AUKUS Archives - Friends of Socialist China

AUKUS submarine deal will damage Australia’s interests

In the following article, Richard Cullen dissects the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement between Australia, Britain and the United States, which was first unveiled in September 2021.

Cullen draws on the recently published book, ‘Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty’ by Andrew Fowler, an award-winning investigative journalist and former reporter with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

Fowler argues the AUKUS fiasco will, in particular, haunt the current Australian Labor Party (ALP) government for years to come. He claims that the ALP displayed unalloyed folly when it made zero effort to contain its reckless impulse to endorse then Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s first AUKUS announcement, lest the ALP be seen to be soft on defence.

In March 2023, the former ALP prime minister Paul Keating said that the endorsement of the AUKUS plan by the ALP government of Anthony Albanese, who assumed office in May 2022, was “the worst international decision” by an ALP government in over 100 years. He noted that, “China has never threatened to attack us”, yet the ALP had now “screwed into place the last shackle in the long chain which the Americans have laid out to contain China.” China’s “great sin”, Keating added, was to build an economy equal to the size of that in the US, suggesting that “Americans would have preferred” that 20 percent of the world’s population remain in poverty.

Cullen concludes: “Fowler’s exposition confirms that, just when the ALP should have stood back and acutely considered Australia’s sovereign interests, it manifestly failed to do so.”

The article was originally published in China Daily.

The now-notorious AUKUS agreement was secretly conceived between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States prior to being publicly announced in September 2021 by the Morrison government in Canberra. It was aimed at eventually allowing Australia to acquire at least eight nuclear-powered submarines at an exceptionally high, initial estimated cost of up to A$368 billion ($249.1 billion), with the joint assistance of the US and the UK.

The existing contract, dating from 2016, for the Royal Australian Navy to acquire 12 conventionally powered submarines from France at an estimated cost of A$90 billion, was canceled virtually overnight. Shortly after this, President Emmanuel Macron of France was asked whether he thought then-Australian prime minister Scott Morrison had lied to him by not revealing Australia’s dialogue with the UK and the US over the acquisition of nuclear submarines. Macron replied, “I don’t think, I know.”

Andrew Fowler, an award-winning investigative journalist and former reporter with the Australian Broadcasting Corp, has just published a new book titled Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty. Based on discussions with a range of global sources, this book “pieces together the plot to sink the French and switch to a nuclear-powered US submarine”, adding that this “botched operation compromised Australia’s ability to defend itself”.

Fowler argues the AUKUS fiasco will, in particular, haunt the current Australian Labor Party (ALP) government for years to come, and he is surely right about this. The ALP displayed unalloyed folly in 2021, when it made zero effort to contain its reckless impulse to endorse Morrison’s first AUKUS announcement, lest the ALP be seen to be soft on defense.

Apart from the colossal cost estimate, a range of other crucial aspects make this project look like it was holed below the waterline from day one. First, just consider who is going to supply these new submarines and when.

After the announcement, it became clear, according to The Guardian newspaper, that the first three to five submarines were to be acquired from the US in about a decade — as secondhand Virginia-class submarines.

A senior American congressman said, in 2023, that the US would not be foisting secondhand “clunkers” on Australia. Somewhat reassuring — but the delayed supply of sometimes outmoded American weapons to other allies at high cost is less reassuring.

Meanwhile, other senior American politicians have raised questions about whether the US can hand over any submarines to Australian control given the manifest lack of building-capacity in the US to meet American needs; and because of the risk to American national security in sharing submarine technology with Australia.

Then there is the UK, which is meant to work with Australia with a view to supplying a further five nuclear submarines. In February, The Daily Telegraph, in England, highlighted how Britain’s two newest aircraft carriers “aren’t fit for purpose”. The HMS Prince of Wales and the HMS Queen Elizabeth were both beset with significant operational faults that prevented or delayed their participation in a major NATO exercise.

