
"The US thinks about how to contain China. And Australia too is in the position of thinking about how one contains, as opposed to how one accommodates; that's the fundamental difference with France. As a consequence, the US looks like the better partner." — Richard Whitman, professor of politics and international relations, University of Kent.
"I think it was the only option for Australia because the French were not going to annoy or unnecessarily irritate Beijing. They wanted trade, economic, and investment relations. Now, Australia will have the capability to sink the Chinese navy in 72 hours; that's what this is all about. The Chinese know they have been outmaneuvered, and they're very angry. In a very short period of time, Australia has gone from a doormat to something very considerable — it's an extraordinary development." — Joseph Siracusa, geopolitical analyst, Sky News Australia.
"The lesson of the past few weeks is that the world does not run on Brussels time, with its long periods for consultation, courteous attention to the electoral cycles of 27 countries, and sacrosanct weekends, evenings, and lunch breaks." — Edward Lucas, Europe analyst, Center for European Policy Analysis.
"France underestimated how China's naked military ambition, chronic disregard for international order, and barely concealed aspirations to control the deep Pacific and Antarctica pushed Australia to make tough decisions about the future." — Craig Hooper, geopolitical analyst, Forbes.
"It is hard to overstate the importance of the so-called Aukus alliance between the US, the UK and Australia — and the implicit geopolitical disaster for the EU." — Wolfgang Münchau, commentator, The Spectator.
"The extent of Emmanuel Macron's fury is absurd, and only shows the sublime lack of self-awareness that has come to characterize Europe's myopic political elites.... The European establishment has a long history of treating its geopolitical partners abysmally while wearing a mask of moral superiority." — Editorial board, The Telegraph.
"The EU continues to decline to take any serious responsibility for global peace and security, preferring to see the economic and commercial opportunities in the relationship with China, rather than the threat the Chinese Communist Party represents." — Gerard Baker, columnist, The Wall Street Journal.

Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States have announced a new tripartite strategic alliance aimed at countering China's growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region. The AUKUS defense agreement, under which Australia will acquire American-designed nuclear-powered submarines, is a welcome paradigm shift intended to enhance the projection of Western military power in the region. Pictured: The USS Virginia nuclear-powered attack submarine. (Image source: U.S. Navy)

AUKUS will supplement the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (also known as "The Quad"), a military partnership between Australia, India, Japan and the United States aimed at protecting freedom of navigation in the broader Asia-Pacific region. It will also strengthen Five Eyes, an intelligence-sharing alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

AUKUS, which has been described as the foundation of an Indo-Pacific version of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), appears to be the centerpiece of an emerging security architecture to check China's territorial ambitions.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, in a statement, explained the purpose of AUKUS:

"The security challenges in the Indo-Pacific region have grown significantly. Military modernization is occurring at an unprecedented rate and capabilities are rapidly advancing and their reach expanding. The technological edge enjoyed by Australia and our partners is narrowing.

"AUKUS will build on the three nations' longstanding and ongoing bilateral ties and will enable the partners to significantly deepen cooperation on a range of emerging security and defense capabilities, which will enhance joint capability and interoperability. Initial efforts under AUKUS will focus on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities.

"This is an historic opportunity for the three nations, with like-minded allies and partners, to protect shared values and promote security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.

"AUKUS will complement Australia's network of strategic partnerships, including with our ASEAN friends, our Pacific family, our Five Eyes partners, the Quad and other like-minded partners."

Notably, the AUKUS agreement does not include any member state of the European Union, which was completely left in the dark about the new alliance. AUKUS was announced on September 15, just hours before the EU unveiled its much-hyped "Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific." The EU had been hoping that its new plan would highlight its "strategic autonomy" from the United States in the Pacific region. Instead, the EU was eclipsed by AUKUS and exposed as a paper tiger. A humiliated EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell admitted:

"We were not informed. We were not aware. We regret not having been informed. We were not even consulted. I, as [the EU's] High Representative, was not aware of it, and I assume an agreement of such nature was not brought together overnight."

The United States is apparently sending a message to its traditional security partners in Europe that they should stop fence-sitting and pick a side regarding China, and possibly other adversaries of the West. This is something the EU and its largest member states have been unwilling to do.

The EU, under the direction of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, recently negotiated a controversial trade deal with China. The so-called Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) was widely criticized because European leaders, in their rush to reach an agreement with Beijing before the Biden administration took office, sacrificed their professed concern for human rights on the altar of financial gain.

Human rights experts say that at least one million Muslims in Xinjiang, China's biggest region, are being detained in up to 380 internment camps, where they are subject to torture, mass rapes, forced labor and sterilizations.

Columnist Gideon Rachman, writing for the Financial Times, warned that relying on an American security guarantee in Europe, while undermining American security policy in the Pacific, "does not look like a wise or sustainable policy over the long run." He added:

"The Europeans are also kidding themselves if they think they can be blind to the increasingly authoritarian and aggressive nature of Xi Jinping's China. For the past 70 years, Europeans have benefited from the fact that the world's most powerful nation is a liberal democracy. If an authoritarian nation, such as China, displaces America as the dominant global power, then democracies all over the world will feel the consequences."

