Who Wins and Who Loses Because of AUKUS?
Australia, the UK, and the US signed a tremendously important strategic agreement last week, and the pact's effects are just beginning to be felt.
I don’t know if we are cursed, but we certainly live in interesting times. Just one month ago the debacle of the US withdrawal from, and subsequent Taliban takeover of, Afghanistan horrified observers. Now we witness the revelation of the AUKUS pact, binding the US, the UK, and Australia together in a defensive pact. The AUKUS Pact is the kind of agreement that changes the world, even if it lacks the emotional impact of pitiable footballers falling from aircraft.
It is easier to see why AUKUS is so important if we look at the situation from the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) perspective. One month ago, the most powerful country in the world and the largest obstacle to PRC’s political objectives, retreated with their tail tucked between their legs from PRC’s backyard. Leaders from the US’ closest ally condemned the American withdrawal, and the alliance seemed to be fraying at the edges. “Wolf Warrior” diplomats had a lot to hold over the US as they chuckled about American incompetence,
One month later, the same alliance that seemed set to fall apart is stronger than ever, standing athwart the PRC’s ambitions. Details of the AUKUS agreement are still emerging, but we already know that the agreement pulls the three countries closer together and strengthens their ability to fight a war in the Pacific. Most importantly, the agreement will equip the Australian Navy with nuclear-powered submarines, not nuclear-armed submarines, joining only six other navies with similar systems. With the US, UK, and Australia all deploying nuclear attack submarines in the Pacific, the PRC likely feels their freedom of action at sea is greatly constrained.
The Biggest Loser with AUKUS is the PRC
The US, UK, and Australia have been allies for a long time, but it wasn’t clear whether they would cooperate to counter the PRC in the Pacific. As recently as five years ago Australians I spoke with openly questioned whether or not Australia would side with the US in a conflict with the PRC. What changed? The PRC has been hammering Australia diplomatically, and with relentless online cyberattacks. While it is possible that cyberattacks and diplomatic collapse are the results, not the cause, of the decaying relationship between Australia and the PRC, AUKUS is a result of that decay.
PRC has never seized the advantage in the Pacific, but AUKUS pushes a relative advantage further away. The US Navy (USN) is far larger than the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN), and the Royal Navy (UKRN) is comparable in size, but the US and UK divide their attention across all oceans. AUKUS both binds the three navies together more explicitly and increases the number of nuclear attack submarines available to those navies in the Pacific by eight (and perhaps more, eventually). Just as importantly, the agreement probably further opens Australian and American ports to other allied naval bases, expanding operational capability for all countries.
The AUKUS is not intended to fight a war, but it could constrain the People’s Liberation Army’s freedom of action in the Pacific. I won’t go into the complexities of naval warfare here, and that is not my area of expertise anyway. Suffice it to say that in the nuclear era, the most important mission of nuclear-armed submarines is to stay secret and stay safe (or “Run Silent, Run Deep” if you prefer). Attack submarines’ responsibility in that game is to track those nuclear-armed submarines. The more of either kind of submarine you have the more of an advantage you have in that engagement, and therefore in international nuclear competition.
The Next Biggest Loser is France
France is understandably upset at the loss of a $50 billion contract. After all, even in an economy as large as France, $50 billion is a lot of money. Pulling that much money will hurt, and it is no wonder the French foreign minister called it a “stab in the back.”
Unfortunately for France and Australia, the contract was also for conventional submarines which are not as capable as nuclear submarines. Nuclear submarines can remain underwater longer, and in many cases, go faster than conventional submarines. In the cat-and-mouse game of submarine warfare, conventional submarines are only marginally better than no submarine at all and are still quite expensive. To defend its national interests, and be a meaningful contributor to the AUKUS, Australia needed nuclear-powered submarines.
The AUKUS has already begun to reach out to France to resolve the tension between the Allies. I understand the argument that the French should just eat their Freedom Fries, and accept that sometimes great power politics turns against you, but France is an important ally, and should not be ignored. Fortunately, a slight that has a dollar sign (or Euro, if you prefer) is easy to fix with more money. I find it likely that in the coming months a new agreement between some set of AUKUS and France will benefit France greatly. If you are working on fixing this problem and would like my help, you know how to reach me. I have ideas.
What Next?
The AUKUS is just the latest move in international chess, and we will assuredly see counter moves and supplementary moves. Countries that see the PRC as an unambiguous threat have greeted the AUKUS enthusiastically, Others are less sure, as they are worried about getting caught in the crossfire.
On the American side, I expect new pushes to expand formal alliances in the Pacific, mostly including governments with which the AUKUS already have good relationships. Primary candidates include Canada, Japan, and South Korea, who each have tense relationships with the PRC, and have their own military strengths to bring. New Zealand is another candidate, because it is part of the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing relationship, and the PRC has been pounding New Zealand online. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam each have interests in the area and good or improving relations, but also probably want some time to observe the evolving situation.
All governments should take a moment to look after the PRC’s interests, and reassure the PRC as much as possible. It is easy to forget that the purpose of military alliances in the nuclear age should be to avoid war not to win one. The PRC’s actions in the region have alarmed Australia and others enough that they are looking to secure their position, and by doing so have placed the PRC’s interests in question. Everyone should work to ensure their actions don’t further alarm the PRC.
David Benson is a Professor of Strategy and National Security focusing on cyberstrategy and international relations. You can reach him at dbenson@osiriscodex.com.
To get more insightful analysis like this in your inbox at no cost please subscribe.
Ask a question! Raise an objection! Leave a comment!