The ruckus over AUKUS
The agreement among Canberra, London and Washington to supply nuclear-powered submarine and underwater-drone technology to Australia (AUKUS) has caused a ruckus in Australia, Europe and Asia.
An underreported but strategically significant part of the agreement calls for "rotations of US fighters and bombers to northern Australia" and potentially "more rotational basing for its submarines in Perth." Thus AUKUS enables Australian and American deployment of advanced military assets for surveillance and deterrence of China in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.
Reactions to this deal depend in part on where a country is located geographically and its position regarding the burgeoning US-China struggle.
American and Australian ally nuclear-free New Zealand immediately told neighboring Australia that the nuclear-powered sub- marines would not be welcome in its waters.
Some praise it like its progenitors the US, the UK and Australia, such as another US ally, the Philippines - although Manila may be reconsidering its position. Others like Malaysia and Indonesia are "concerned." To France, which was left out of the deal, it is a "betrayal." And for its target, China, it is a crossing of the Rubicon.
The leaders' AUKUS announcement stated that the alliance was "guided by our enduring ideals and shared commitment to the international rules-based order" and that "the endeavor we launch today will help sustain peace and stability in the IndoPacific
region."
Canberra claims the arrangement will show the world that countries like Australia can stand up to China (with US backing). Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the intent was "to develop Australia's capability to protect its territory as well as that of friends in the region" (from China's aggression).
Not said but obviously a factor is the national pride in joining the small elite group of six countries (China, France, India, Russia, the UK and the US) with nuclear-powered submarines. It thus raises the status of, and respect for, Australia in the region and the world.
But there is some strong opposition to the deal in Australia, including by at least two former prime ministers, Paul Keating and Kevin Rudd.
Keating declared: "The announced agreement … will amount to a lock-in of Australian military equipment and thereby forces, with those of the US with only one objective: the ability to act collectively in any military engagement by the US against China….
"This arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as material dependency on the US robbed
Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate."
Rudd concurred. He asked if the agreement meant that the submarines will be "interoperable with the Americans in the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea or even the East China Sea in China's unresolved territorial disputes with its neighbors? If so, this is indeed a slippery slope to a pre-commitment to becoming an active belligerent against China in a future war…."
Indeed, some say Australia has traded its strategic and foreign-policy independence to the US in return for protection against China. They also say it makes Australia a target in the event of a conflict between China and the US. Some anti-nuclear activists raise the possibility of nuclear proliferation as well as storage of nuclear weapons on its soil. Moreover, other countries like South Korea may now want a similar deal.
Australia's leaders see it as complementary to the Quad, an informal anti-China security dialogue comprising Australia, India, Japan and the current driver, the US.
Morrison claimed the deal was warmly received by India and Japan. But some say
India may be wary because it does not want to aggravate tensions with China further. Moreover, it is a strategic ally of France, which is outraged about the loss of a US$90 billion contract with Australia for conventional submarines and how the deal was reached behind its back.
Southeast Asian concerns
The agreement has certainly ruffled Australia's relations with South China Sea littoral countries. Some see it and the Quad as further undermining the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' "centrality" in regional security affairs. Others think the agreement may even drive some Southeast Asian countries away from the US for fear of further angering China.
Malaysia is concerned that the agreement could lead to more conflict and an arms race in the region. But it is Indonesia that may present a significant potential complication to the US and Australian use of nuclearpowered submarines and drones to patrol the South China Sea. To get there and back from their likely bases in Australia, the shortest and most convenient route is through Indonesia's straits and archipelagic sea lanes.
Approval of the use of Indonesian waters for such missions in the South China Sea would undermine Jakarta's carefully constructed "dynamic equilibrium" foreign policy. Also, Indonesia does not want to be in the middle of a possible US-AustraliaChina military dust-up.
Besides that, because of its history of being divided by and attacked from the sea, it is very sensitive about military vessels in or under its waters. Accordingly it has its own view of the relevant provisions in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and what constitutes infractions thereof.