Two weeks ago, US President Joe Biden, in announcing on video the Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) pact, called Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison "that fellow from Down Under" in what appears to be a senior moment. The fact that the military alliance has upset a lot of people from China, France, and even their own commentators should not have been surprising.

Has Australia, one of the four advanced OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries from the Asia Pacific region (the others being Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand), seriously thought through AUKUS implications on her Asian neighbours?

First, do eight nuclear submarines by 2040 make serious military sense for Australian security? We can understand that a maritime power in the South Pacific with lots of coastal waters to patrol needs a strong navy. But as former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating rightly pointed out, China is a land-based power and, being several thousand kilometres away from Australia, does not pose a military threat to Australia. Assuming that the nuclear submarines will be similar to those planned by the United States, which will acquire 12 of the Columbia-class nuclear submarines for USD 128 billion by 2030 (US Government Accountability Office), Australia may be paying at least USD 85 billion for equipment that may be obsolete by the time they come onstream. Even the US director of national intelligence has admitted that China's GDP (22.8 percent of world GDP) would outclass that of the United States (20.8 percent) by 2040. Twenty years is a long time to improve defences against submarine attacks. Submarines have, at best, deterrent effects under conventional warfare, but their real threat comes from carrying nuclear missiles. But even the potential of carrying such missiles would invite enemy nuclear retaliation.

This is exactly why Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries like Malaysia and Indonesia showed serious concern that the AUKUS deal may become a catalyst to the nuclear arms race. If that is the case, Australia would lose her status as a haven for nuclear-free living, something that New Zealand cares seriously about, which is why she distanced herself from the deal.

Second, which businessman would spend nearly the same amount of money that he earns to point a gun at his best customer? China imported USD 100 billion in 2020 from Australia, with the latter earning a trade and service surplus of USD 55.5 billion. Then to spend USD 85 billion (with likely huge overruns based on past experience) on defence against your top trading customer defies business logic.

Third, the Anglosphere military alliance created a split with Europe, already sore after Brexit and Kabul. France is not only the first foreign ally of the United States (helping in the US Independence War against Britain), but also has serious Indo-Pacific interests, with 93 percent of her maritime economic exclusivity zone—10.2 million sq-km, the second largest in the world—located there.

Fourth, you have to ask whether the Australian military intelligence is an oxymoron when they recently ordered 70-tonne US Abrams tanks that are too heavy to carry by train or across the Northern Territory bridges by road to defend the Northern Australian coast.

Her Asian neighbours would be much happier if Australia took the lead in the Asia-Pacific region on climate change, rather than spending on arms. Amongst the rich countries, Australia has the highest per capita emission rate, similar to the US. But out of 200 countries, Australia ranks fifth or sixth among the biggest global emitters, so her voice on fulfilling the requirements of the Paris Agreement matters. Unfortunately, given the huge influence of the mining lobby, Australia may not even achieve her Paris Agreement goal to cut emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, let alone improve on that commitment by COP26.

Australia may be rich enough to mitigate her own risks of climate warming, but the effect of climate change on her neighbours, particularly the Pacific Islands, is going to be devastating. In 2019, island nations in the Pacific such as Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Timor-Leste, and Tonga declared that by 2030, their lands could become uninhabitable due to rising seas, water salination, reef destruction, and more natural disasters.

The latest World Bank model suggests that the global decline in biodiversity and collapse in ecosystem services such as wild pollination, food from marine fisheries, and timber from native forests could result in a decline in global GDP worth USD 2.7 trillion by 2030. The injustice is that the poorest countries—including those in Asia Pacific—will bear most of such ecosystem and GDP losses. In particular, many indigenous people whose livelihood depends on nature will bear the brunt of these losses.

Why are we not surprised that, on September 13, 2007, when the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by 144 member countries, the four votes against it were from the Anglosphere countries of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States? In all four rich countries, the record of treatment of the indigenous people have been shameful, such as the unmarked graves of indigenous school children in forced assimilation schools in Canada. According to Human Rights Watch, Aboriginal and Torres Islander people comprise 29 percent of the Australian adult prison population, but just three percent of the total population. In the United States, states with large native populations have incarceration rates for American Indians up to seven times that of whites.

The AUKUS military alliance essentially signals to the world that money spent on real war is preferred to money spent on social justice at home and concerns for the people and the planet. Who really profits from the nuclear submarine contract? Look no further than the exclusive submarine suppliers such as General Dynamics (US) and British Aerospace (UK). 

The AUKUS deal essentially confirms that Australia opts to sink or swim with their rich Anglosphere few, rather than the global many.

Who said the world was fair?

Andrew Sheng is adjunct professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing and University of Malaya. He was formerly the chairman of the Securities and Futures Commission, Hong Kong.

Copyright: Asia News Network