A

ustralian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Friday that the AUKUS defense partnership with the United States and Britain remained “full steam ahead” following a lengthy call with U.S. President Donald Trump, while urging Washington to exempt Australia from U.S. tariffs.

Albanese said the two leaders reviewed progress under AUKUS and agreed that the trilateral security pact would continue to benefit all three countries.

“We reviewed the significant progress that has been made under AUKUS, which remains full steam ahead,” Albanese told reporters in Canberra.

AUKUS, established in 2021, is Australia’s largest defense project and is designed in part to strengthen the three countries’ military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific amid growing Chinese influence in the region.

Submarine program moves forward

Under the pact, U.S. Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines are expected to be based in Australia from next year. Australia is also due to acquire several Virginia-class submarines from around 2030, while Britain and Australia are developing a new class of nuclear-powered submarine under the agreement.

Australia has committed about A$368 billion ($260 billion) over three decades to the project, including major investments in U.S. and British submarine production facilities.

The United States has said it is satisfied with progress since a review of AUKUS conducted last year. Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby said Washington saw increasing alignment between the three countries and expected Australia to continue meeting its commitments.

AUKUS has faced concerns over the availability of U.S. submarines and production capacity. Colby previously warned that American industry faced challenges meeting both U.S. and allied demand for nuclear-powered submarines.

China has strongly criticized the agreement, warning that it could contribute to an arms race in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia seeks tariff exemption

Albanese described his conversation with Trump as productive and said he had asked the president to exempt Australia completely from U.S. flat tariffs of 12.5%.

Trump agreed to consider the request, Albanese said.

Australia has argued that it should qualify for an exemption because it runs a trade deficit with the United States and imports large amounts of American machinery, technology and aircraft.

The leaders also discussed the conflict involving Iran and Australia’s recent defense agreements with Papua New Guinea and Fiji.

Albanese said he told Trump that Australia wanted to see an end to the conflict in the Middle East while maintaining that Iran should not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons.

The call came as Australia seeks to deepen its security cooperation with the United States while managing economic concerns linked to Washington’s trade policies. For Canberra, the future of AUKUS remains central to its long-term defense strategy and efforts to strengthen its position in the increasingly contested Indo-Pacific.

(Source: Reuters)

U

.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hosted Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Richard Marles and UK Defense Secretary John Healey at the Pentagon on Wednesday for high-level talks on the AUKUS security partnership, emphasizing renewed commitment to delivering the pact’s ambitious military programs.

The meeting came ahead of the annual AUKUS defense ministers’ conference, with all three officials highlighting progress on the trilateral initiative launched in 2021 to bolster stability in the Indo-Pacific.

Speaking at a joint news conference, Hegseth praised the UK and Australia for “stepping up” and reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to strengthening deterrence in the region.

“AUKUS reflects a pragmatic, practical application of hard power between our countries,” he said. “Our goal is peace on behalf of our peoples — and we pursue that together.”

Under the agreement, Australia is set to acquire Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, with the first delivery expected in 2032.

Marles: AUKUS marking ‘real progress’

Australia’s defense chief Richard Marles said Canberra is “very excited” about the pace of work on the long-term submarine program.

He pointed to the recent maintenance of the USS Vermont at HMAS Stirling, calling it the most extensive servicing of a US nuclear-powered submarine ever conducted outside American territory.

“This is a massive project,” Marles said. “The last 12 months has seen a lot of progress — and there is so much more to do.”

He said discussions at the ministers’ meeting would include timelines for submarine delivery and further integration of naval capabilities.

Healey: Time to ‘deliver’ the Apex submarine

UK Defense Secretary John Healey described AUKUS as “the most important military collaboration of the last 70 years,” comparing its significance to the landmark 1958 US-UK nuclear cooperation agreement.

“All three of us are now determined to reboot AUKUS with a new commitment and new determination,” Healey said. “The reviews are done — it’s time to deliver.”

He said the goal is to produce “the most powerful, most feared attack submarine the world has ever seen — the apex predator of the seas.”

Healey added that AUKUS demonstrates how alliances can be leveraged to ensure national security, saying both the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic regions need more advanced submarine capabilities.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

R

elations between Australia and China have been shaped in recent years not only by commercial and diplomatic agendas but also by intelligence and security-based crises. Most recently, the espionage case that erupted in Canberra has once again brought the fragile balance between the two countries to the fore. The allegation that an individual accused of acting on behalf of the Public Security Bureau of China infiltrated the Guan Yin Citta Buddhist community has had a wide resonance in Australia, beyond state security, in terms of the fabric of society and multiculturalism. This incident is, in fact, a concrete manifestation of the ongoing ‘trust deficit’ in Australia-China relations.

