By Chris Trotter*
The formation of AUKUS, the new military pact linking Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, is a mirage.
It’s most important element, the arming of the Australian Navy with 8-12 nuclear-powered attack submarines, will almost certainly never happen. The Chinese Government, against which the agreement is aimed, will not be daunted. Indeed, in a shrewd diplomatic manoeuvre, Beijing has applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) from which the USA remains self-excluded, and of which New Zealand remains the “secretary”.
What other word except “mirage” is fit to describe this latest, rather desperate fantasy of Anglo-Saxon imperialism? Long-term strategic decline cannot be wished away by dreaming up a new acronym.
Not that New Zealand’s foreign affairs and defence “establishment” (FADE) will understand AUKUS in such terms. To the contrary, it is already mounting a full-court press to convince New Zealanders that their country has been slighted and snubbed, and its long-term national security imperilled, because their government has not sung along lustily enough in the new “Indo-Pacific” chorus-line. Over the next few weeks and months FADE will attempt to apply maximum pressure on Jacinda Ardern’s government by wheeling out every academic expert, former military officer, US-aligned politician and journalist at its disposal.
The first of what promises to be a great many of these AUKUS promoters appeared on the Q+A current affairs programme just yesterday morning (19/9/21). Former New Zealand Deputy-Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, with the sparkling waters of the Bay of Islands as his backdrop, was interviewed with uncharacteristic deference by the programme’s presenter, Jack Tame. Absent entirely from this encounter was the hectoring tone usually reserved for the NZ First leader by mainstream journalists. What viewers saw was a senior New Zealand statesman invited to shed light on New Zealand’s disturbing exclusion from this new and important security agreement.
Peters, naturally, did not disappoint. Indeed his performance was excellent – full of gravitas and more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger exasperation at the failings of his former Labour colleagues. He didn’t quite say Si vis pacem, para bellum (he who desires peace, should prepare for war) but that was clearly the message delivered by this antipodean Cincinnatus. Peters also made it plain that words have consequences: a not-so-subtle reminder that while his speeches as Foreign Minister only strengthened this country’s relationship with the United States, the speeches of Nanaia Mahuta have produced the opposite effect.
With the National Party locked in what Matthew Hooton calls a “death spiral”, and Act out of contention as a coalition partner for Labour, NZ First presents the Americans with a tempting prize. Subject to proper nurturing, and the right kind of advice, Peters’ party could once again find itself in a position to dangle the keys to the kingdom in front of a desperate Labour caucus. As the price of opening the castle gates, Peters could demand – and would, almost certainly, be given – both the Foreign Affairs and Defence portfolios. The chances are high that, very soon thereafter, the doors to AUKUS would also swing open.
The next New Zealand General Election is, however, still two years away, and much can change in two years. Beijing has just handed Wellington an extraordinary opportunity to place itself at the head of those Indo-Pacific nations that would much rather expand the opportunities for economic co-operation and trade, than join in ratchetting-up the tensions of a new Cold War.
Imagine the diplomatic awkwardness for Canberra if Washington made it clear to “the fella down-under” that he was expected to blackball China from membership in the CPTPP. A China seeking to increase economic opportunities across the Indo-Pacific region would have been frozen-out by an Australian government more interested in the prospects of war than the benefits of peace. The contrast between the policies of Wellington and Canberra could not be rendered more starkly: to New Zealand’s Pacific neighbours, her trading partners, and, not least, to Beijing.
It is also quite possible that, by 2023, the United States will be embroiled in domestic strife bordering on civil-war. By fair means or foul the Republican Party appears poised to seize back control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in next year’s mid-term elections. With both the Congress and the Supreme Court under their effective control, the possibility exists that the Republicans will attempt to depose President Joe Biden and replace him with Donald Trump. The Trump-dominated Republican Party is certainly crazy enough to try. The real question, then, will be: who, in a constitutionally compromised United States, possesses either the means – or the will – to stop them? Is the American military prepared to destroy the American republic in order to save it? If it is, then AUKUS will be the last thing on its mind!
