Activists in Fukushima protest against discharge plan
Save the oceans: Ho Sin Leng, 13, adding her signature to the ‘Raise Your Voice, Stop the Discharge of Nuclear Wastewater into the Ocean’ mass petition event at the Nirvana Memorial Garden in Semenyih. — ART CHEN/The Star
Unknown impact on human health, marine life and the environment concern many
HULU LANGAT: As Japan began to release contaminated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean last Thursday, voices of concern among Malaysians are being heard.
A large number of them have shared their reservations about the scheduled discharge of 1.3 million tonnes of wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear plant despite assurances of safety from the Japanese government and scientists including the International Atomic Energy Agency.
A 9.0-magnitude earthquake in 2011 had triggered a tsunami that hit three reactors of the plant located about 250km north of Tokyo.Malaysians are worried about the effects the water release – to be conducted in phases over the next 30 years – would have on human health, marine life and the environment.
Among those who are strongly against Japan’s action is philanthropist Tan Sri David Kong Hon Kong, who is also Nirvana Asia Group founder and executive chairman.
He said the released radioactive substances could spread and “cast a long shadow over the entire world”.
“Since this is the first large-scale release of nuclear wastewater in the world, the extent of its harm is unknown, and no one can guarantee its safety,” he said.
He also questioned the long time frame needed for the wastewater release, saying that it showed there were concerns and uncertainties about its possible effects on humanity.
Kong was present at the launch of the “Raise Your Voice, Stop the Discharge of Nuclear Wastewater into the Ocean” mass petition event held at the Nirvana Memorial Garden in Semenyih, Selangor, yesterday.
It was held concurrently with the company’s annual Zhong Yuan enlightenment ceremony, an event to remember the ancestors, advocate filial piety and pay tribute to the departed.
Kong said the petition has so far received tens of thousands of signatures from Malaysians spread across three huge banners.
He called on more Malaysian companies and individuals to speak out against the matter.
“Being in business does not mean we don’t care. We have our social responsibilities to fulfil. Furthermore, the world is still grappling with the hardship and disarray caused by the pandemic.
“This time, everyone should unequivocally protest the release of nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean to prevent the world from another crisis,” he said.
Kong added that Japan’s action runs contrary to the environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles that are growing in importance and prominence in the country and the rest of the world.
“I call upon everyone and all corporations to participate in this and petition the Japanese government to stop the wastewater release,” he said.
Kong said more petition zones will be put up by his company at its upcoming enlightenment ceremonies at other locations.
They include Nirvana Center Kuala Lumpur on Sept 2 and 3, Nirvana Memorial Park in Klang on Sept 3 and in Shah Alam on Sept 9 and 10.Kong said all the signatures collected will be handed over to the Japanese Embassy in Kuala Lumpur.
In the face of the Japanese government's determination to proceed with this action, we need to employ even more sophisticated fighting skills, firmly understanding the purpose and cause we are defending. We must always stand on the high ground of international justice, rendering Japan's political tricks useless.
TOKYO: The weekend gathering of finance chiefs from the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies leaves signs that the world’s second-largest economy will loom large at this week’s summit in Hiroshima.
Efforts to grapple with China’s growing global presence were evident at the three-day G7 finance chiefs’ gathering in Niigata, Japan, during which they held their first outreach in 14 years, aimed at winning over emerging nations.
The meeting with Brazil, the Comoros, India, Indonesia, Singapore and South Korea primarily tackled issues such as debt and high-level infrastructure investment, in a tacit counter to China’s Belt and Road initiative, according to analysts.
“What’s going on at the G7 is reflecting changes in global order following the loss of the US dominance,” said Masamichi Adachi, economist at UBS Securities.
“No one is being able to draw up a grand design with shifting of power.”
G7 host Japan persuaded its G7 counterparts to launch a new programme by the end of 2023 to diversify supply chains for strategically important goods away from China.
The G7 comprises the United States, Britain, France, Japan, Italy, Germany and Canada. But the finance chiefs’ closing communique did not mention a US-proposed idea for narrow restrictions on investment to China, a potential rift among the grouping on how far they should go in pressuring Beijing.
A Japanese finance ministry official at the gathering, who declined to be named because of he sensitivity of the matter, said the idea was discussed in Niigata, but declined to elaborate.
China is among the biggest markets for most G7 countries, particularly for export-reliant economies such as Japan and Germany.
China-bound exports account for 22% of Japan’s overall shipments. Japan and the United States want to try to win over countries, including those in the Global South, with promises of foreign direct investment and aid, analysts said. — Reuters
Japan, which holds the G7 presidency this year, is urged not to be an accomplice and accessory to economic coercion, and G7 countries should demand that the US stop splitting the
world into two markets, which is the primary threat to the global economy, Wang Wenbin, a spokesperson of China's Foreign Ministry, told a press conference on Monday.
