and March 2022 things have been going from bad to worse.
"One of Joe Biden's top advisers has urged
Solomon Islands not to allow a Chinese military base in the country, warning
the United States would "respond accordingly" to any steps in that
direction.
The White House
is also promising to bring forward the re-establishment of a US embassy in
Honiara [capital of the Solomon Islands] and to provide the country with more
medical aid.
It comes as a former senior American diplomat criticised the
decision to close the embassy almost 30 years ago, suggesting the US had sought
to "outsource" its relationships in the region.
This week's visit to Honiara by senior US officials including the
Indo-Pacific coordinator of the National Security Council, Kurt Campbell, came
too late to prevent the signing of a security pact
between Solomon Islands and China.
Both the US and Australia are worried the deal could lead to
Beijing establishing a base less than 2,000 kilometres off the Queensland [Australia] coast, despite assurances from Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh
Sogavare this would not happen..."
HERE IS THE WHOLE ABC ARTICLE
If we are to go on the history of past Chinese agreements with Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Somalia, a future Chinese military (Naval) base in the Solomons is a certainty. The Chinese have not let any other government back out of such a deal in the last 20 years.
ReplyDeleteThe US reference to not "outsourcing"its relationship has to be a criticism of Australia. We were the local "deputy sheriff". We were asleep at the wheel. In the last ten years we:
- cut foreign aid 40%, including to Pacific Islands
- opposed action on climate change, which is a sensitive issue to low-lying Pacific Islands
- have rarely sent high level delegations to meet PI governments.
New Zealand troops died pushing Japanese troops out of the Solomons in WWII. Australian soldiers and ADF personnel were shot and killed during service in the RAMSI mission in the Solomons in the Howard era. All that legacy is wasted by a decade of neglect.
Also the underlying political tension between Malaita and Honiara which has allowed corrupt governments to deal with China has never been resolved. This is despite the majority of the SI population not want China (they fear losing fishing rights to Chinese interests).
There is no way to sugar coat it - this is a colossal failure in one of our principal areas of interest.
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteAgree that Australia foreign policy could not build solid/amical relations in its neighborood. "Your foreign policy is your Geography"stated Talleyrand 200+ years ago
Sorry to come back again; as a french australophile, over the complete mismanagement of the Fr sub deal..
Part of the deal was a Franco Australian military cooperation deal, which was geared towards an australian usage of NewCaledonia airfields (15 of them) and naval facilities
The French are also concerned about the Chinese expansion
After all in 1942/43 New Caledonia , part of the Gaullist Free French forces,was used extensively by the US. In fact the "Pointe aux Galets" naval complex was built by the USN
The conversion to US N sub and Aukus could have been completely managed differently if negociated transparently without acrimony; The switch was not irrational after all
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing out those details of the Attack Class submarine and Franco Australian cooperation in the South Pacific. That is indeed a regrettable loss and I do not recall seeing those details ever reported in the Australian press.
Do you have any link for where all those details of the Attack Class/Naval deal were recorded? I think it would be worth recording for Australian reading.
For the record I was strongly in favour of the switch to SSNs for the RAN, but I agree the nature of the contract ending and failure to consult the French government first was an embarrassment. The lack of transparency appeared to only help managers in the Defence department here avoid scrutiny, it did not help national security.
I would also like to have seen a clear cost comparison of alternatives, including the French SSN option. The UK and USA SSNs were more capable but also larger and more expensive to build and operate. I think a true cost neutral comparison was not to compare 8 of each SSN, but 7 Virginias vs 8 Astutes vs 9 Barracudas. Costs would be similar.
Further, the more I have studied it, the more spurious I have found the stated reasons (LEU/HEU) for dismissing the French SSN option. Australia already uses LEU reactor cores for the Lucas Heights research reactor, and LEU cores have been changed (and old ones sent back to France!) 6 times in the past without incident. This is not to say that the French SSN was superior, but certainly the process lacked credibility.
Finally, if we were to really sit down to work out what is in the best security interests of all four nations (Aus, Fr, UK, USA) it seems obvious to me that we should be aiming for inter-operability of naval forces in the indo-Pacific. In this regard, it would seem to me highly desirable that any new Australian SSN bases and supporting maintenance infrastructure, should be capable of sustainment and maintenance of SSNs from each of the French, UK and US navies. We may need to help each other some day soon.
