The United States and United Kingdom will share proprietary nuclear propulsion technology with Australia. They will also cooperate on long-range strike weapons, artificial intelligence, and cybertechnology. This “AUKUS” agreement will enable Australia to design its own nuclear-powered attack submarines.
Here are five key takeaways.
1) Australia views China as a critical threat
While Australia will only build nuclear attack submarines (nuclear-powered but conventionally armed) and not nuclear ballistic missile submarines (armed with nuclear weapons), this agreement reflects Australia’s new critical threat perception of China.
Facing Australia’s increased restriction of Chinese espionage and political influence and its support for U.S. efforts to deter Chinese imperialism, Beijing has waged an aggressive economic pressure campaign against Canberra. In turn, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has boosted defense spending and strengthened military ties to the U.S.
Australian nuclear attack submarines will complement this action in significant ways, allowing for more flexible, longer-range, longer-duration Australian naval operations. They will also offer greater security against the next generation of Chinese satellite and aerial sensor systems. Unlike the diesel-electric-powered Shortfin Barracuda submarines that Australia had been scheduled to buy, nuclear submarines need not snorkel to recharge their batteries, risking detection from above.
2) France has been left out in the cold
On that Shortfin Barracuda point, there is one major loser here: France. As a result of this agreement, France’s government-owned Naval Group has lost a contract to build Australia’s next generation of submarines. Reflecting the attenuated loss of billions of dollars and thousands of French jobs, French foreign minister Jean-Yves le Drian described AUKUS as “a stab in the back.”
To be fair, France bears some responsibility for the Australian decision. Paris had prevaricated on holding to cost estimates and manufacturing/sourcing agreements with the Australian government.
Still, France has a legitimate complaint. Australia could have purchased at least some of Naval Group’s submarines. Centered on highly advanced pump-jet, air-independent propulsion systems, the Shortfin Barracudas would have been very quiet and cost-efficient. Paris also has a legitimate gripe against the Biden administration. While President Emmanuel Macron remains too keen on attracting Chinese investment at the expense of security and human rights concerns, he has authorized bold French submarine patrols alongside the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea. This agreement obviously fails to reward those efforts.
3) The deal has limits
This is not the beginning of a new NATO for the Indo-Pacific. As reflected by the recent failure of Britain’s HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier to transit within 12 miles of a Chinese pirate island in the South China Sea, the U.S. remains alone where it matters most — in conducting operations that bar China from inventing sovereign waters just because it builds and militarizes islands in international waters.
Unless and until the Australian and British navies join U.S. freedom of navigation patrols within 12 miles of China’s pirate islands, this deal will remain limited in its strategic impact.
4) New Zealand is no longer a serious member of the Five Eyes partnership
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says her nation was not invited to join this agreement.
That’s not surprising. While New Zealand adopts a strict no-nuclear policy, it has isolated its Five Eyes security alliance partners (Australia, the U.K., the U.S., and Canada) and refused to join U.S.-led efforts to challenge Beijing’s aggressive behavior. Ardern’s government instead resorts to absurd mythology in order to justify its abandonment of allies and betrayal of supposedly sacred democratic values. On that point, New Zealand no longer deserves or can be trusted with Five Eyes membership.
5) China has miscalculated
China had assumed that it could leverage its economic might to avoid more coordinated international action against it. Instead, Beijing’s arrogance and bullying are slowly waking up the democratic world to the need to resist. Even the European Union, once docile in the face of Chinese aggression, is beginning to re-balance its relationship with Beijing. Facing growing internal challenges, Xi Jinping must also now consider whether he has miscalculated abroad.