Through her embarrassing political performance, Truss has
shown many British people that being tough against China and provoking
China not only did not help solve internal problems in the UK, but also
further increased the difficulty of solving them.
THE U.S. WANTS WAR WITH CHINA – but with other people doing the fighting, a whistleblowing Australian diplomat revealed this week.
“The United States is NOT preparing to go to war against China: the United States is preparing Australia to go to war against China,” said John Lander, a former senior ambassador.
He believes China has no intention of invading the southern continent. But a different narrative was foremost in people’s minds because the Americans have a tight grip on Australian government and media, he argued.
BUT AUSTRALIA IS BEING INVADED
Yet there was a hidden irony that people weren’t seeing.
These IS a country making a massive push into Australia: that country was the United States, not China. Australia’s citizens were “unaware or uncaring that almost every major Australian company across resources, food, retail, mass media, entertainment, banking and finance sectors, has majority American ownership,” Lander said.
John Lander
“Australians fret about China buying up the country but American investment is ten times the size,” he added.
Comments by Lander, one of the country’s top China experts, received wide attention from citizens in Asia and Australia – but virtually no coverage from the media. The ambassador is retired and unafraid to speak openly.
TRAINED BY CIA
Citizens of his country, Lander said, were continually warned about China through reports in the media from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, or ASPI. But it was really “the American Subversive Propaganda Institute”, Lander said. “It has lobbyists from American arms manufacturers on the board, which is headed by an operative trained by the CIA.”
ASPI has taken a leading role in spreading the Chinese “concentration camps” story, along with Radio Free Asia, which presents itself as an Asian journalism group, but is actually a CIA-founded operation based in Washington DC.
MASSIVE ARMS SPENDING
The former ambassador’s comments, made in an Salon interview on Sunday, January 22, 2023, are in line with those of other whistleblowers who note that the United States has been working to militarize Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, while western media demonizes China. These two processes together are triggering massive spending on arms in the region, and creating the conditions for war—which would further boost the arms industries in the west.
Lander said that the eight nuclear-powered submarines Australia had been prodded to buy from America for defence were actually for “hunter killer operations in the Taiwan strait”.
LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY
John Lander was Australia’s Director of the China Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs on three separate occasions, and personally negotiated Consular relations between Australia and China, having worked as a bridge between the two nations for the best part of 30 years.
Lander said he had become increasingly alarmed at the spreading of the notion that war against China is “inevitable”.
While mainstream commentators in Australia took an anti-China stance and pushed the line that that militarization “enhances Australian sovereignty”, the truth was that “these arrangements arguably accede Australian sovereignty to America”, he said.
British Public chanting "SHAME ON YOU" to the BBC at a demonstration outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. Hated in their own country & spreading FAKE PROPAGANDA in other countries. #BBCdocumentry
From conspiracy theories about the origins of the COVID-19 to the claims of "genocide" in Northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, many external forces are spreading outright lies in an attempt to smear and ultimately contain China. This section aims to dig into hot-button issues and dissect lies and conspiracy theories with GT's own investigation and objective reporting.
The Asean secretary-general and leaders of the 15 RCEP member countries with their trade ministers after the pact was signed on 15 Nov 2020.
PHOTO: MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION (MCI)
`
SAN FRANCISCO (CHINA DAILY/ASIA NEWS NETWORK, REUTERS) - The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement, which will take effect on Saturday (Jan 1), is expected to significantly boost the regional and global economies and offer lessons for international cooperation.
`
"The RCEP is a huge, potentially powerful agreement among rich and poor countries that complements each other's strengths," Professor Peter Petri, who specialises in international finance at Brandeis University in the United States, told China Daily.
`
"For example, it has favourable rules for parts and components trade, and these could help developing members benefit from partnering with more advanced countries, making the region a haven for some of the world's most efficient supply chains," he said.
`
"If its potential is realised, the RCEP would create larger markets and innovative, affordable products for the world economy," he added.
`
Signed in November last year by 15 Asia-Pacific economies - all 10 member states of Asean, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand - the agreement has created the world's largest free trade bloc that accounts for about one-third of the global population and gross domestic product.
`
It will take effect in 10 member states - Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand - on Jan 1, and for the other five members 60 days after official deposition of ratification, acceptance or approval.
South Korea will see it take effect on Feb 1.
Indonesia's chief economic minister Airlangga Hartarto said on Friday (Dec 31) that Indonesia, South-east Asia’s largest economy, will likely ratify its RCEP membership in early 2022.
`
A parliamentary commission overseeing trade rules had approved the ratification and its endorsement will be brought to a wider parliamentary vote in the first quarter of 2022, he said.
`
President Joko Widodo will sign off on the ratification after parliamentary approval, he added.
`
According to a recent study by Prof Petri and Prof Michael Plummer, an international economics expert at Johns Hopkins University in the US, the RCEP is estimated to increase world trade by nearly US$500 billion (S$675 billion) annually by 2030 and raise world incomes by US$263 billion annually.
