Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has officially announced the joint development and deployment of nuclear-powered submarines with the United States and the United Kingdom. This decision immediately triggered a series of doubts and criticisms in Australia, especially within his political party.
According to the plan, Australia will first purchase 5 American-made submarines, and then build a new version of the submarine with the help of the United Kingdom and the United States. The purpose of this move is to strengthen the US-led military superiority in the Asia-Pacific region to counter China’s military growth. Beijing has slammed the move as jeopardizing peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
While the agreement has bipartisan support in Australia, it has also drawn criticism from former prime ministers, diplomats and experts who have raised questions about everything from the eye-popping costs and role of submarines to whether the agreement will separate Australia from the U.S. interests are tied together.
Experts believe the sometimes tit-for-tat debate demonstrates the need for a broad national dialogue about Australia’s future strategic direction and its role in the Asia-Pacific in the face of an increasingly assertive China.
Mark Kenny, a professor at the Australian National University, said: “Australia is unequivocally on the side of the United States. This is a very dangerous bet. This decision affects Australia’s security and even survival in some ways. After a full debate.” He also said: “In the future, there will be more serious friction because of this.”
The most outspoken critic was former prime minister Paul Keating. He said the agreement put Australia’s sovereignty at risk and “screwed the last link in a long chain the US has put in place to contain China”.
Albanese has said Australia has full autonomy over how the submarines are used. But as my colleague Damien Cave argues, Australia is unlikely to develop the required expertise in the next decade, and many, if not most, of those on board will likely have to be American. In this case, the question becomes whether the two countries can work together on how to use the submarines.
The deal has also sparked tensions within the Labor Party, with a handful of former senior Labor politicians speaking out against it.
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull also expressed concern that the plan would “be seen as we are more dependent on the US and now the UK”.
At the same time, the governors of various states also have different opinions on where to store nuclear waste. Some residents of towns that would serve as nuclear submarine bases say they don’t want a base in their backyard.
James Curran, a professor of Australian-US history at the University of Sydney, said that while the Australia-UK alliance agreement had been announced earlier, the current debate was partly due to the fact that the agreement was revealed to cost $246 billion over the next 30 years. Curran said the hefty price tag actually asked whether China’s threat to Australia was really worth that much money, and the answer was not clear.
Curran said that before the decision was announced on the 13th, the government had not publicly discussed issues such as costs, nuclear waste disposal and potential pitfalls and delays that the project may encounter. It goes without saying that the justification for any spending will be the national security it provides.
“I think they definitely don’t think there’s any need for a wider public debate because everyone automatically equates the need for this new capability with protecting Australia from the Chinese threat,” Curran said.
He said it was clear that China’s rapid military build-up and assertive attitude in recent years had to be taken seriously and was the driving factor behind the Australia-UK alliance agreement, but there were still some “assumptions underpinning the Chinese threat narrative and the cost of doing so”. Unanswered questions.
Likewise, Professor Kenny said Australia should have a sober debate about what kind of threat China actually poses to Australia.
“The China issue needs to be thought through more clearly, and I don’t see much evidence of that at the moment,” he said.
He also said the highly politicized national security debate has often polarized opinion, leaving little room for nuance and ambiguity that could be seen as appeasement.
“The problem with this dynamic in the debate is that it masks an opportunity for proper strategic thinking and clear strategic vision,” he said.
Source: Baidu