Aukus

[Threviel]

Apparently the UK, Australia and the US have agreed to some kind of defense pact in the pacific called Aukus.

The pact seems sweeping but the most obvious result is that Australias new submarines will be Nukes based on UK/US technology rather than Diesel Electric based on French technology. Which to me seems like a big step up in capability and a good choice, although I would perhaps have changed the order to French Nukes since the Diesel Electric they were building were based on French nukes. That way they wouldn't have to start completely over.

[Zanza]

From the outside this looks like American industrial policy where government intervention helped to secure a big submarine deal with Australia at the cost of the French. All the rest about tech sharing is rather vague.

What's Britain's role? Participation to secure a "Global Britain" photo op for Johnson?

[Tamas]

From the outside this looks like American industrial policy where government intervention helped to secure a big submarine deal with Australia at the cost of the French. All the rest about tech sharing is rather vague.

What's Britain's role? Participation to secure a "Global Britain" photo op for Johnson?

Apparently they were the middlemen brokering the deal.

I think the significance is to show China the US means business and have allies arming up.

[The Brain]

Ties with the US seems a risky strategy. What about the next Trump in the White House (by name or otherwise)?

[Josquius]

 From the UK perspective yes, big propaganda coup which will help tories appeal to the (white) commonwealth can replace the EU nutters.
Why the UK would want to be involved is a no brainer but it is a wonder what they are contributing.
I wonder if there's some sort of base sharing and mutual servicing arrangement?

From what I have read the French deal wasn't going well with a lot of arguments about where the work would be done.

[Zanza]

I think the significance is to show China the US means business and have allies arming up.

Annoying the French is a strange move if you mean to strengthen some kind of Western alliance against China. In general Bidens foreign policy seems a bit haphazard.

[Tamas]

I think the significance is to show China the US means business and have allies arming up.

Annoying the French is a strange move if you mean to strengthen some kind of Western alliance against China. In general Bidens foreign policy seems a bit haphazard.

I saw some mention that it had been a problematic contract with the French. No idea on details, though.

EDIT: Also I don't think France is likely to get into a shooting war with China over Pacific islands?

[The Brain]

I think the significance is to show China the US means business and have allies arming up.

Annoying the French is a strange move if you mean to strengthen some kind of Western alliance against China. In general Bidens foreign policy seems a bit haphazard.

I saw some mention that it had been a problematic contract with the French. No idea on details, though.

EDIT: Also I don't think France is likely to get into a shooting war with China over Pacific islands?

No, France wouldn't nuke Pacific islands.

[garbon]

I think the significance is to show China the US means business and have allies arming up.

Annoying the French is a strange move if you mean to strengthen some kind of Western alliance against China. In general Bidens foreign policy seems a bit haphazard.

I saw some mention that it had been a problematic contract with the French. No idea on details, though.

EDIT: Also I don't think France is likely to get into a shooting war with China over Pacific islands?

Right? I doubt France will have a lot of relevance there.

[Zanza]

French overseas territories directly neighbor Australia. What's the relevance of Britain in the South-West Pacific?

[garbon]

French overseas territories directly neighbor Australia. What's the relevance of Britain in the South-West Pacific?

We need to keep them on side to keep them from doing foolish things like letting Huawei build the infrastructure for its 5G network.

[Tamas]

French overseas territories directly neighbor Australia. What's the relevance of Britain in the South-West Pacific?

Anything that indicates we are not a self-isolating island stuck in a corner of the Atlantic is of significant relevance to Britain.

[Sheilbh]

The pact seems sweeping but the most obvious result is that Australias new submarines will be Nukes based on UK/US technology rather than Diesel Electric based on French technology. Which to me seems like a big step up in capability and a good choice, although I would perhaps have changed the order to French Nukes since the Diesel Electric they were building were based on French nukes. That way they wouldn't have to start completely over.

Yeah so I think it would be a little bit misplaced to see it as just a defence pact - if anything it's a military-industrial pact. I think the wider tech sharing and joint work could actually be as important if less eye-catching. Especially with the apparent focus on inter-operability. I think the real benefit will be in that area of tech sharing and joint developments/investments on inter-operable defence - for the UK and Australia especially (though they have their own expertise) access to/working with the Americans on that will be a huge benefit.

The next stages will be basing rights/ports, joint operations and then gradually other regional partners (such as Japan, France, maybe New Zealand) to join. This is a start and may flop but I think it's a decent idea.

It is unfortunate about France - though as Tyr that deal was becoming increasingly unpopular/contentious in Australia because there was a perception that not enough work was being done in Australia. But that in itself is a useful reminder that the European country that did its "Indo-Pacfic tilt" first and that has been encouraging others to join it is France. I really hope in other ways the US (and less importantly Australia and the UK) are taking steps to try and make good that.

I think the significance is to show China the US means business and have allies arming up.

Maybe - for me the most important thing is that China has been ratchetting up the pressure on Australia for the last two years. I think it's largely been over things like Hong Kong and covid comments but also just the sense that Australia has been too assertive. China's a huge market for Australia so there have been bans on certain types of imports, restrictions on others. I think this is important to show allies backing up and supporting each other when facing that type of pressure - that Australia still has the support of the US who is willing to make commmitments.

It's not a million miles away from the type of pressure China's trying to use on Lithuania just because of how important China is to Australia, significantly stronger.

Apparently they were the middlemen brokering the deal.

I don't know about the role - the bit that struck me as possibly an area where Britain is perceived as very strong is cyber. I know that in terms of the "Indo-Pacific tilt" obviously a small group of Royal Navy ships don't necessarily matter, they are mainly symbolic - but my understanding is Japan, South Korea and Australia were very happy to see British commitment because they hoped it would lead to engagement with the UK cyber and space sectors which are very strong and would help boost regional capacity in those areas those areas that have been specifically called out and I think the tech angle of working with China is key.

It's why vdL yesterday mentioned supporting and building up European semiconductor manufacturing in the defence/foreign policy section of her speech, but it's also things like innovative western companies being bought up and then their IP moved wholesale to China. As I say I think there needs to be a nuanced policy towards China with lots of different angles of where we're working together, where there's competition and where there's just not movement on issues - containment is a nonsense framing of this - but I think protecting certain tech sectors from Chinese purchase or access and working with other allies on those areas is very sensible.

Annoying the French is a strange move if you mean to strengthen some kind of Western alliance against China. In general Bidens foreign policy seems a bit haphazard.

I think a Western alliance is the wrong way of looking at it - I think the US is looking to strengthen/deepen relations in the Pacific mainly. Australia, but also the increased involvement of Korea and the quad with Japan and Australia. I think that is increasingly going to be the focus of US foreign policy - as has been signposted since Obama's "pivot" this is the first real move in that direction.

France is an important Pacific player. But I think what the US wants out of the Western alliance/NATO generally is support in the Pacific when they can, taking more responsibility at home so the US doesn't have to spend time and troops and money on those issues and some caution in engagement with China especially around tech.

Edit: And from a UK perspective this sort of aligns with the integrated review - the very first section of which was about science and technology. One of the goals of which was a network of partnerships (civil and military) in that area, which this clearly links into.

[Tamas]

I am greatly annoyed by cyber security just referred to as "cyber" in this country. Last evening the lady on the TV news was the same. "Cyber". I always have to pause.

This is cyber:

[Sheilbh]

I am greatly annoyed by cyber security just referred to as "cyber" in this country. Last evening the lady on the TV news was the same. "Cyber". I always have to pause.

This is cyber:

Fair.

Although maybe they're both cyber and it's just a matter of time