And what about Australia? In 2014, the Australian defense minister said that he would not trust the government-owned Australian Submarine Corp “to build a canoe”, such was its low level of ship-building competence. The defense minister subsequently found he had to resign as a consequence of his candidness. But a huge question remains as to how Australia could possibly develop the very large, highly expert workforce needed to undertake major aspects of building a series of extremely complex nuclear submarines.

One argued advantage of nuclear-powered submarines is that their comparative operational silence presently makes them hard to detect once submerged. However, experts say that this advantage is already fading, and by the time that Australia might possibly have a full fleet of nuclear submarines over two decades from now, any such advantage is unlikely to apply. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute said, in March 2023, that their analysis showed the new AUKUS submarines “might be so easily detected (by the 2050s) they could become billion-dollar coffins”.

Then there is the question as to whether these will actually be Australian submarines — or American-controlled and partly manned submarines allowed to fly an Australian flag — all paid for by Canberra. In May, The Guardian ran a lead story claiming that the “US won’t guarantee that Australia will have complete control of AUKUS submarines”, in which they quoted US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell as saying that “when submarines are provided from the United States to Australia, it’s not like they’re lost — they will just be deployed by the closest possible allied force”.

Penetrating criticism of the AUKUS project has also been offered by a number of respected experts in Australia.

Sam Roggeveen of the Lowy Institute argues that AUKUS “is a project of vaulting ambition that is out of step with Australian tradition as a middle military power, wildly at odds with our international status and, most importantly, a wasteful expenditure of public money that will make Australia less safe”.

Hugh White, professor emeritus of strategic studies at the Australian National University and one of Australia’s principal defense commentators, published a withering essay in the journal Australian Foreign Affairs in February titled Dead in the Water: The AUKUS Delusion. White began by asking if Australia needs nuclear-powered submarines. His answer was a flat no. He argued that the likelihood of the plan unfolding effectively “is extremely low”, adding that “outright failure is a real possibility”. Reviewing White’s essay, another commentator, Nick Deane, highlighted how the UK end of the project has encountered major problems stretching back decades (see above), while in Australia, “long delays and cost overruns are certain”.

Bear in mind, too, that primary transatlantic media outlets like The New York Times and The Economist, and many other leading commentators, are now stridently telling the world that neither of the presumptive candidates (Joe Biden and Donald Trump) set to seek election as the next US president in November is fit to be appointed to that office.

In March 2023, the former ALP prime minister Paul Keating said that the AUKUS plan was “the worst international decision” by an ALP government in over 100 years. He noted that “China has never threatened to attack us”, yet the ALP had now “screwed into place the last shackle in the long chain which the Americans have laid out to contain China”. China’s “great sin”, Keating added, was to build an economy equal to the size of that in the US, suggesting that “Americans would have preferred” that 20 percent of the world’s population remain in poverty.

In his new book, Fowler provides a devastating critique of the entire AUKUS project based on extensive research, which ratifies the blistering evaluation of AUKUS offered by Keating in March last year. Fowler’s exposition confirms that, just when the ALP should have stood back and acutely considered Australia’s sovereign interests, it manifestly failed to do so.

DPRK exposes US military strategy in the Pacific

The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the official news agency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), published two important commentaries in April concerning US strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, noting that its principal target is China.

Writing on April 12, Jong Min, an international security analyst, focused on the US attempt to deploy intermediate-range missiles in the region.

He said that not long ago, the US army Pacific commander claimed that the Chinese army is taking an irresponsible way in the use of military means, adding that the US forces are planning to deploy new intermediate-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region later this year to restrain China.

Jong adds: “Not content with persistently escalating the situation and inciting constant war fever through frequent dispatch of strategic assets to the Asia-Pacific region, the US is scheming to deploy even ground-launched intermediate-range missiles capable of directly aiming at specific countries in the region and promptly striking them at any moment. This clearly shows what phase the US ambition for military supremacy has reached.”

He notes that the US started to develop and modernise intermediate-range missiles, as soon as it unilaterally withdraw from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles between Russia and US in August 2019 and completed the development of an intermediate-range missile system by the end of 2022.

