Warmonger Confessions: More Frankness On AUKUS

The problem with satellite states and subject powers is that their representatives are rarely to be trusted, especially on matters regarding security. Their idea of safety and assurance is tied up in the interests of some other power, one who supposedly guarantees it through a promised force of arms come the place and come the time. The guarantee is often a sham one, variable in accordance with the self-interest of the guardian. 

In the case of the United States, the island continent of Australia is only useful as an annexure of Washington’s goal: maintaining less the illusion of a Pax Americana than a state of threatened military aggression against any upstart daring to vex an empire.

In an interview with the Weekend Australian published on August 16, Republican Representative Michael McCaul, chair of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, did something few Australian politicians or think tankers dare do: offer a bracingly frank assessment about the military intentions of the AUKUS security pact. Forget the peaceful dimension here. 

A militarised, garrisoned Australia is essential to maintaining US military supremacy – on the pretext of maintaining the peace, naturally.

Australia’s vastness and geography has always mesmerised explorers, writers and planners of the military inclination. In the case of McCaul, Australia was to be praised as offering “key advantages” in deterring China. “It is the central base of operations in the Indo-Pacific to counter the threat.”

In the scheme of things, the northern city of Darwin was vital. “If you really look at the concentric circles emanating from Darwin – that is the base of operations, and the rotating (US) forces there are providing the projection of power and force that we’re seeing in the region.” On Sky News, the congressman went so far as to call Darwin “the epicentre of the organisation projecting power through the South China Sea to China.”

McCaul’s reasons for this state of affairs are given the usual dressing, the gingered sauce we have come to expect from the standard bearers of empire: the entire effort was a collaborative, cooperative one between two equal states with the same interests, an effort to “provide more deterrence in the region and project power and strength so we don’t have a war.” It sounded much like a shabby confection by one superior power to a vastly inferior one: manufacture the security threat – in this case, unchecked, possibly mad Chinese ambitions – and then gather military forces to battle it. Make it a joint affair, much like a married couple menaced by a nightmare.

The monster, once conjured, can only grow more dangerous, and must be fought as a matter of urgency. Their creators demand it. “Time is really of the essence right now, as Chairman Xi has announced his 2027 project,” warned McCaul, taking that all too familiar position on China’s leader as a barking mad despot keen on world war over a small piece of real estate. That year is only of significance to US planners since the Chinese president has promised Beijing’s readiness to invade Taiwan by that time. But such visions have no meaning in a vacuum, and the other power essential to that talk of toughness is Washington’s own provocative role. Australia has no reason to play in such playgrounds of nonsense, but AUKUS has been shown to be an open license for Canberra to commit personnel to any futile conflict over that island.

The integration, which has become synonymous with absorption, of Australia’s defence into the US military industrial complex, is also a matter of interest to McCaul. “I envision there being co-production in Australia … helping to build up our defence industrial base, which is really stressed right now with war in the Middle East and Ukraine and the eastern Europe threat.” Australia, servant to US global power.

This latest visit affirms the content of the recent AUSMIN meeting held in Annapolis, Maryland, where Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong confirmed that the US war machine would find itself operating in every sphere of Australian defence in what is clumsily described as “Enhanced Force Posture Cooperation”.

The occasion also gave McCaul a chance to announce that defence trade exemptions had been granted to Australia and the UK under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation. He still expressed regret over “big government regulation” as a barrier to “this crucial alliance’s ability to truly deter a conflict in the Indo-Pacific.”

The removal of some defence licensing restrictions has thrilled Marles, who continues to labour under the assumption that this will somehow favour Australia’s barely existing sovereign capability. “This is really important in terms of our ability to build our future submarines, but also to pursue that AUKUS Pillar II agenda of those new innovative technologies.” The embarrassingly naïve Marles ignores the vital feature of any such agreements: that the US maintains control over all intellectual property, including any relevant classified material associated with those technologies.

The comments from Rep. McCaul square with those made by previous officials who see Australia as a vital staging ground for war. US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, during his April 3 visit to Washington’s Center for a New American Security (CNAS), was also candid in the promise offered by nuclear powered submarines.

In a discussion with CNAS Chief Executive Officer, Richard Fontaine, Campbell foresaw “a number of areas of conflict and in a number of scenarios that countries acting together,” including Japan, Australia, South Korea and India, when it came to the Indo-Pacific. “I think that balance, the additional capacity will help strengthen deterrence more general [sic].” The nuclear-powered submarines intended for the Royal Australian Navy, along with the boats of likeminded states “could deliver conventional ordinance from long distances. Those have enormous implications in a variety of scenarios, including in cross-strait circumstances”.

Even with such open admissions on the reasons why AUKUS is important to Washington, the timid, the bought, and the bribed, hold the reins in Canberra. For them, the march to war amidst the false sounding notes of peace is not only inevitable but desirable.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

© Scoop Media