Allegations of espionage and foreign interference have been an integral part of international relations, even during the Cold War. However, what we are witnessing today paints a different picture from classic intelligence struggles. It is no longer just state institutions that are targeted; religious communities, universities, research centers and technology companies are also becoming targets. This situation demonstrates that espionage is not merely a military or diplomatic threat, but also a multidimensional security issue that can infiltrate the most fundamental structures of society. The case in Australia is one of the most recent examples of this transformation.

The current crisis is not only a turning point in Australia-China bilateral relations but also critically important for understanding the new form that the global power struggle is taking in the Asia-Pacific. China’s rise poses a strategic challenge to the Western alliance led by the U.S., while Australia is forced to take the front line due to the responsibilities imposed by its geopolitical position. The AUKUS agreement, competition over rare earths, cyber security and social security debates are intertwined in this context. The recent espionage case uncovered in Canberra signals the displacement of a piece on this grand chessboard that may appear small but has far greater implications.

Background: Australia-China espionage tensions from past to present

To understand the background of the espionage crisis between Australia and China, one must first look at the legal and institutional framework developed by Canberra over the past decade. The ‘foreign interference’ legislation, which came into force in 2018, introduced stringent regulations aimed at preventing foreign states from covertly influencing Australia’s political processes, academia, media and civil society. These laws marked a turning point in the country’s security policy, covering not only espionage activities but also indirect influence attempts by foreign actors.

The case in question is the third major case opened under this framework. Previously, investigations had been conducted into the influence of Chinese intelligence in both government-linked circles and the media and business world. Each of these cases demonstrated Australia’s vulnerability to foreign interference and also shaped the direction of its national security strategy.

During this process, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) played a critical role. Since 2022, 24 large-scale espionage attempts have been thwarted. These activities are estimated to cost the country’s economy approximately 12.5 billion Australian dollars (approximately 8 billion U.S. dollars) annually. These espionage activities target rare earth elements, advanced technologies, scientific research projects and, in particular, defense initiatives under the AUKUS security agreement.

On the political front, although Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government demonstrated its willingness to soften relations with its official visit to China in July 2025, espionage crises are forcing the government to take a tougher stance. Canberra, which wishes to maintain economic cooperation with Beijing, is being forced to abandon its policy of ‘avoiding conflict’ when it comes to security and adopt a more robust and transparent stance.

Guan Yin Citta spy

The latest development to shake the Australian public began with the arrest of a Chinese-born woman living in Canberra. Authorities stated that the individual in question had infiltrated the Guan Yin Citta Buddhist community on behalf of the Chinese Public Security Bureau and gathered information about community members. This case was recorded as the first local espionage case in Australia targeting a religious or cultural community. The incident brought about a perception of threat not only to state secrets but also to the fabric of society.

The investigation was conducted as part of an operation called ‘Autumn Shield’. Searches of the suspect’s home uncovered luxury items (Hermès bags, Rolex watches, large amounts of cash) as well as a Chinese passport. The findings pointed to intelligence activities supported by financial incentives, as well as the existence of a potential escape plan. Details reflected in court documents suggested that the operation was not only symbolic but could also extend to a wide-ranging espionage network.

Another striking aspect of the case was that the allegations were directed not only at the government or strategic institutions, but also directly at the social structure of a religious community. Conducting espionage within civil society reveals a new area of vulnerability that challenges Australia’s cultural integration policies by undermining the social trust of immigrant minorities.

Although there has been no official response from the Beijing administration regarding this case, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun made a brief statement saying that they had ‘no information about the details of the case.’ Chinese officials had previously described similar incidents as ‘exaggerated accounts.’ This situation once again highlights the ongoing diplomatic tension between Australia’s security concerns and China’s international image management.

Beyond being a legal case, the Guan Yin Citta case has become a turning point that has brought suspicions about China, trade dependency and concerns about national sovereignty to the forefront of the Australian public’s attention. The increased sensitivity surrounding immigrant communities in particular indicates that the social and political repercussions of this incident will continue for some time.

