Weekly Overview - AUKUS - a major diplomatic win for the US and a significant blow to China
AUKUS - a major diplomatic win for the US and a significant blow to China
Credit where it is due - President Biden may have secured the most consequential diplomatic achievement of his Presidency (and certainly, the most significant to date).
On September 15, President Biden attended a virtual conference with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, to announce the creation of a new trilateral security alliance - the AUKUS.
Prime Minister Morrison emphasized the all-encompassing nature of this new alliance:
‘‘And so, friends, AUKUS is born — a new enhanced trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. AUKUS: a partnership where our technology, our scientists, our industry, our defense forces are all working together [emphasis added] to deliver a safer and more secure region that ultimately benefits all.’’
In other words, this is not going to be a traditional alliance limited to defense partnership - going forward, one should expect more coordination in areas of intersection of advanced computing (AI, Big data, Robotics) and of warfare tech.
(side note: although the word ‘‘China’’ wasn’t mentioned on the inaugural day of the new alliance, we all know the intent behind the agreement. And the very next day, in a related event, the Secretary of State Blinken, didn’t leave any room for speculation by calling out China’s ‘‘destabilizing’’ conduct)
It is important to note that this degree of involvement from Australia was not a given - just few years back, the very same PM Morrison was adamant that a choice between China and the US was unnecessary:
‘‘Australia doesn’t have to choose and we won’t choose…we will continue to work constructively with both partners based on the core of what those relationships are."
So let’s all be thankful to Xi’s ‘‘incredible’’ diplomatic skills - unlike previous Chinese leaders, he didn’t subscribe to the long-followed formula for strategic success, succinctly encapsulated in Deng Xiaoping’s famous quote: ''Hide your strength, bide your time”.
Instead, he pursued a highly aggressive policy against Australia.
Frequent rhetorical barbs, and trade wars ensued.
Add to that an aggressive posturing against Taiwan (implying China’s willingness to finally use its vast military prowess), and the Australians simply had no choice but to take their security seriously.
Australian defense minister, Peter Dutton, announced the beginning of an even closer military alliance with the US, stating that there will be a “greater air cooperation through rotational deployments of all types of US military aircraft to Australia”.
Furthermore, as part of the deal, Australia will get to build 8 nuclear powered submarines (that are stealthier/ quieter/ harder to detect & have a longer range).
With that, Australia becomes the second country in history (after the UK in 1958) to gain access to the crucial US tech involved in the production of the said submarines.
Strategically, this also means that (once the delivery is complete) the US and the UK will now be able to focus most of their naval firepower onto South China Sea / Taiwan Strait, and feel confident that Australia can patrol wider territory (such as Indian Ocean) with its new, and significantly longer-range submarines.
But Australia’s new, nuclear powered submarine ambitions meant that the deal with the French (for conventional submarines) worth $90bn was scrapped.
Reaction of France - implications
Naturally, the French were far from happy about it - and they made sure to display that displeasure in all sorts of fascinating ways.
The initial reactions ranged from cancellation of a DC party, to reputational blackmail against the President Biden - comparing him to Trump in his deal-making approach (and thus hoping to create a headache for the President Biden, by trying to engineer a rift between him and his progressive domestic audience),
The French are not coy about their fury.
As the week came to a close, French outbursts became even more unhinged.
President Macron saw it appropriate to recall ambassadors from the US (A key NATO backer) and Australia (a key Indo-Pacific partner) - an extreme diplomatic move usually reserved as a measure of a significant diplomatic escalation within the context of a long-term adversarial relationship (like that of the US-Russia).
Most shockingly, the French accused the UK of turning into a US vassal - because according to the French logic, pursuance of the national security and commercial interests is a mark of a vassal state.
(side note: and at this very moment - when it is imperative to stand together with the UK, House Speaker Pelosi’s public rebuke of the UK’s stance over the Northern Ireland protocol issue with the EU, was blatantly mistimed. Especially when the EU quickly aligned itself with France… If anything, Pelosi could have at least delivered her concerns in private.)