As for those nuclear-powered submarines the Americans have promised their Australian “mates”. To employ a popular Australianism: “Tell ‘em they’re dreaming!” The six diesel-powered Collins-class subs the Aussies already possess have been one long pain in the Australian Navy’s arse. Plagued by repeated breakdowns and difficulties in accessing spare parts, the Australian submarine fleet is almost never fully functional.
When it is ready for action, however, the Collins-class submarine is considerably nimbler and harder to detect than its larger, nuclear-powered, counterparts. Having only just learned how to get the best out of their current fleet, the idea that their incredibly hard to recruit submariners will have to master an infinitely more complex boat must be seriously depressing Australia’s naval commanders.
And that’s not even factoring-in the white-hot fury of the French – who have just been stiffed out of $93 billion!
All of which suggests that, upon hearing the news about AUKUS, New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern and Canada’s Justin Trudeau would have both breathed huge sighs of relief. There is something ever-so-slightly bonkers about this supposedly “new” security arrangement. For a start, what, exactly, is new about cobbling together military alliances against surging nation-states threatening to up-end the status quo? Isn’t that the sort of carry-on that led to World War I?
More to the point, how is anyone supposed to take Boris Johnson and his brand new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth II, seriously? A man so enamoured with the life and times of Winston Churchill surely cannot have forgotten the fate of the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse – sunk, almost casually, by Japanese bombers in December 1941? Surely, someone has told him about China’s hypersonic, carrier-killing missiles?
And what are the Chinese supposed to make of English warships in the South China Sea? Johnson may have forgotten all about the Opium Wars of the mid-nineteenth century, but Xi Jinping has not.
Surely, it is time for New Zealand to break free of the imperial project in which it has been enmeshed for the past 181 years? Surely, as an independent nation, it is in our long-term interests to recognise Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States for what they are? The three countries which, in March 2003, and in blatant contravention of international law and the United Nations Charter, attacked and invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq.
In planning and unleashing an aggressive war upon a country which had not attacked them, the leaders of the US, the UK and Australia were guilty of the same war crimes for which the leaders of Nazi Germany were tried and convicted at Nuremburg in 1946. To join this “Coalition of the Waning”: this pact composed of the three military aggressors of the Iraq War; would not only be folly – it would be criminal folly.
The shimmering vision of Imperial Hegemony Regained: the mirage which leads Joe Biden, Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison deeper and deeper into a waterless diplomatic desert; will be the ruin of them all.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
98 Comments
Blimey. That all read a bit OTT. I know Trotter is a bit of a stirrer but finishing it off comparing the uk, us and Aus to the nazis?! That war may have been illegal and based on a dodgy dossier but they weren't systematically gassing and torturing civilians (although of course the results of that war have been predictably tragic)
He's quite right, but not for a reason he understands, I'm guessing.
Hegemonic power is related to energy and resources - to live high, you need to commandeer and to import. That was Liebensraum fur Herrenvolk; that was the Greater EA Co-Prosperity Sphere, that was the British Empire. That was the US dollar, the IMF and the World Bank since 1945.
The EROEI of that suck-to-the-centre eventually outweighs the gains. Thus abandoning 'territory'. They don't realise what is happening, so keep trying to re-establish what they had. Those nuke propulsion units won't be delivered before the bottleneck is behind us - which means never.
What NOBODY is questioning, is whether there's enough planetary resource remaining for China to ascend. My take is: No. Puts us in uncharted territory; a global Roman decline. Fast or slow? Take your partners and wait for the band....
I think the US, UK, etc fully recognise that their whole economic model is based on the merciless extracting of resources and cheap labour from countries across the global South - who they keep poor using military / political intervention, 'trade deals', and IMF loans (in US dollars) that payday lenders would be proud of.
What the jostle with China is actually about is control over the supply chain of raw materials and cheap labour. If China link-up with global South countries or otherwise secure their raw materials, the economies of the Western world will be screwed over. That is the regime change that Biden is exercised about.