“This fact goes to prove that the US attempt to deploy intermediate-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region is not a defensive step to cope with ‘threat’ from someone but a product of the offensive and hegemonic military strategy which has been steadily pushed forward in a sequential and planned way for a long time.

“The US attempt to deploy intermediate-range missiles is dangerous enough to explosively aggravate the political and military situation in the Asia-Pacific region, trigger off strong rebuff and counteraction of China and other regional countries and spark off a fierce arms race in the region.

“In view of the range of those missiles, their deployment in Guam, Hawaii and other territories of the US has no military significance. Accordingly, they will have to be deployed in such allies of the US in the Asia-Pacific region as Japan and the puppet Republic of Korea (ROK).

“The US arms buildup to check China’s peaceful development and growth and restrain it militarily will inevitably invoke strong countermeasures. And Japan and the puppet ROK or any third country might be well aware of the fact that they would be the first target of military retaliation if the US intermediate-range missiles were deployed in their territories.

“After all, the US deployment of intermediate-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region is not for protecting its junior allies. On the contrary, it will lead them to the fate of being victims and sacrifices of the US strategy for hegemony.”

Then, on April 25, international affairs analyst Kang Jin Song commented on the US attempt to expand the AUKUS military alliance, presently consisting of Australia, Britain and the United States, to other countries, starting with Japan.

He notes that since its founding, AUKUS has been called a nuclear mine planted in the waters of the Asia-Pacific as ‘the Anglo-Saxon nuclear submarine alliance’ for seeking nuclear supremacy in the Asia-Pacific region by detouring the international nuclear non-proliferation system.

It is the sinister intention of the US to make Japan a crewmember of a confrontation ship called AUKUS and put it at the outpost line of the anti-China pressure and push the nuclear minefield in the Asia-Pacific region closer to China.

He goes on to outline how the Biden administration recently held a tripartite summit of the US, Japan and the Philippines in the wake of a US-Japan summit to call for strengthened security cooperation between Manila and Tokyo, as well as Canberra and Seoul.

“This is mainly aimed at building double and triple infrastructure for implementing the ‘integrated deterrence strategy’ against China by ultimately putting together tools designed for achieving supremacy existing in the Asia-Pacific region in a ‘latticed’ way.

“The reality goes to prove once again that the ‘competition accompanied by dialogue’ with China and the ‘installation of a guard rail’ in bilateral relations, heard from US public officials, are nothing but deceptive slogans and their thinking and practice are oriented to anti-China confrontation from A to Z.

“Owing to the establishment of a ‘small group’ of the US whose arch enemy is China and its ceaseless attempt to expand the group, the Asia-Pacific region, where opportunities and potentials for development are richer than any other region of the world, is turning into a theatre of muscle-flexing and a touch-and-go nuclear minefield.”

The following articles were originally published by KCNA.

Asian ‘Nato’ encircles China

Writing in the Morning Star, Fiona Edwards provides a useful and detailed analysis of recent developments in the US-led campaign of China encirclement.

Fiona describes a number of alarming steps taken by the US in the month of April: the announcement of a proposal for Japan to join AUKUS; a trilateral agreement between the US, Japan and the Philippines; and the first joint naval and air drills between the US, Australia, Japan and the Philippines in the South China Sea. Fiona observes that “these new initiatives aim to bolster the US’s already substantial military encirclement of China, threatening to destabilise the region and lay the foundations for a US-led hot war against China.”

The US has appointed itself “the world’s policeman”, and uses this role to justify its increasing militarisation of the South China Sea, claiming a responsibility to preserve freedom of navigation. One small detail is that there is not a single case of China having impeded freedom of navigation. Meanwhile, as Fiona points out, “the South China Sea is 12,000 kilometres away from the US … Beijing is not conducting naval exercises off the coast of California and has no military bases surrounding the US.”

