Boris Johnson’s Pacific Military Alliance Is A Reckless Post-Empire Nostalgia | Simon Jenkins

[ad_1]

The uncertainty of the Aukus defense deal between Britain, the United States and Australia is increasing by the day. It is essentially the result of an industrial dispute over who will build eight submarines for the Australian Army. Australia asked France for £48 billion worth of diesel engines, then changed its mind, reneging on the deal. It now wants nuclear-powered ones from the US and Britain.

Manned submarines are nearing extinction, almost useless in the age of “transparent” oceans and underwater drones. Like tanks, they are falling apart in cost, inefficiency, and the desire to fight outdated wars. But defense contracts have an institutional and political presence beyond utility. If Australia seriously believes China is a threat, it may also have some new gold-plated weapons ready.

However, this equipment contract appears to have morphed into a new military alliance in the Asia-Pacific region. Johnson’s defense adviser, Stephen Lovegrove, declared it a “profound strategic shift”. Unless Downing Street was ignorant, it was clearly intended to provoke the wrath of China, which did as it should, and to humiliate France, as it did.

Boris Johnson protested that he was “not hostile” toward China, but when I asked Theresa May if he seriously envisioned war on Taiwan, he refused to say no. “The UK remains determined to stand up for international law and this is … the strong advice we will be giving the government in Beijing.” Is he just playing with words? In July, he dispatched an aircraft carrier near a disputed area in the South China Sea, prompting warnings from Beijing. This would be just a rat trying to roar, vast sums of public money were not involved in maintaining Johnson’s vanity.

Bold statements made for political influence, such as sudden alliances and needless disdain, have consequences. Western defense interests born of the Cold War refused to allow NATO to redefine its purpose in the 1990s, with the demise of the Soviet Union. This is how Britain was drawn to Afghanistan and Iraq, ostensibly to protect the United States from the new threat of terrorism. Likewise, loud rhetoric and military strikes fueled the precursors to World War I.

Britain has no reasonable reason to adopt an aggressive stance in the Pacific. It’s all vaguely nostalgic for post-empire. If the United States was crazy enough to go back to war in Southeast Asia over Taiwan, it had nothing to do with Britain, as Vietnam did. France also claims to be concerned about its “nationals” in the Pacific. The second-ranking countries of Europe seem incapable of giving up their empires.

The emergence of China as a global economic power in the last quarter century was a political and economic miracle. This has been achieved by combining the controls of capitalism with the regimes of dictatorship. The West may not like some of its manifestations, and it is free to say that. They are not the West’s business. China is not under the rule of the West.

With its new powerful position, China has embraced military veneration, sensitivity to criticism and a regional sphere of influence, all syndromes that should be familiar to the United States. Only time will tell where this leads us. But for the West now, to start a cold war with China should be above stupidity, and for Britain in particular is absurd.

The so-called Western diplomacy is currently a disaster area. It failed to adapt to post-communist Russia, and to deal with the Muslim world with a narrow and tragic fist. In Afghanistan, the world’s most expensive armies were sent to stock a handful of AK-47s.

Half a century has passed since Harold Wilson formally withdrew Britain from “East Suez”. Johnson is clearly in pain to come back, to prove that he can somehow gain weight and put Britain back on the world stage after Brexit. An empty foreign policy is reckless. British diplomacy must now focus on Europe, overwhelmingly. One thing Brexit hasn’t changed is geography.

[ad_2]