中文
The Chinese and Australian national flags in Sydney, Australia. [Photo/Xinhua]
This is an editorial from China Daily.
When asked whether the nuclear submarines it is to acquire under the framework of AUKUS come with a commitment to support the United States should it be involved in a conflict with China over the Taiwan question, Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister of Australia Richard Marles answered "of course not".
While it is good that the current Australian defense chief makes such a pledge about the AUKUS submarine deal, it should be noted that when Australia and China formally established diplomatic relations in 1972, it was stated unambiguously in their joint communique that Australia "acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China, and has decided to remove its official representation from Taiwan".
The AUKUS nuclear submarine deal is harmful to Australia. Not only does it position its largest trade partner that accounts for almost one-third of its total volume as a potential enemy, but it also leaves its international image and credibility in ruins. Australia has reneged on a deal with France for diesel-powered submarines, and subverted the nuclear nonproliferation regime. It is exploiting a loophole to move nuclear materials from a nuclear state to a nonnuclear state.
What is needed is a suspension of the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal. That is the only "pass" answer to the test of Australian diplomacy. Marles might have meant to stress that his nation pursues an independent foreign policy with his remarks, as highlighted by his comment that "the moment that there is a flag on the first of those Virginia-class submarines in the early 2030s is the moment that the submarine will be under the complete control of the Australian government of the day". Unfortunately that is not the reality.
On March 13, the leaders of the three AUKUS countries issued a joint statement in which they said AUKUS "expands our individual and collective undersea presence in the Indo-Pacific" and that "reflects the principle that shared action, taken in partnership, can benefit all".
Everyone knows that the United Kingdom wants an "undersea presence in the Indo-Pacific" as part of its desperate bid for recognition of its status following the trashing of its image after Brexit — which its empire-evoking "Global Britain" has only dragged further through the mud. Likewise, everyone knows who is the leader of the AUKUS three-ring circus.
It might come as a shock to Canberra, but just because the nuclear-powered submarines will sail under an Australian flag, it does not mean they will be under Australian control. It is paying not just for the submarines but also to participate in "joint action".
Canberra should be aware that as well as monetary payment, with its emphasis on "shared action", Washington expects its pound of flesh.