The great power struggle

The Guan Yin Citta case should be viewed as part of a broader competition that directly concerns Australia’s geopolitical position. Particularly within the framework of the AUKUS alliance, Australia, alongside the United States and the United Kingdom, aims to counter China’s rise in the region. AUKUS’s agenda is not limited to submarine technologies; it also extends to areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing and cyber defense. In this context, every espionage incident serves as evidence reminding the Australian public and its allies of the rationale for the alliance. China’s efforts to expand its influence to the point where it could target even civilian areas confirm the threat perception underpinning AUKUS’s security architecture.

Another dimension of this context revolves around technology and rare earth elements. ASIO’s latest reports emphasize that China’s espionage activities target critical minerals, technologies for the energy transition, and defense research. Therefore, the issue goes beyond military competition and becomes a contest over who will control the global economic order and technological superiority. Australia’s potential in terms of rare earths directly intersects with Beijing’s energy and industrial policies.

However, the impact of these crises is not limited to the strategic level; it also brings the balance between security and freedom in democratic societies back to the agenda. While foreign interference laws strengthen national security, they can also heighten sensitivities among migrant communities and require more careful implementation of social cohesion policies. From the perspective of Australia’s liberal democratic identity, there is an increasingly difficult search for balance between ensuring security and preserving multiculturalism.

Finally, such cases reinforce the perception of China as an actor capable of influencing social structures, beyond being a military and economic rival. Thus, Australia’s geopolitical narrative is being reshaped around a multi-layered security concern. That is, a battle map expanding from submarines to data centers, from mines to religious communities.

A turning point in Australia’s security architecture

The Guan Yin Citta case emerged as a turning point in Australia’s security architecture, pointing to broader implications beyond a single court case. First, the incident demonstrated how delicate the ground is on which trust-building with migrant communities progresses in Australia. While espionage investigations aim to reduce the risk of foreign interference, they can produce outcomes that trigger xenophobia within society. This highlights the need for national security measures to be implemented within a transparent and inclusive framework.

Secondly, the functioning of the foreign interference laws enacted in 2018 has been brought back into focus with this case. While the law positions Australia as a leader among similar liberal democracies, the question of whether fundamental rights are protected in each case is also being debated in the public sphere. This makes the balance between the rule of law and security more visible.

Thirdly, Australia’s findings are linked not only to the national context but also to the need for international cooperation. The scale of espionage activities necessitates closer information sharing and early warning mechanisms with allied countries such as Canada and Japan.

Ultimately, this incident demonstrates that raising social awareness is an integral part of security strategy. Raising citizens’ awareness of cyber security and foreign interference methods strengthens not only the state’s but also society’s resilience.

In general terms, the Guan Yin Citta case has once again highlighted the ‘trust deficit’ in Australia-China relations. On a global scale, the fundamental finding for liberal democracies is this: the tension between security and freedom is being felt more acutely through incidents such as espionage.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

I

n a statement on April 3, the U.S. State Department’s Deputy Secretary, Kurt Campbell, hinted at a potential link between the AUKUS submarine project and deterring Chinese aggression towards Taiwan. The AUKUS initiative, a partnership between Australia, Britain, and the U.S., was introduced in 2023 to bolster defenses against China’s expanding influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Campbell’s remarks, made during a session at the Center for a New American Security think tank, underscored the strategic implications of the AUKUS submarine capabilities in maintaining peace and stability, particularly in the Taiwan Strait. While the three countries involved have been cautious about explicitly connecting AUKUS to tensions surrounding Taiwan, Campbell’s statement marks a departure from this approach.

The AUKUS project entails Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered attack submarines, a move aimed at strengthening the allies’ collective defense posture. Campbell emphasized that collaborating on defense initiatives not only enhances diplomatic ties but also contributes to overall peace and stability in the region.

China and AUKUS

China has expressed concern over the AUKUS pact, labeling it as dangerous and warning of a potential arms race in the region. However, the Biden administration has been actively seeking to bolster partnerships with allies in Asia, including Japan and the Philippines, in response to China’s military expansion and assertiveness in territorial disputes.

Ahead of a summit with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. scheduled for April 11, President Biden aims to strengthen cooperation among the three nations, particularly in addressing challenges posed by China. Campbell highlighted plans for trilateral engagement, including closer coordination in the South China Sea, where tensions have escalated due to maritime disputes.

