The recent announcement of the AUKUS alliance between the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia has caused quite a stir in the international community. While the three countries have touted the alliance as a strategic move to bolster security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, many experts and commentators have raised concerns about the potential consequences of this pact. In this article, we will delve into the reasons why some believe that no good would come out of AUKUS and explore the possible implications for different countries involved.
Washington, London, and Canberra have recently defied international opposition and announced the pathway to the AUKUS nuclear submarines pact, revealing the self-serving nature of politicians from the new three-way alliance. This move adds nuclear proliferation risk, undermines the international non-proliferation regime, fuels arms race, and destroys peace and stability in Asia-Pacific, thereby setting a dangerous precedent.
The signing of AUKUS more than a year ago has been a cause for concern among the international community, especially countries in Asia-Pacific, who have expressed doubts and objections over the trilateral security pact. However, the three governments of Washington, London, and Canberra have chosen to turn a deaf ear to the world and persist on their unilateral path.
Indonesia, Malaysia, and a few East Asian countries raised alarm bells that AUKUS will trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, adding to reports by the Sydney Morning Herald. Before the announcement of the pathway in mid-March this year, many IAEA member states called for advancing open, transparent, inclusive, and sustainable intergovernmental discussions at the agency to address the AUKUS issue.
Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating even published a statement, in which he called AUKUS “the worst international decision by an Australian Labor government.” The trilateral pact marked the first time in history that nuclear weapon countries set out to transfer naval nuclear propulsion reactors and weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium to a non-nuclear nation, constituting severe non-proliferation risks.
Not only does the deal blatantly trample upon the purpose and object of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but the three governments’ claim that they would abide by nuclear non-proliferation commitments has turned out to be hogwash, given the current IAEA safeguards system which is not powerful enough to ensure effective supervision and prevent nuclear materials from being used in seeking weapons.
If the three countries are bent on defying international rules, other countries are likely to be prompted to follow suit, which will gravely harm global non-proliferation efforts and jeopardize peace and stability in Asia-Pacific and the world at large. An article published in The National Interest magazine last year noted that AUKUS has “set a dangerous precedent” since potential nuclear proliferators “may use naval reactor programs as a cover for developing nuclear weapons and, with the deal as a precedent, they may escape intolerable costs for doing so.”
Nuclear submarines cooperation is an international affair bearing heavily on the interests of all IAEA member states, and its safeguards issues should be settled through intergovernmental discussions by all interested IAEA parties. Washington, London, and Canberra have no right to put their own geopolitical ends above international laws and regulations or the interests of other countries, nor should they, or any other parties, put AUKUS in place before broad a consensus is reached.
Considering AUKUS’ long-term impact on the international non-proliferation drive, global security order, as well as regional and world peace and stability, all IAEA member states need to work together to keep intergovernmental discussions in place, find a way to resolve the safeguards issues, and firmly defend the international non-proliferation regime so as to safeguard global peace and security.