Recent foreign policy shifts by the Philippines and Japan are particularly dangerous. As the article points out, the previous Filipino administration pursued a policy of neutrality which served to facilitate win-win cooperation between the Philippines and China and contributed to the cause of peace in the region. Meanwhile, “the plan to invite Japan into Aukus threatens to escalate Japanese militarism and encourage Japan to move even further away from its post-War World II pacifist constitution.”

The article correctly concludes: “The US’s increasing militarisation of the Asia-Pacific is a key component of Washington’s global war drive. It should be vigorously opposed by all those who want to stop the US dragging everyone into another world war.”

Major new announcements this month indicate that the US is intent on escalating its military interference in the Asia-Pacific and the seas around China.

The first announcement by the defence ministers of the US, Britain and Australia on the April 8 2024, revealed that the Aukus military alliance is seeking to expand with plans to invite Japan into the anti-China pact.

This was followed by another announcement, three days later, at a summit in Washington between the US President Joe Biden, Prime Minister of Japan Fumio Kishida and the President of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos Jnr, where a new trilateral agreement between the countries was unveiled, including plans to conduct joint naval exercises in the South China Sea this year.

Days before this announcement, on April 7, the first joint naval and air drills between the US, Australia, Japan and the Philippines took place in the South China Sea.

These new initiatives aim to bolster the US’s already substantial military encirclement of China, threatening to destabilise the region and lay the foundations for a US-led hot war against China.

New Zealand leaning towards AUKUS

The following article, written by independent journalist Mick Hall, details the growing danger that New Zealand may join the AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom, United States) agreement, an aggressive military alliance directed against China. The planned deployment of nuclear-powered submarines by Australia is at the heart of the AUKUS project. New Zealand has hitherto followed a strict non-nuclear policy since the adoption of the Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act in 1987. According to Marco de Jong, historian and co-director of Te Kuaka NZA, an organisation advocating an independent and progressive foreign policy, if New Zealand did join the US-led bloc it would effectively compromise this long-held anti-nuclear policy.

The move comes after a new coalition government, led by the right wing National Party, and including ACT, a far right libertarian party, took office on November 27, 2023, following the defeat of the previously governing New Zealand Labour Party in the country’s October 14 general election.

Early statements by ministers in the country’s new government indicate that its foreign policy will be much more in synch with the ‘Five Eyes’ Anglosphere and US strategic interests than the previous Labour government, which took a relatively independent stand. However, pre-election, Labour Prime Minister Chris Hipkins had indicated that, he too was open to at least some type of relationship with AUKUS. Hipkins became Prime Minister on January 25, 2023, following the resignation of the relatively more progressive and popular Jacinda Ardern, a factor that many believe contributed to Labour’s subsequent defeat at the polls.

According to Marco de Jong, a New Zealand move towards AUKUS is not wanted either by other nations in the Pacific nor by the country’s indigenous Maori population:

“Deeper integration with the military industrial base of the Anglosphere is something that we should be incredibly concerned about for New Zealand and its standing in the region and in the world.”

New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy has also been a factor in the country’s good relations with China, which is its largest trading partner.

Te Pati Maori, also known as The Maori Party, a left wing party representing the country’s indigenous people, and which won six seats in the October general election, wants New Zealand to be non-aligned. Its co-leader Rawiri Waititi said his party feared for the nation’s sovereignty if an alignment with AUKUS was pursued.

“We’re deeply concerned with the implications this has on Aotearoa’s independence and ability to remain militarily neutral,” he said, adding:

“As Maori we cannot allow our sovereignty to be determined by others, whether they are in Canberra or Washington. Aotearoa should not act as a Pacific spy base in the wars of imperial powers. Joining AUKUS will severely undermine our country’s sovereignty, constitution, and ability to remain nuclear free. There is too much at stake for our government to make a commitment of this magnitude without a democratic process.” (Aotearoa is increasingly used as the name for the country in place of New Zealand.)

The following article was originally published by Consortium News.