`
"There are several aspects of the agreement that will lead to significant economic effects, even if the RCEP is not as ambitious in scope as, say, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership," Prof Plummer told China Daily.
`
"For example, it will create harmonised, cumulative rules of origin for intra-RCEP trade, which should give a significant boost to regional supply chains, at a time when supply chains are facing headwinds," he said.
`
The agreement will lower tariffs on about 90 per cent of traded commodities and reduce some non-tariff barriers to trade in goods and services, according to Prof Plummer.
`
"Importantly, it will create a free trade area among the North-east Asian economies of China, Japan and South Korea, giving a particularly strong boost to trade and production in the area of advanced manufacturers," he added.
`
The study by the two economists, published by the East Asian Economic Review, estimates that the RCEP should increase regional incomes by US$245 billion on a permanent basis and create 2.8 million jobs in the region, which Prof Plummer described as "a significant boost".
`
"In addition to its salutary effects on global incomes and trade, the RCEP offers an important boost to opening international markets, with very little negative effects on outside economies in the form of trade diversion," said Dr Plummer.
`
Moreover, the RCEP shows how developed and developing countries can work together to include the interests of countries at all levels of economic development, he said.
`
`
"This could hold some important lessons for the WTO (World Trade Organisation), which reached an impasse at the Doha Development Agenda to a large extent because it was unable to accommodate the interests of developed and developing economies sufficiently," said Prof Plummer.
`
Prof Petri also noted that the RCEP's success will depend on how well countries with different systems will work together to make the agreement successful.
`
"If benefits are widely shared and relations are positive, members will implement the agreement fully and may even expand its scope," he said. "The RCEP could become a model for cooperation in an unusually diverse economic region."
`
In Japan, the customer service agent was extremely nice and friendly, but declined his request politely, saying it was against the policy. In Japan, you are rude if you try to change your appointment when the prearranged date is near.
`
In Korea, the customer consultant was not particularly friendly, but she changed the delivery date for him anyway. In fact, in Korea it is possible to change your appointment even until the last moment. Koreans are quite flexible about such things. Besides, Koreans are well known to do things quickly, too. Indeed, everything is so fast in Korean society that it surely is convenient to live there.
`
Then the journalist wrote that in the United States he could not even talk to the customer service representative. Presumably, when he called, the answering machine put him on hold forever. In my recent experience, I had to wait about 40 minutes before I was finally able to talk to a customer service representative. Although it varies depending on the companies and calling hours, putting a customer on hold for about half an hour seems to be common in the United States these days.
`
The Korean correspondent’s comparison of Japan, South Korea and the United States made me smile because it revealed the radical differences among the three countries. Indeed, Japan is a country where people are polite and friendly, and yet they do everything “by the book”. Additionally, in Japanese society it is seriously frowned upon to put someone to much trouble or to take up much of anyone’s time. You should not make yourself an annoyance or nuisance, either.
`
South Korea is a country where the people do not always live by the book strictly and thus can be flexible. Although such elasticity may cause problems sometimes, it certainly is convenient for ordinary people’s everyday lives. In addition, Korean society is speedy. Everything is so fast, so you do not need to wait for a long time. Some foreigners like it so much that they decide to live in Korea much longer than they originally planned.
`
Compared with Korea, everything is so slow in the United States. For example, when you apply for a driver license or transfer from another state’s license, it usually takes a month to receive the license by mail. In South Korea, you can get your driver license within 10 to 15 minutes. When you submit a paper to an American journal, it takes at least a year to get published. In Korea, it takes only a few weeks.
`
Recently, an American friend of mine called a company to paint his house. The company told him that the paint job had to wait for about a year. He also called an electrician to repair an electrical problem in his study. The electrician informed him that he had to be on a waiting list which stretched for about three months. Granted, the Covid-19 pandemic and the current housebuying boom in the United States has had significant effects on supply and demand, but it still is too long to wait.
`
In Korea, painters or electricians would come right away when you call them. As for a doctor’s office in Korea, one can drop in anytime, even without an appointment. In the United States, you may have to wait for several months unless it is an emergency.
`
In the 1970s, when I lived in the United States, America was a truly advanced country. Everything was so admirable and commendable. At that time, the social system of America was superb, and American society was reasonable and rational. Living in the United States at the time was indeed convenient and pleasurable.
`
Half a century has passed. The problem is that the American system has not changed much since then, while other countries have changed rapidly and radically to suit the hyperspeed electronic era. As time goes on, therefore, the once-efficient and impeccable American system has become relatively inefficient and slow.
`
Perhaps the American people may not realise it because they have been living in such an environment for a long time. However, in the eyes of young foreigners who are used to speedy procedures and dynamic changes in their country, obviously many things seem to be very slow in the United States.