Professor Andreas Fulda, a well-known China expert at the University of Nottingham, noted:

"Too many European elites still do not want to admit that democracies are in a systemic rivalry with autocracies. Refusing to acknowledge reality is convenient for them since it justifies their inaction. But we need to do the opposite and double down in our defense of democracies."

French Meltdown

As part of the agreement to acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines with help from the US and the UK, Australia cancelled a contract worth tens of billions of dollars — once dubbed the "contract of the century" — under which France was to supply Australia with 12 diesel-powered submarines.

France has reacted angrily to its change of fortunes. French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian called AUKUS a "stab in the back." He added: "This is not over. We're going to need clarifications. We have contracts."

In a subsequent interview with France 2 television, Le Drian escalated his attacks on Australia and the United States:

"There was lying, there was duplicity, there has been a major breach of trust, there has been contempt."

Speaking to France Info television, he added:

"The American behavior worries me. This unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision is a lot like what Mr. Trump did. We learned brutally through a statement by President Biden that the contract that the Australians signed with France is over and that the U.S. will make a nuclear offer to the Australians."

French Ambassador to Australia Jean-Pierre Thébault said that Australia's decision to cancel the deal was akin to "treason." France recalled its ambassadors to Australia and the United States, and the French Embassy in Washington, D.C. canceled a reception it was hosting to mark the 240th anniversary of the Battle of the Chesapeake, a decisive naval battle that helped the Americans secure their independence from Great Britain.

Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison pushed back against the French narrative. He said that he had told French President Emmanuel Macron in June that Canberra was considering walking away from the submarine contract:

"I made it very clear, we had a lengthy dinner there in Paris, about our very significant concerns about the capabilities of conventional submarines to deal with the new strategic environment we are faced with."

In an interview with Agence-France Presse, Morrison added:

"I think they would have had every reason to know that we had deep and grave concerns that the capability being delivered by the French submarine was not going to meet our strategic interests. We made very clear that we would be making a decision based on our strategic national interest. I don't regret the decision to put Australia's national interest first. Never will."

In fact, the French deal to build submarines for Australia had been dogged by years of problems, including cost overruns, production delays, culture clashes and security breaches. The project, announced in 2016, was originally slated to cost €31 billion (50 billion Australian dollars). That figure has since almost doubled to €56 billion (90 billion Australian dollars). In addition, the cost of maintenance was set to cost another €90 billion (145 billion Australian dollars) over the life of the submarines.

Moreover, France was unable to deliver the first submarine before 2035, with construction of the rest extending well into the 2050s. Australia feared that the submarines would be obsolete by the time they were to be supplied. With its current submarines slated for retirement in 2026, Australia would have been left vulnerable at a time of increasing tensions with China.

Australia and France were also in conflict over the participation of local industry. When the deal was announced in 2016, France pledged that 90% of the construction work would take place within Australia and would create nearly 3,000 domestic jobs. By 2021, however, Naval Group, the French company building the submarines, had reduced that figure to 60%, and it reportedly said that it could be reduced even further.

In April 2019, a report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation highlighted some of the cultural clashes between French and Australian workers: the French practice of being late for meetings; the French sanctity of the lunch break; and the French practice of taking an entire month off from work during the traditional summer holiday — even though the submarine contract was suffering from lengthy delays. Naval Group said that it was developing "intercultural courses" for French staff being posted to Australia. The aim was to prepare French expatriates and their families for "how to behave, how to understand and decode."

Adding insult to injury, hackers leaked more than 20,000 pages of secret French documents on the combat capability of submarines it was building for India. The data breach raised concerns about the security of the Australian submarines.

David Sanger, national security correspondent for The New York Times, noted that the decision to create AUKUS was made on the sidelines of the Cornwall G7 summit in June:

"By the time the Biden administration began engaging Australia and Britain seriously about its emerging strategy to counter China, a three-year-old contract worth $60 billion or more for a dozen submarines, to be constructed largely by the French, was already teetering, American officials said. The submarines were based on a propulsion technology that was so limited in range, and so easy for the Chinese to detect, that it would be obsolete by the time the first submarines were put in the water, perhaps as long as 15 years from now.

"There was an obvious alternative: the kind of nuclear-powered submarines deployed by the Americans and the British. But American and Australian officials agreed that if the French caught wind of the fact that the plug was going to be pulled on one of the biggest defense contracts in their history, they almost certainly would try to sabotage the alternative plan, according to officials who were familiar with the discussions between Washington and Canberra.

"So they decided to keep the work to a very small group of officials, and made no mention of it to the French, even when Mr. Biden and Mr. Blinken met their French counterparts in June."

Hugh Schofield, Paris correspondent for the BBC wrote:

"The fact is that the Australians calculated they had underestimated the Chinese threat and so needed to boost their level of deterrence. They acted with steely disregard for French concerns but, when it comes to the crunch, that is what nations do. It is almost the definition of a nation: a group of people who have come together to defend their own interests. Their own, not others'.

"The lesson of the last week is that France by itself is too small to make much of a dent in strategic affairs. Every four years the Chinese build as many ships as there are in the entire French fleet. When it came to the crunch, the Australians preferred to be close to a superpower, not a minipower.