Concerns are rising for peace and sovereignty in the Pacific after strong signals from New Zealand’s new government that it wants to swiftly join the U.S.-led military alliance AUKUS.

If New Zealand does join the U.S.-led military bloc it would effectively compromise the country’s long-held anti-nuclear policy, Marco De Jong, historian and co-director of the New Zealand foreign policy group Te Kuaka, told Consortium News.

He said the decision would put an end to what is left of the nation’s independent foreign policy, as well as its image as an “honest broker” in a region already divided by increasing militarization.

The 2021 AUKUS agreement among Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. centers on the tripartite development of a nuclear submarine fleet within a security partnership geared to upholding the “rules-based international order,” as well as a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” Though not stated explicitly, it is seen as an anti-China alliance, based on a hyped-up threat of Beijing to the region.

It is controversial in Australia because the decision to join AUKUS with an AU$368 billion price tag for the submarines was continued by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (following its initiation by the previous prime minister Scott Morrison) without any consultation with Parliament, let alone the public.

There is dissension in Albanese’s Labor Party, and former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, four days after the event in San Diego, publicly ripped the deal.

Keating said Australia was

“now part of a containment policy against China. The Chinese government doesn’t want to attack anybody. They don’t want to attack us … We supply their iron ore which keeps their industrial base going, and there’s nowhere else but us to get it. Why would they attack? They don’t want to attack the Americans … It’s about one matter only: the maintenance of U.S. strategic hegemony in East Asia. This is what this [AUKUS] is all about.”

By subordinating itself, Keating said Australia is forfeiting its sovereignty to rely on Britain, which abandoned its former colony years ago, to build nuclear submarines that serve U.S. — and not Australian — interests.

Nevertheless the deal is still on track. It was announced in March that SNN-AUKUS nuclear submarines would be delivered to Australia by the early 2040s and the U.K. by the late 2030s.

A bill passed in the U.S. Congress on Thursday cleared the way to sell three-to-five Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the interim by the early 2030s.

South Korean president visits Europe to promote US-led war drive against China

South Korea’s hard right President Yoon Suk-yeol toured a number of European countries, including Britain and France, in late November.

Following talks with British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the two issued the Downing Street Accord, which stated in part: “Peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is an indispensable element in the security and prosperity of the international community. Given the serious nature of the situation in the East and South China Seas, we strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to change the status quo in the region.”

This drew a sharp reaction from China. At a November 24 regular press conference, spokesperson Mao Ning urged the two countries to stop making irresponsible comments on issues bearing on China’s core and major concerns.

Noting that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory, Mao emphasised that the Taiwan question is purely China’s internal affair and brooks no interference by any external forces.

She added: “China urges relevant parties to stop making irresponsible comments on issues bearing on China’s core and major concerns and be very prudent about what they say or do.”

In a November 28 article published by the World Socialist Website (WSWS), Ben McGrath writes that the Downing Street Accord “specifically denounces North Korea and Russia as well as Hamas, while all but ignoring the genocide being committed by Israel in Gaza. However, as with all such agreements being adopted today, whether with the US or between Washington’s allies, the chief target is China.

“The ‘international order’ is that established by Washington in the post-World War II period and which is threatened by China’s economic growth. Yoon and Sunak’s claims that they are defending ‘stability’ or the ‘rule of law’ is to uphold an international order dominated by the US in which it set the rules and under which London and Seoul have pursued their own national interests.”

He further notes:

“Over the last decade, the US has responded to China’s economic rise by drastically ramping up the militarisation of the Indo-Pacific to encircle and undermine the world’s second-largest economy. British imperialism has signed up to this war drive as a means of reestablishing a military presence and expand their own influence in Asia…

“For all their talk of the ‘rule of law’ and ‘human rights,’ both London and Seoul have demonstrated they have no concern for either in their defence of Israel and its genocidal war against the oppressed Palestinian people.”

Noting the reference to Taiwan, McGrath explains that it “is not an innocent remark, but specifically meant to challenge the ‘One China’ policy under which the vast majority of countries including the US recognise Beijing as the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan.”

