Keating says AUKUS locks Australia into US-China war it would lose

Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating said the AUKUS submarine pact is committing Australia to any future United States war with China — a conflict he predicted Washington would lose and then walk away from, leaving Australia to absorb Chinese retribution on its own.

“Australia is now getting locked in and locked up to the military prerogatives of the United States,” Keating said in remarks reported by The Guardian on Friday. The former prime minister said Australia’s increasing enmeshment within the US military, especially through AUKUS, was seeing Australia’s sovereignty “effectively being shredded.”

Keating’s intervention came as new comments from a senior US lawmaker who visited Australia earlier this month sharpened the public debate over what AUKUS actually commits Canberra to. Republican congressman Michael McCaul, described by The Guardian as a “China hawk” and co-chair of the Congressional Friends of Australia caucus, said in remarks reported from Washington this week that “Australia is a target” for adversaries of the United States already. McCaul argued, however, that greater integration with the US military would better protect Australia rather than leaving it more vulnerable.

McCaul said it was “logical to assume” US nuclear-powered submarines rotating through Australian bases could also be nuclear armed after 2032, and that Australian participation in a US war against China over Taiwan was assumed by the US military establishment.

“I don’t think it was even questioned. It’s just obvious,” McCaul said. “Australia, being a Five Eyes [intelligence-sharing network member] and an ally of the United States, would be at odds with China invading Taiwan and threatening the Indo-Pacific.”

He described Australian backing for any US intervention to protect Taiwan as “absolutely critical.” McCaul met with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, defence minister Richard Marles, and foreign affairs minister Penny Wong during his visit to Australia earlier this month.

Keating rejected McCaul’s framing and argued the opposite was true. The US, he said, would “certainly lose” a war with China over Taiwan.

“But having lost, [the US would] scuttle itself back to San Diego, leaving Australia vulnerable to China for having participated in a military escapade against it and its military assets.”

The Guardian reported last week that the US military, and its corporate interests, control, or have access to, more than 100 military bases across the Australian continent. More than half of Australia’s military installations have some level of US control or access, according to the reporting.

Intelligence sites such as Pine Gap play a critical role in US warfighting, downlinking masses of surveillance data from satellites and providing targeting information for US strikes, the paper reported.

In parliament this week, Greens senator David Shoebridge seized on McCaul’s further comments that he considered Australia a “beachhead” for the United States in its efforts to deter China and maintain peace in the region.

“The US spruikers of Aukus have said they want to make Australia the beachhead for US military war against China,” Shoebridge told a press conference at Parliament House. “I want to be clear what happens at a beachhead: people get killed at a beachhead, destruction happens at a beachhead in someone else’s war.”

“How on Earth does Aukus make us safe, when a foreign military is bringing their nuclear-armed submarines into this country and consciously saying they want our country to be the beachhead in a war with China? It’s time we ended Aukus before we become the US’s beachhead,” Shoebridge said.

The submarine deal itself, the first pillar of the AUKUS agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, commits Australia to acquiring three to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the United States beginning in 2032. Before any vessel can be transferred, the US president must certify that the handover will not diminish the US Navy’s undersea capability. The US submarine fleet currently has 49 boats against a force-level goal of 66, and there are significant concerns that the US cannot build enough submarines for its own needs, let alone for Australia.

From the late 2030s, according to the “optimal pathway” outlined in Australia’s submarine industry strategy, the United Kingdom will launch the first AUKUS submarine designed and built for Britain’s Royal Navy. From the early 2040s, Australia plans to deploy a new, larger AUKUS-class submarine. Australia would then build five AUKUS submarines in South Australia, except for their nuclear reactors. The first Australian-built vessel is scheduled to be in the water in the early 2040s; the final vessels are to be launched in the 2060s. Each Australian submarine is expected to have a working life of about three decades, and Australia will be responsible for securing and storing the resulting nuclear waste — including high-level nuclear waste and spent fuel — for thousands of years.

AUKUS is forecast to cost Australia up to A$368 billion through the mid-2050s.

From 2032, the US Navy is planning to equip some of its Virginia-class boats with nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles. Regular rotation of US nuclear submarines through HMAS Stirling is also part of AUKUS cooperation. The US has a policy of “strategic ambiguity” around the deployment of its nuclear arsenal, refusing to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on platforms around the world. The Treaty of Rarotonga prohibits Australia from “stationing” nuclear weapons on its territory.