Richard Whitman, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent, added:

"The US thinks about how to contain China. And Australia too is in the position of thinking about how one contains, as opposed to how one accommodates; that's the fundamental difference with France. As a consequence, the US looks like the better partner — when France was always a second-order partner that could supplement rather than replace anything the US might have to offer."

Geopolitical analyst Joseph Siracusa, in an interview with Sky News Australia, said that France's anger stems from the fact that it is being forced to choose between the United States and China:

"The French are very angry, not just about the submarine. They've been trying to avoid choosing between Washington and Beijing. They want their own 'strategic autonomy.' Europe thought they could play the honest broker between Washington and Beijing, and then wake up one morning and find out that the United States, Britain and Australia have tied up together with this nuclear-enabled deal, and of course, it's forcing Europe to make decisions it doesn't want to make.

"I think it was the only option for Australia because the French were not going to annoy or unnecessarily irritate Beijing. They wanted trade, economic, and investment relations.

"Now, Australia will have the capability to sink the Chinese navy in 72 hours; that's what this is all about. The Chinese know they have been outmaneuvered, and they're very angry. In a very short period of time, Australia has gone from a doormat to something very considerable — it's an extraordinary development."

European affairs analyst Edward Lucas noted:

"France is furious. The ostensible reason is that the new British-American deal to supply nuclear-powered submarines to Australia has cost it a lucrative defense contract. The real reason is that the emerging alliance to counter the Chinese Communist Party's imperialist ambitions underlines France's impotence — and the irrelevance of its plans for European 'strategic autonomy'.

"The lesson of the past few weeks is that the world does not run on Brussels time, with its long periods for consultation, courteous attention to the electoral cycles of 27 countries, and sacrosanct weekends, evenings, and lunch breaks. It runs on the brutal tempo seen in the Taliban's advance to Kabul, and in the Chinese leadership's headlong pursuit of regional military superiority. Running on Brussels time, the EU finds it hard to deal with threats close to home (fragility in the Western Balkans, a crackdown in Belarus, jihadists in the Sahel, civil war in Syria), let alone with superpowers like Russia and China. The result: when serious countries take serious steps to deal with serious threats, the unserious ones are left on the sidelines....

"The price of credibility is capability: when Europeans show that they can exercise diplomatic, economic, and military power in a sustained, determined manner, they will also show that they are worthwhile partners in global security."

Robert Singh, a professor of American politics at Birkbeck, University of London, added:

"In Washington, that episode [the hurried signing of the EU trade agreement with China] contributed to a skepticism towards Paris. France is very much seen as too soft on China — at a time when the US is clearly concerned that too many states on every continent are being suckered by China's economic statecraft into positions where US security alliances are likely to be endangered. So to see France do what it did with that trade deal was very disappointing to the Biden administration. My impression is that the US won't care very much that it has outraged France with this Australian submarine deal."

Chinese Belligerence, European Myopia

The impact of French mismanagement of the submarine project was compounded by China's increasing bellicosity toward Australia. After Canberra called for an investigation into the origins of the Coronavirus pandemic, for instance, Beijing responded with a trade war. Australia apparently has concluded that the United States is the only country that can contain China. Geopolitical analyst Craig Hooper stated:

"The events of last week demonstrate that geopolitical change happens fast. In the space of just five years, China's appetite for regional imperialism forced a complete revision of Australia's strategic position. In 2016, Australia's lash-up with France for 12 conventional submarines was seen as an innovative opportunity for France and Australia to position themselves as a relatively well-armed, albeit inoffensive and nominally non-aligned set of Pacific 'balancers,' buffering growing friction between China and America....

"China had other ideas about such inoffensive balancing. To the Chinese, the sophisticated middle path was just an admission of weakness and low resolve. Almost immediately as the ink dried on the sub agreement, China began putting an enormous amount of energy into shrinking Australia down to an impotent Chinese suzerainty. To that end, China directly tinkered with Australian politics, funding pro-China news outlets, thinkers, and politicians. It interfered in Australia's regional affairs, opened a vicious trade dispute, and presented Australia with a humiliating and sovereignty-eroding set of terms to restore favorable relations.

"In the end, China's existential threat made Australia and France's experiment in inoffensive deterrence — replicating the collaborative-but-unaligned approach of Sweden or Finland in Europe — untenable. France underestimated how China's naked military ambition, chronic disregard for international order, and barely concealed aspirations to control the deep Pacific and Antarctica pushed Australia to make tough decisions about the future."

Commentator Wolfgang Münchau, in an essay published by the London-based The Spectator, wrote that AUKUS is a "disaster" for the European Union:

"It is hard to overstate the importance of the so-called Aukus alliance between the US, the UK and Australia — and the implicit geopolitical disaster for the EU. The alliance is the culmination of multiple European failures: naivety at the highest level of the EU about US foreign policy; Brussels's political misjudgments of Joe Biden and his China strategy; compulsive obsession with Donald Trump; and the attempt to corner Theresa May during the Brexit talks. If you treat the UK as a strategic adversary, don't be surprised when the UK exploits the areas where it enjoys a competitive advantage.