“The focus on Taiwan represents the most open and provocative attempt by Washington and its allies to goad China into a war, given that Beijing will not allow Taiwan to become a military base for imperialism or to set a precedent for carving up Chinese territory.”

He adds that: “Specific measures in the accord call for London and Seoul to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding on closer military cooperation, increasing bilateral military exercises between the two and conducting joint patrols, supposedly targeting North Korea’s attempts to avoid sanctions. This can only raise tensions in the Indo-Pacific, where patrols and military exercises on Beijing’s doorstep have become an almost daily occurrence and heighten the danger of military conflict…

“South Korea’s increased cooperation with Britain also means increased cooperation with AUKUS, the military pact that includes Australia and the US. Notably, a UK [parliamentary] Foreign Affairs Committee recommended in August that South Korea as well as Japan be invited to join parts of AUKUS, specifically the technological defence cooperation agreement, or Pillar Two of the pact. US military officials and those close to the military have similarly argued for an ‘AUKUS+2’ deal. The inclusion of South Korea or Japan in any aspect of AUKUS would be highly provocative.”

The following articles were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency and the World Socialist Website.

China tells ROK, Britain to stop making irresponsible comments on issues concerning China’s core interests

BEIJING, Nov. 24 (Xinhua) — China on Friday urged the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Britain to stop making irresponsible comments on issues bearing on China’s core and major concerns.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning made the remarks at a press briefing when asked to comment on contents in the Downing Street Accord signed by ROK President Yoon Suk-yeol and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak concerning China’s Taiwan region and the South and East China Seas.

Noting Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory, Mao emphasized that the Taiwan question is purely China’s internal affair and brooks no interference by any external forces.

As for issues related to the South and East China Seas, neither the ROK nor the UK is a party concerned, and there has never been any problem with regard to the “freedom of navigation and overflight,” she said.

“China urges relevant parties to stop making irresponsible comments on issues bearing on China’s core and major concerns and be very prudent about what they say or do,” Mao said.

South Korean president visits Europe to promote US-led war drive against China

Nov. 28 (wsws.org) — South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol completed a trip to Europe last Sunday with stops in the United Kingdom and France. The tour was closely bound up with the development of military alliances throughout the Indo-Pacific region and with European powers as part of the US-led war drive aimed at China.

Aukus might create jobs – but at what cost?

This article by Jenny Clegg, originally published in the Morning Star, discusses the recent announcement by Britain’s Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (CSEU) that it welcomes the Aukus trilateral security deal on the grounds that it will ostensibly create thousands of well-paid jobs for British engineers.

Jenny points out that, even on the basis of purely economic calculations, directing Britain’s advanced engineering sector towards a project like Aukus is utterly self-defeating. It will adversely affect ties with China – trade with which is connected to orders of magnitude more jobs than Aukus is. Furthermore, it means divesting from far more promising and worthwhile projects, particularly in relation to preventing climate breakdown.

Aukus is part of an escalating US-led drive to war against China, and what’s more it violates the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is patently foolish for Britain to attach itself to such a project, and particularly so for the British working class. Jenny asks of CSEU members: “Do they want to be building a world of conflict, tension and destabilisation for decades to come? Is that the kind of future they envisage for their children and grandchildren?”

THE Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (CSEU) has welcomed the benefits of Aukus, creating thousands of well-paid jobs, securing thousands more across the supply chains for years to come.

But what about the costs?

Within Britain’s constrained budgets, creating one job in the defence sector means cutting significantly more jobs — quite possibly those of trade union members — in sectors, for example, that provide for social welfare.

The £3 billion defence spending increase recently announced by PM Rishi Sunak to go on supporting the delivery of Aukus is enough to pay the junior doctors’ claims in full one-and-a-half times over. And it is just the start.

The benefits to the supply chain might not be that great either since over a third of MoD supplies are purchased from overseas.