It is utter arrogance to think that US and UK can actually keep the southern countries poor, not that they may not wish for it, but that they can make it so. I am from a southern country and my view is that there are destructive forces within these countries who are the main barrier in the way of their progress. Where not for these homegrown, totally organic forces, no amount of ill will towards them by the West, would have had achieved the outcomes you describe.
The West attitude toward the rest of world has a very strong exploitation element to it. But the western exploitation could be mitigated (or at least lessened) where a total iron feast, violent overthrowing of civility could not be dealt with. (think ISIS and Taliban)
The US, UK, France have kept the global South poor for around 200 years - firstly through colonialism, and more recently by sponsoring the over-throwing (or simply killing) of many progressive leaders. The Taliban were of course a product of this type of intervention - see also Pinochet, many regimes in Africa (DRC is a shocking story), Venezuela etc. I am not doubting that there are internal factors, but it is not coincidence that any progressive social democracy in the 'developing' world is quickly de-stabilised by external actors.
I am not disputing the fact that the west intervene in the developing countries affairs, and when its "interest" require so, such interfering would be/can be very damaging to the interests of the said countries. At times, they would side with worst these countries have to offer to defeat the progressives. However, the instability of social democracy movements in said countries is due to their very weak foundations, thus the ease with which they could succumb to external forces.
Your comment suggests that the southern countries would have prospered only if it was not for the negative role the west has played. I am saying that, that is huge assumption. Also, while your comment about west sponsoring evil in developing countries is true, it should be balanced by the fact that the west is also sponsor of the ideas behind such "social democratic movements" while China is not only the sponsor of the worst people in any country when its interests warrant it, they are sponsors of despotism and control.
You would have ample evidence to justifiably criticize the west, but that does not justify assuming it a god like power to prevent development in countries should they people want it. For gods sake, they could not even hold Afghanistan against tribal savages.
Yes I have to agree that was truly disgusting, he also missed out POLAND who were also involved in the Iraq war (are they also like Nazis?). Does he not remember the war crimes of or the Iraq government at the time? Fallout from the the invasion of Kuwait resulted in the Iraqi government agreeing to UN security Council Resolution 687, which the Iraq govt filed to uphold resulting in the invasion of Iraq. Trotter is defending a regime who were guilty of mass human rights crimes at the time, including instances of gouging out children's eyes to get parents to talk.
Ignoring the military ambitions of China is also sheer folly.
China has the largest military now after the US. It has been aggressive towards other nations in the region and used dollar diplomacy to gain as many allies (read 'slave nations') as possible. China is also a flagrant abuser of human rights - maybe no different from many western nations but certainly no better either, and has no hesitation to throw anyone who doesn't toe the party line into jail.
Tally up the nuke subs and the USA with 68 outstrips every other nation by a country mile. Add those of the Allies & it is 88 vs Russia China 31. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks, subs are not. That is the strategy. That the western allies are suspicious of the CCP’s international ambitions is an understatement, and a large one. The nuke game has always been about the balance of power, deterrence.
It was called MAD in my day - for good reason.
And that was what it took to make the Russians come to a negotiating table. In 1956 (I think at an international communism conference) the stated goal was world domination. Despite the collapse of most hardline communist countries, that goal has never been publically refuted. Instead with ideological rubbish like this article producing very slanted opinions as fact that domination is occuring by stealth. For the people at the bottom the end result doesn't change and it really doesn't matter if the jackboot standing on your neck is worn by someone in red or blue.
The Soviet Union collapsed because Reagan with Thatcher in tow turned push into shove and called the bluff When the dust settled it was abundantly clear that the Soviets had always been completely outgunned. Yes they would cause huge destruction during any great conflict, but they would lose the final outcome and they knew it. The USA has relaxed neither that strategic nor tactical advantage.. Why else would they have developed more and more of those undetectable deep water subs. Seriously for instance, how can China think to launch an invasion fleet in the Formosa Strait when there could be 10 subs lurking there they have no idea about. That is called deterrence on a large scale.
You're counting the wrong things.
Resources and energy, per head, is/are the only real wealth.
