The Deal
The September 15th’s announcement of a new partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, dubbed AUKUS, is a significant move by the three countries to improve their strategic alignment and military cooperation as the Indo-Pacific increasingly becomes a focal point of foreign and defense policy, versus Chinese assertive moves to establish itself as a ruler of the region.
According to the deal, the partnership includes several workstreams on a range of defense and technology cooperation areas. As part of this defence agreement, the UK, US, and Australia are aiming to protect the undersea fibre optic cables that provide part of the military and civilian communication for the West. The cross-section of quantum, artificial intelligence and cyber is equally significant because quantum communication technologies would allow new types of encryption, and thus would make eavesdropping obsolete. Similarly, with artificial intelligence and machine learning applications, the parties could detect known cyber threats to undersea cables. The agreement is the basis for cooperation on research and development that could be a pilot for broader cooperation in the Group of Seven (G-7).
However, most of the attention is focused on the new fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines Australia plans to build, which will involve the United States sharing its nuclear submarine propulsion technology for only the second time in history. (Washington had previously shared the highly classified technology only with the UK). The latter has led to anger in France—because as AUKUS was announced, Australia terminated an earlier multiyear deal with Naval Group (in aggregate worth of US $39 billion), a state-controlled French company, to build a dozen diesel-powered submarines. As a result, Franco-U.S. and Franco-Australian relations went underwater. French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, called the announcement a “stab in the back” and ordered a recall of the French ambassadors from Washington and Canberra. On top of that, the French canceled a gala at their Washington embassy meant to commemorate the Franco-U.S. partnership since the American Revolutionary War (1790).
The Rationale and Risks
The AUKUS partnership was not the fruit of some dastardly plan by the United States to exclude France (or Germany or Japan) from a new club and simultaneously undermine French commercial interests. It shows the major shift of the US interest from north Atlantic to south pacific. It would not be surprising, if the trio is joined later by Japan and South Korea, New Zealand and/or Canada (the last two being the remaining two members of “Five Eyes”, the group of English-speaking nations including the USA, The UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. “Five Eyes” is about intelligence sharing among its members).
Although the deal is targeted against rising influence of China in South Eastern Asian waters, it is perceived as a “small alternative” to NATO in face of new geostrategic realities. The break-up of Soviet Union (Russia is considered now as a regional player in Washington), creation of European Union, change of supply & demand curves of hydrocarbons in parallel with hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan and the rise of China has created the new geopolitical priorities for the US and the attention from the North Atlantic moved to South-Eastern Asia, to challenge growing aspiration of China towards the world’s supremacy. Russia is not deemed any more as the major rival for the USA.
Although the pact has caused the discontent on the Continental Europe, the rise of AUKUS is worth the temporary tension as the U.S. tries to maintain a favorable military balance in the Asia-Pacific. Australia isn’t part of NATO, but the U.S. ally has come under coercive pressure from China. Beijing imposed tariffs on Australian food and raw materials after Prime Minister Scott Morrison called for a probe into the origins of the coronavirus. China has detained Australian citizens and demanded that its elected officials and free press stop criticizing China’s political system. The AUKUS initiative shows Western solidarity.
Focusing on submarines as the first initiative also sends the right message. China’s recent naval buildup has been extraordinary, and Beijing’s stated ambition is to control Taiwan and dominate disputed waters in the Western Pacific. The eight or more nuclear powered submarines the U.S. and U.K. will help Australia build are difficult for a hostile navy to detect as they travel long distances for reconnaissance or sea denial. They can remain submerged at high speeds for longer periods than diesel-powered boats, which need to surface periodically to burn fuel. The technology-sharing creates some risk, but the benefits of broadening the defense-industrial base across close allies are significant.
Secondly, Australia began to have second thoughts about the contract in recent months. Nuclear submarines can run for decades without refueling, giving them a much longer range than conventional submarines, which are powered by diesel. Compared to their diesel-powered counterparts, nuclear submarines have many advantages – they have longer range, are generally quieter, and more difficult to detect. There are disadvantages also – they are more technically complex, have a higher level of technical secrecy, and require nuclear materials restricted for most states. If successful, it will hamper Beijing’s capabilities to further acquire cutting-edge military tech to apply in its home-grown aircraft carriers. It is a significant step-up to counter China’s growing military presence in the West Pacific. Yet it remains ambiguous whether Japan will play a role or join AUKUS as the alliance develops.
On the other hand, doubts persist, not least over how far the UK and Australia are willing to accept the commercial and strategic consequences of antagonizing a China that views the pact as an explicit threat. The Trump administration proved how fickle US foreign policy could be; the current president may be committed to Aukus but that is no guarantee his successor will be. Meanwhile, the new submarines may not even be ready in the next decade.
More awkward still is where the pact leaves the trio’s relationship with France, with which Australia previously signed a A$50bn (US$36.6bn) deal for a fleet of conventional submarines. There are trade-offs in rebuffing France for both the US and the UK, particularly when it comes to managing the threat from Russia. The purpose of Nato, so undermined by recent events in Afghanistan, needs now to be reaffirmed. Upsetting Paris could also have direct consequences for Washington’s efforts to constrain Beijing. An EUChina investment treaty that the Biden administration dislikes has been shelved — but might yet be revived.
The Threat for Eastern Europe
NATO is mainly standing on the commitment from the USA. Europeans were runners-up both in funding and in supplying of technology & solders. In 2015, when the threat from Russia intensified to the new Nato members, Baltic States, and when it came to committing to upholding Article 5—the alliance’s sacred cow, which requires NATO members to defend an ally if it is attacked—the results were devastating. Polls showed that among Europeans, a median of 49 percent of respondents thought their country should not defend an ally, a response that exposes a lack of commitment to collective defense. Not only European populaitons, top politicians in key European countries (including Germany) had second thoughts about fulfilling the mentioned article of NATO if Russia attacks its Western member neighbors. The Chancellor of Germany was asking to define interpretation of the Article #5, which may not necessarily means military intervention.
In case of weakening interest from the United States, the likelihood of Western and South Europe to shy away from its eastern neighbors is very high (causes may range from of generous bribe to the informational war and strong tactical moves). And Russia has been preparing for this moment since 2008 (after failed test of the West to resist the invasion to Georgia).
In such elevated levels of uncertainty, Eastern and Northern European countries, with high risk of confronting Russian need to work on the Plan B. It would be wise, in line with participating to breath a new life to European Unity and NATO, they need to create their own political and military union to defend themselves and have the same stance and policy against the bigger aggressor. These countries may be three Baltic states, Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Nordic countries (including Finland). The North-East European alliance may have technological exchange with AUKUS, including submarine technologies and artificial intelligence. They need to keep in mind that, Western and South European countries may continue to keep their conformist policies with Russia, making occasionally mild statement to remind the world of their moral attitude against occupation of weaker countries from their larger neighbor, but Russia knows very well, they will not interfere. The world is changing and it would not be better place for the weak. They need to be ready.