`
In America, when you are a regular customer, not a new one, things are much better. For example, when my toilet began leaking a few days ago, the plumbing company initially set up an appointment to install a new one two weeks later. When notified of the urgency, however, a technician came immediately and took care of it. Thus, it all depends.
`
By such comparisons, we can learn many intriguing things about other countries. – The Korea Herald/Asia News Network
Holders of Singapore and Japan passports can travel without a prior visa to 192 destinations.PHOTO: ST FILE
SINGAPORE - Singapore and Japan have the most powerful passports in the world, according to the latest update of a global index.
Holders of passports from the two countries can travel without a prior visa to 192 destinations, it noted last week.
This is a change from April, when Japan outstripped Singapore in having the world's most powerful passport, with Japanese passport holders able to travel to 193 destinations without a prior visa, while Singaporean passport holders had such access to 192 destinations.
In the latest update, South Korea and Germany are tied for second place, with such access to 190 countries. The two countries had been tied for third place in April, with access to 191 destinations.
Finland, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain are in third place, with access to 189 nations; while Austria and Denmark are in fourth, with access to 188 countries.
The index, administered by Henley & Partners and updated throughout the year, ranks passport power according to how many destinations their holders can travel to without a prior visa.
The global citizenship and residence advisory firm noted that the gap in travel freedom is at its widest since the index was started in 2006, with Singaporean and Japanese passport holders able to visit 166 more destinations than Afghan citizens, who can travel to only 26 nations worldwide without acquiring a visa in advance.
Britain and the United States have been facing eroding passport strength since they held the top spot in 2014. Both remain tied in seventh place, but have a score of 185, down from 187 in the first quarter of the year.
Egypt is ranked 97th, with its citizens having access to 51 countries without a prior visa, while Kenya is 77th, with access to 72 destinations visa-free.
Meanwhile, Singapore will be allowing vaccinated travellers to travel to nine more countries and return without quarantine, the authorities announced last Saturday (Oct 9).
From Oct 19, vaccinated travellers from Singapore will be able to fly to Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Britain and the US.
The scheme will be extended to South Korea from Nov 15, it was announced last Friday.
These are in addition to Brunei and Germany, which Singapore had already approved for quarantine-free travel for those fully vaccinated.
In total, there will be 11 countries that Singapore approves for quarantine-free travel.
More on this topic
Based on data from the International Air Transport Association, the index showed that countries in the global north with high-ranking passports have enforced some of the most stringent inbound Covid-19 travel restrictions.
On the other hand, many countries with lower-ranking passports have relaxed their borders without seeing this openness reciprocated, it noted.
Henley & Partners chairman Christian Kaelin said: "It is pivotal that advanced nations consider revising their somewhat exclusive approach to the rest of the world, and reform and adapt to overcome the competition and not miss the opportunity to embrace the potential."
This paves the way for more economic activities to resume although
it may not be a full recovery, matching that of pre-covid times.
Analysts are positive on this as the high vaccinationrate is a leading indicator that economic activities should recover faster in Malaysia as compared to most countries in Asean.
Indo-Pacific: AUKUS alliance causes anger in France and EU | DW News
https://youtu.be/8WpwHJV6TG4
China and France criticise UK-US-Australia submarine pact
A Royal Australian Navy submarine is seen during a drill with the Indian Navy in Darwin on September 5. Australia is buying a fleet of nuclear submarines as part of a new defence pact. Photo: TNS
The new US security pact with Australia and Britain shows Biden’s approach in building overlapping alliances and partnerships in dealing with its China challenge
THE empire strikes back. So it seemed as United States President Joe Biden announced recently at a press conference attended virtually by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his British counterpart Boris Johnson, the conclusion of a new military and security agreement between their three nations.
The agreement smacks of the old “Anglo” arrangements made a century ago between what used to be called the “Mother Country” and two of her major English-speaking siblings. And President Biden’s jovial reference during the latest press conference to the Australian Premier as “that fellow Down Under” only heightened the “retro” feel of the entire enterprise.
But appearances can be deceiving, and what may look and sound like a blast from the past could well turn out to be a major pointer of the world of tomorrow. For there is little doubt that the new Aukus arrangement – as this pact is rather ungainly called – is already being rated as a fundamental step change in Asian and, perhaps, even global security structures.
Professor Rory Metcalf of the Australian National University and one of his country’s most prominent strategic experts, is not a man known to exaggerate. But on this occasion, no exaggeration seemed too much: Australia, he wrote after the Aukus deal was announced, “has crossed a strategic Rubicon, bitten the bullet, nailed its colours to the mast”. In short, no expression, however grand or over-used, is out of place in expressing the significance of the new deal.
French fury over subs deal
Following the announcement, most of the attention concentrated on the impact of the Aukus agreement on Australia’s existing contract with France for the delivery of a new generation of conventional, diesel electric powered submarines. That deal has been cancelled and will be replaced with the supply of nuclear-powered submarines based on Us-developed technology.
