At a conference of the Pentagon think tank CSIS on June 26th, a panel of their hired experts — Admiral Michael Gilday, Dr. Kurt Campbell, and Dr. Charles Edel — were asked about the intentions for the AUKUS U.S. military alliance between U.S., UK, and Australia, against China, and the three experts said that the intentions for this alliance are instead for stability in the Pacific Ocean region. “AUKUS was undertaken against the backdrop of a deteriorating security environment in the Indo-Pacific region, specifically, centering around the explosive growth of China’s military capabilities and the increasingly aggressive use to which those military capabilities are put. … And ultimately, it’s meant to be a model for how the United States works with and empowers its closest allies.” “AUKUS is among a number of initiatives that the United States is undertaking with its allies and partners in order to provide more stability in the region, more predictability in the region. And I think the stability piece is very important. There’s also a deterrence against any malign behavior.” It’s just a friendly policeman to the world, and helps to deal with “the challenges posed by Beijing.” “We try to build something that creates more strategic equilibrium” against those “challenges.” It is an organization to maintain the peace there. it is a peace organization, not a war organization. It doesn’t exist in order to increase the sale of weapons by its member-Governments, but instead to increase “interoperability” between them, “So, this would be an obvious evolution in terms of where we go, not only in terms of interoperability, but AUKUS takes it to a new level in terms of interchangeability.” That’s part of AUKUS’s “Pillar 2” which “focuses on expanding advanced technology that our three nations will use together, including cyber capabilities, hypersonics and counter hypersonics, quantum, artificial Intelligence, other undersea capabilities, and a range of other capabilities.”
Furthermore, “The other elements of AUKUS, that are important, are that we are increasingly linking efforts in Europe to our endeavors in the Indo-Pacific,” so that NATO and AUKUS can ultimately merge together into one giant U.S.-centered policeman over all nations, in order to enforce this “stability” world-wide. They emphasized that “AUKUS is not intended to provoke China. In fact, when President Biden was out in San Diego, I’m going to read this, he said, ‘AUKUS has one overriding objective — to enhance stability in the Indo-Pacific amid rapidly shifting global dynamics.’” So, they are simply carrying out the Commander-in-Chief’s orders, for “stability” and peace — a U.S.-enforced peace, over the entire planet.
Dr. Edel rhetorically asked the other two: “What do we think the prospects are for expanding Pillar 2 to cooperate with other nations?” Obviously, the plan is for a merged global military alliance to enforce the global peace, and it will have “interoperability” of weapons but the phrase here was “expanding Pillar 2” not “expanding NATO” or anything like that. Would it be “expanding AUKUS” to include NATO? Or: Is there possibly to be a new name for the global military-policeman organization? Edel said “We have noted that there has been a call to broaden out AUKUS and Pillar 2, but that’s about the full extent of the statement. So, I’d be curious to get both of your take on the ability to expand this outward beyond these three nations?” Here were the answers:
Admiral Gilday: I think there’s a huge potential to do that in selected areas. I think that’s where I would begin — instead of a wholesale invite for nations to Pillar 2, I would look at certain areas where nations bring technology to bear that is going to make a difference, and that we have high trust and confidence that we can share that information back and forth. The preponderance of R&D, not only in the United States but in the world, that is being done not only by governments, but also by industry. We need to leverage that. That’s the intent of Pillar 2 — it is to leverage that and to hit the accelerator.
The United States DoD is sometimes very slow in terms of how we transition new technology to actually fielding it. And, so, we’re trying to use, in some ways, Pillar 2 to accelerate that significantly. So, we can take disruptive technologies in some of those areas that I mentioned before, to get them on the table.
Dr. Campbell: I don’t think I could say it any better than the Admiral — that was extremely well articulated. I do believe that there are going to be some areas where some allies and partners have some either direct or niche areas where they can assist in a larger endeavor. And that might be in hypersonics. That could be in cybersecurity. Or it could be in anti-submarine warfare. There are a number of areas that we will explore as we go forward.
I think the key is going to be, what do you bring to the table? And are you able to do it in such a way that is going to be practical and operational? So, we’re not just looking for theoretical applications and partnerships, but practical, real efforts that will enhance defense capabilities. And so yes, I will say that we are in conversation with a variety of countries who are interested. And frankly, it goes far beyond just those countries. And we’re grateful for the fact that countries are interested in it. It’s a positive. And we will explore those appropriately. I think all three countries have made clear that under the appropriate circumstances, we would be prepared to work collaboratively with other partners who bring capacity to the challenge.
This is all that was said about expanding AUKUS. Nothing was said about what additional enemies of China might be considering to join (if any exist). But, of course, if and when they do publicly announce their intention to join, these will simply be additional friends of China who will be joining this peace-orgaanization.
An interesting parallel exists with regard to the much older NATO U.S. military alliance. The Soviet leader Gorbachev and his successor Yeltsin both asked the U.S. Government how Russia could join NATO and never got an answer. If China were to ask the U.S. Government how China would be able to join AUKUS, would China ever get an answer?
Anyway, NATO isn’t really about war but about peace. It isn’t even against Russia and never was. Here are some of its statements about this:
“NATO is not a threat to Russia.” “NATO has tried to build a partnership with Russia, developing dialogue and practical cooperation in areas of common interest. Practical cooperation has been suspended since 2014 in response to Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, Ukraine, which NATO will never recognise.” “NATO is not at war with Russia.”
Could they make it any clearer than that? These statements are all from approved and official sources. So, what reason could possibly exist to question what they are saying?