Money is merely a proxy for same, and the holding of it has to be believed by others for it to work. Currently money is keystroke-issued as debt - which is a demand to obtain future energy and resources. Debt-issuance has been going on exponentially, and has outpaced the underwrite, which of course has been going the other way. They will never pay their debt back - neither will many; so what's money worth anymore? Try thinking of a house as worth, say, $2,000, and ask yourself where that leaves a dollar, proportionately?
As real wealth is real stuff per head, less heads is better (so the US is on the wrong track; Trump was right when he said "we're full". And it is down to fracking, while increasing debt - I don't call that 'far more wealth'; I see a never-bigger, never-older collection of unmaintainable infrastructure, decaying.
Measured correctly, nobody is 'growing'. They are merely drawing-down, the only difference being whose stuff they're drawing.
"The Sino-American Split: At Sea with a Broken Compass": sane analysis from a seasoned observer.
https://chasfreeman.net/the-sino-american-split-at-sea-with-a-broken-compass/
That is truly an excellent article you have linked us to.
'American competitiveness vis-à-vis China will not be enhanced by more American defense spending or the pivoting of U.S. armed forces to East Asia. Meeting the challenge will require a level of investment in the future of the United States that is unimaginable without an end to the American hubris, denial, and complacency that have gutted fiscal responsibility, diverted wealth to the plutocracy, attracted the best and brightest to financial rather than real engineering, suffocated competitive markets, atrophied industry, institutionalized inefficiency and rake-offs in sectors like education and health, squeezed the middle class, and decimated the capacity of the government to respond to crises. Nothing less will do.'
Freeman was Nixon's interpreter to China in 72. He is a retired career diplomat, from an era when ambassadors were required to have a deep grounding in the history and culture of the countries they were sent to. As a long-time observer of China-US relations, Freeman offers a point of view that is informed by decades of experience, unlike much of what passes for analysis today.
Nowhere in the article above does Freeman condone abuse of minorities, by China or anyone else. To answer your question: the US has spent trillions in regime change over the decades with disastrous consequences: Iran, Guatemala, Chile. Protecting oil interests in the guise of spreading democracy.
He (Peters) didn’t quite say Si vis pacem, para bellum (he who desires peace, should prepare for war) but that was clearly the message delivered by this antipodean Cincinnatus.
Indeed:
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Russia now has "unbelievable military power" after transforming its armed forces over the past 20 years, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen.John Hyten said on Friday.
"Russia has an unbelievably powerful military," Hyten told an Atlantic Council podcast. "They have transformed their military in the past 20 years."
Hyten noted that Russia had made no secret of its determination to completely modernize its strategic nuclear, space and cyber forces, but US leaders had not paid attention and the 2010 National Security Strategy of President Barack Obama did not mention Russia as a potential future rival or peer competitor.
"In 2006, [President Vladimir] Putin announced they were going to transform their nuclear force. ... [T]hey started building aggressive cyber and space forces. Why? Because of the United States and NATO," he said.
Russia and China now presented the United States and its military with a strategic challenge they had never known before in history - not one but two peer competitors at the same time, Hyten said. Link
Beijing has just handed Wellington an extraordinary opportunity to place itself at the head of those Indo-Pacific nations that would much rather expand the opportunities for economic co-operation...
I think we should give that "opportunity" a pass, we're already economically overly reliant on China.
In the long term we'd be picking the wrong corner, officially Chinas population is due to half over the next 80 years. Unofficially the birth rate is much lower than reported so it might be far sooner. Australia, the UK and US are all wealthy countries with population growth forecast to continue to 2100, they are still on the rise.
Agreed. Getting China into the TPP, er CPTPP would require a renegotiation, and China wouldn't play a soft hand. Why would it, with so much economic power? It would cement more countries into economic reliance on China. This is good for China, bad for everyone who wants economic self determination (as far as that is possible for anyone) or an independent foreign policy.
Having only just learned how to get the best out of their current fleet, the idea that their incredibly hard to recruit submariners will have to master an infinitely more complex boat must be seriously depressing Australia’s naval commanders.
Wow. Just wow.
The military loves new toys! Not the least because it means they can demand more funding, and be sure to get it.