The French were predictably apoplectic at the loss of a contract for the construction of 12 Barracuda submarines, a mega deal worth at least Us$88bil in today’s prices, and a critical part of France’s struggle to maintain an indigenous naval industry.
Officials in Paris were particularly indignant about being kept in the dark by the Australians about their negotiations for a nuclear submarine replacement deal. French Foreign Minister Jean-yves Le Drian called the entire episode a “stab in the back”; junior politicians in Paris have used even more colourful language, and French officials have been steeling themselves for a prolonged legal battle with Australia over what they claim is a broken contract.
As is often the case with military deals which contain many confidential clauses, the conclusion may well be that both sides to the dispute are right.
The French may be correct to point out that Australia could have gone for the purchase of nuclear submarines back in 2016, when the initial deal was signed. It was Canberra that insisted on the diesel variety partly because the anti-nuclear mood was strong among Australians then, and one of the chief attractions of picking France’s Barracuda submarines at that time was precisely the fact that the submarines could be switched from diesel to nuclear power. So, it looks odd that the Australians are now ditching a French contract by arguing that it does not offer them the technology which they could have had from the start, but rejected.
However, the Australians may also be right in claiming that the French submarine project is both behind schedule and more than double the initial budget, and that the promises initially made by Paris to transfer 90% of the work to shipyards in Adelaide were subsequently whittled down to not more than half of the construction capacity, thereby failing to create the national Australian submarine manufacturing capability which Canberra craved.
But all these arguments, although weighty, are marginal. For what persuaded the Australian government to go for the deal was the unique access it offers to the technology which no other nation has, apart from the US and the United Kingdom.
Only six nations in the world have nuclear-powered submarines: Britain, China, France, India, Russia and the US. The Americans have never shared their technology with any other country apart from Britain, and even that technology-sharing deal was concluded back in the late 1950s.
There is no question, therefore, about the significance of the latest agreement for Australia. A senior American official who briefed the media about the Aukus deal on condition of anonymity underlined the “very rare” nature of the arrangement and the “extremely sensitive” technology that will be shared.
“This is, frankly, an exception to our policy in many respects. I do not anticipate that this will be undertaken in any other circumstances going forward; we view this as a one-off,” he told journalists.
The French were wondering why they were not offered a part in one shape or another in this Australia-britain-us triumvirate. The answer is quite simple and, of course, fully known in Paris.
The French have spent decades trying to develop technologies which are independent from the US and offered as alternatives to American platforms. President Emmanuel Macron uses every opportunity to urge the rest of Europe to develop “strategic autonomy” from the US. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the Americans are taking France at its word and propose to respect French “autonomy” by excluding it from sensitive military projects.
The Five Eyes
In reality, the Aukus deal builds on almost 80 years of intelligence cooperation within the so-called Five Eyes arrangement in which the Australians, Brits and Americans are also joined by New Zealanders and Canadians. The unique flow of classified information between them served as not only the foundation for the current deal, but also the basis for common threat assessment.
Australia has decided that it needs nuclear-powered submarines because they are stealthier and can endure far longer periods submerged, but also because the submarine deal is a curtain-raiser to something far bigger: the development and transfer of technology with the Americans and British involving a variety of other fields, including cyber, artificial intelligence and quantum technology.
Furthermore, senior US officials are now talking about setting up “a new architecture of meetings and engagements” between relevant defence and technology teams from the three countries which will not only identify joint areas of research and development, but also promote “deeper interoperability” across the entire spectrum of a future battlefield. This is, to all intents and purposes, a new alliance.
And the longer-term political ramifications are just as substantial.
In a 30-minute phone call on Wednesday, the French and US presidents agreed to try to find a way forward and will meet in Europe at the end of next month.
But there is no doubt that the conclusion of the Aukus deal marginalises Europe. The Europeans have spent the past 18 months proclaiming their desire to elaborate a new policy towards the Indopacific region, and particularly towards China, one which will supposedly entail both a “critical engagement with China” and a friendly engagement with the US.
Yet when the chips were down, the only European partner the US was interested in enlisting was Britain. The fact that the announcement of the Aukus deal came literally hours before the European Union unveiled its own Asia policy paper only added to the continent’s sense of marginalisation.
The deal with Australia is also a huge boon for British PM Johnson. He was castigated for pulling Britain out of the EU, something which supposedly made his country irrelevant. But the Aukus pact seems to confirm Johnson’s claims that out of the EU, the Brits have plenty of global engagement alternatives. The deal with Australia also demolishes the argument that the Johnson government is not taken seriously in Washington.
The Aukus deal also ensures that Britain’s existing intelligence and technology cooperation links with the US are now being recast as part of a global effort to keep up with the perceived Chinese threat, a useful advantage for the British, who often fretted that, with the old confrontation against Russia now less important, the US would lose interest in cooperation with them.