"The EU has outmaneuvered itself through lazy group-think. While German political parties are still discussing the pros and cons of Nato, the Biden administration is moving beyond Nato towards a multipolar defense strategy. Nato remains a pillar but it is now supplemented by informal Indo-Pacific alliances. One of them is the Quad: the US, Japan, India and Australia. Five Eyes is an informal intelligence alliance between the US, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand. Aukus is a nuclear submarine pact between the US, the UK and Australia. This is the variable geometry of the new international order — whereas the monolithic EU is stuck with its 27 veto-wielding members in the foreign affairs council."

The editorial board of the London-based The Telegraph wrote:

"The Aukus defense pact between the UK, US and Australia is game-changing. A courageous decision to share nuclear technology with a friendly power, it re-tilts UK foreign policy towards the Pacific, where the threat of China must be managed, and proves that Global Britain is a concrete idea. Brexit, finally, is making a real, historic difference.

"To the French, however, it is a betrayal. Some degree of annoyance might be understandable, given that the country has lost out on a deal to sell 12-diesel powered submarines to Australia. But the extent of Emmanuel Macron's fury is absurd, and only shows the sublime lack of self-awareness that has come to characterize Europe's myopic political elites.

"Paris has recalled its ambassadors from Canberra and Washington; Britain has been labelled a poodle. The deal was, allegedly, a 'stab in the back.' All this is petulant and stunningly hypocritical: the European establishment has a long history of treating its geopolitical partners abysmally while wearing a mask of moral superiority....

"Paris is hardly a stranger to hard-nosed realpolitik, being among the leading proponents of the view that international affairs is about defending your national interests even at the cost of those of your allies....

"Evidently, the Aukus partners sought a nimble alliance that can react fast to events; the plan was apparently sealed at the G7, only in June. It is also a deal based on trust. The UK and the US have been partners in nuclear technology since the 1940s: the last time the US shared nuclear propulsion technology was with Britain in 1958. Drawing Australia into that relationship, a rising power with historic links to the UK and a member of the elite Five Eyes intelligence sharing group, was not a thoughtless betrayal of the French. It was entirely rational in the circumstances....

"The US was disgusted by Germany's pipeline deal with Russia, and while Washington is now seeking partners that will stand firm against China, Europe has too often shown itself willing to compromise with Beijing in order to secure trade and investment advantages....

"Aukus vindicates the UK's exit from the EU. Brexit set the UK free to re-evaluate its own interests and serve them better. The deal proves decisively that the Remainer claim that Britain can have no influence outside of a European bloc, to which it must necessarily surrender its sovereignty or become irrelevant, was a lie. The UK is an attractive geopolitical partner, with significant military and diplomatic advantages, that now has the capacity to act more flexibly in global affairs. Mr. Macron will just have to get used to that."

Veteran European affairs columnist Gerard Baker, writing for The Wall Street Journal, added:

"To its credit, the Biden administration has largely signed on to the idea that the defining issue of the 21st century will be the strategic rivalry between the U.S. and China....

"But Europe has made clear it doesn't want to join that rivalry. Even France, which uniquely now since the U.K. left the bloc has the military capabilities to project power globally, has indicated its reluctance. Condemning the U.S. this weekend, the French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said, 'We see the rise of an Indo-Pacific strategy launched by the United States that is militarily confrontational. That is not our position.'

"That's because the EU continues to decline to take any serious responsibility for global peace and security, preferring to see the economic and commercial opportunities in the relationship with China, rather than the threat the Chinese Communist Party represents....

"This is the existential problem for the EU exposed by Mr. Biden's undiplomatic coup: There has probably never been as large a mismatch between the economic weight of an institution and its political and military strength. Through its history the EU has prioritized — to great success — its economic interest, safe in the knowledge that the U.S. security umbrella was there to protect it. Now that the U.S. really needs it to share some of the costs of that umbrella, the EU is missing in action."

Professor of French History, John Keiger, writing for The Spectator, concluded:

"What the three Anglosphere states in the Aukus pact have put together is a loose, flexible and nimble arrangement for managing Indo-Pacific security directly. This is something that is second nature to states of a culture that General de Gaulle always referred to as 'Anglo-Saxon'. It is just the kind of arrangement that is anathema to the formal, rational and legalistic method of the French and their cultural offshoot the EU, whose modus operandi was best demonstrated by the glacial formalism applied to the Brexit negotiations....

"Aukus members probably wanted France in the pact. Diplomatically and militarily she has much to offer in terms of naval projection, nuclear submarines and weapons, intelligence and physical presence by dint of her overseas territories in the south Pacific. But wishing to react rapidly, they were probably anxious about her cultural proclivity to define every term, role and eventuality. The crucial problem for France is that by her own admission the Australian deal wasn't merely about submarines. It was the keystone in a regional security edifice carefully pieced together that will now have to be remodeled completely, were that possible. This is the source of their disappointment and public outrage.

"The second problem for Paris is that Aukus is not just a coalition of three. It will be the nexus of a much broader web drawing in other informal regional groupings with varied objectives from security to trade, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, of US, Japan, India and Australia, or the 12 nation Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement which includes the US (albeit withdrawn under Trump), Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and a pending UK membership.

"France could now find herself outside these concentric circles. Her only full access would be by belated invitation to the sanctum sanctorum of Aukus. But as a late joiner she might be required to be amenable on other matters....

