AUKUS – the ocean in us

“The sense of a regional identity, of being Pacific islanders, is felt most acutely” in the “movement toward a Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific.” – Epeli Hau’ofa, Tongan and Fijian writer.

AUKUS dances with the Leviathans

Nuclear submarines are part of a contest by capitalist countries (including China) for supremacy over the oceans. United States despite not being part of the region wishes to extend its influence into the South China Sea. Australia has dutifully fallen into line with the Americans against its major trading partner China. In the debate so far Paul Keating has questioned the strategic and economic basis for this decision. This is what Paul Keating said to the National press club on 15 March 2023:

“China is a lonely state, I suppose. But they would fall over themselves having a proper relationship with us, fall over themselves, when we supply their iron ore, which keeps their really industrial base going. And there’s nowhere else but us to get it. You know, we’ve provided them wheat, we provide them all, all sorts of things, investment, what have you …. they are 12 flying hours from us. We have a continent of our own, a border with no one. No border disputes with them. Perfect. No, no, we’ve manufactured a problem. You know, don’t let the sleeping dogs lie. You know, we’ve given the old dog a kicking, you know. And so, instead of saying is one of the points I’ve made here, and what one of the principal problems of just deal is that defence has overtaken foreign policy. I mean, you don’t see Penny Wong out there. You see Marles out there, you know, standing on the submarines, there’s Marles, its not Penny Wong. So what’s happened is, is is that the military have taken over the foreign foreign policy.”

BIDEN: Then, Richie, we told the Aussie guy that we wanted to park our China attack subs in his country and HE SHOULD PAY us $368bn for the privilege! AND HE AGREED! Cartoon: Nuri Vittachi

Keating says that AUKUS is a challenge to Australian sovereignty. But the history of his term in government was that we always surrendered our sovereignty to the Americans. Keating admits that. “I mean, I, you know, politically in the Labour Party, I fought the left most of my life, you know, always mostly on behalf of the United States.” At no stage has Keating questioned the safety of nuclear technology as a means to power the AUKUS submarines. He has also said that diesel powered submarines are not as easily detected because of their size and that the engines can be switched off; therefore enabling them to be silent and less detectable. Keating has merely stated that the torpedoes and missiles delivered by the submarines are conventional weapons and not nuclear armed.

Why isn’t there more talk of the risks to humans and the environment of high-grade enriched uranium nuclear reactors carried on subs prowling the oceans? Whatever happened to the Nuclear Disarmament Party of the 1980s? In the 1970s and 80s, the export of Australian uranium was linked to the proliferation of nuclear weapons through the nuclear fuel cycle. Popular campaigns were mounted against nuclear warships coming to Australia after the Australian government committed to become part of the nuclear club by mining and exporting uranium.

On 15 March, Peter Garrett, who served as Labor MP for Kingsford Smith between 2004 and 2013 and was Minister for the Environment from 2007-10, tweeted after the Labor Party government sold out to AUKUS: “I don’t share Keating’s benign view of China, nor his disdain for Labor ministers, but he’s right. This (AUKUS) deal stinks with massive cost, loss of independence, weakening nuke safeguards & more.“

Former Labor environment Minister Peter Garrett has gone one step further saying: “For now we are doing the timewarp again, a vassal state is set to become a nuclear vessel state.” Garrett, forever the anti-Communist, stressed that he did not share the benign view of China espoused by former prime minister Paul Keating when he said that China was not a military threat to Australia. But why would China cut off the trade route with Australia that has been so beneficial to it, in iron ore and wheat in one direction and such a good market for its manufactured goods in the other direction.

Whatever happened to the Nuclear Disarmament Party (NDP) Garret was once part of? At the 1984 federal election, voters opposed to the Labor’s decision to mine and export uranium swung to the NDP that polled 7.23 percent (641,500 votes) of the total Senate vote, electing Jo Vallentine as a senator for Western Australia. It was Peter Garret who saw to it that the Socialist Workers Party was expelled from the NDP. The Australian Democrats (who had similar policies against uranium mining and export as part of a broader platform) also received a peace protest vote in the 1984 election. This was seen as a ‘reprimand to the Labor Party’.

“Women for Survival protests in November 1983 against the Pine Gap US base, and in 1984 against the use of Cockburn Sound, Western Australia by the US Navy, were also indicative of a trend in Australian public opinion which the Sydney anti-warship movement was soon to take up.” – Donna Russo in Dancing with Leviathan.

Neither of these political parties concerned about the environment still exist. Their place has been taken by the Greens. The Greens spokesperson, David Shoebridge, concentrated on the economic and military aspects of the AUKUS deal:: “With this one decision, Labor is mortgaging our future in order to stoke regional tensions with a dangerous escalation in regional defence spending.” The Greens should come out strongly against the nuclear aspect of the AUKUS agreement.

So where is the anti-nuclear movement go now? Friends of the Earth say “AUKUS disrupts “a very peaceful part of planet Earth.”

Can Britain deliver on AUKUS?

Letters to the Editor, The Times, London16 Mar 23

“Sir, Britain does not have the capacity or effective leadership to provide the huge level of support required by Australia to build its own nuclear submarine fleet (“PM strikes submarine deal to face new threat”, Mar 14). The performance of the Submarine Delivery Agency has been abysmal. Astute class submarines are being delivered late by BAE Systems; HMS Vanguard’s refit by Babcock has taken more than seven years; and none of our 22 decommissioned nuclear submarines has been dismantled, which is disgraceful. The in-service date for HMS Dreadnought was 2024 but is now the early 2030s. 

It is also astonishing that the new director-general (nuclear), Madelaine McTernan, has no previous nuclear expertise; nor did her predecessors, in spite of being responsible for submarine procurement, disposal and infrastructure.  This collective failure of leadership has resulted in significant extra cost and loss of submarine availability.  It appears that those advising the prime minister on Aukus have focused on the strategic benefits and economies of scale and not on the substantial risks of delivery, given the UK’s woeful performance and Australia’s lack of nuclear submarine expertise.  This is not a winning combination.  This UK and Australian element of Aukus is high risk for both countries.  A bilateral-only agreement between the US and Australia would stand a far greater chance of success.  – Rear Admiral (ret’d) Philip Mathias, UK director of nuclear policy 2005-08 and Trident value for money review 2010; Southsea, Hants

Disunity

This AUKUS decision by the Labor Party government has caused disunity within the labour movement. Several Labor Party branches and unions have come out against the decision. I am wondering if the AUKUS debate be the main focus at the Peace Rally and March on Palm Sunday?

This is the end of running on the waves; We are poured out like water. Who will dance The mast-lashed master of leviathans Up from this field of Quakers in their unstoned graves? – Robert Lowell

Ian Curr
19 March 2023