America’s China strategy
But the most significant aspect is what the Aukus deal tells us about America’s long-term strategy on China.
For years, the discussion in many world capitals was about the feasibility of creating a broad, global Us-led coalition to contain China, one which includes most Asian countries, and mimics the Nato alliance in Europe during the Cold War. But that was never feasible in Asia, and probably was never even considered in Washington.
Instead, what President Biden is seeking to promote is several more restricted alliance and partnership arrangements, some overlapping and some complementing each other. The Quad is one such arrangement, the Aukus another, and there will be others in the offing.
The approach has the advantage of enhancing the existing hub-andspokes arrangements whereby the US is crucial to every single regional arrangement but is not presiding over a uniform region-wide alliance.
The overlapping nature of these arrangements is intended to increase the cost which China may have to pay in any future confrontation, but at the same time does not isolate the Chinese or condemn the region to a Cold War-style confrontation. Still, the Aukus military pact is not without its own potential difficulties.
The fact that it is seen as a public rebuff of France and of the EU is decidedly unhelpful. The US needs EU cooperation in Asia, and particularly French cooperation. Next to the British, the French have the most capable European military force, and the only one apart from the British with true long-range expeditionary capabilities. France is also a Pacific power: It has two million citizens in the region.
So, urgent steps must be taken to include France in any future regional projects.
Because of its privileged and exclusive nature, the Aukus deal can also create tensions with other US allies such as Japan and South Korea, which may wish to get similar technology-sharing deals.
So, it’s better if, after the initial publicity splash, the Aukus copies the example of America’s nuclear submarines and dives into the depth of secrecy, never to be talked of again. Most of its added value is by working behind the scenes.
There will also be political difficulties. Critics in Australia will claim that their country is losing its independence by getting too close to the US. And critics in Britain – including former prime minister Theresa May – are already warning that the Aukus deal makes the British too dependent on US policy towards China, with potentially grave consequences.
Still, none of this detracts from the conclusion that, in seeking to counter China, the US has lost none of its ability to innovate and surprise. And decision-makers in Beijing would be well advised to reflect on how their own actions of condemning Australia, boycotting Australian goods and, more recently, presenting a set of humiliating conditions to the Australians as a precondition for the restoration of normal relations have contributed to the creation of the Aukus alliance.
Far from achieving what Beijing would regard as Canberra’s “good behaviour”, the pressures have resulted in an Australia which will be better armed and more closely aligned with the US, precisely the outcome China sought to avoid.
Jonathan Eyal is the Europe correspondent at The Straits Times, a member of the Asia News Network (ANN), which is an alliance of 24 news media entities. The Asian Editors Circle is a series of commentaries by editors and contributors of ANN.
When
the 9/11 attacks hit New York and Washington in 2001 and the U.S. armed
forces went on full alert, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
got on the direct line to Moscow and told Vladimir Putin the United
States was not going to attack...
25 Sep 2021
Why AUKUS, Quad and Five Eyes anger China
The declared aim of a new defense agreement comprising the U.S., U.K. and Australia, christened AUKUS, is to maintain a “free and open IndoPacific,” with nuclearpowered submarines potentially on patrol. But you can add it to the list of arrangements among democracies attempting to counter China’s growing power. The so-called Quad partnership, created after the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and even the World War II-era “Five Eyes” spy alliance now seem overwhelmingly focused on Beijing. The growing web has provoked fury from Beijing and worries in some Asian states that the new groupings could fuel a dangerous arms race in the region.
Q: Q:What is AUKUS?
A: A:A new security partnership that will see Australia acquire nuclearpowered submarine technology – but not nuclear weapons – from the U.S. and U.K. While it could take more than a decade for Australia to build its first sub, the agreement shows the U.S. seeking to form a more cohesive defense arrangement in Asia to offset China’s rapidly modernizing military. Australia has long tried to balance security ties with the U.S. and its close economic ties with China, insisting it didn’t need to pick sides. But Beijing’s barrage of punitive trade reprisals following Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s push for an investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic appears to have drastically changed the strategic calculus in Canberra.
Q: Q:Why are the submarines important?
A: A:Nuclear-powered vessels are vastly superior to their diesel-electric counterparts: They’re faster, can stay submerged almost indefinitely, and are bigger – allowing them to carry more weapons, equipment and supplies. Given Australia’s remote location and the fact its subs may operate in waters stretching from the Indian Ocean up to Japan, these are big pluses. Until now, only six nations – the U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia and India – have had the technology to deploy and operate nuclear-powered subs. France was enraged by the Aukus deal, which came as a surprise, because Australia simultaneously canceled a $66 billion agreement it had had with Paris for conventional subs.
Q: Q:What’s the Quad?
