The US, UK and Australia recently announced a new security alliance for the Indo-Pacific region. Aukus is likely to change the geostrategic situation for years to come and have a serious impact on the European defense and security industry.
When Australia ordered a total of twelve Barracuda boats (a derivative of the French nuclear Suffren class) from the French Naval Group for around 50 billion euros in 2016, Canberra decided against nuclear propulsion in favor of a diesel engine. The argument was that there were no nuclear power plants. Five years later, everything is different: following top-secret talks, Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government recently announced a new geostrategic alliance with the UK and the USA in the face of “major strategic challenges in the Indo-Pacific region”. The scope of Aukus – an acronym made up of the English abbreviations of the three participating states Australia, United Kingdom and United States – is deliberately broad: In addition to the provision of modern technologies and artificial intelligence, there is also talk of advanced weapons and the use of Perth as a port for US and UK warships. Also linked to Aukus: A swing away from French boats to a total of eight nuclear-powered submarines to be built in Adelaide with British and American support. Before the final evaluation, scheduled for 18 months, it is not clear whether the nuclear submarine technology made available to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) – only the food supplies limit their sea life – will be based on the US Virginia class or the British Astute class. Most likely, however, the move will result in an extension of the service life of the six old Australian Collins-class boats (an offshoot of the Swedish Gotland-class).
According to British Defense Minister Ben Wallace, it was the Australians who sought talks with the British and Americans in March. Canberra will certainly have been aware of the political consequences of this step: In addition to China, France also expressed its displeasure in an initial reaction. Chinese media described the agreement as “damaging to peace and stability in the region” and as an “arms race in the Cold War logic of deterrence”. Australia’s repeated statements that it was seeking nuclear-powered but not nuclear-armed boats were dismissed as “irrelevant”. In the event of a conflict, Australia would now – according to the warning, which sees it as one with Russia – “no longer be perceived as an innocent third party” and could therefore become the “target of nuclear strikes”. France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian spoke of a “stab in the back” in view of the “completely surprising step” and saw the future of NATO in danger. He accused Australia, the USA and Great Britain of “lies” and “duplicity” and recalled the French ambassadors from Canberra and Washington. The storm of indignation will probably subside at the latest with Australia’s agreement with the Naval shipyard on a penalty worth billions. For the recently after the Afghanistan withdrawal disaster Aukus and its “footprint” on naval armaments is in any case an enormous setback for the Europeans’ efforts to achieve global strategic autonomy in order to be taken seriously as a security policy player. And as if that wasn’t enough, the EU recently had to agree – unnoticed by the media – to US pressure to allow US arms companies to benefit from the new EU defense fund in future.