Moreover, Campbell discussed the evolving security partnership between the U.S. and Japan, emphasizing the importance of joint development and potential co-production of military equipment. Regarding the situation in Ukraine, Campbell revealed U.S. assessments suggesting Chinese assistance to Moscow in bolstering its military capabilities following initial setbacks in the conflict.

Campbell’s remarks signal a strategic alignment among the U.S. and its allies in the face of growing challenges posed by China’s assertive actions in the Indo-Pacific region. The AUKUS submarine project, along with enhanced trilateral cooperation, underscores efforts to uphold peace and stability while addressing evolving security threats in the region.

Source: Reuters

O

n March 13, 2023, U.S. president Joe Biden, British prime minister Rishi Sunak, and Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese made a joint statement in San Diego indicating that Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) as part of AUKUS.

The SSNs will be powered by highly enriched uranium (HEU), which can also be used in nuclear weapons, will use the UK’s latest design, and incorporate technology from all three partner nations. SSN-AUKUS will be equipped with intelligence, surveillance, undersea warfare, and strike missions.

According to Australian PM Albanese, the deal is expected to cost between $268 billion and $368 billion, making it the largest investment ever made for Australia’s defense capabilities. While concerns about potential atomic proliferation have been raised, Australian officials have emphasized that the country has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons or developing a civil nuclear capability.

SSNs to counter China’s growing assertiveness

On March 14, 2023, the Chinese Mission to the United Nations criticized the AUKUS nuclear submarine cooperation deal in a series of tweets, noting that it poses serious nuclear proliferation risks and undermines international non-proliferation efforts.

The tweets criticized the double standards of nuclear-armed states transferring enriched uranium to a non-nuclear-weapon state.

The deal has sparked criticism from China, which has denounced it as a “dangerous move” that threatens regional peace and stability. China has urged the UK, U.S., and Australia to address the international community’s concerns and fulfill their obligations in regards to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The U.S. has defended the AUKUS submarine deal as a necessary response to China’s “coercive behavior” and “unilateral attempts to alter the status quo” in the region.

China and Australia 

The agreement has also impacted trade relations between Australia and China. The relationship between the two nations had deteriorated even before the deal’s announcement due to human rights, security, and trade issues. Notably, China is Australia’s largest trading partner, and it views the submarine deal as a hostile move threatening its interests and sovereignty in the region.

The deal was seen to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines to counter China’s growing military modernization and assertiveness in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. It is also seen to challenge China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which seeks to create a global network of trade routes and infrastructure projects to give Beijing leverage over many countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America.

Australia, the NPT, and the IAEA

Based on the provisions of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it is allowed to transfer fissile material and nuclear technology from a nuclear-weapon state to a non-nuclear- weapon state for peaceful purposes.

However, some critics argue that the provisions were not designed to cover naval nuclear propulsion, and the agreement could undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the NPT.

According to reports by the Australian government, Australia is committed to upholding non-proliferation standards as it continues to develop its defense capabilities. The document outlines Australia’s history in the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, including its commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons, its advocacy for nuclear-weapon-free zones, and its support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The document also highlights Australia’s two safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which underpin the country’s outstanding non-proliferation credentials. By adhering to international law and agreements, Australia is working to ensure its defense capabilities.

Details of the AUKUS deal

The AUKUS agreement consists of four phases, beginning in 2023 when Australian navy personnel will embed with the navy personnel of the U.S. and UK and their submarine industrial bases. Australia will receive three SSNs from the U.S. in the early 2030s, while the UK is set to begin construction of its first SSN-AUKUS in the late 2020s to be delivered in the late 2030s. Australia plans to start building its first SSN-AUKUS by the end of the 2020s, with delivery expected in the early 2040s.

AUKUS is considered a significant development in the Indo-Pacific region as it aims to counter China’s growing military assertiveness. According to James Hackett, the AUKUS submarine deal has sent shockwaves through the international community since its announcement in 2021. With China’s naval presence in the world seas, the AUKUS partnership is perceived as a step towards balancing the naval power dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region.

Since September 15, 2021 the global security agenda has been occupied with a security pact designed to pave the way for a technology transfer by the U.S. to Australia, replacing France as a supplier of nuclear-powered submarines. The argument goes that this strategic initiative is only the beginning of a much larger cooperation plan regarding the future of the Indo-Pacific security complex.

Global security analysts and scholars directly focused their attention on the Indo-Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea looking into possible implications. The pivotal argument is that world security is going to shift towards the East, and the U.S.-China competition will broaden itself into another dimension with this strategic step.