A: A:It brings the U.S., Japan, India and Australia together in an informal alliance of democracies with shared economic and security interests that span the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Formed to coordinate tsunami relief efforts, it lay dormant for years afterward until 2017, when it was revived under then-U.S. President Donald Trump as his administration sought to challenge China from every angle. Trump’s successor, Joe Biden, organized the first-ever gathering of the Quad leaders in March, at which they pledged to accelerate production of Covid-19 vaccines and distribute them across Asia. Although their statement doesn’t mention China, the talks came amid a flurry of U.S. diplomacy designed to build a common approach to dealing with Beijing.
Q: Q:What’s Five Eyes?
A: A:It’s a decades-old intelligence-sharing arrangement among the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It’s so good at keeping secrets that its existence wasn’t publicly revealed until the mid-2000s. It isn’t clear how much intelligence is shared, but most of whistle-blower Edward Snowden’s vast 2013 dump of classified U.S. National Security Agency data, for instance, was marked FVEY, meaning it was available to other Five Eyes members. Advocates say the collaboration was used to positive effect in the Afghanistan war as well as in counter-terrorism operations in the Philippines and East Africa. Snowden attacked it as unanswerable to democratic oversight by national governments. Cracks emerged this year over China, when New Zealand distanced itself from moves to broaden the group’s remit and take positions on issues such as Beijing’s human rights record.
Q: Q:Why so much focus on China?
A: A:Its rise has steadily become one of the biggest foreign policy challenges not just for the U.S., but for almost every Chinese neighbor and democracies around the world. China’s rapid military development is a particularly acute threat to neighboring countries such as India and the Philippines, which have active maritime or border disputes. But it also threatens the U.S. military presence that has underpinned Asia’s security architecture for decades. Researchers at the University of Sydney, for example, warned last year that China’s growing missile arsenal could wipe out America’s bases in Asia during the “opening hours” of any conflict. China’s global economic reach has also greatly expanded as state-owned companies buy up strategic assets such as ports around the world that could be harnessed in times of war. Its statecraft – spearheaded by “wolf warrior” diplomats – has also grown more aggressive, particularly throughout the Covid pandemic.
Q: Q:What’s China’s reaction?
A: A:It has consistently lashed out at what it calls a “Cold War mentality,” denouncing such partnerships as anti-China cliques. Chinese officials argued that Aukus will stoke an arms race in the Asia-Pacific region. In their view, its members are trying not just to compete, but to contain China’s rise – to throw a military net around it in vital waterways like the South China Sea and undermine the country’s economic development. Relations have been getting tenser on all sides. Biden, like Trump, has trained his energies on preventing the world’s second-largest economy from pulling ahead. Beijing also has sparred with the U.K. over Hong Kong and Canada over detained citizens, while Europe has called China a “systemic rival.”
US-Australia nuclear arms deal
On September 15, the heads of government of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States announced the formation of AUKUS, "a new enhanced trilateral security partnership" among these three countries. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson joined US President Joe Biden to "preserve security and stability in the Indo-Pacific," as Johnson put it.
While China was not explicitly mentioned by these leaders at the AUKUS announcement, it is generally assumed that countering China is the unstated motivation for the new partnership. "The future of the Indo-Pacific," said Morrison at the press conference, "will impact all our futures." That was as far as they would go to address the elephant in the room.
Zhao Lijian of the Chinese Foreign Ministry associated the creation of AUKUS with "the outdated Cold War zerosum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical perception." Beijing has made it clear that all talk of security in the IndoPacific region by the US and its NATO allies is part of an attempt to build up military pressure against China. The BBC story on the pact made this clear in its headline: "Aukus: UK, US and Australia launch pact to counter China."
What was the need for a new partnership when there are already several such security platforms in place? Morrison acknowledged this in his remarks at the press conference, mentioning the "growing network of partnerships" that include the Quad security pact (Australia, India, Japan and the United States) and the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing group (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the United States).
A closer look at AUKUS suggests that this deal has less to do with military security and more to do with arms deals.
Morrison announced that the "first major initiative of AUKUS will be to deliver a nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Australia." Two red flags were immediately raised: first, what will happen to Australia's pre-existing order of diesel-powered submarines from France, and second, will this sale of nuclear-powered submarines violate the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
In 2016, the Australian government made a deal with France's Naval Group (formerly known as Direction des Constructions Navales, or DCNS) to supply the country with 12 diesel-electric submarines.
A press release from then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and his minister of defense (who is the current minister of foreign affairs), Marise Payne, said at the time that the future submarine project "is the largest and most complex defense acquisition Australia has ever undertaken. It will be a vital part of our defense capability well into the middle of this century."
Australia's six Collins-class submarines are expected to be decommissioned in the 2030s, and the submarines that were supposed to be supplied by France were meant to replace them. The arms deal was slated to cost (in Australian dollars) "about $90 billion to build and $145 billion to maintain over their life cycle," according to The Sydney Morning Herald.