"What Macron does next is therefore key. With the presidential election campaign unofficially underway and France about to take up the presidency of the EU council for six months, he is certain to make grandiloquent statements about France and Europe's only salvation lying in European 'strategic autonomy' from the US and NATO. But Macron knows in his heart of hearts, like his French predecessors, that this has been on the cards since the French inspired — and French scuppered — European Defense Community of 1954 and that it will go nowhere during his mandate.

"What's more, an EU defense and security role in the Indo-Pacific will go no further than gesture politics, as only France has the capability to deploy in the area. Macron will have to swallow his pride and go with Aukus."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Recent Articles by Soeren Kern

Belgium's Prisoner Swap Treaty with Iran: "A Deal with the Devil", 2022-08-12
EU: Last-Ditch Effort to Salvage Iran Nuclear Deal, 2022-08-04
Australia: New Government Maintains Hardline Stance on China, 2022-07-22
Russia Gives NATO New Lease on Life, 2022-07-14
EU Signs Deal with Egypt and Israel to Boost Gas Exports to Europe, 2022-06-30

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

42 Reader Comments

Stan Sexton • Oct 7, 2021 at 19:02

After the Great Reset, we will be following the "China Model." What Democracy will we be saving if we counter China anyway?

Reply->

badu • Oct 4, 2021 at 08:16

China says Taiwan is part of China. Is China really going to shoot itself in the foot? If so, Japan, India, Vietnam, Philippines , Australia, New Zealand, USA and UK will all attack China. They won't have a chance. China's humiliation will last another 100 years. Their factories will all be destroyed. Democracy will be the winner. Statues of Xi hanging from a rope will be erected all over China.

Reply->

VietVetInOhio • Oct 1, 2021 at 01:34

How will they ever assemble a submarine crew with the country locked down?

Reply->

Rob Porter • Sep 30, 2021 at 15:08

So the French, like Canada, Sweden and a whole host of other hypocrites want "trade, economic, and investment relations" with China, one of the world's foremost abusers of human rights, a dictatorship that has betrayed undertakings and disdainfully destroyed Hong Kong's democracy, incarcerates millions of its citizens, is a massive environmental polluter and the country that invaded Tibet where as a result more than 1.5 million Tibetans died and their culture was destroyed.
I truly marvel! These same countries punished South Africa with trade sanctions and boycotts because of the injustices of its apartheid policies. They were indeed injustices, but not in the remotest did they measure the extent of China's abuses and injustices.
So where from Western countries, particularly South Africa's chief critics, Sweden, Canada and Australia, are trade sanctions and boycotts to punish China?
The fact that despite all of its crimes against humanity Western countries still pursue "trade, economic, and investment relations" with China, speaks volumes about their moral destitution and dereliction, and thorough lack of what the late-Margaret Thatcher called "moral impulse".

Reply->

ceres • Sep 30, 2021 at 05:31

Great Article. Good move by Australia to get nuclear subs and form an alliance with other anglosphere countries UK, USA. We share values and heritage. We need to defend against very dangerous others who don't share our values. The anglosphere includes NZ and Canada though Canada seems to have become a home for Islamic radicalism. I hope this helps our friends in Taiwan, Pacific Islands, South Korea, Japan etc feel that there are people watching China and prepared to act.

Reply->

Rob Porter

ceres • Sep 30, 2021 at 12:15

The "Anglosphere" should include NZ and Canada, but through the actions of two utterly feckless leaders, Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern, no longer does. Ardern, it is evident, despite China's appalling human rights record and hostile actions all over south-east Asia, has thrown in New Zealand's lot with despotic China. Over Trudeau's Canada there must now be lack of confidence that Canada can be trusted with intelligence and secrets regarding China. Why would it be otherwise? Trudeau has insisted his military train China's troops - not least in winter warfare - at Canadian military bases, has educated 2 and 3-Star Chinese generals at Canadian military colleges and neglected his own military. One can only imagine the intelligence gathered in Canada by China's troops and generals. So, on whose side is Canada?

Reply->

Agnes • Sep 30, 2021 at 03:53

Our government has very sensibly decided on a nuclear submarine. I hope good sense prevails and Australia will purchase a couple of these vessels off the shelf (yes I know its not like going to a $2 shop. It costs) while waiting for one to be built. Knowing our speed it may be an antique by the time it hits the water. And who knows, if nuclear ceases to be a dirty word we may even use it for energy instead of exporting it.

Reply->

Tim Breland • Sep 30, 2021 at 00:14

There is the pesky little detail of giving a country who regularly use their own police to bash people for being "maskless" and restrict them to their homes on a whim. They are not China, but that's a bit authoritarian by my estimation. Of course the U.S. is moving that way rapidly. It is certainly not out of the question that any deal made with China's puppet in the White House for the whole thing to go sour quickly.

Reply->

Rob Porter

Tim Breland • Sep 30, 2021 at 13:02

Tim, my sentiments almost exactly. The chances of this alliance going sour are considerable. With this wretched Biden Administration I'm surprised it even materialized. It panders to China, so what is the logic? After it's shameful and inept withdrawal from Afghanistan involving abandonment of U.S. citizens and Afghans who over 20 years loyally served the U.S., it's fixation on dealing with rogue, terror-exporting Iran, soft-peddling on China, why would anyone consider the Biden-U.S. a reliable ally? Within the U.S., Biden is deeply in bed with radical leftists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ilhan Omar and lies atrociously over a multitude of matters. Morally the U.S. has gone to the dogs.

