E-5 Media

Main Menu

  • Home
  • Factoring News
  • Lead time China
  • Shipping Finance
  • Oligopolies
  • Financial

E-5 Media

Header Banner

E-5 Media

  • Home
  • Factoring News
  • Lead time China
  • Shipping Finance
  • Oligopolies
  • Financial
Lead time China
Home›Lead time China›The Real Risks of the Australian Submarine Deal by Gareth Evans

The Real Risks of the Australian Submarine Deal by Gareth Evans

By Gwen Garcia
September 22, 2021
25
0

The new AUKUS deal does not mean, as some Australian commentators have argued, that the country has now finally “sided” against China. Australia’s primary security relationship is with the United States, and its primary economic relationship is with China – and there’s no reason to change that now.

MELBOURNE – World-class hyperbole has been generated by the new AUKUS technology-sharing agreement between Australia and the US and UK. Our plan to acquire, in particular, at least eight nuclear-powered submarines, thus canceling a massive agreement with France to build 12 conventionally-powered diesel submarines, fueled an uproar in the country and abroad.

For some members of the anti-nuclear movement, the AUKUS deal poses the greatest threat to nuclear non-proliferation since the break-up of North Korea. For the Australian Greens, the “floating Chernobyls” are about to explode our port cities. For the anti-China hawks, it’s champagne time: AUKUS represents a “vital bulwark against an angry and authoritarian Communist China”. For the Chinese foreign ministry, this “seriously undermines regional peace and stability, intensifies the arms race and undermines the non-proliferation treaty” and, for the wolf warriors of the Chinese media, it makes l Australia “a potential target of nuclear war”. For France, which has withdrawn its ambassadors from the United States and Australia, it is another brutal “stab in the back” of the perfidious Albion and the Anglosphere. And for Australia – to use the words of two former prime ministers, no less, which should certainly focus our minds – it can mean a “new dramatic loss of sovereignty”In the United States and“ a slippery slope ”which ends with“ a prior commitment to become an active belligerent against China in a future war ”.

It’s time to take a breather and focus on what is perfectly defensible about the AUKUS deal, what is problematic, and what needs further clarification before it can be accepted. There are technical and political risk issues involved, and it’s important to keep them unraveled.

We hope you enjoy Project union.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Subscribe

Where

Sign up for FREE to access two premium items per month.

Register now

Already have an account? Log in

Related posts:

  1. China’s strategy to win gold at the Beijing Winter Olympics – Quartz
  2. Martin Schram: Covering the fog of peace |
  3. Analysis: Investors struggling with Evergrande fallout assess risk of wider pain
  4. Evergrande is a Lehman-style lesson for China
Tagsunited states

Categories

  • Factoring News
  • Financial
  • Lead time China
  • Oligopolies
  • Shipping Finance

Recent Posts

  • This agreement is more than fair compared to other new oil and gas producing countries
  • These 2 “battleship” dividends love inflation (and yield up to 5.5%)
  • Column: European smelter successes mean another year of zinc shortage
  • Business news, strategy, finance and company insights
  • Dallas Mavs and Doncic must continue attacking Paint in Game 7 against Suns
  • TERMS AND CONDITIONS
  • PRIVACY AND POLICY