"...Act out of contention as a coalition partner for Labour" Is that right though ?
AFAIK Seymour has never ruled it out (he did say "its almost impossible to imagine")
Personally I'd be delighted if that was the only option to form a Government at the next election: bang their heads together.
Crikey CT has just revealed his blind spots with a very loud shout.
The Aussie deal with France for their submarines struck problems very early on and I suggest that French arrogance made this outcome inevitable. But the French are not all to blame. Senior military staff in Aussie screwed this up royally. They were offered LA class boats in the beginning but turned them down. And with a little experience in the field, the modern nuke hunter killers are extremely capable. I would be interested in the basis of CT's criticism but this just smack of left wing rabid anti-americanism much like Lange had. No basis really, just doesn't like the Yanks.
The other thing CT wilfully ignores is how to achieve any kind of negotiating power. Does he truly believe that China would still negotiate and treat other countries equally or respectfully if they had no military to back them up? That is a degree of naivety that is shocking for a person with his experience. NZ's exclusion is exactly because of that. We are still expected by other countries to contribute towards our own security and the general stability of the world as a whole. Thanks to David Lange, Helen Clark and successive Governments we can't even do that!
The submarine deal was an absolute debacle and was going very poorly.
I think the French are justified in their outrage though; they offered the Aussies nuclear subs, the Aussies said they didn't want nuclear and asked for all kinds of modifications for diesel instead, complicating the whole process; now the Aussies, without warning, cancel the sub contract saying they need nuclear subs! They would be on any supplier's shit-list after that.
Don't disagree with most of that, but I would suggest that they haven't suddenly decided they need nukes. I think the Yanks just pressured them into a deal that was more affordable. When they were originally offered the Los Angeles 688s they were essentially old boats with a lot of time and old systems on them. Technology had already moved well past them. They'l likely be looking at an advanced Virginia class now and the time frames mean they could even be better than the current ones. But the quietest sub about is the new Swedish Blekinge class. The Swedes have set a very high (or low) bar with these.
Still for the hysteria out there nuke power does NOT mean nuke weapons and their power plants are pretty resilient. A few years ago a LA 688 ran head on into a submerged sea mount at flank and survived to tell the story. It is currently being converted into a school for submariners in the US.
The NZ nuclear free position was partially based on anxiety about the safety of nuclear propulsion. This was clearly wrong, and is yet another reason why our nuclear free status is a missed opportunity for NZ to have resilient energy.
I was involvedi na study of New Zealand's natural hazards, and the safest place in NZ is the Tron. That's right, a nuclear power station in Hamilton or thereabouts would be the safest place. No tsunamis, no earthquakes or volcanic eruptions to pose any danger of a Fukushima. Not that we'd want heavy water reactors - molten salts all the way. Safe, clean, and not useful for creating nuclear weapons.
Totally agree. and those molten salt reactors? they're capable of being built small, throttleable (variable output to meet demand) and very, very safe. We need to get over ourselves, especially if we want to gift a livable world that is not in the stoneage to our grandchildren.
No volcanic eruptions? Ok maybe no volcanoes right there, but there are some pretty big ones not far away...check out the deposition maps from Taupo. That is still active and auckland could erupt too. If the waikato river got clogged up with ash where would the cooloing water come from?
The formation of AUKUS, the new military pact linking Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, is a mirage.It’s most important element, the arming of the Australian Navy with 8-12 nuclear-powered attack submarines, will almost certainly never happen.
Exactly: The reality is the US-UK offer to provide Australia with nuclear submarines is little more than domestic politics projected onto a theoretical geopolitical map of the US’ making. Australia was facing a fiscal crisis due to the exploding budget associated with the French-designed replacement for the Collins-class submarine, one that could threaten to bring down the government of Scott Morrison. Boris Johnston remains desperate for a platform from which he can project an image of UK geopolitical relevance. And Biden is in desperate need of being able to do the same for an American constituency reeling after the humiliation of losing a 20-year conflict in Afghanistan.