But for all their over the top theatrical complaints of betrayal, being ‘‘stabbed in the back’’, and getting caught off guard, all is not what it seems.
For starters, France was given ample notice by Australia’s Prime Minister.
It is only rational for Australians to choose nuclear powered submarines over the diesel/electrical ones - and again, plenty of warning was given.
Secondly and more importantly, the French may find it embarrassing to be sidelined from a new (AUKUS) security configuration in the Indo-Pacific, but what did they expect?
It is France that is constantly pushing for its ‘‘strategic autonomy’’ and advocates for the separate European security force (and in the process, implying that it sees its role within NATO as of decreasing importance).
And it is France that is (in tandem with Germany) seen as a vital European partner by Beijing - CCP’s primary hope in revival and ratification of the stalled CAI Investment agreement with the EU.
So then, why wouldn’t France be pushed out from the new closer security pact?
Macron can now react in two ways;
1) He can keep complaining and push for strategic autonomy and for better relations with Beijing more urgently and fervently (and in the process, reduce his leverage vis-à-vis China - CCP can smell desperation from miles away), or;
2)He can decide to act as a NATO ally - and after some period of face-saving distance, restart its role as a major US ally in the Indo-Pacific.
Doing so, (and competing with the UK for more clout) will be a better scenario for the US and for the entire North Atlantic alliance.
Of course, Macron may instead decide to double down on the short to medium term national interests - where playing off China against the US/UK may become more appealing.
But if he chooses the second option, the new AUKUS agreement, and Australia’s better armament should also be welcome news in Paris - as the new configuration weakens China and reduces its strategic options.
We will not have to wait too long to see the route chosen by France.
Other regional implications
India witnessed a concrete and substantial benefit of closer relations with the US - a crucial outcome, given the importance of courting them in the attempt to isolate China.
Perhaps more importantly (at least certainly in the shorter term), India witnessed America’s willingness to escalate with defense measures.
This will undoubtedly increase the appeal of a closer QUAD partnership, as well as encourage Delhi to be more assertive against China.
Indeed, just a day after the announced new AUKUS partnership, India pressed China to pull back its troops from the Himalan border.
To be sure, at some point India would have to assert its interests in a more aggressive way.
But the timing of the statement indicates a willingness to exploit a contextual opportunity.
And well-timed it was - undoubtedly, feeling the weight of a creeping regional isolation, the Chinese Foreign Minister’s rather milder response to his counterpart, indicated that India did in fact find an opportune moment to press its case:
‘‘China has always handled the China-India border issue properly and with a positive attitude… [Both sides should] work together to maintain peace and tranquility in the border areas, and stop border incidents from recurring."
Other regional states also came to conclusions that ultimately harm Beijing.
Malaysia and Indonesia warned of a potential regional arms race - an eventuality that could only harm China, by ultimately increasing assertiveness and self-confidence of the aforementioned countries.
Japan (undoubtedly notified prior to the public announcement of the AUKUS) jumped at the opportunity to pronounce its red lines on the disputed Senkaku islands, promising to defend it, just when China was still whining about the new security configuration, blaming the trio for the ‘‘cold war mentality’’.
New Zealand will be the country to watch - notably absent from the new trilateral security deal (although still part of the Five Eyes), the country will gain extra leverage vis-à-vis China.
As part of its divide & conquer strategy, Beijing will now focus its diplomatic arsenal on preventing New Zealand’s ascension to the new security pact.
As a corollary then, New Zealand will be able to press for better bargains and terms in its trade with China.
Indeed, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern signaled its openness to Chinese courting by announcing that Australian subs will not be welcome in its territorial waters (on narrow petty grounds):
“New Zealand’s position in relation to the prohibition of nuclear-powered vessels in our waters remains unchanged’’.
This is of course consistent with New Zealand’s already established regional stance.
Noticing the rising heat between Washington and Beijing, earlier this year, the government in Wellington promptly asserted its own independent foreign policy (proclaiming that its Five Eyes membership shouldn’t and wouldn’t be an impediment to that end).
Getting New Zealand onboard will remain a challenging, yet vital strategic objective for the US.