Joe Biden’s visit this week, with its pasted-together grocery list of bilateral Canada-U.S. concerns to be checked off in a communiqué only the diplomats who write it will ever read, suffers by comparison with what took place in the San Diego sunshine last week. Biden, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian PM Anthony Albanese posed in front of the U.S. nuclear submarine Missouri to formalize next steps in the AUKUS strategic pact they agreed to 18 months ago (“AUKUS” for Australia, United Kingdom, United States).
For Canadians, the obvious question is whether AUKUS could ever become CAUKUS — putting “C” for “Canada” in front of the existing list.
Even if you have your doubts about grand plans, and grand military plans in particular, AUKUS’s audacity is impressive. Among other things, the three countries are going to build a next generation of nuclear submarines. And since the new subs won’t be ready until the 2040s, in the meantime they’ll share the current generation, all in an attempt to make a statement to China, which has 12 new nuclear subs, and to sharpen Australia’s ability to project force northward in the Pacific.
I’m no expert on military hardware (or actually any hardware, as my wife will attest!), so can’t say whether subs will still be militarily relevant in the 2030s and 2040s. You’d think they’d be less vulnerable to drone attack than surface ships, while if you’re going to have them, then the nuclear version, with their ability to lurk quietly for long periods, are probably the kind you want. From a Canadian perspective: with the Arctic Ocean becoming more of a maritime thoroughfare as (if?) the ice retreats, it would probably be good to have our own subs up there among the Russian, American and (now, presumably) Chinese craft darting around in the dark.
Nuclear subs’ main downside, of course, is their phenomenal expense. The cost to Australia, the Economist estimates, will be an “eye-watering” US$180-US$245 billion over 32 years, which, that being a military procurement cost estimate, is likely only a fraction of the final bill. Expense is the main rationale for AUKUS, however. Only by combining efforts can smaller countries, even very rich smaller countries, match the exertions of a determined nation with 1.4 billion people and, until recently at least, a rapidly growing economy — not to mention the freedom of manoeuvre that comes from not being encumbered by democratic political processes.
In this country, CAUKUS politics would be our usual mix of passive-aggressiveness toward the Americans. We resent that they are so much bigger than us and possess the international influence we so clearly crave. And we are rhetorically determined to keep our distance from them — if mainly symbolically, given our unwillingness to pay our own way in defence matters and therefore our ultimate dependence on them in geostrategic matters.
But if any other country tries to establish an especially close relationship with the United States, as Australia seems to be doing, well, back off, mate! The U.S. is our special friend, not anybody else’s — even if we mainly show it by continual carping and jousting, as if with an older sibling.
What is motivating Australia to move closer to the United States, in addition to its own more secure national identity, is the growing aggressiveness of China, which is unmistakable in the neighbourhood where Australia lives. But we are going through our own re-evaluation of China and its intentions, as it becomes clearer, except to a government with eyes that refuse to see, that China’s government has been moving into our neighbourhood and trying to tamper with our democracy.
Isolationists in the NDP, Liberal and Bloc Québécois parties will warn that if we boost our defence spending or move closer to the Americans, that will antagonize China’s government and increase the likelihood of a military confrontation no one should welcome, considering the devastation it would cause, both in-theatre and, with the almost certain use of cyber-weapons, on the home front, too. (They will make this argument, mind you, even as they smugly chide their fellow isolationists on the U.S. Republican right.)
Isolationists in the NDP, Liberal and Bloc Québécois parties will warn that if we boost our defence spending or move closer to the Americans, that will antagonize China’s government and increase the likelihood of a military confrontation no one should welcome, considering the devastation it would cause, both in-theatre and, with the almost certain use of cyber-weapons, on the home front, too. (They will make this argument, mind you, even as they smugly chide their fellow isolationists on the U.S. Republican right.)
But the best way to prevent war has always been with credible deterrence, and, given the current alignment of interests, that requires durable democratic alliances. Canadians need to ask themselves whether at this moment in history our contribution to the alliance is adequate. On a fair reading of the facts, it would be hard to conclude it is.
Which suggests we need a public and parliamentary caucus in support of CAUKUS.
Source: Financial Post