The reactors to power the Aukus submarines are to be built by Rolls-Royce in Derby using weapons-grade highly enriched uranium.

Thousands of jobs will be created, yes, but these vessels are for war-fighting so this will breach the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) stipulation that the exchange of nuclear technology must be “for peaceful purposes.”

This also violates the spirit of the Nuclear Weapon Free Zones of the south Pacific and south-east Asia. There, the expanding authority of the Anglosphere is not something that is welcomed.

It goes against hopes to make the region a zone of peace, instead increasing the likelihood of regional nuclear proliferation and an escalating arms race.

A recent meeting of former Pacific leaders raised complaints about the “staggering” amount of money committed to Aukus which “flies in the face of Pacific Islands countries … crying out for climate change support,” the “threat … challenging our future existence,” they said, “is not China but climate change.”

The gross overexpansion of Britain’s military industrial base is to prepare for war with China. But China has not fought a war for 40 years; it maintains a defensive military posture with just one overseas base and only a small nuclear arsenal kept under “no first use.” By treating China as the enemy, Aukus will surely turn it into one.

China in fact is Britain’s fourth-largest trading partner; economic links have generated at least 150,000 jobs across the country and there is great potential for this to grow.

Not long ago Chinese companies stepped in to help in the rescue of Jaguar Land Rover and saved 3,000 jobs at British Steel.

Why put all this at risk? China should be seen as an opportunity not a threat.

By the time the submarines become operational in the 2040s, the world will be massively transformed.

The emerging markets of the Brics countries already exceed the G7 in economic size and will easily double this in 20 years.

A paradigm shift is under way as these rising powers reset world agendas — it is their priorities on climate change, health and tackling poverty that are now driving the world economy.

Yet Britain continues on the path of disproportionate military influence even as it drops out of the world’s top 10 economies in the coming years.

The CSEU is working with the Australian engineering unions, yet the Australian Council of Trade Unions (Actu), which brings together 36 trade unions, has not endorsed the pact and maintains its backing of Australia’s nuclear-free defence policy.

To support the huge Aukus military expansion, the Australian taxpayer will pay on average US$6bn per year for the next 30 years — a whacking total of US$245bn.

To secure Britain’s high-skilled base requires long-term contracts but the MoD’s seemingly easy solution stokes more problems for the future: the more that is invested in arms production, the harder it is to reverse — the end of a contract means thousands of jobs are at stake and the chase for investment becomes endless.

The British government has just spent over £6bn on the two aircraft carriers, now one is being mothballed. How many more white elephants are planned?

The CSEU needs to think again. Instead of delivering the labour movement into the pockets of BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, instead of driving China onto a war-footing, it should inform its members of the implications of the scheme.

It should ask them: do they want to be building a world of conflict, tension and destabilisation for decades to come? Is that the kind of future they envisage for their children and grandchildren?

We are nowhere close to having sufficient green skills to deliver the green transition globally — the CSEU should be encouraging apprentices to hone their skills for a green future; and it should get creative and set up teams of members to come up with alternative ideas not least to serve the new agendas and growing markets of the global South.

People in Britain can only rely now on skilled engineers to ensure the economy remains relevant in the coming decades. Politicians are failing us — it is up to the unions to envisage a different future for the country and to see that Britain’s advanced engineering is put to good use in a vastly changing world.

Standing against NATO and AUKUS a key issue for the peace movement

On Saturday January 21, Britain’s Stop the War Coalition organised its first-ever trade union conference.

Speakers included former Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn MP; President of the RMT rail workers union Alex Gordon; Deputy President of the PCS civil service union Martin Cavanagh; Alex Kenny from the National Education Union; Liz Wheatley of public service union Unison; Ricardo de la Torre of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU); Daniel Zahedi of the junior doctors section of the British Medical Association (BMA); striking ambulance worker George Solomou; José Nivoi from the Autonomous Collective of Dockworkers in Genoa, Italy, who have repeatedly prevented arms shipments from being sent to conflict zones in the Middle East; Deputy President of Stop the War Andrew Murray; Stop the War Convenor Lindsey German; and veteran anti-war campaigner Salma Yaqoob.