Reply->

Terry Joseph Taylor • Sep 29, 2021 at 18:43

France/Old Europe and CCP China brings up images of Neville Chamberlain and Nazi Germany.

Reply->

David Ashton • Sep 29, 2021 at 18:25

We need to work for a common front between English-speaking people and other European people against both Chinese imperialism and Muslim imperialism, in self-defence.

Reply->

Larry Cronin • Sep 29, 2021 at 16:44

This is an excellent and well researched factual report. Thank you very much indeed.
I have sent it on to others. kind regards,

Larry / Australia

Reply->

will • Sep 29, 2021 at 14:58

Considering the autocratic dictates of the leaders of the west, it's rather ironic that you call the western nations democracies. The people of western nations have no more control over their governments than the Chinese do.

Reply->

Malcolm • Sep 29, 2021 at 13:09

The EU likes to portray itself as a global power but really it is just a protectionist trading block. Since the UK left the EU, France is now the only substantial military power and Germany makes good cars.
The Aukus arrangement shows that the idea that the EU is important in global affairs (other than trade) is a myth.

Reply->

Malcolm • Sep 29, 2021 at 16:07

Their cars aren't even as good as they're cracked up to be. Japanese cars are better.

Reply->

Rob Porter • Sep 29, 2021 at 13:03

One of the most fascinating, revealing and informative articles I've read in a long time. On one hand we should complement Australia in particular for its wise choice, the AUKUS alliance is "an extraordinary development", but on the other hand let us not get so carried away that we avoid confronting a few harsh and disturbing realities. After all of Joe Biden's and his Administration's soft-peddling on China, that it would conceive of such an alliance to confront China caught me by surprise, a pleasant surprise, but then awkward questions arose and aroused within me questions regarding the potential for this alliance to prove not so stable, both short-term and long-term.
Certainly Australia prefers being linked with 'a super-power rather than a mini-power', but in the aftermath of this super-power's utterly bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan, abandonment of 81 billion dollars-worth of military equipment and the Bagram airbase, imprisonment of a U.S. Marine Lt.-Colonel, Stu Scheller - without charges - for simply having the courage to demand accountability from his superiors for their display of incompetence in Afghanistan, no one should avoid questioning America's present stability and the competence of its leaders, civilian and military.

Despite Western Europe's and particularly France's utter uselessness in confronting China, a serious question not raised in this article is how dependable in an alliance is the United States itself? It has a Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley, who openly admitted to consulting with the head of China's military and promising him that if the U.S. were to plan an attack on China he would be the first to warn China. I personally heard him state that Russia 'is the enemy' and, despite all the evidence to contrary, that China is not an enemy. Why is General Milley still chairman of the joint chiefs of staff? Why is he not tried for treason? Adding to this particular mess was other senior U.S. generals openly expressing their support and admiration for Milley's audacity in so dealings with China.
Also not mentioned in this article is the Biden administrations determination to reach a nuclear deal with world's primary exporter of Islamic terrorism and prime human rights abuser, Iran. Since when do such telling things not matter? What possesses the minds of such Americans when declaring that regardless of what Iran's rogue government does - including incessantly insulting the U.S. and everyone not Muslim - it is determined to pursue a nuclear deal. Why? To what sane benefit? Has morality, moral considerations and wisdom completely deserted those who now lead the U.S.?
Hence my considerable reservations regarding the AUKUS Alliance.

Reply->

Tim Breland

Rob Porter • Sep 30, 2021 at 00:16

To your last query. Yes, long ago.

Reply->

shloime • Sep 29, 2021 at 12:10

The EU is not a military superpower, and is barely capable of defending its own borders, let alone projecting military power in the pacific. for that matter, neither is the UK. relying on them in a possible confrontation with China would be unwise.

but Australia has another potential ally in the region: India. India shares the same strategic misgivings about Chinese expansionism, and has a large population and is modernising its armed forces. it only makes sense that they be included in this alliance sooner or later. even if it spoils the cute acronym.

Reply->

Paul Karch • Sep 29, 2021 at 10:11

By its recent actions of brutalizing and arresting its own people, for no other reason than being normal people; Australia is now an authoritarian country. The government has been driven insane by absolute power.

Reply->

Robert McDonald • Sep 29, 2021 at 09:53

Sixty years ago my dad spoke of a sleeping Giant and he was speaking to China and for our govts to ignore the obvious peril would bring us to where we are today. My dad was a grade eight graduate but was well read and had a good understanding of politics. He would be truly sad to see his words come true.

Reply->

Jonty • Sep 29, 2021 at 08:57

The French deserve what they get. Malcolm Turnbull is an economic vandal that politicized Australia's national defense. The French are hypocrites that stole Israeli money and did not deliver French jets that were paid for just prior to the 6 day war when Israel was under the threat of annihilation. France is a degenerate country that condones the murder of Jews by drunkards and Islamic drug addicts. France can GFI.

