On September 15th, a new strategic and technological pact was agreed between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The deal, dubbed ‘AUKUS,’ contains several tweaks that deepen the existing military ties among the three countries. The most significant provision by far, however, is the transfer of nuclear submarine technology from the U.K and U.S to Australia (not actual nuclear weapons, only nuclear-powered submarines). This technology is extremely sensitive – not least because it involves highly-enriched uranium – and would make Australia the seventh country in the world to possess nuclear submarines (after the U.S, U.K, France, China, Russia, and India).
The other important detail to mention is France’s reaction. You see, France, way back in 2016, had agreed to sell Australia conventional, diesel-powered submarines in a contract worth about $70 billion to French industries, and, apparently, no one bothered to warn the French that the Aussies were about to renege. So, when AUKUS was announced on September 15th, France promptly called it a “stab in the back” and was so enraged that a few days later President Macron recalled the French ambassadors in Washington and Canberra – something that had never happened in the entire history of either alliance. French tempers have since cooled somewhat, but it is clear they still feel majorly disrespected and insulted.
This whole story has been getting a lot of coverage, but not nearly as much widespread notice as, say, the botched Afghanistan evacuation. Indeed, the Taliban takeover will likely be the foreign policy story of the year, while the AUKUS dust-up has already begun to fade.
In a way, this is understandable. There is no dramatic TV footage to accompany the submarine deal like there was for Kabul. And after the initial burst of headlines and recalled ambassadors, there haven’t been any new, juicy developments. But, still, AUKUS is the more significant development, something that portends major geopolitical consequences. It should not be constrained to esoteric security analyses. Everyone should care about this new pact, and everyone should pay attention to how it develops.
In short, AUKUS matters, and it is worthy of your attention for three main reasons.
Reason one: a major shift in the U.S approach.
Not too long ago the U.S tried to pull together eleven Pacific countries in a massive, multilateral trade agreement. Besides the U.S, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) included Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Signed in February 2016, the TPP promised to reduce tariffs, increase transparency, foster mutual economic integration, improve labor conditions and human rights, and apply stricter, more uniform environmental standards. Through such provisions and sheer economic weight, TPP was also a direct attempt to counter China’s bullying economic and foreign policy in the region. Trump, however, immediately pulled the U.S out of the TPP, killing its chances as an anti-China counterweight.
Now, it seems like the days of trying to get China to play nice with intelligent economic and diplomatic pressure are over. Now the U.S has brought out its big guns, and is much more willing to rely on traditional military might. This shift is likely to ratchet up tensions further, and probably without much corresponding good. As Thomas Friedman recently put it, there’s a reason why Chinese “hard-liners feared [the TPP] more than submarines.”
Reason two: a galvanizing effect.
Before September 15th, one could have argued that Australia was a neutral party in the U.S-China rivalry. After all, didn’t Prime Minister Morrison say in 2018 “Australia doesn't have to choose and we won't choose”? AUKUS silenced all doubt – Australia is absolutely aligned with the U.S. What’s more, the pact signals to all other nearby powers – countries like Indonesia, Singapore, India, and Malaysia – that the geopolitical game has reached a new phase. Each Pacific country will have to decide for itself how to respond. Some might choose to increase military spending; others might decide that neutrality is no longer an option. Some might follow Australia’s lead, others might cut and run to Beijing. China will certainly be ready to respond by ramping up its own submarine and anti-submarine technology production. And in this atmosphere of mutual arms-accumulation, it is easy to imagine that the diplomatic field might be shaken up.
Reason three: trouble in the transatlantic.
When Biden entered the White House in January, most of Europe breathed a sigh of relief. Perhaps, many hoped, the good old days of mutual respect and cooperation would return to the transatlantic world. Now, such hopes seem dashed. True, France can only howl so long – but what else can they do and where else can they go? All of Europe definitely noticed how France has just been treated. And whether on purpose or by accident, there really is no excuse for America humiliating and sidelining their oldest ally. It makes the U.S look callous, clumsy, or superior (or all three). Losing even a drop of European good faith, at a time like this, is a terrible waste.
There hasn’t been any coordinated response from European capitals, but I guarantee that America-skeptics across the continent are stashing AUKUS away in their memory. And you can bet your hat that France will be whispering to its neighbors and making bitter comments about this affront for years. So, the next time Washington wants something important from the transatlantic partnership, they might find that they lack the prerequisite diplomatic leverage.
And I now must ask for your indulgence, as the following metaphor was too good to pass up.
The AUKUS story is very much like a submarine. It dramatically emerged from the waves for a moment – prompting an international combination of shock, relief, and fury – only to disappear again beneath the surface of next week’s news. Australia’s new subs won’t go to sea for years, maybe not until 2030. The reactions of other Pacific nations will also gestate for years. France will come back to the table, America will offer some kind of olive branch, and the world will move on.
But AUKUS is still there, lurking. It will be there in the minds of diplomats and security-hawks, in closed cabinet meetings throughout the Pacific, in the shipyards and command centers, and somewhere in the watery depths of the South-China Sea.
Keep an eye to the horizon on where and when this submarine will next emerge.
Comments