* Japan and Taiwan welcomed the new UK, US and Australia military pact which is designed to combat China
* The deal will see the US and UK build Australia's first fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, while also sharing other sensitive technologies such as artificial intelligence, cyber defence, and long-range strike capabilities
* But deal has angered Beijing, which attacked the 'Cold War thinking' and said it would destabilise the region
* France was also left fuming, after Australia tore up a $90bn contract it help to build 12 conventional subs
* New Zealand and Canada - which form part of the Five Eyes alliance with the US, UK and Australia - were also side-lined, apparently after taking a softer line on cooperation with Beijing
Taiwan and Japan have welcomed a new three-way nuclear submarine pact between the US, UK and Australia aimed at combating China - saying it is necessary to provide 'security' for the region.
The countries are both threatened by Beijing and North Korea respectively, and said the new naval alliance dubbed AUKUS would help keep the region 'free and open' and increasing 'peace and security'.
Boris Johnson, Joe Biden and Scott Morrison were also careful not to mention China when they announced the new pact - which will see Australia provided with its first ever fleet of at least eight nuclear subs - on Wednesday night, though made their intentions clear with references to 'democracy, freedom of navigation, and security'.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Here is one more reason why New Zealand was not admitted into the deal .... Aukus submarines banned from New Zealand as pact exposes divide with western allies (The Guardian).
More News On China's Reaction To AUKUS
China warns US-UK-Australia pact could ‘hurt their own interests’ -- The Guardian
China condemns AUKUS pact as Tony Abbott calls China a 'common danger' and Kevin Rudd urges caution -- ABC News Australia
China slams Australia’s ‘Cold War’ nuclear sub deal -- Politico
China Says Joe Biden's AUKUS Nuclear Submarine Pact 'Intensifies Arms Race -- Newsweek
China: US, UK, Australia 'severely damaging regional peace' with security partnership -- The Hill
AUKUS: China lashes out at US-UK-Australia security alignment -- Hindustan Times
"Cold war mentality": China slams new U.S. pact with U.K. and Australia -- Axios
13 comments:
From a NZ perspective there is no rift.
In the mid eighties NZ banned nuclear ships and weapons.
The exclusion is a carry over from that.
It’s nothing new.
The people in NZ love America, love the UK and Aussie.
Sure, there are militant elements in the Left wing Labour government who dislike those nations and stir up trouble - most Left wing governments have them lurking everywhere - but no one sees themselves aligning with China.
Case in point; the NZ government has now set up a large fund to help lessen our dependence on China (34% of trade). We all know this isn’t good (even the delivery guys I employ know that this is a bad thing).
Similarly, my NZ Chinese neighbours all acknowledge we’re stuck in an awkward position, and until that trade imbalance is addressed then we need to remain relatively neutral.
In summary; was this unexpected? Yes and no.
Are we still friends with AUSUK? You bet.
Will our stance on nukes change? No.
Has China made any gains in NZ? No, quite the opposite.
See… you’ve now learnt more than if you’d watched a month of Fox/CNN reports on this topic.
For many years nations around the world could have it all. Close defense relations with the USA and lucrative economic relations with China. Both Australia and New Zealand prospered under those rules.
The game has changed and this shocking deal is the announcement there are new rules. Australia is making a decision that is life or death. It choose the USA and independence over prospering from Chinese trade. A price is being paid.
The Five Eyes is redundant but will limp along with few meetings and no useful intelligence shared with either Canada or New Zealand.
Australia will increasingly expand its defense perimeter around New Zealand without regard for New Zealand concerns.
New Zealand will pay a price, exclusion from technology, intelligence, commercial advancements that the Three Eyes pursue. Sooner or later it will have to choose, the Three Eyes or being economically absorbed by Beijing.
French Foreign Minister says this deal reminds him of what President Trump did.
What exactly? Did President Trump kill any major French arms deals? No.
Did he abandon friends to Afghanistan Islamists? No.
It’s this kind of European BS that erodes our willingness to defend nations like France.
Airbus is manufactured in several European countries, so that they all have a stake and profit somewhat. It literally makes the world go around.
Maybe the US could buy some French submarines. They might be cheaper to operate. They could use them in the West or Gulf coasts for drug interdiction. They use nuclear subs at times for interdiction and that seems like overkill. Every diesel used would free up a nuke sub for activities to monitor or deter peer adversaries.
5 Ways The Military Hunts Narco Submarines You Don’t Hear About
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/06/04/5-unseen-eyes-helping-the-navy-hunt-narco-submarines/
Diesel subs would make good starter subs for COs, XOs and others? Plus the targets would be real.
NZ has divested itself of meaningful defensive or offensive capabilities should a Pacific war occur. What remains is token, and virtually useless in any serious regional conflict. In which event the new policy will be two-fold: 1) Time to panic; 2) Take cover or run like hell.
So I'm from the UK, but I think it's not nice to treat the French like this. It was a 65bn mega deal and apparently they're pissed about the cancellation.
And I get it.
What I don't get is why we don't include France in this deal. Ok ok 5 eyes, 3 eyes, common wealth nations etc etc but... at the end we all want to live freely, right?
Feels this is a separation of Europe (France, Germany etc) and the 3-5 eyes (UK, usa, Australia, Canada, new Zealand), and there's a big overlap of NATO
So they share key strategic technology with 3-5 eyes and aside from that it's NATO as overarching geostrategic umbrella, do I get that right?
Kinda makes sense, but I don't know if the Australian government can be trusted considering how they behave over there regarding draconian lockdowns etc and their talk of a new world order of contract tracers etc etc and the police is out of control.. and aren't they overrun by Chinese interests and spies? There were numerous stories in the news...
"NZ has divested itself of meaningful defensive or offensive capabilities should a Pacific war occur."
The military is O'Darn's Praetorian Guard.
NZ left out will please the worlds ugliest PM.
China has the nerve to talk about destabilizing the region when it is China which has been doing it for years.
France signed the Australian contract 5 years ago and .... nothing is done. Why? The French Soviet-type bureaucracy slows everything down.
This is nothing but Australia defending Australia. Has nothing to do with NZ, or anyone else, if you want the best, you seek out those known to build the best for advice, help and guidance.
As for New Zealand, it should worry about its own defences, the H-20 Stealth Bomber of China is in striking distance of New Zealand if operated out of Chinese airbase on Manus Island, just north of Papua New Guinea. New Zealand doesnt have a single fighter jet, strike fighter or any sort of intercepter. The ones they had were sold under the last Labour Leader Helen Clark and whats worse is the NZ Pilots were some of the best in the world as they routinely flew against and with many SEA partners. Now they couldn't even contest a single lone bomber from annilating its major cities, whats worse is this informantion came to light after a low point in NZ-China relations, NZ is delusional if they think China will leave them alone in any hot conflict.
"In March 2001, Clark referred to National MP Wyatt Creech as a "scumbag" and a "sleazeball" for having raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest involving Davis, who was leading an academic research team studying government health reforms"
Helen Clark is not a serious person, if she calls a person, who brings up a conflict of interest, a scumbag.
Her husband was director Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the Social Sciences and I don't see exactly how that would lead to profit, but it could. Volags in America lead to a lot of profit. Cease immigration and top managers of Volags are heading for the lifeboats working their influence network for new jobs or working at TJ Max.
Brining up the conflict of interest up might be considered due diligence or hardball, but not sleazeball.
The British Labour Party is deadly serious. The NZ Labour Party is a pale imitation. It is a farce.
Post a Comment