The Royal Australian Navy submarine HMAS Sheean. Photo / Australian Defence Force via Getty Images, File
The Royal Australian Navy submarine HMAS Sheean. Photo / Australian Defence Force via Getty Images, File
Editorial
EDITORIAL
Whenever any political quake in Australia is big and controversial enough, Paul Keating is likely to be in the thick of the rubble, offering his unvarnished takes as aftershocks.
On the subject of Australia’s new A$368 billion Aukus pact submarine deal, the former Labor prime minister and treasurer hasbeen joined by ex-Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull in publicly questioning it.
The United States and the United Kingdom will help Australia build eight nuclear-powered submarines over a long timeframe - the next 30 years - but the deal kicks off increased co-operation straight away.
This year Australian defence personnel will be embedded with US and UK navies. From 2027, British and American nuclear-powered submarines will be visiting Australian waters on rotation as part of the training programme. In the 2030s the US intends to sell Australia three Virginia-class submarines. Australia and the UK will operate the new SSN-Aukus submarines containing US technology.
Both former leaders have valid points to consider and their criticisms highlight how far the three countries have drifted into a more combined and hawkish defence stance in recent years, propelled by increased and widening competition between the US and China.
Australia has become strategically embedded even more tightly with the US and UK, while New Zealand now watches from the sidelines.
Turnbull has focused on Britain’s suitability as a long-term partner given its economic problems and the issue of sovereignty with this new deal.
“The reality is, this will take a lot more time, cost a great deal more money, have a lot more risk than if we had proceeded with the submarine project we had with France that [former prime minister Scott] Morrison recklessly cancelled [in 2021],” he said.
Keating, lacing his comments with personal digs, attacked the central idea of China being a threat to Australia while questioning the reliability of the US and UK as allies and highlighting the cost to Australians.
Former leaders with no fear of upsetting their successors in speaking their minds can cut through the barrier of respectability that sometimes prevents opinions from being expressed.
There are quite a few question marks over the deal for Australia: from the lack of public say over the detail; to what else that money could have been spent on; whether it is strategically smart or good value; and the issue of nuclear safety, non-proliferation and waste. And defence is gobbling up billions that could be spent on climate change.
Australia appears to be continuing a process of trying to make itself indispensable to the US and so tying down its protection. But that also increases the chances of Australia being a substantial player in any US conflict with China. Were Australia to be a major target, New Zealand would be affected.
From New Zealand’s point of view does it put more pressure on Wellington to stay in touch strategically with our traditional allies, in non-nuclear ways? Can we afford to increase defence spending to maintain relevance? Will trying to stay both in and out become too tricky a tightrope routine?
Illustration / Rod Emmerson
Both Australia with its raw materials and New Zealand with its food products have opportunities to stay on good trade terms with China.
From the base of trade within different regions, Beijing is now signalling a greater interest in global political influence. It is involved in diplomatic moves to bring Russia and Ukraine to talks, while it surprisingly brokered a deal between US ally Saudi Arabia and Iran.
China has also been building up its military capability in the South China Sea and now has about 355 navy ships. There are also other potential flashpoints in Asia: Japan and South Korea have been holding a summit to improve relations because of the mutual problem of North Korea.
Keating accused his old party Labor of “returning to our former colonial master, Britain” and favouring “security in and within the Anglosphere” over security in Asia.
He said that for any land invasion of Australia, China would need to bring an armada of troop-laden ships. “[There’s] 8000km between Beijing, or Shanghai and Brisbane. In which case, we’d just sink them all.”
The US has been steadily cementing security deals around the region including with Japan, India and the Philippines. US President Joe Biden said that “Aukus has one overriding objective. To enhance the stability of the Indo-Pacific amid rapidly shifting global dynamics.”
It’s unknown whether attempts to contain China will work as a deterrence or result in more instability. But the trends towards harder lines and potential conflict look clearer.