But the fact remains that the US has no meaningful military counter to China, the UK is not capable of sustaining any credible military presence in the Pacific, and Australia cannot afford to acquire and operate a force of eight nuclear-powered attack submarines. The Australian nuclear submarine project is a dangerous joke that only further exacerbates the existing geopolitical crisis with China by injecting a military dimension which will never see the light of day. Link
I really don't understand why the AUKUS agreement was announced seemingly without any forewarning to the likes of France and NZ. What is gained other than pissing off long-standing diplomatic allies?
I also agree with Trotter that we shouldn't attach ourselves too closely to the US and UK, who have never repented of their profoundly unwise adventures in the Middle East and whose foreign policy establishments never seem to learn a thing; after Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, they still think that wars are fun and easy and a good idea.
We do need to maintain as good a relationship as possible with our traditional allies, without becoming beholden to them; and more importantly IMHO, develop our own capabilities with more initiative and imagination.
The Aust/UK relationship is easy, both regimes are desperate for headlines - the UK need to appear relevant on the global stage post Brexit and Morrison is looking towards the next election with a backdrop of woeful Covid management and domestic scandals. The US is looking for a regional patsy (Australia) and an export sale.
I really enjoyed this article (why I am commenting), it has increased the stakes for NZ dramatically - both opportunities and threats. All Western economies are intrinsically linked to China and a trade collapse to me is similar strategically to MAD. Surely Australia should stop exporting iron ore to China, until that point this is all hot air. Should NZ send troops to fight China if they invade Taiwan? So many questions.
Should we revisit the Nuclear Free commitment? I think so, the only way we get to net zero and maintain a decent standard of living is by adopting fusion.
Too narrowly scoped.
Nuclear only does electricity. Doesn't do batteries, storage, transport. And most importantly, doesn't solve the other feed-back-loop Systems problems, any one of which is a crippler. And you're writing that, within a set of infrastructure which took 200 years to amass incrementally and which doesn't work without fossil energy. That includes building your reactors..... Yet you suggest we can just change? Like that?
Optimism bias is useful - grasping reality is a better basis for decision-making.
It's a shitty world we can't avoid, so New Zealand just has to make do as best we can.
* We have to stand with Australia. The country most like us. For all their faults.
* The USA & UK find trouble Eg Iraq. Best to stay away.
* China was OK to deal with once, but won't be while they still have a "president for life".
" Best not to engage with powerful bullies, best to try to tiptoe away.
* China is more likely to threaten us economically than militarily. eg. " because of your wrong thinking we are stopping all trade" and abruptly.
* You can't buddy with bullies, they still turn on you when the mood takes them.
Hard decisions which we can't avoid.
The French had already proven themselves to be unreliable suppliers of the sub building exercise in Australia I am surprised it has taken this long to dump them huge cost overruns already pushing back completion to the never never . This propaganda peice overlooks a few flaws in the CCP and there benevolence to the point of the ridiculous I don't see China having an immigration program that is likely to attract people from the west or anywhere else . China has been so aggressive and belligerent while building it's own military it would be folly to ignore this reality. It will be interesting to see how the coalition goes with Australia ignoring emissions and opening new mines in defiance of policy strikes by their partners . China appears to have it's own economic issues at present they would be better to mind there own business for a change .
Surely modern technology has superceded old school military assets. Hypersonic missiles, drones, satttelites might be able to track submarine magnetic signatures etc. Switching off the internet would probably bring most nations to their knees. But one thing that frustrates a superior occupying force are low tech prickly locals. We are already half way there.
Our low tech prickly locals have been disarmed by our woke, authoritarian leaning government. But a thought on that; a while back I read about a US military Colonel who was tapped to command red forces for a major exercise that scripted a force landing on another nation. His scenario was that he was in charge of a low tech rebellious militia very short on resources. He took it to heart, ran rings around the major conventional forces coming in and effectively defeated an invasion force many times the size of his forces. He then got accused of a number of things which basically amounted to cheating, and his career was even at risk because he embarrassed a number of influential and ranking members of the military. And all he did was believe in the old military maxim "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'". should have been given a medal.
