Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Australia needs regional co-operation, not coercion -Erik D Nielsen

Submission no.84, SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION TO THE PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO AUKUS
Subject: The Definition of “Stability” and Regional Perception

Context and Purpose
Following my initial submission regarding the lack of a coherent strategic vision for AUKUS, I wish to
provide a supplementary analysis specifically addressing the Inquiry’s scope question: “What are the
implications of AUKUS for regional peace and security?

The core issue lies in the definition of “stability”. While the Australian government frequently invokes
the need for a “stable Indo-Pacific,” recent foreign policy actions suggest a definition that diverges
significantly from the understanding held by Australia’s neighbors in ASEAN and the Pacific Islands.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

The government’s stated vision of stability implies a region governed by international law,
cooperation, and mutual security. However, the government’s recent conduct in the Middle East
provides a contradictory signal:

Alignment in Gaza: Australia’s consistent diplomatic and material support for Israel during
the ongoing crisis in Gaza, despite widespread international condemnation and evidence of
severe humanitarian catastrophe, signals that Australia prioritizes alliance loyalty over
international humanitarian law. 

Alignment with US Military Actions: Australia’s alignment with US military posturing and
operations in the region (including recent escalations involving Iran) reinforces the
perception that “stability” is synonymous with the projection of force by the US-led alliance.

The Regional Interpretation of “Stability”

When Australia calls for “stability” in the context of AUKUS, it is crucial to recognize how this message
is received by the nations of the Indo-Pacific. 

Dominance vs. Cooperation: Given the government’s track record, neighboring nations are ikely to interpret Australia’s call for “stability” not as a desire for peace, but as a demand for
acquiescence to a US-dominated order. 

The Coercive Nature of AUKUS: If “stability” means maintaining the status quo where the US
and its allies retain military supremacy, then AUKUS is not a defensive measure for Australia,
but a tool for enforcing that hierarchy. 

Erosion of Trust: For Pacific Island nations and ASEAN members who have historically
advocated for nuclear-free zones and non-alignment, the combination of AUKUS and
Australia’s Middle East posture confirms that Australia is willing to sacrifice regional
sovereignty and international law to serve the strategic interests of Washington.

The Logical Conclusion

If the Australian government’s concept of stability is indeed based on dominance rather than
cooperation and adherence to international law, then:

AUKUS is a destabilizing force: It introduces nuclear-capable assets into a region that has
explicitly rejected them, directly challenging the Treaty of Rarotonga and the aspirations of
the Global South.
The “Rules-Based Order” is a euphemism: It becomes clear that the “rules” being enforced
are those that benefit the dominant powers, not the collective security of the region.
Security is Illusory: A nation that bases its security on the coercion of others cannot expect
to be secure in the long term. It invites resistance, arms races, and diplomatic isolation.

Recommendation for the Inquiry
The Inquiry must not accept the government’s definition of “stability” at face value. It must explicitly
investigate: 

How the government’s recent foreign policy actions in the

Middle East influence the
perception of Australia’s intentions in the Indo-Pacific.  Whether the “stability” AUKUS promises is actually a mechanism for enforcing a specific
geopolitical hierarchy rather than fostering genuine regional peace. 

How the Inquiry can account for the regional fear that AUKUS represents a shift from
cooperative security to coercive dominance.

Conclusion: Real security cannot be built on a foundation of selective adherence to international law
and the projection of force. If Australia’s vision of the future is one where “stability” means the
continuation of US hegemony and the suppression of dissent, then AUKUS is a commitment to a
future that the rest of the region rightly fears.

The Inquiry must ask: What kind of stability Australia wants to foster in the region and how has this
been supported by Australia’s recent actions in a way that our neighbors understand this in the
same way?