Antinuclear

Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry- AUKUS a Con, a Rort, a Scam! – Ken McCleod

No 273 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wrFaJ2Sfq62zeCu_CfrqUuV_MSb7VpKz/view

AUKUS is supposedly a trilateral “security partnership” between Australia, the United
Kingdom and the United States of America – however, only one partner, Australia, pays all
the costs! The rationale is to “promote a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and
stable” The Indo-Pacific is already “free, open and stable”. Just how the introduction of
nuclear-powered submarines into already peaceful waters will improve the situation, is not
explained nor justified.

AUKUS is trilateral – namely a Scam, a Rort, a Con! The unstated goal is obviously not
“collective security” but to covertly threaten one country – China.

China has committed the “sin” of being independent, successful and economically
powerful, with a strong defence force for its own protection against the enormous forces
of the United States ranged against it. China’s defence capacity is justifiably required,
based on its past treatment during the “100 years of humiliation” perpetrated by the
Western Powers and the invasion of its territory by Japan, before and during WW2.
The old colonial mindset of “the West knows Best” for others, still exists in Australia, the
UK and the US – it is clearly the underlying motivation of AUKUS.

Within the Chinese Constitution there are three “NOs”

• NO political interference in any other country
• NO Foreign bases in China, nor Chinese bases in any other country
• NO military alliances
  These are NEVER mentioned by the Australian media.
  China has clearly maintained this three “NOs” since 1949. The same cannot be said of
  Australia, the UK and the USA.
• 
  The “threat” from China rings quite hollow when China has not invaded any other country,
  has established no foreign bases and there is no evidence of foreign interference by
  China. China has never made any threats toward Australia.

• China is 10 hours flying time from Australia
• China is approx. 7,400 kilometres in sailing miles from
  Australia
• 
  China has been turned into a “threat” by a well-funded, toxic propaganda campaign,
  originating in the USA and meekly followed by both Australia and the UK. In fact, the
  USA Congress passed Bill HR 1157, which allocated $(US)1.6 billion to subsidise world
  media and civil society sources to produce what is basically negative, anti-China
  propaganda. China has no similar campaign against any other country.

A large part of this campaign revolves around the issue of Taiwan. Here, the One China
Principle needs clarification. On 15/12/1978 US President Carter announced by way of a
Joint Communique with the PRC that:

“The United States recognises the Government of the Peoples Republic of China as the
sole legal government of China. The Government of the United States of America
acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of
China”.

A Joint Communique has the status of a bilateral treaty which is legally binding.
Both Australia and the UK entered into similar joint communiques with the PRC and are
bound by the same legal principle.

AUKUS is required to counter a “threat” that, in reality, does not exist.

AUKUS has committed only Australia to spend some $(AU)368 billion whilst the UK and
the USA pay zero. In simple terms, that is $(AU)35,251,141 PER DAY for 30 YEARS! A
great deal for UK and USA. Initially Australia was to receive 8 newly-built submarines of
new design, but due to the USA’s inability to build them on schedule, Australia will now
receive 3 second-hand submarines – and no reduction in costs and still no guarantee of
delivery! There will be no refund nor reduction in costs if delivery is not met! No
reduction in costs has been made. One may ask, WHY NOT?

The AUKUS submarines are designed for deep water operations, but Australia’s
coastlines are surrounded by shallow waters. So the “defence of Australia” argument
appears to fail. Any naval “enemies” are assumed to only attack Australia in deep waters!

The old worn out cliche of “freedom of navigation” seems completely out of place, based
on previous and on-going navigation in the Indo-Pacific that has never been threatened,
hindered or interfered with, since the end of World War 2. Shipping to and from China,
principally on Chinese vessels, has never been threatened, stopped nor hindered.

AUKUS should have awakened Australians to the realisation that the USA only ever acts
in its own interest.

Questions relating to AUKUS that need answers are:

• What advice was given to PM Albanese, Defence Minister Marles and Foreign Minister
  Wong, that was not given to the the Australian public and Parliament?
• Who initiated the AUKUS idea?
• Why is Australia the only country paying, while UK and USA reap huge benefits?
• How can the cost NOT decrease, now that second-hand submarines will be provided
• When will detailed costings be made transparent?
• Were alternative views/proposals sought? If so, what were they?If not, why not?
• Why has housing for American sailors been given priority over Australian homeless?
• Who will control the bases built in Australia
• What role does ex-PM Morrison have in AUKUS
• Who currently employs ex-PM Morrison?

The more it is examined, the more AUKUS resembles a scheme hastily cobbled together
on the back of an envelope, rather that a carefully considered plan to clarify the real
defence needs of Australia and identify the optimum assets required to service them.

The whole nuclear submarine deal should be jettisoned before it undermines Australia’s
defence capability any further.

.

November 4, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics