Making Australia a Target
AUKUS and Australia’s associated “force posture” agreements have handed control of Australia’s land, sea and air to the US to use as it sees fit. Australia’s Foreign Minister, Penny Wong has affirmed that Australia “understands and respects” the US ability to use Australia as a forward base of operations without informing Canberra. Contrast Wong’s servile attitude with that of former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser way back in 1981 when he said, “It would be quite wrong, a derogation of Australia’s sovereignty and a derogation of responsibility of this Government and this Parliament, if any government were to agree to such a mission [he was referring to an armed mission launched from Darwin] if the government did not agree with the objectives of the mission.”
Fraser believed our relationship with the United States had become a paradox. In his book, Dangerous Allies published 10 years ago he said:
“Our leaders argue that we need to keep our alliance with US strong to ensure our defence in the event of an aggressive foe. Yet the most likely reason that Australia would need to confront an aggressive foe is our strong alliance with the United States. We need America for defence from an attacker who is likely to attack us because we use America for defence!”
As the late Bruce Hague said, “AUKUS is the Trojan Horse that the US is deploying to turn the north of Australia into a US sphere of military influence to initially intimidate China and then as a base from which to attack China.” No Australian government has demonstrated that China is a security threat, but AUKUS turns Australia into a target if the US decides to go to war with China.
According to Michael McCaul, chair of the US House of Representatives, Australia has become “the central base of operations” for America’s military to deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific. The benefit for Washington in the AUKUS deal is neatly summarised by Kurt Campbell’s observation that “We have them locked in now for the next 40 years”.
The price for Australia’s access to America’s nuclear propulsion technology is open-ended expansion of the US military presence in Australia and the expectation that “integrated deterrence” will mean that Australia will have no choice but to join the US in fighting any future wars in which the US engages.
How did AUKUS Come About?
Although the Morrison Government announced the AUKUS arrangement three years ago, it was the Albanese Government which hastily bought into it. It was fear of appearing weak and of being wedged before a forthcoming election that drove the ALP leadership to embrace AUKUS with barely a second thought. The current leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton said at that time that it was “inconceivable” that Australia would not fight alongside the US in any conflict with China over Taiwan.
The US has said that it would not directly engage in war against another major power but would only fight them by proxy (as is currently happening in Ukraine). Consistently with that approach, the US has lined up Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia as its proxies for war against China. The US is not preparing to go to war against China, but it is preparing Australia to go to war against China! It was the late Henry Kissinger who said that “Being an enemy of America is dangerous but being a friend of America is fatal” Too right!
An Unhinged Plan
While Defence Minister Marles has strongly endorsed both AUKUS and a greater US defence presence in Australia, there are “get-outs” in the deal enabling both the UK and the US to opt out if they should decide the program is adversely affecting their ability to meet their own military requirements.
Dr Elizabeth Buchanan[i] recently wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald that the current AUKUS plan is unhinged from reality, saying the closest Australia will ever get to nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) is the rotational basing of US and British subs out of Western Australia. According to Buchanan, the smarter way for Australia is to rely on its geography, and Australia should drop the unrealistically ambitious AUKUS plan.
The Keating View
For many years, Paul Keating has said, “We need to find our security in Asia, not from Asia.” However, Prime Minister Albanese contends that Keating was Prime Minister a long time ago and that he is not well informed about the considerations involving Australia’s modern foreign policy. In effect Albanese is saying that Keating is not as well informed about current defence and foreign affairs as Albanese, his deputy Richard Marles, or the Foreign Minister Penny Wong. However, Albanese is certainly no Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, or Gillard when it comes to policy.
Keating remains convinced that the present Labor policy is wrong. It is wrong for placing Australia’s future in the hands of the United States, wrong for compromising Australia’s relationship with China, and wrong for positioning Australia as a sort of American vassal. In 2023, Keating described AUKUS as the “worst deal in all history” and he has gone further saying the submarine pact was turning Australia into the “51st state” of the US.
What Can and Should Australia Do?
With the ever-present talk of war, large-scale preparations for war, and enormous expenditure on arms production, war and the horrors it will bring are becoming increasingly inevitable. Australia can contribute to the solution instead of being part of the pending catastrophe.
At the risk of repetition, the following proposals draw in part on an earlier paper - https://www.inmyopinion.co/post/how-australia-can-contribute-to-world-peace, Australia can play a major role in alleviating tensions and reducing, if not eliminating the risk of war. This will require the Australian government to display both courage and visionary leadership, qualities which are currently absent. However, anticipating the forthcoming Federal election, there is the possibility (however remote) of new and competent leadership emerging.
First and foremost, Australia must have the courage to withdraw from AUKUS. Secondly its leaders must once and for all acknowledge and accept that ANZUS does not offer protection to Australia, but merely an agreement to “consult” without commitment. Accordingly, Australia must resist blindly following the United States into one war after another, sacrificing young Australians in wars which have little or nothing to do with this country. Third, Australia must demand the removal of the US military and naval presence in Australia and adopt a policy of non-alignment, which is the position of 120 other countries around the world, including India.
Such steps will have the impact of an earthquake, not only in Australia, but globally and would potentially lead other countries to re-evaluate their own positions. Furthermore, these actions would inevitably compel the United States to reassess its own belligerent objectives. As Gareth Evans said, “It is not unreasonable to think much of China’s assertiveness would be significantly moderated were the US to step back from demanding recognition of America’s continued primacy, with Washington seeing just about every arena as a zero-sum struggle for dominance”.
There is no threat to Australia, not from China and not from any other nation and there is not the remotest risk that the US might seek to harm this country should it take these bold steps.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM – HEAR THE OTHER SIDE
_______________________________________________
[i] Dr Buchanan is a senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and a former Defence Department official
Comments