Aukus pact attracts mixed response from Asia

It’s been nearly a month since the United States, Britain and Australia stunned the world with their new Aukus pact that will deliver a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra. China reacted with rage, angered by what it saw as a clear move by the West to further encircle it. 

France, meanwhile, felt deeply betrayed by Australia’s eleventh hour decision to cancel a long-standing submarine deal with it in place of the new deal. Others have quietly applauded Aukus, and there are some governments that have maintained a stoic silence. 

It is necessary to critically review the diverse responses to one of the most significant security developments in recent decades. 

Asia’s varied reactions to the Aukus security pact between Australia, Britain and the United States offered a fresh indication of just how diverse the region is when it comes to their outlook on the future of the region’s balance of power.

Expectedly, reactions from Australia were particularly fulsome, given that Canberra is the biggest beneficiary of the pact. 

Under the deal, Australia will become only the second country after Britain to receive nuclear-powered submarine technology from the US. 

Prime Minister, Scott Morrison’s government plans to have a fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines operationally ready in the 2040s.

Among Australia’s foreign policy elite, the move — which resulted in the scrapping of an earlier order for French diesel-powered submarines — was an urgent necessity given fears about increasing Chinese naval assertions in the neighbourhood.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, China responded in blistering fashion and lost no time in painting the pact as the latest effort by the West to strategically encircle the Asian superpower.

Beijing described the deal as “extremely irresponsible”, and mainland analysts echoed that view. 

Lu Xiang, a US-China scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told soon after the deal was announced that it indicated that Australia was “tying itself completely to America’s chariot”.

Reactions by governments elsewhere in Asia put in focus how they viewed the deal through the prism of their own national interests. 

In India, for example, some strategic watchers lamented: what about us? In their view, New Delhi should have been offered the US nuclear submarine technology first, given their intensifying strategic ties in recent years. 

In Japan, contrastingly, the Aukus deal was welcomed amid anxieties over whether Tokyo’s defensive-minded military had the ability to contend with increasing Chinese assertions. 

The government stated publicly that it welcomed the three Western allies strengthening “their commitment to the region”.

Reactions from Southeast Asia -home to the deftest of geopolitical fence sitters - naturally was mixed. 

Singapore, seen as one of Washington’s closest strategic partners in the region, was cautious not to be effusive about the pact. Instead, officials said they understood why the deal was struck and hoped it would contribute constructively to regional peace. 

Neighbouring Malaysia, meanwhile, said it was concerned the pact would “catalyze a nuclear arms race” in the Indo-Pacific.

The Philippines offered what appeared to be a full throated support, with Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin saying he viewed Australia’s submarine procurement plan as an “enhancement of a near-abroad ally’s ability to project power” to “restore and keep the balance” of power in the region. It would be foolhardy to consider these positions as set in stone, however. 

Thus far, countries that have maintained strategic silence or offered support for Aukus appear to have taken at face value Australia’s promise that the pact is not aimed at third parties, including China.

But if there is increased volatility in the South China Sea and other hotspots arising from the deal, expect countries to alter their positions quickly. There are after all no permanent friends or enemies in Asian geopolitics — only permanent interests.