Australia has now canceled its deal with the French to obtain the nuclear-powered submarines. These new submarines will likely be built either in the US by Electric Boat, a subdivision of General Dynamics, and Newport News Shipbuilding, a subdivision of Huntington Ingalls Industries, or in the UK by BAE Systems; BAE Systems has already benefited from several major submarine deals.
The AUKUS deal to provide submarines to Australia will be far more expensive, given that these are nuclear submarines, and it will draw Australia to rely more deeply upon the UK and US arms manufacturers.
France was furious about the submarine deal, with Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian calling it a "regrettable decision" that should advance the cause of "European strategic autonomy" from the United States.
WHEN
the 9/11 attacks struck New York and Washington in 2001 and the United
States armed forces went on full alert, National Security adviser
Condoleezza Rice immediately got on the direct line to Moscow and told
Vladimir Putin not to worry:...
Last
week witnessed the aukward birth of a new security alliance — AUKUS —
bringing together Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United
States (US), coupled with a deal involving the US and the UK building
eight nuclear attack...
The
story so far: On September 15, U.S. President Joe Biden, along with
Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson of Australia and the
U.K. respectively, announced the formation of a new trilateral security
partnership called...
The Hindu
26 Sep 2021
The AUKUS alliance: How not to win friends
Last
week witnessed the aukward birth of a new security alliance — AUKUS —
bringing together Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United
States (US), coupled with a deal involving the US and the UK building
eight nuclear attack...
Hindustan Times (Lucknow)
25 Sep 2021
US rules out adding India or Japan to AUKUS pact
Washington,
Sept. 23: The United States has ruled out adding India or Japan to the
new trilateral security partnership with Australia and Britain to meet
the challenges of the 21st century in the strategic Indo-Pacific region.
On September...
24 Sep 2021
US rules out adding India or Japan to AUKUS pact
24 Sep 2021
Washington,
Sept. 23: The United States has ruled out adding India or Japan to the
new trilateral security partnership with Australia and Britain to meet
the challenges of the 21st century in the strategic Indo-Pacific region.
On September 15, US President Joe Biden, Australian PM Scott Morrison
and British PM Boris Johnson jointly announced the formation of the
trilateral security alliance AUKUS under which Australia would get a
fleet of nuclear-powered submarines for the first time.
“The
announcement of AUKUS last week was not meant to be an indication, and I
think this is the message the President also sent to (French President
Emmanuel) Macron, that there is no one else who will be involved in
security in the Indo-Pacific,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki
told reporters at her daily briefing on Wednesday.
Ms
Psaki was responding to a question if countries like India and Japan
whose leaders would be in Washington this week for the first in-person
Quad summit would be made part of the new security alliance.
“On
Friday you’ll have the Australians there (for the Quad summit). But
then you also have India and Japan. Would you envision for them a
similar kind of military role that you’ve now defined for the
Australians?” a journalist asked.
“AUKUS?
What would it become? JAUKUS? JAIAUKUS?” Ms Psaki then quipped, before
giving an answer to the question. The trilateral security alliance
AUKUS, seen as an effort to counter China in
the IndoPacific, will allow the US and the UK to provide Australia with
the technology to develop nuclear-powered submarines for the first time.
China has sharply criticised the trilateral alliance, saying such an
exclusive grouping has no future and will gravely undermine regional
stability and aggravate the arms race and hurt international
non-proliferation efforts.
The move also
angered France, an European ally of the US, which said it had been
“stabbed in the back” and publicly voiced its outrage at the AUKUS
alliance. It recalled its ambassadors to the US and Australia after the
AUKUS security deal was announced.
France
is furious. The announcement of the new Australia-UK-US alliance
(Aukus) and the ditching of a previous French-Australian submarine deal
has led France’s foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, to term the pact
“a stab in the back”.
Beijing’s...
24 Sep 2021
Quad leaders’ meeting first after pact agreed
Leaders
of the US, Japan, India and Australia were scheduled to meet in person
as a group for the first time on Friday for a summit expected to bring
progress on COVID-19 vaccines, infrastructure and technological
cooperation. The...
China Daily (Hong Kong)
25 Sep 2021
Another grouping
In
its first reaction to AUKUS, the new partnership between Australia, the
U.S. and the U.K., India has made it clear that it does not welcome the
announcement, nor does it wish to link AUKUS to Indian interests.
Foreign Secretary Harsh...
` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s
the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change
...
Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!
` In short, historically it was the Church that gave the moral blessing
for colonisation, slavery and genocide during the Age of Globalisation.
The tragedy is that the Doctrine of Discovery is now embodied in US
laws.
We must be highly vigilant of Tokyo's ill intentions: Global Times editorial
Politeness rules: Japanese players bowing towards fans after a rugby match in Scotland. Japan is a country where people are polite and friendly – and where everything is done by the book. Deviating from the norm is seriously frowned upon. – Reuters
