ANALYSIS US-UK-Australia submarine deal

analysis

A ONE-TWO COMBO TO CHINA AND FRANCE?

WIDE-RANGING IMPLICATIONS OF THE US-UK-AUSTRALIA NUCLEAR SUBMARINE DEAL

BY TAMÁS MAGYARICS

The official announcement of an Australian-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) cooperation in providing nuclear-powered submarines to Australia on September 15, 2021 created instant furor in some countries, foremost among them in France, but – surprisingly – in Australia as well. In the case of the latter country, the problem was not the content of the deal, which pleased most of the people over there, but the casual remarks by President Biden, who referred to the Australian Premier as “that fellow Down Under” and as “pal,” did not go down that well. The American President’s gaffes are not really news by now, but the sort of condescension implied in the terms used with regard to Scott Morrison says a lot about the hubris in Washington – when they let their guard down.

The winners of the deal…

After the initial storm had quieted down a bit, a more detached and serious debate started about the short-, medium- and long-term implications, as well as the winners and losers of the security deal. As for the former group, at least in the short term, the U.K., and personally PM Boris Johnson seem to benefit from the agreement. One of the basic assumptions of, and argument for Brexit was that Britain would be able to act more freely in the international arena without having to coordinate with the EU countries. In short, the first step towards a promised ‘Global Britain’ has been taken, as London is committed to play a more prominent role in the security in the Asia-Pacific region. The deal looks a bit of a mixed blessing for Australia. On one hand, its security will definitely be enhanced in hard military terms. On the other one, however, its relations with China, which has become arguably its single most important trading partner, are definitely affected negatively. It remains to be seen what countermeasures Beijing will take in the future to ‘punish’ Australia.

…and the losers

Among the losers – whether short-, medium- or long-term – France and, by extension, the Atlantic alliance can be mentioned. French Defense Minister Jean-Yves le Drian talked about ”a stab in the back” first. France lost a major arms deal, somewhere in the range of USD 55 billion, but the real loss was – and is – primarily political: a certain downgrading of Paris as a major ally for Washington. French pride is also deeply hurt: an estimated 1.5-2 million people live in French Pacific Dependencies, so Paris has some justification to claim to be a Pacific power, and thus get a fair share in the decisions affecting the area too. In reality, the French – and European – joy at the defeat of Donald Trump and the election of Joe Biden seems to be a tad premature and misplaced regarding the transatlantic cooperation. The Biden administration had not bothered itself with much consultation before pulling out of Afghanistan, and the creation of AUKUS was likewise coming out of the blue for the Europeans. The underlying message is clear: the new administration may be putting a thicker lay of sugar on the bitter pill, but it is not taking the Europeans as seriously as Washington used to a few decades ago. Of course, window-dressing soon came when Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Paris and had some good photo opportunities with a smiling President Emmanuel Macron. The French, in turn, concluded an arms sale with the Greeks in haste – which might be a not-so-subtle message to Turkey, whose major partner in matters like this is the U.S.

Containing China

Of course, China is in the center of attention. AUKUS is, to put it bluntly, another building block in the American strategy of containing China in the Asia-Pacific region. Though it is undiplomatic to use the ‘c’-word publicly, the reality cannot be hidden. The U.S. has a defense commitment to South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Washington initiated the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) with Japan, India, and Australia in 2007. It cannot be too far from the mark to say that much of the intelligence activities of the ‘Five Eyes’ (U.S., U.K, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) is directed against China. The George W. Bush administration concluded a deal on nuclear technology cooperation with India. The Subic Bay Navy base and the Clark Air Force base are again used by the American armed forces. The U.S.-Vietnamese relations have been substantially improved lately. In short, U.S. military allies and countries surround China, which has started to throw around its military weight quite aggressively in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. On the technological side, China is busy developing and improving its blue water and power projection capabilities using state-of-art military technology; the French diesel-powered submarines may not be a real match to future Chinese high-tech naval units. Reluctant Europeans

Beijing, at the same time, may benefit to some extent from the circumstances AUKUS was formed. The Americans and the Europeans were quarreling quite a lot over strategies to be adopted to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and, in general, over policies to be pursued with regard to China’s rise during the Trump administration (think of the 5G network and Huawei). It was specifically Germany and France that had resisted American pressure to exclude Chinese technology, e.g., in the telecommunications and infrastructure sectors, while one of their major export markets was – and is – China. Previously, British PM Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had urged ending EU embargo on arms sales to China and granting that country ”market economy status” in the early 2000s. Therefore, they are reluctant to pick a fight with Beijing. The creation of AUKUS has sown new seeds of distrust between the Americans and the Europeans, and this might as well play into the hands of the Chinese who can take advantage of the situation with patient diplomacy and economic and trading incentives. So Round 1 has been won by the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. No one has been counted out yet, though. There may be someone who is groggy because of a one-two, another one, whose future chances to win in the Pacific region’s ring are somewhat shattered, but the judgment is out there yet as for the real winners and losers in this international game.