“This issue has far-ranging implications.”
When the US and UK opted to scrap the agreement entered into by Australia with France for the building of diesel-powered submarines, many political analysts failed to comprehend why France termed it as “a stab in the back.”
Political analysts consider the issue one of far-ranging implications. It is not just about the scrapping of a contract but of substituting a party to the contract and forming a new military alliance in the Pacific without naming the enemy.
Notably, France has been observed as a major arms supplier to most countries in Asia, and the US has been irritated by this “solo flight” maneuvering to obtain arms contracts and often stepping into the shoes of big Western Corporations.
There was even that incident where France built a helicopter transport ordered by Russia called Mistral at a cost of $1.2 billion. The delivery was stopped at the behest of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Everybody knows the US was behind the scrapping of the deal. Politics work hand-in-hand to affect the relations even among allies.
Before the emergence of China as an economic power, Australia had a healthy economic relationship with that country. Its relations soon soured after the US focused its policy of “pivot to Asia” to contain China. What offended France was not the decision to junk the contract but the loss of about $40 billion.
Although the alliance made no mention of China, what visibly irritated President Macron was the inclusion of the UK in the new contract. It would have been less painful if the US alone substituted France for the deal. The US can always say it has the technology and knowhow to manufacture nuclear-powered submarines that could hardly be detected by sonar and could dive deeper and stay longer underwater to meet Australia’s defense requirements.
France knew very well that the US has been in the business of manufacturing submarines including the fitting of nuclear weapons ranging from conventional ICBM to cruise missiles. The change in manufacturer and the entry of the UK as an added party to the alliance dubbed as AUKUS, referring to Australia, United Kingdom and the US did not directly affect China. Rather, its attention focused on when and where this type of submarine will be deployed in the Pacific, and the payload that could offset the strategic balance.
Almost all nuclear-powered submarines in use by countries allied to the US, including those equipped with the latest US-made Trident missiles now in the service of the Royal Navy, were constructed and built with US technology. This sharing of technology provided incentive to the UK to participate in the contract, and the decision was an indictment that French technology was inferior.
Nonetheless, the participation of the UK was seen as rather redundant. Others are even speculating that AUKUS cemented the US-UK alliance. The UK has proven itself to be more reliable; that its loyalty to the US dates back to the 50s when it contributed an expeditionary force to fight alongside the US against China in the Korean War. Yet, the US sees the UK’s participation in the contract as an attempt to economically saddle that country. As British commentator George Galloway said, “the British is the only colonizer that has been reduced to a colony by its former colony.”
Maybe US perception and judgment toward the UK speaks the truth that the UK, Australia and the US share the same language and have common cultural heritage. Australia in this case can be used as spare tire in the event of conflict using the whole of Asia-Pacific as Maginot Line. It is the watershed in the US-Australia alliance.
The creation of the “Five Eyes,” an informal alliance among the English-speaking nations led by the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, was no accident but a consciously sorted out propaganda to entice the former colonies of Great Britain to accept the return of the UK with a sense of nostalgia. There is racism in wanting to revive the glory of the by-gone days where Australia was made a dumping ground for prisoners sentenced to live in exile.
Allowing the lost empire to wade anew in the South China Sea and the Pacific will not contribute to the member-countries’ economic development as what China is doing to countries that joined its Belt and Road Initiative. The rise of China is a foregone conclusion, and no Western technology can reverse that. Locsin and his ilk should reassess that the arms buildup is merely in response to the increasing Western militarization in the South China Sea using the countries in the region as ponies.
Secretary of Foreign Affairs Teddy Locsin has a misplaced interpretation of securing a protective umbrella for the Philippines. He said: “The enhancement of a near abroad ally’s ability to project power should restore and keep the balance rather than destabilize it.” Locsin has to be reminded that AUKUS was not created with the country’s security in mind. Never did the architect of AUKUS think of the Philippines as something they would fight to the last nail.
In fact, the notion of making Southeast Asia a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone dates back to 27 November 1971, when the original five members declared the region a Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN). The Treaty was signed by all 10 regional states in Bangkok on 15 December 1995. Only the US and France objected to the signing because the two used the Pacific as their nuclear testing ground.
Locsin’s endorsement of AUKUS is to incite countries to violate the accord applying the archaic pre-emptive strike theory to deter nuclear war. Under the Constitution, it is still the President that defines our policy, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs cannot supplant, overlap or substitute our official policy. The concern of Malaysia and Indonesia is more consistent with the Bangkok declaration while our support for AUKUS defies the avowed independent foreign policy repeatedly declared by President Duterte. This means that Locsin’s endorsement of AUKUS would allow ships bristling with nuclear weapons to freely navigate the South China Sea in the guise of freedom of navigation.
What is apparent is that AUKUS will use the region as forward and advance bases to ensure that in the event of conflict, the theater of operation will be confined in the region. Effectively, the creation of AUKUS makes the UK a freeloader with the US and Australia shouldering the expenses beginning in the purchase of those costly submarines. The Philippines would thus play the role of “odd balancer” between AUKUS and China.
ASEAN like the Philippines will perceive the new military bloc as more of a threat in their efforts to bridge closer ties with China where they will benefit more in trade, political and cultural interaction. Even South Korea which stands as one of the closest allies of the US in the Pacific has distanced from participating to avoid provoking China.
The President knows this when he issued a memorandum for the Philippines not to participate in the military exercise with other navies to cross the strait of Taiwan. He was well aware that participating in the military exercise could otherwise be interpreted as some kind of provocation that could sour our friendly relations with that country.