It had to happen. Why would the US keep doing Australia so many military favours if we are busy grovelling to Beijing?
Selling Australia three Virginia-class submarines could worsen the US Navy’s shortfall of nuclear-powered submarines and leave it almost a third below its goal for the size of the fleet, a new report for US legislators warns.
The US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report also posits AUKUS could fail to live up to its deterrence objectives with nuclear-powered submarines in Australian hands.
…“Sceptics of transferring Virginia-class [submarines] from the United States to Australia might argue that it could weaken deterrence of potential Chinese aggression if China were to find reason to believe, correctly or not, that Australia might use the transferred Virginia-class boats less effectively than the US Navy would use them if the boats were retained in US Navy service, or that Australia might not involve its military, including its Virginia-class boats, in US-China crises or conflicts that Australia viewed as not engaging important Australian interests,” the report said.
Congress is right to hold serious reservations about the Albanese government’s commitment to AUKUS (and ANZUS). It is chock-o-block with anti-American loons.
Ever since it was elected, Labor has played the US for a chump, drawing out military favours while pivoting the Australian economy back to China:
We already know that US diplomats are baffled by our behaviour as the US pivots its economy away from China. It’s no wonder Republicans are suspicious. Imagine what President Trump would make of it.
Peter Hartcher today claims it is all about strategic balance:
The stark truth is that “stabilisation” is a hope and a prayer. The missiles are a back-up in case hopes and prayers are ineffective. This is classic hedging – work towards the best possible outcome but prepare for the worst.
Another way of putting it is to use an old definition of diplomacy, one I’ve used before: “Diplomacy is saying ‘nice doggie’ while you reach for a rock.” Or, in the two-part formula preferred by Penny Wong, Australia is deploying both reassurance and deterrence.
If stabilisation is “a hope and a prayer”, then Albo’s dual Great Power strategy is no such thing. It is a small-minded tactical gamble on placating China’s interests while jeopardising ANZUS for virtually no reason.
Put another way. It is embedding asymmetric risk into the economy for no apparent gain.
That it is wrapped in Penny Wong’s or Kevin Rudd’s grandiloquent “managed strategic competition” doesn’t make it any more considered.
Australia’s best chance to prevent war is to ensure we are as close to Washington as possible. So that when the time comes, we can convince it to fight with economics not weapons.
This means military integration while we do our part in creating a global coalition of liberal states ready to blockade the Chinese economy in the event of a conflict.
If done right, an economic blockade will be so catastrophic for China that it would either baulk at military adventure. Or do it and cease to be a threat to anybody.
Australia can’t do this while Albo crawls back to Beijing for economic favours. That is giving China the opposite signal.
While pissing off Washington and making it doubt our commitment.