After this incredibly attentive government let the Darwin Port slide into Chinese hands, one would have thought that the Morrison government couldn’t be anymore incompetent, inept or obtuse. Never fear they never fail to amaze all of us with their chronic “Nincompoopery”. A chocolate wheel of “Next Disaster “ with the talentless” ex- Qld Coper” running the show. God help us all.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous [at Apr 24, 2022, 8:45:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteFrance had no special right to foreknowledge of Top Secret Aus-UK-US negotiations for the AUKUS submarine deal.
AUKUS is about AUSTRALIA's national interests not Macron's hurt feelings or Naval Group's commercial interests. France is an old hand at resenting Anglosphere countries like A UK US a post "Sun King" post-Napoleonic French habit that nothing will allay.
Macron's protestations about AUKUS were largely self-serving in acting "patriotic" in the runup to his ongoing re-election for French President campaign.
If France/Naval Group had been permitted foreknowledge of AUKUS France would have done its utmost to wreck the AUKUS deal before the deal could be concluded. Consider that.
French government and commercial interests would probably have launched an anti-nuclear campaign among the Australian public and vested political and commercial in order that Australia remain stuck with the overpriced, problematic, obsolete-prior-to-launch Attack-class submarine deal.
Australia's strategic planners and Federal Government required/require a "regionally superior" submarine. To achieve that a first rate UK or US SSN is required not an SSK nor a (less than the best) French SSN.
Pete
ReplyDeleteI am no expert on international politics so do not dispute your counter on reasons for AUKUS remaining secret. That being said, a much better explanation of why it had to remain secret would have been wise at the time, and some face saving words to cause less offense. It certainly was not diplomatically handled well.
Hi Pete
ReplyDeletecomments from the French Australophile
You are right, the Aus gov had no obligations
It is just not very smart to destroy confidence and goodwill with an ally and in your neighborhood (the subject was Salomon Isl.)
Close to 2M Fr citizen are in the Indo Pacific area (350 K +in NC)They votes in French and EU assemblies as the Caribbean Dutch ,the Portuguese Açores or the Danish Greenlander.Similar statute for Hawai.So contrarily to your point it was not about commercial interest and Macron politics only .In fact the commercial aspect was secondary to the political issue. The famous 90B! were to be spent in Australia ,by Australian at their request (less than 10% in total over 20 years was for "theFrench"
The choice of the Attack and the hyper complex structure was made by the Aus Gov.The French SSN were offered and rejected .
I do not know if the French subs are inferior to the British or US sub
M51 missile vs Trident ?F21 torpedo vs Spearfish ?, Exocet SM 40 block 2or 3 vs Harpoon?MdCN vs Tomahawk?Optronics?Thales underwater systems vs?Speed , Depth , noise ?Paper Specmanship?
The Barracuda is smaller , carry less weapons but is affordable to build ,to maintain and more important easier to staff.and train with volunteer motivated Nationals (ie not mercenaries) which is paramount as they are at sea 240 days/years over the last 35 /40 years..It is a completely independant system.Not subject to political pressure from whoever
This was a political decision (that can be explained) to rely completely on the US umbrella for the next 40years, The technical comments about respective sub technologies is political useful communication
I will not comment on your "Daily Telegraph style" Sun King /Napoleonic comment."Tout ce qui est excessif est insignifiant" said the same Talleyrand at that time
Hi "Chinese here" Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI feel privileged that a busy military superpower like you
has found the time to send a substantial message to me
in little old Australia.
In celebration of your effort I have moved your
Apr 29, 2022, 3:26:00 AM comment to its very own
article "China Messaging to Submarine Matters" of April 29, 2022
at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/04/china-messaging-to-submarine-matters.html
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous..."comments from the French Australophile" at Apr 25, 2022, 10:46:00 AM
ReplyDeleteAll good points.
I and you have now moved the French debate to comments below:
"Keiger: Why AUKUS is Froggy Free." of April 26, 2022
at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/04/keiger-why-aukus-is-froggy-free.html
Cheers Pete