The small capable aircraft is because hypersonic weapons sacrifice manouvreability, so great for big, non- manouvering targets with predictable movement. Hypersonic weapons can be KEWs (kinetic energy weapons) which don't need a warhead, but they have to connect, the alternative is a decent blast radius so that may even scale to require a small nuke. HWs have their weaknesses too.
Switching off the internet would work in a community, but militaries generally create and carry their own connectivity with them so community infrastructure probably wouldn't count.
SAAB Gripen is designed so it can be operated off roads with minimal support. This is the reality of living so close to Russia and the old Soviet Union. These day missile defences are very capable and 300 missiles hundred wouldn't even get to scratch some paint unless they were nukes.
Glad the author is versed in the nuances of the politics driving the AUKUS agenda.
The AUKUS military strategy was an old one though - MAD.
I think what the old allies of the west either failed to realise that China isn't interested in war or that China has stuck out as the tall poppy in the old allies' version of the world.
'China isn't interested in war'. I think the jury is out on that one. Hence these actions.
Logically it makes little sense for China to invade any country. But logic hasn't stopped deluded, autocratic regimes from doing so in the past. What's to say this mob might not do the same?
Agree HouseMouse. China is only not interested in war because the outcome is not certain to be in their favour. I doubt they would hesitate if they thought no one could stand up to them. We need to remember that it was Mao who said "Power comes from the barrel of a gun" a quote the CCP still firmly believes in.
What would they really gain from invading Taiwan? Really all they would gain is stroking their ego and sense of empire and destiny.
At best, they would face severe economic ramifications. At worst, a potentially devastating war. In reality, both.
So, if they are rational, they won't do it.
One of the problems for China with Taiwan is that there is no certainty they would be able to win without having to escalate to a nuclear option. And both the US and Japan will act to stop that happening. The Taiwanese have spent more than 50 years planning and preparing for a Chinese invasion. They do not consider it a possibility, they view it as virtually certain. The only thing stopping it is their readiness. They are very ready and very capable. If the Chinese tried the cost would be extremely high, and would result is such a drain on their forces that the gain would not be worth it, no matter the size of their ego.
It's mostly sabre rattling. They want us to believe they will, but will they actually jump? It depends on a lot of things, and cost is a big part of it. If their population gets too restive and the CCP begins to feel it is losing control of the country, or some other major shift they could well think the cost is worth it. Despite their clamp down on media, Hong Kong will be known about in China and many will be concerned about what it means. But ultimately no I don't think they will in the near term. Having an external enemy on the front door step is an ideal tool for entrenching power and keeping a population in hand. The US is a little too far away to be seen as an immediate threat, and Japan and Korea are too small, even combined.
Consider if they did do it and won, their population might be happy for a while, but then the demands for more freedom and more wealth start again and another distraction is required. So Taiwan is more valuable to China as it is now, than finally conquered.
From Bloomberg:
Politics
Taiwan Warns China Can ‘Paralyze’ Island’s Defenses in Conflict
"Taiwan warned that China could “paralyze” its defenses in a conflict, a stark new assessment expected to fuel calls in Washington for more support for the democratically ruled island.
China is able to neutralize Taiwan’s air-and-sea defenses and counter-attack systems with “soft and hard electronic attacks,” Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense said in an annual report to lawmakers seen by Bloomberg News. The document offered a more alarming assessment than last year’s report, which had said China still lacked the capability to launch an assault."
You are obviously outdated with the western propaganda.
Now that America has withdrawn from Afghanistan, what is the best way to appease the Military complex int the US ? Get a Treaty going for more sale of arms, submarines, etc to an ally. The Saudis are not buying anymore of these. So new markets have to be found. Sticking it up to the French is a Bonus.
"" desperate fantasy of Anglo-Saxon imperialism""? The armies involved in expanding the British Empire and the colonists it sent to the empire were disproportionally Irish and Scottish not Anglo-Saxon. Maybe Queen Victoria had German Saxon blood. This seems to be a fantasy in the author's mind reflecting the modern urge to see everything in terms of race. The height of the British Empire had a Jewish prime minister and a massive Indian army that the empire relied on in world wars.