This claim holds certain validity as the U.S. retreat from Afghanistan and Syria should lead to the accumulation of a certain amount of tangible sources that will need another direction to flow into.

Thus, several scholars have been supporting the literature that hypothesizes a global U.S. channeling into the Indo-Pacific security complex. An alternative approach advocates that the U.S. is not entirely eager to interfere with China due to the potential implications of such a move, yet its partners are forcing a U.S. presence in the region.

This approach is an alternative that derives its legitimacy from the middle and great powers that cooperate with the U.S. – the superpower. This argument also has its merits as international relations are not solely the enforcement of the interests of a superpower but an interaction between the latter and its partnering countries.

The global understanding of such events represented in pacts such as the AUKUS Pact is vital. However, a regionalist approach is required to better present the impact on the regional and state-level dimensions. The French involvement in the pact is the part of AUKUS that is going to cause major implications for the MENA region.

Partnerships like AUKUS that will direct interstate partnerships and even enforce them to align. Recent military procurement deals such as the Turkish S-400 acquisition, the Pakistani JF-17 fighter aircraft production contract with China, Saudi-UAE procurements of F-35 aircraft, and THAAD air defense systems from the U.S. are recent comparable cases.

These procurements created different levels of leverage and tensions for the buyer countries as they were forced to choose a side. Despite the balancing literature and the conceptual history of the practice, it becomes more apparent that a bipolar system is very antagonistic in its buildup process.

Partnerships like AUKUS that will direct interstate partnerships and even enforce them to align.

Remembering the two world wars that created the Cold War structure, it is plausible that the “playmaker” states force certain great and middle powers with strategic geopolitical significance to align with them. In this sense, AUKUS might have created a rift between the U.S. and France (and the EU in a larger context, considering the UK also left the organization) that will have certain implications for the MENA region.

For the last 30 years, the U.S. was able to embark on its Middle Eastern policy vis-à-vis its European partners, but strategic gains that directly hinder EU profitability will cause certain fractions in this practice.

The most significant impact of AUKUS on the MENA security complex is expected to be observed in the Eastern Mediterranean. Since the EU has practically perceived the Turkish pivot for energy resources towards this area and North African interests in this area as threats, the U.S. has supported European interests in securing the energy routes and protecting the integrity of South European shores. However, a political dissemination process that was potentially started with AUKUS might divide this unification in foreign policy.

The Eastern Mediterranean is a quagmire of competing interests, and a transatlantic fracture will only escalate the situation.

The Eastern Mediterranean is a quagmire of competing interests, and a transatlantic fracture will only escalate the situation. This escalation might give middle powers like Turkey broader room for maneuver. If the U.S. stops supporting these interests in the region, the EU backlash and the hawkish French position will lose a certain share of their influence and capacity. A significant shift towards the Indo-Pacific Ocean might reduce the pressure on great and middle powers competing for interests.

An alternative power-centered approach might suggest that the void left by a U.S. strategic shift towards the East would trigger a great power to take responsibility and fill the vacuum. The current power balance propounds a Russian pivot towards the Eastern Mediterranean; however, Russia’s aircraft carriers are quite worn, and its only ship, Admiral Kuznetsov, is on the maintenance deck.

This does not mean Russia cannot control this area – it holds a submarine force of 58 known units which can only be challenged by the U.S. and maybe China in the next decade. Both scenarios imply that Turkey might have more room for maneuver with less focus and escalation from rival powers.

Meanwhile the possibility that France might become even more hawkish and hyper-emphasize its interests in the Eastern Mediterranean must not be excluded. Yet, this is less likely since if France and Germany plan to keep the union together, they have to align in foreign policy following Brexit. When push comes to shove, Germany will most likely balance the French hawkish reactionary stance towards these events and prioritize economic growth in the next decade.

Many of the old Western imperialist powers are taking part in a new scramble: this time not for Africa, but for hegemony and influence in the South China Sea. In a surprise announcement on September 15, 2021, the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom formed a new strategic partnership for the sharing of weaponry (in particular nuclear submarine and cruise missiles) and security-related cyber technology, with the main recipient of new weapons expected to be Australia. Dubbed AUKUS, this new alliance will purportedly “protect shared values and promote security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.”