China specialist Dr Jenny Clegg, who is a member of the Friends of Socialist China advisory group, introduced and led a well-attended session on the AUKUS pact between Britain, Australia and the United States, and on the ‘coming war on China’. She was joined on the panel by Dr. Kate Hudson, General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), and Warren Smith of the Australian Maritime Union.

We reproduce Jenny’s opening remarks below, which present an admirable and concise summary of the regional situation. Their cogency and urgency are only underlined by the subsequent visit of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to Japan and South Korea.

Introduction

The Ukraine war, Russia, and NATO, have been demanding the attention of the anti-war movement, but there is also a whole other dimension to Global Britain that is unfolding in the Asia Pacific.

Some might say that the US and NATO want to weaken Russia before moving on to China in the future – in fact war preparations are accelerating right now in the East.

Progress on AUKUS

The announcement of AUKUS in September 2021 was a surprise, made with no democratic debate. It came as the new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier was engaging in multiple joint military exercises in the South China Sea – flying the flag for Johnson’s Global Britain, demonstrating the new Indo Pacific tilt, but the F35 fighter jets it carried actually belonged to the USAF.

The key feature of the AUKUS pact was seen to be the US and UK agreement to assist Australia in acquiring nuclear powered submarines. BAE systems declared itself ready to support production. However, over the last year, as the US and UK have tried to wangle their way around the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) without apparent success, the deal has struggled and it is not certain that the US and UK can take on the building work given their own nuclear submarines programme commitments.

However, AUKUS is more than just the submarines: it is about Australian militarisation, about advancing military technologies and military industrial cooperation. BAE systems, Rolls Royce and MBDA have long had subsidiaries in Australia helping to supply its armed forces.

Canadian labour activists oppose AUKUS, a new NATO in the Pacific

We are pleased to republish this article by Ken Stone, a leading member of Canada’s Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War, explaining the geopolitics of the AUKUS pact and assessing the resistance to it in various parts of the world, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Solomon Islands, and China. Ken explains that the crux of AUKUS is to allow Australia to take a more active and leading role in the US-led New Cold War, of which China is the principal target. To that end, the US and Britain have agreed to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines – a flagrant escalation against China and a clear violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The article calls on the peace movement worldwide to join hands in opposing AUKUS and rejecting Cold War.

This article was first published in the Canada Files.

The AUKUS military pact, among the USA, UK, and Australia, was announced to the world last year on September 15, 2021. It doesn’t mention China by name but Ben Wallace, UK Defence Secretary, described AUKUS as a response to China “embarking on one of the biggest military spends in history… growing its navy [and] air force at a huge rate.”

While Western political elites cheered vapidly for it, support for this deal has been non-existent at the grassroots level. In Australia, labour unions have lead the fightback against this deal, while the Green Party condemns the deal. In Canada, politicians in all parliamentary parties cheered on this deal, with the opposition to the deal is being led by Canadian labour activists. China has opposed the deal firmly, while New Zealand refused to join AUKUS. Japan is one of the only countries in the region which is considering joining the deal.

What is AUKUS?

The AUKUS military agreement represents the most serious escalation of military force against the People’s Republic of China by the “Anglosphere” since former US President Obama declared his “Pivot to Asia” in 2009. The “Pivot to Asia” was a de facto declaration of US intent to focus its military, political, economic, and other soft power resources to contain and weaken China, which it recognized as a rival and a threat to US world hegemony – even though China repeatedly denied seeing itself as a rival to the US and eschewed the role of world hegemon.

The main aspect of this pact was the sharing of Anglo-American nuclear technology with Australia, which purchased at least eight nuclear submarines from the USA at a cost of over $100 billion USD. However, the first of these submarines is not expected to be operational for more than a decade. None of these countries held a referendum of its citizens on forming this new alliance.