During the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the complaint from some European NATO members of insufficient consultation by the U.S. administration may have come across as petulant. Four weeks later, the AUKUS—a security pact between Australia, the UK, and the United States, whereby Canberra acquires U.S. nuclear-powered submarines and scraps its submarine agreement with France—dispels any doubt. The agreement concluded behind closed doors and then barely announced, not only bypasses the United States Congress (a standing member of the USMC once described this as “the most significant treaty with Australia since federation”), but also questions President Obama’s recent statement on nuclear disarmament.
Offer for Canberra
The Financial Times has revealed that Washington offered Canberra a number of ex gratia payments, including an unspecified sum for the “continued influence” of the United States in Asia-Pacific. The AUKUS followed on from negotiations that had officially started several months ago; yet little has been released on this agreement, which was not even mentioned by Prime Minister Julia Gillard during her 2013 visit to Washington (which included no less than seventy-five official meetings). One wonders how much was at stake for Canberra to ensure that U.S. lawmakers would not find out about the agreement before their vote, which now appears all but certain to pass (with bipartisan support).
Tying Up Loose Ends?
By this point, it is becoming clear that President Obama’s “reset” of transatlantic relations has very little to do with resetting the U.S.-led security order in Europe and much more to do with disengaging from Afghanistan as quickly as possible, especially given the impending Congressional elections. Searching for a partner to take over that role, Washington had already approached Turkey, which after months of negotiations only agreed to provide transport services for the withdrawal, much to Washington’s annoyance. Australia, however, is an even better choice than Turkey: it is geographically closer and already has troops on the ground in Afghanistan—so much so that, according to Australian media reporting (here), Canberra now contributes more troops to the mission than any other NATO member save the United States.
It is also ironic that Canberra’s move comes just as Tokyo, which had long shied away from an overt security commitment in Afghanistan, has decided to directly contribute to the ISAF mission for the first time ever after having already promised $110 million USD in humanitarian aid (ChinaDaily). Japan will now provide two C-130 Hercules transport aircraft and fifty personnel to the mission. Yet Tokyo’s decision, taken under pressure from Washington, was not without domestic opposition: a movement consisting of ordinary citizens and even some politicians gathered more than 15,000 signatures on a petition against the participation in ISAF (here).
Japan traditional pactifism
Japan is becoming increasingly aware that its traditional pacifism no longer reflects the world around it, but it would be foolish to think that this engagement will remain limited to Afghanistan. Canberra’s decision on submarines might be considered a precedent for Tokyo to follow, given the fact that there are already maritime tensions with China over disputed islands in the East China Sea. Japan has had nuclear weapons during its national history and could still do so again: Tokyo has the technological know-how, both to produce and deliver them.
All this should be kept in mind when assessing the U.S.-Japanese Security Treaty’s future role in Asia Pacific politics (here). The AUKUS might yet prove a turning point, however small it looks today. Australia is not only a key U.S. ally in Asia-Pacific but an emerging economic power. Whose interests will only grow as the region gets more crowded and contested (by Japan above all). Canberra’s decision to buy a fleet of new silent submarines. From Japan could be taken as a sign that Australia has already made up its mind. And this is before we take into account the fact that both countries have been reluctant to sign a bilateral free-trade agreement. Unlike other U.S. allies in the region (such as South Korea and India). Which did not hesitate to come out in support of Washington this past April. When it decided to punish China with heavy import tariffs on Chinese tires—effectively raising the cost of living in China. And hurting the interests of Chinese companies (here).
Australia’s decision to spend over 10 billion USD on a new fleet of submarines from Japan was not made lightly. Yet, neither did U.S. lawmakers have any say in it: Canberra kept them “in the dark” until after the deal was done—just as Washington.