Like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, commonly known as the Quad, an alliance bringing together the U.S., Australia, Japan, and India, none of the official statements of the AUKUS alliance mention China by name. And yet, like the Quad, the intentions of AUKUS are transparent: to maintain military and economic hegemony over the South China Sea, and over China in general. In other words, to keep China in its place, through brute force if necessary. Though how AUKUS and the Quad will co-ordinate remains unclear, there is little question that the provocative joint military exercises taking place under the rubric of the Quad will be expanded to include the AUKUS framework as well.

The inclusion of the UK in AUKUS has raised some eyebrows, since the country has hardly been a Pacific power since World War Two. However, the entire Brexit narrative has been based largely on imperialist fantasies of Britain returning to its “rightful” place as a global powerhouse, perhaps cajoling pesky natives into lucrative – for Britain – trade deals through gunboat diplomacy. There have been calls by influential UK politicians (backed by the former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe) for the UK to be a “major democratic counterweight” to China in the region, and a major review of foreign and defense policy in March 2021 centered on a shift to focus resources – diplomatic and military – on the Indo-Pacific.

Britain also sent an aircraft carrier to the South China Sea, essentially to join the game of intimidating China. Of course, the glory days of Queen Victoria are long over, and the notion that the current UK could accomplish much of anything on its own is somewhat fanciful, so a military alliance with the U.S. and Australia makes sense from that perspective. It should also be noted that the three AUKUS countries, together with Canada and New Zealand, are part of the Five Eyes alliance for intelligence sharing, which includes unsavory activities such as spying on each other’s citizens through monitoring of internet communications.

Even Germany has thrown its hat into the South China Sea ring, sending a frigate to the region.

France has also been flexing its muscles. In 2021, the country participated in joint military exercises in the region with Japan, the U.S., and Australia, dispatching warships to – where else? – the South China Sea. Indeed, the very birth of AUKUS was part and parcel of an imperialist game between Britain and France, with Australia abruptly cancelling a large French contract for submarines and switching to a British manufacturer. A diplomatic row ensued, with the French accusing the AUKUS countries of “betrayal” and even recalling their ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia (Britain was deemed not worth the trouble).

However, while all of that made for entertaining news, at the end of the day it was a sideshow compared to the much more important goal of beating the war drums. Even Germany has thrown its hat into the South China Sea ring, sending a frigate to the region. However, the Germans were easily snubbed by China, which refused the warship entry into a Chinese port.

Defenders of the “rules-based” order

Certainly, the most insulting idea advanced by the countries attempting to contain China is the notion they are defending the “rules-based order” in the South China Sea. In this narrative, China is the “rule breaker,” flouting the accepted laws and customs of international society. China is portrayed as a rogue state, going against international norms and the rule of law itself. The white knights of the West have arisen, not to protect their own selfish interests, but to defend those laws and rules, and champion the “fair and open” international order.

Even the openly provocative passages of Western warships in the area are euphemistically called “freedom of navigation” missions – one can imagine how the U.S. would react to Chinese warships conducting military maneuvers close to its shorelines. These blatantly biased narratives are repeated ad nauseam, not only by the governments themselves, but also by a compliant press. Unable to point to any specific violation, the media uses vague terms such as “increasing assertiveness” to describe Chinese behavior, as if that were a crime. In Japan, the right-of-center press has even resurrected the Cold War term “Free World” to juxtapose itself and the West against China.

The international system is indeed a “rules-based order,” based on laws and norms. In particular, the Charter of the United Nations proclaims the equality and sovereignty of all nations, and prohibits the use of force outside of situations of self-defense. It should be stressed that even then it is only until the Security Council decides on a course of action.

It is hardly controversial to note that the U.S. (and its allies) have openly broken these norms on a huge number of occasions, with catastrophic results for the people on the receiving end. The invasion of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, and ongoing military intervention in Syria are just some of the more egregious examples of U.S. violations of international law in recent years.

The ostensibly liberal government of President Biden thinks nothing of announcing that, even after the 20-year U.S. occupation of Afghanistan came to an unceremonious end, the country will continue the “war on terror” using “over the horizon” means, i.e., illegal bombing with drones and other air-based weapons. The so-called liberal U.S. press practically mounted a concerted campaign to stop the U.S. from pulling out its troops from Afghanistan, claiming the war on terror could not be effected without “boots on the ground.”

The U.S. thumbing its nose at international law is hardly a new phenomenon, and is not confined to the “war on terror” framework.

