The future is the result of the past. The present is usually just about having something to bitch about in the meantime. These are mean times; very mean, in fact, and there’s plenty to bitch about. Not least is the downright primitive state of politics in Asia and the region in general.
The hypersensitivity of the region can be easily gauged by the somewhat overblown regional reaction to Australia’s nuclear subs deal with the US and UK. Timeless wisdom is oozing from the pundits, as usual. China, through the CCP’s media answer to Humpty Dumpty, the Global Times, has threatened to “punish” Australia with “no mercy” in the event of war.
(For the record, guys, that sort of talk only works on people you can actually intimidate. You’ll wear out your macro, too.)
Meanwhile, the AUKUS agreement, and the formation of the Quad, which includes Japan, India, the US, and Australia, have generated a vaguer presence. AUKUS is an extension of longstanding ties. The Quad is new, but barely out of the egg. The Quad also has a few useful economic benefits, but those aren’t being noticed.
This, too, is seen as a threat by China, which apparently can’t publish anything on any subject without calling at least something a threat. It’s dull, stupid, and things which normally wouldn’t rate much more than a grunt are in high focus. Deep significance is attached to any noun or verb, regardless.
Well, maybe it keeps strategic analysts off the street? Something should.
Background
This idiotic regional situation didn’t need to happen at all. From China’s South China Sea bus stops to Taiwan and disputed islands, this is massive overkill, wiping out useful non-confrontational options. It’s hard to imagine a situation where all normal government-to-government “defuse” operations are so impossible.
It’s all about perceptions. The regional perception, with reason, is that this is all about China’s aggressive stance in the region. Out of the blue, Godzilla has emerged, just when the region was starting to benefit from the previous, non-hostile environment. It’s messy, ugly, and dangerous. China’s order to shoot to its Coast Guard hasn’t exactly helped, and confrontations are frequent enough.
The Chinese perception, however obnoxious, however, does have a few grains of truth among the manure. Pre-Trump, some of the US Congress were muttering noisily about China’s dominance of world markets, US dependence on manufacturing in China, and similar issues. The muttering was pretty hostile, if mainly theatrical, and largely ineffectual.
This is a version of traditional American sensitivities, which naturally include possible threats to American interests, real or convenient for political purposes. The irony, that American companies were making endless billions out of the trade relationship with China, wasn’t even noticed, let alone mentioned.
China didn’t take this Congressional tub-thumping too seriously, and nor did the rest of Congress. China was doing fine, and so was America. The arrangement was working quite well for everyone, and making unheard-of amounts of money. It took America’s answer to Humpty Dumpty, Trump, idiotic tariffs, and the incessant friction of China’s South Sea Islands territory grabs and mindlessly provocative cyberwars to create the current mess. Ill-considered Chinese verbosity has upped the ante to its present level.
However it’s viewed, that past, by now, has sabotaged and redirected a much more rational future. The region, also inevitably, has had an immune response. The AUKUS deal and the Quad are parts of that response.
Australia
In Australia, the AUKUS deal has revived long-held arguments, this time with some urgency attached. One of the oldest arguments is that Australia is too dependent on the US. Another is that the subs deal effectively defines our foreign policy for us.
The first argument about dependency has a few, usually shaky, legs. Australia has been pretty much on the US side of the fence since WW2. We’ve fought together in many actual wars and cooperated in a very lengthy list of defensive issues. If the US makes a bad call, we’re often enough involved.
The other story about “dependency” is based on Australia’s often myopic defense perceptions. Criticism of Australian defense acquisitions is usually based on either El Cheapo substandard acquisitions, (even appalling army boots from China) or lack of local capacity and capability.
(One of the less impressive reasons for the French subs debacle was a pseudo-debate about AIP (Australian Industry Participation). This is a Cold War-era issue, relating to Australia’s capacity to build and maintain defense systems. The French subs were to be built in Australia, but the “debate” turned it into a largely rhetorical (and futile)whining session. The flat-footed, inexcusably inept diplomacy was presumably an added bonus.)
This, however, is also where the second argument makes an unholy mess of itself. We’re usually out of the loop in US global strategy, and please believe me when I say we don’t mind a bit.
However, this horror story is unfolding in our backyard. We’re talking about capacity we don’t currently have and do need. Cruise missiles, for example, have been on the shopping list for a generation at least. The myopia is that deep, and that penny-pinching; militarily, it’s always been absurd.
We’re not technically backward, either; just underfunded and not at all clearly focused. There are plenty of Australians and Australian tech designs rattling around in the US defense sector and have been for decades. We could probably fund a lot of our own capacity from properly managed IP alone, and we don’t.
The “dependency” argument has nothing to say in this situation because there’s nothing to say. Even the critics are admitting, grudgingly and at least 20-30 years late, that we need the capacity. We’re quite definitely not in Kansas anymore, and that tornado looks big and mean. Anything could, and probably will happen.
The foreign policy argument is also more than a bit superficial, and overlooks way too many realities. The current hideous situation isn’t our idea. We’re stuck with it. The “choice” between China and the US (as though there was one) was made for us by China’s irrational moves. We’re here because we’re here, quite literally.
We could have handled things a lot better, and we didn’t. Maybe long-term thinking and planning, those famous crimes against delicate political intellects, would help? Just asking.
The future has a very big problem
In 1914, the world was prosperous and largely at peace. The next 4 years dictated a truly repulsive, inhuman, future. The world smugly and self-righteously bleated its way into a global hell. That’s the basic problem of the present. Nothing at all has been learned; nobody’s trying to avoid the obvious colossal risks from future global train wrecks.
If anything good can possibly come out of this much too 1914-like situation, it’s invisible, even theoretically. The world is again babbling and blundering its way along to whatever happens next. China has talked itself into its current revolting relationships with the region. It shows no inclination to talk itself out of them.
The current state of play is that AUKUS is a simple extension of old relationships, albeit raised significantly to a new level by necessity. The Quad is a natural, if rather amorphous, entity which may well become very relevant, very soon.
In 1914, the world blundered into the least justifiable, long-term destructive war in history. Alliances which were more symbolic than factual suddenly defined the war and the peace that followed. Vague strategy and lack of foresight produced a hideous, disaster-strewn future, our “tense present”. It was the precedent for the Second World War, the Cold War, and the current cyberwar. None of it needed to happen then, either. It shaped the gigantic human disasters of the 20th century.
This time, it could be much worse. 4.5 billion people live in Asia alone. That’s double the entire global population of 1939. Nowhere on Earth is safe from a future war conducted with current, let alone future technologies. This could make World War 2 look like a kid’s first birthday party, with ease. The death toll could be billions, with huge areas uninhabitable, in the middle of a global climate and toxic waste crisis.
So; what then? What happens afterward, if there is an afterward? Should we start looking forward to World War 4? It’s your choice, idiots; get it right or get what you deserve for your ignorance.
