British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (second right), US President Joe Biden (second left) and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (first left) meet at Point Loma naval base in San Diego, California, on March 13, 2023, as part of AUKUS, a trilateral security pact between Australia, the UK and the US. (PHOTO / AP)
Analysts have high regard for recent description of Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe that the security pact linking Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States AUKUS is a “mistake”.
The president spoke on the issue on Sept 18 during an event in New York hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
Dr Lloyd Cox, a senior lecturer at the Macquarie School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University in Sydney, agreed with Wickremesinghe’s assessment of AUKUS.
“Yes, I absolutely agree that AUKUS was and is a mistake,” he told the China Daily.
The alleged threat that China poses for Australia is hugely overblown, and the (AUKUS) deal cannot help but to irritate Australia's relationship with its largest trading partner and source of much of its prosperity.
Lloyd Cox, a senior lecturer at the Macquarie School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University in Sydney
Wickremesinghe also used the occasion to take a swipe at the so-called “Indo-Pacific” — a term widely used by US-led Western world and Japan officials — by referring to it as “an artificial framework”. The term is often used when talking about the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, better known as the Quad, a strategic security dialogue between Australia, India, Japan and the US.
Of AUKUS, Wickremesinghe said: “It is a military alliance moved against one country – China.”
“I think it’s a strategic misstep. I think they made a mistake,” he added, describing the alliance as unnecessary.
The AUKUS security pact was set up in September 2021. At the time, it was described by its three members as a security partnership involving information and technology sharing on nuclear-powered submarines, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and additional undersea capabilities.
But central to the pact is Australia establishing a nuclear-powered submarine fleet of up to eight boats to replace its ageing Collins Class diesel submarines.
The controversial decision by Australia to acquire nuclear- powered submarines has placed a question mark over the country’s position as a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and has deeply divided the nation.
ALSO READ: Report: AUKUS submarine deal poses risk to global security
Dr Lloyd Cox who absolutely agreed that “AUKUS was and is a mistake”, explained: “If we set to one side the enormous financial burden of the project – A$368 billion ($235 billion) plus an additional A$50 billion for contingencies — there are four other principal reasons why AUKUS is a mistake and should be scrapped.
“First, the deal will so closely align Australia's defence and foreign policy with those of the United States that the country's 'sovereignty’ will be largely effaced.
To bet all of one's geo-political chips on a country marked by entrenched political polarization and the radicalization of one of its main political parties is to take a huge risk. The adherents of AUKUS largely ignore such risks.
Lloyd Cox, a senior lecturer at the Macquarie School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University in Sydney
“Our military will be further integrated into the command-and-control structures of the US military, we will be totally dependent on the latter for technical expertise.”
“Second, no one has convincingly shown that there exists a problem for which Australian nuclear-powered submarines are a solution.”
He said: “The alleged threat that China poses for Australia is hugely overblown, and the deal cannot help but to irritate Australia's relationship with its largest trading partner and source of much of its prosperity.”
Cox cited the great uncertainty around the US' long-term position in Asia as the third reason.
“If the US reduced its commitment to the region, Australia's supposed security guarantee from a ‘great and powerful friend’ would evaporate.
“And this is related to the final point — the dysfunction of US politics.
“To bet all of one's geo-political chips on a country marked by entrenched political polarization and the radicalization of one of its main political parties is to take a huge risk. The adherents of AUKUS largely ignore such risks,” Cox said.
Alison Broinowski, an academic and a former diplomat, said names like Indo-Pacific “are artificial and inconsistent, being made by people, including 'Asia-Pacific'.”
In this file photo dated Nov 2, 2016, the Royal Australian Navy's HMAS Waller (SSG 75), a Collins-class diesel-electric submarine, is seen in Sydney Harbour. (PHOTO / AFP)
She told China Daily that “Sri Lanka probably objects to 'Indo-' because that doesn't appear to include them and may suggest Tamils as well.
“But 'Indo-Pacific' reflects two oceans, not specific countries. The president is no doubt aware that the term originated in recent years in response to the US interest in building a constituency of supportive countries to contain China's growing influence.
It’s worse than a mistake because it is a deliberate decision by the US, UK, and Australia to create a 'defensive' fortress in Australia with an array of weapons aimed at China. This is provocative, it makes Australia a target.
Alison Broinowski, an academic and a former diplomat
“India is a key member of the Quad, as well as of the BRICS. So 'Indo-Pacific' became the term used by the US and its allies.”
As for Wickremesinghe’s view on AUKUS, Broinowski, who is also former president of Australians for War Powers Reform, said, “It’s worse than a mistake because it is a deliberate decision by the US, UK, and Australia to create a 'defensive' fortress in Australia with an array of weapons aimed at China. This is provocative, it makes Australia a target.”
She noted that for years, US and allied activities in the South and East China Seas have been directed at China, and “AUKUS is the latest of these”.
READ MORE: Cambodian PM: AUKUS 'becoming concern' for ASEAN
“A false flag event or an accident could easily lead to armed attacks. Only Japan, the ROK, and Australia support US military activities in the region, and all the ASEAN states are non-aligned.
“All decline the threat or use of force.”
She added: “Most regional states are more concerned about AUKUS setting off an arms race.”