You can discuss Empire as being good or bad (current majority belief is bad and so there ought to have been no Treaty of Waitangi). Racism is simply bad and always has been. But it is wrong headed to assign racism to empire simply to make it appear bad; the reality is racism is a feature of nationalism. Racism can be as evil as Hitler's holocaust or as benign as the splitting of Czechoslovakia into two ethnic nations but by definition Empires are multi-ethnic.
As much as we like to think we're pretty important, a New Zealand without friends is about as helpless as a pig on ice.
Without them we would have been a colony of Japan since about 1943.
When (not if) China decides to expand its empire it won't take much notice of our beloved unenforceable international laws.
I will guarantee one thing right now - no subs will be built in Australia. This is not about building submarines nuclear or otherwise. Why - well the earliest Australia is going to see any sub built is 2030- more likely to be 2035-2040 - thats 15-20 years away - I dont think China is intending to wait that long.
This instead is about 2 very big naval and airforce powers - having somewhere to sit their fleets and their aircraft in the Southern Asian region. It's about having an ally who wont question or turn on them when the pressure is on. If NZ was 3000km further west and 3000 kms further north - then NZ would have been doing the deal instead of Australia.
China is coming - what that will look like is anybodys guess- but having multiple ports to position military hardware and supplies in the region will be vital for anybody who decides to push back. This is all about strategy - and the US/ UK played the first strategic move last week.
This instead is about 2 very big naval and airforce powers
The United Kingdom is no longer a conventional military power that has the necessary capability to project power globally.
But the fact remains that the US has no meaningful military counter to China, the UK is not capable of sustaining any credible military presence in the Pacific, and Australia cannot afford to acquire and operate a force of eight nuclear-powered attack submarines. The Australian nuclear submarine project is a dangerous joke that only further exacerbates the existing geopolitical crisis with China by injecting a military dimension which will never see the light of day. Link
I absolutely stand by my comment
1. The UK currently ranks number 8 in Military Power and 5th in Naval Power (given China and Russia are in the top 5 - of the allies only the US and Japan have bigger navies) I'd consider them to be a pretty big Military Power.
2. they also have the capability and resources to ramp up pretty quickly - which given they announced last year their biggest defence budget since the cold war- it appears they are already on the runway to achieving that.
But with Russia playing hardball with natural gas supplies to Europe and the power links between France and Britain temporarily disabled by fire, it finally should be dawning on our politicians that as worthy is Britain's dash to be the G7's greenest economy may be, our current system of energy supply is woefully ill-equipped to cope with the transformation.
Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is trying to cobble together a temporary rescue plan for the food supply chain and gas supplies. Link
But the fact remains that the US has no meaningful military counter to China, the UK is not capable of sustaining any credible military presence in the Pacific, and Australia cannot afford to acquire and operate a force of eight nuclear-powered attack submarines. The Australian nuclear submarine project is a dangerous joke that only further exacerbates the existing geopolitical crisis with China by injecting a military dimension which will never see the light of day. Link
The Russians would say that wouldn't they
Trotter hasn't compared it to "Nazi genocide" but rather the now established crime of a war of aggression or a crime against peace. Planning and unleashing an aggressive war upon a country which had not attacked them.
There were a lot of crimes committed during WW2 and a war of aggression is but one of them.
But Trotter loses the argument here, because, you know, Godwin's Law.
Trotter appears to be trolling here as it is unnecessary to evoke the Nazis as wars of aggression are well known to be crimes standing on their own.
It's something you will see more of. Nazism and colonialism are often seen mentioned in the same sentence these days. I guess it has some validity as the intention was to do to the Slavs in the East what the British, French and Iberian empires had done to the First Peoples in the West. From the viewpoint of those looking at the pointy end of the stick it wasn't much different.
Also, regardless of why US invaded Iraq, it must be understood that most of Iraqi death were at hands of "resistance" forces who not only justify use of violence against civilians as a fact of struggle against the rulers, but actively use it as strategy to gain power.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18
When you're in a hole, stop digging:
https://lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/when-you-re-hole-stop-digging…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.