Reply->

Rob Porter

Jonty • Sep 30, 2021 at 13:49

Jonty, well said. France did renege on delivery of its Mirage jet fighters to Israel. It then did similarly to South Africa after supplying it with Mirage fighters. Many years ago after completing my university degree in Canada, while returning to South Africa I met and conversed with the South African air attache in Paris. South Africa had recently bought Mirages, so I asked him about French reliability. He was adamant that the French would not repeat this action - but they did. Both Israel and South Africa, I gather with some co-operation, later stripped down their Mirages to the frame, re-designed and modernized these aircraft with other engines. The South African aircraft became known as the Cheetah and proved a very good aircraft.

Reply->

Hamish MacDonald • Sep 29, 2021 at 08:51

E. Macron's withdrawing Ambassadors from Australia is ludicrous to say the least. As a socialist Macron needs money to pay the bills, as every socialist knows, or to put it in Margaret Thatcher's terminology: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money". Macron's hope for Australian money disintegrated, and so like a little boy who has lost his toys has thrown a tantrum to save face. Without money to pay the welfare bill which rises with each migrant, legal or illegal, he is in trouble, particularly as the election looms ever nearer. Le Pen already proposes a referendum to get public support for drastic cuts on immigration, following the Hungarian example in which Hungarians voted overwhelmingly to curb immigration, and Viktor Orban's reply with a huge border fence.
The contrast between Macron's failed socialism (the yellow vests did not like him and said so), and the AUKUS alliance is obvious: Democracy is strong, and China is no democracy.
Despite ex PM M. Turnbull's miserable critique, the fat is in the fire: "The crucial problem for France is that by her OWN ADMISSION the Australian deal wasn't merely about submarines."
French security can only be fixed by facing the problems, no go zones etc. Socialist Macron has long avoided this. "...he is certain to make grandiloquent statements..." about U.S.and NATO.
This is now over, as he "knows in his heart of hearts" and "it will go nowhere during his mandate."
Macron's socialism is now up for grabs. China won't be backward in stepping forward, but it will do it as its own pace, as it always has done.
"Macron will have to swallow his pride and go with AUKUS" is where the story must go. China knows it, The US knows it, Hungarians, Austrians, Danes know it.
And The EU knows it also.
Excellent illumination.

Reply->

Frederick • Sep 29, 2021 at 08:30

As usual, an excellent article from Soeren Kern. Biden and his administration deserve credit for negotiating in admirable secrecy this major check to China's global ambitions. Biden and Johnson deserve praise for this declaration of support for Australia at a time when China is waging a trade war against it. So a further step is needed. As Kern indicates, the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement was originally negotiated by the Obama administration with eleven friendly nations in the Pacific, including Australia. Trump decided to withdraw from it, torpedoing the original treaty, which was then successfully renegotiated among the eleven. The Biden administration should be encouraged to apply to reenter the agreement in order to reinforce these US allies against further economic attacks from China. It will need to be a bipartisan effort because there were protectionist elements among both Democrats and Republicans that supported Trump's withdrawal. Note that Johnson's UK has given a lead by applying to join the agreement; America should not hesitate to follow.

Reply->

Les Brown

Frederick • Sep 29, 2021 at 10:35

It should be noted that one the those "friendly nations" was China.
Bernie Sanders, in a rare show of bipartisan support, sided with Trump in the US pull-out saying; "For the last 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals[...] which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a 'race to the bottom' which has lowered wages for American workers." (Wikipidia)
In a 2015 Pew Survey, support for the TPP was more popular amongst Dems than Reps but overall the USA was almost the least in favour of it as compared to other countries in the TPP that were surveyed.

Reply->

shloime

Frederick • Sep 29, 2021 at 12:20

Biden was sworn in as president less than 9 months ago. A 3-way treaty of this kind cannot be negotiated in that length of time, and neither can a deal for a dozen nuclear submarines.

The credit for the Biden administration is not for negotiating it, but for not scuttling it in their zeal to destroy anything and everything "Trump". Uncommon common sense prevailed in this case.

Reply->

Frederick

Les Brown • Sep 30, 2021 at 08:04

China is not a member. The eleven nations are: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Brown may have confused the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), as it is now called, with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a free trade agreement that includes some of the same states but also others including China. The CPTPP is far more comprehensive, since it seeks to promote and protect the environment, good governance, cultural identity, indigenous rights, intellectual property and labor standards, fields in which China stands accused, also by the USA, of gross violations.

This is why, although China formally applied to join on September 21 this year, its chances of becoming a member are seen to be minimal. On the other hand, the application of the UK on February 1 last is seen as unproblematic in general. The UK still has overseas territories in the Pacific Ocean (the Pitcairn Islands). Every existing member, of course, has a veto on further applications for membership. As a member of the original agreement, the USA would certainly be welcome to reapply. The statement that Brown quotes from Bernie Saunders, on the other hand, is an excellent example of how narrow-minded interests voiced by American politicians of either party frustrate the greater global interests of the USA in the Pacific area.

Reply->

Michael Stevens • Sep 29, 2021 at 07:36

At last the English speaking democracies are standing up to the Chinese communist dictatorship.

Reply->

Gerry • Sep 29, 2021 at 07:10

And Europe feels like it's owed something by the UK, US and Australia. Why? Exactly what do those three countries owe Europe? Thousands of soldiers from those countries died in two world wars for France and against Germany. The balance sheet is still not sorted yet.