The U.S. thumbing its nose at international law is hardly a new phenomenon, and is not confined to the “war on terror” framework. The U.S. has intervened openly or covertly in many countries in Latin America, including Cuba, and imposes crippling sanctions on Venezuela. And continuing lavish support for countries that truly do deserve the “rogue state” label, such as the apartheid state of Israel, make a mockery of U.S. claims to be upholding international law.

Of course, the U.S. is hardly the only country that violates international law, and the notion that international law is observed more in breach than in observance is far oversold. Nevertheless, that does not detract from the main point: it is the U.S. and its allies that are being aggressive in the South China Sea, and China is completely justified in being apprehensive of the encirclement of the country by seemingly hostile navies.

A new Cold War – or even a hot one?

Though the current tensions between the West and China are often called a “new Cold War,” there are of course important differences with the past Cold War with the Soviet bloc. Probably the most important one is the extensive economic interdependence between China and the West (and the rest of the world). Even as they rattle their sabers, Western countries are mindful that they rely economically on China, as a manufacturing base and increasingly as a market.

Indeed, China is the main trading partner for the U.S., Japan, and the EU as a whole. A real shooting war would be an unmitigated disaster for the global economy: a fact well understood by business interests that wield great influence over Western governments. That may not make a real shooting war inconceivable, but it definitely does make it difficult. Much of the current rhetoric, in particular in Japan, is a result of pandering to nationalistic constituencies, and of attempts at justifying bloated military budgets and arms sales.

The problem is that, once nationalistic furor is inflamed to this extent, it can very easily get out of control. Right now, there are many opposing militaries in a small space, and merely one mistake could lead to disaster. The West will have only itself to blame if it does.

Under American hegemony, Asia Pacific has experienced the longest period of peace since the start of the Industrial Revolution, but the emergence of China as a rival power has created a sense of insecurity not felt in the region since Imperial Japan invaded Nanjing in 1937, and then soon after the rest of southeast Asia.

In response, Australia, United Kingdom and the United States have formulated the AUKUS security alliance to challenge what it and its Asian allies, including India, South Korea and Japan, perceive to be an increasingly militaristic and hyper-aggressive China.

But when security analysts talk about the “China threat,” they mean the direct military threat it poses to Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, India, the Philippines and Vietnam, among others, but not the three AUKUS signatories – Australia, U.K. and U.S.

In fact, China is not only Australia’s number one trading partner, but also has never threatened Australia militarily, or implied such a threat. Moreover, the UK is located on the other side of the planet, while the US maintains a huge and ever-expanding lead over the Asian power’s military capabilities.

So, who’s insecurity is this trilateral security partnership meant to resolve?

Well, if you listen carefully to American security elites, AUKUS is President Biden’s way of outsourcing some of the heavy lifting that will be required to deter or prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan at some point in the next two to three decades, with the construction of eight-nuclear powered submarines in Australia the centrepiece of his strategy.

Should a shooting war between China and the U.S. materialize, the Pentagon anticipates Australia’s submarine fleet will allow it to lighten the burden of its Pacific Fleet, especially given Canberra has established a track record of blindly following the U.S. into every war since and including World War Two.

Expectedly, Beijing has responded by calling Australia “brainless,” and warning it has made itself a target.

Expectedly, Beijing has responded by calling Australia “brainless,” and warning it has made itself a target.

“Armed with nuclear submarines, Australia itself will be a target for possible nuclear attacks in the future,” Victor Gao, the vice president for the Centre for China and Globalization, told ABC’s China Tonight.

“The watershed moment will be if Australia will be armed with nuclear submarines to be locally produced in Australia. That will mean Australia will lose that privilege of not being targeted by nuclear weapons to other countries and that should be a wake-up call for all Australians.,” he said.

This is exactly the blowback some of Australia’s top security elites have warned, including the venerable Professor Hugh White, who stated, “[Prime Minister] Scott Morrison has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities, overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating, and drags us closer to the frontline of a war we may have no interest in fighting.”

That said, China’s unlawful actions in the South China Sea has put it into direct conflict with no fewer than a half-dozen countries, and there’s no doubt China is guilty of violating international maritime law, and therefore threatening the freedom of the seas and the world’s busiest shipping lanes, including those which so many Asian countries depend upon for their energy needs.

So, Beijing has only itself to blame for escalating tensions in the region. The question is whether AUKUS encourages security or heightens tensions in Indo Pacific, but there are already clear warning signs it has formalized a regional Cold War and incited a new arms race.