Paul Keating raised two essential points in criticising AUKUS and the nuclear submarines deal. First that China has not threatened Australia and is not a threat to Australia. Second that even if China was a threat, the nuclear submarines would not be the best defence capability for meeting it. Like “throwing toothpicks at a mountain” was his line.
The defence capability deficiency of the nuke subs was made in more detailed manner by David Livingstone, former Australian diplomat, and international security analyst, in an article in ‘The Age, on 16 March 2023. In the article ‘Our submarines will be obsolete.’ Livingstone made the following points:
- Manned subs are nearing the end of their utility in hostile waters because of smart sea mines, unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) and underwater sensors. China has made a strong start and will deploy these technologies in South and East China seas.
- By the time Australia gets the subs it will be too dangerous to deploy them in the contested areas that could take advantage of their performance and firepower. They will be restricted to home waters undercutting their main justification. Russia has already shown this to be true in the air. Its force rarely flies into contested areas preferring to fire missile from a distance.
- $368 billion- is the biggest transfer of wealth from Australia to another country in history. The colossal expense means that more appropriate defence capabilities will be foregone, and Australia will be less secure for it.
- Australia should be investing in:
- Over the horizon radar, smart sea mines to protect coastal cities, more fighter aircraft to protect cities and approaches to port, and to dominate the sea and air gap to the north.
- More conventionally powered subs to make choke points to north unpassable.
- More drones and UUVs.
- Bolstering special forces and light infantry that can be deployed quickly.
- Stockpiles of missiles to protect cities and bases and devastate enemies at range.
The government presumably has presumably developed responses to these criticisms. But to date we have not seen them.
In an interview with Defence Minister Richard Marles on ‘Insiders’ on 19 March, David Speirs certainly failed to elicit them. Marles was not asked a single question regarding Livingston or Keating’s criticisms on the capability question. Instead, Spiers wasted the entire interview trying to get a “confession” out of Marles that the government sees China a threat to Australia and would side with the US in any war over Taiwan. As if everybody didn’t already know that anyway!
This enabled Marles to spend the entire interview elaborating on the point that, as a trading nation, Australia’s contemporary defence concerns should focus on the security of our sea lanes and adherence to the international rules based order in our region.
So, is China threatening Australia’s use of vital sea lanes? No, it isn’t. And it has no obvious interest in doing so.
It is true that in 2016 the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague found China’s assertions of sovereignty to almost all the South China Sea were not consistent with United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and rebuked China on everything from its interference in its smaller neighbour’s fishing to the environmental devastation wrought by its large-scale construction of islands on fragile coral reefs. And it is true that China subsequently announced it would not accept the Court’s ruling.
It is reasonable that China’s actions should be of concern. Nevertheless, as a trading nation China has an obvious and abiding economic interest in the South China Sea staying open for business. And while South China Sea is an important shipping route, most of its traffic is intra-Asia trade. It is the Strait of Malacca which is the crucial link between Asia and the rest of the world. China does not control the Strait of Malacca and makes no claim to it. The point here being that if China did ever try to restrict commercial access to the South China Sea its own access to the strait of Malacca could be jeopardised.
The only conceivable way in which Australia’s navigation for trading purposes in the South China Sea would ever be threatened by China is if there was a war with the US- in which case our commercial ships would be most unwise to travel there anyway. But despite his focus on the China threat issue this was not a question it occurred to Speirs to put to Marles. Barry Cassidy you are still missed.
There is really no hiding that AUKUS and the nuclear sub deal is all about supplementing US military force capacity in the event of it going to war with China over Taiwan. It is only diplomatic politeness and a desire to be seen as less clumsy in its approach to China than the Coalition that holds the government back from admitting it.
But as Keating says the Chinese know who we are and no amount of more polite discussion is likely to convince them otherwise.
Whether or not there is technical interoperability of the subs or other military technology is almost beside the point. It is our foreign policy that is interoperable with US interests and decisions. Does anybody doubt this when after 20 years by the US’s side in Afghanistan we announce our withdrawal less than 24 hours after their announcement.
It is not only Peter Dutton who said it is inconceivable that we would not side with the US in a war with China. Kim Beazley said the same thing to a US ambassador when Opposition leader in 2006 without suspecting that Wikileaks would publish his remarks five years later.
Of course, if Livingstone and Keating are correct on the technological issues the nuclear submarines will be no effective supplement anyway because the submarines will be obsolete by then.
That might even be funny. If it weren’t such an extravagant waste of money.
Bianca Elmir says
A very well written blog. I have read extensively on this issue and it was a refreshing summary.
Thanks uncle Pete