Australia should seek security in Asia with its sovereignty, not ‘rubbish’ defence deals like Aukus: former PM Paul Keating
- The Aukus submarine deal, which could cost up to A$368 billion (US$245 billion), would be ineffective in the event of a war with China, Keating says
- He also says that Canberra is forsaking a proper defence strategy to help the US maintain ‘strategic hegemony’ in Asia
Keating, prime minister from 1991 to 1996 and a former leader of the Labor Party currently in power, said in a National Press Club event that the Aukus pact with the US and the UK was the “worst international decision” by a Labor administration in recent times.
The pact was first agreed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s predecessor from the Liberal Party, and has been fully backed by the current administration.
“The Americans will never condone or accept a state as large as them. That’s what China presents. They would have preferred that [China] - 20 per cent of humanity - remained in poverty forever. But the fact that China is now an industrial economy larger than the United States … it is not in the playbook.”
“This is what [Aukus] is about, the maintenance of the US strategic hegemony in Asia.”
“So they’re looking around for suckers and they found all here,” he said.
Australia’s Aukus deal harks back to colonial vision of Asia-Pacific
While the Albanese government had promoted the potentially A$368 billion (US$245 billion) Aukus submarine deal as necessary to protect Australia’s national security, it would be ineffective in the event of a war with China, Keating said.
“The idea that we need American submarines to protect us – three [submarines] are going to protect us from the might of China. The rubbish of it, the rubbish,” he said.
The submarines – which would not arrive until 2030s – are also large and detectable from space unlike Australia’s traditional Collins-class submarines that were designed to sit on Australia’s continental shelves and repel invasions, Keating said.
Keating also said the Australian government failed to tell the Australian public that the Aukus submarines – designed to sit off the coast of China to take down Chinese threats – could also be spotted quickly on the shallower Chinese ocean shelves.
“The US Defense department’s annual report to Congress in late 2022 said ‘the PRC aims to restrict the United States from having a presence on China’s periphery’. In other words, China aims to keep US navy ships off its coast. Shocking. Imagine how the US would react if China’s blue water navy did its sightseeing off the coast of California,” he said.
It was also wrong to categorise China’s recent trade restrictions as threats that warranted military retaliation or defence, he added.
“You can’t impute that a tax or a tariff on wine or barley is equivalent to an invasion of the country. China does not threaten Australia, has not threatened Australia, does not intend to threaten Australia,” he said, pointing out that commercial rows between countries are common.
US beef exports to China surpass Australia, exposing cost of being ‘loyal ally’
When asked how he was so sure that China did not pose a military threat, Keating said: “What would be the point? They get the iron ore, the coal or wheat? What would be the point of China wanting to occupy Sydney and Melbourne militarily?”