The Australian PM at the time of the submarine deal was/is pretentious, stupid and ego-driven. It was a stupid deal which no one in Australia wanted except politicians and a few shipbuilders in South Australia. Good riddance to the stupid deal.

Reply->

Dr David Salinger • Sep 29, 2021 at 06:59

Well! The French are flustered. The most untrustworthy nation historically, are now calling others so!

Reply->

mikee • Sep 29, 2021 at 06:57

Some other notable French co-operative projects that fell apart or were compromised well into the prodction phase in many instances. The Franco/German AMX 30 and Leopard 1 tank devlopment project of the 1950/60s; The Australian Mirage IIIO project of the 1960/70s; The Swiss Mirage III project; The French refusal to supply Mirage III aircraft and patrol boats to Israel in the 1960s when the French decided to change sides; the Atlantique maritime patrol aircraft replacement which has been going on for decades and ended up with the Germans buying P8 Poseidons. The failures by French participation outweigh the successes!

Reply->

Les Brown • Sep 29, 2021 at 06:45

When looking back at the perfidy the French have shown in the past, most notably the Cherbourg Project where Israel had to steal its own, paid for, missile boats in December 1968 from Cherbourg in France, because De Gaulle had implemented an arms embargo on Israel, why should they complain?
Quel dommage - that's French for Karma.
Good move Australia. Well done, ScoMo. You make me proud to be an Aussie.

Reply->

Gerry

• Sep 29, 2021 at 23:34

We got the diesel submarines because the nuclear submarines the French had to sell needed nuclear replenishing (fuel rods) every five years and the Australian Government couldn't get the deal done because it wouldn't get through the Upper House of Parliament. So we got a diesel version. These US submarines we're getting now don't require refuelling apparently.

Reply->

Gabor Ujvari • Sep 29, 2021 at 06:34

The French deceived Australia by offering diesel electric submarines at inflated price with unrealistic long lead time. In the past six years they increased the price, reduced the Australian contents and most importantly they did not submit a drawing yet. Hence the Australian government made the right decision to choose US-UK designed nuclear submarines which are more modern and the cost is lower.
We have to look at the past history of France. France abandoned Czechoslovakia in the 1930s, Israel in the 1960s and they betrayed their NATO allies. Hence Australia cannot rely on France, but can rely on the traditional allies of the US, UK and new allies Japan and India.

Reply->

Sid Weiner

Gabor Ujvari • Sep 30, 2021 at 20:27

And the French sheltered the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978/1979 in France while Khomeini was plotting against the Shah in Iran.

Reply->

Gabor Ujvari

Sid Weiner • Oct 1, 2021 at 21:10

Yes, the French and Swedish authorities created a false image that Ayatollah Khomeini was a peaceful Islamic cleric preaching peaceful Islamic messages. Ayatollah Khomeini sent his inciting messages to Iran to undermine the Shah and to install religious zealots to power. Hence we cannot trust the French that they will stick with us in time of need.

Reply->

Sylvia Drummond • Sep 29, 2021 at 05:59

A marvellous eye opening article on the realities of China's threat to the world. At least Biden has signed up to this agreement. If the French have any sense they will dispense with Macron at the next election.

Reply->

Hamdy

Sylvia Drummond • Sep 29, 2021 at 06:40

Macron has not solved any problem, modified any issue or improved any situation.
His visits to Lebanon (twice) proved futile and even counterproductive (Hezbollah strengthened its control over the country).
His reaction to AUKUS is childish (why mourn if you have a good product).
His policy is shortsighted (failed to see the future Morrison and Frydenberg see).
His vision is limited and only regional. (failed to include the south east part of the world).
Yes, Australia was (rightly) swift in changing directions but 25 million Australians (with their allies in NZ, Japan, south east and Pacific islands) are sure AUKUS is timely brilliant must, never to be regretted.

Reply->

Solomon • Sep 29, 2021 at 05:52

France has always been a hedonistic prostitute. Its last act was a sell out to Germany. As such given Germany is happy to deal with Russia putting itself and the EU at the mercy of Putin or worse that may come, how could a sane proud Anglo trust either France or Germany? Then again, look at how a prostitute will fight for Climate Change but agrees to use diesel instead of Nuclear. How does that help clean the emissions? France supports terror and has fed Palestinian cutthroat terrorists against the State of Israel. I say Bravo Boris and well done Australia.

Reply->

Hamish MacDonald

• Sep 30, 2021 at 04:49

I concur.

Reply->

Hamdy • Sep 29, 2021 at 05:48

I have been calling Australia "home" for nearly 35 years.
As a person who was born, educated, brought up and who served in the army of the most heavily populated country in the Middle East, I have never been happier with our Australian politicians as I am now.
AUKUS is "the" unity Australian has secured not only for itself but also also for its regional allies in the whole South East of the earth (NZ, Japan, South Pacific Islands such as PNJ,Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands).
Thank God for our Prime Minister "Scott Morrison" and his innovative and energetic Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

Reply->

Gerry

Hamdy • Sep 29, 2021 at 07:11

And especially Peter Dutton. Josh Frydenburg I'm not so sure about.

Reply->