For those baffled by the decision to buy nuclear-powered submarines from the United States and possibly Britain as part of the AUKUS agreement<\/a>, Turbulence is essential reading. A growing number of commentators, including former prime ministers and senior military figures, have questioned the wisdom of what Paul Keating called the \u201cworst deal in all history<\/a>\u201d. Fernandes explains why AUKUS is an all-too-predictable continuation of past follies.<\/p>\n Supporters of AUKUS have suggested that buying and possibly building submarines is a nation-building project<\/a> on a par with the Snowy Mountains scheme. But Fernandes makes it clear that, \u201cdespite ideologically strident claims by Australia\u2019s leaders\u201d, AUKUS is \u201ca contribution of people, territory, materials, money, diplomacy and ideology to the war-fighting capabilities of the United States\u201d. <\/p>\n The art of ingratiation<\/p>\n Making ourselves useful to our \u201cgreat and powerful friend\u201d is the default setting for strategic and by extension foreign policy in Australia. It has been for 80 years. As far as policymaking elites are concerned, it is literally unthinkable<\/a> that we should do anything else. <\/p>\n This takes some explaining at any time, but when Donald Trump is president and many think the US is lurching headlong into full-blown authoritarianism<\/a>, it looks indefensible and at odds with even the most expansive definition of the \u201cnational interest\u201d.<\/p>\n What is more remarkable, perhaps, is that we are no longer alone in our enthusiasm to ingratiate ourselves with the Americans. In addition to an analysis of the AUKUS project, Fernandes includes chapters on the Trump administration\u2019s relations with Europe, the Middle East and China. All of them reflect his breadth of knowledge of the contemporary strategic scene and the potentially catastrophic impact Trump is having on the international order America did so much to create.<\/p>\n The US is the principal beneficiary<\/a> of that order. That Trump and his hand-picked team of flunkies question this reflects their historical ignorance<\/a> and desire for enrichment<\/a>.<\/p>\n Clinton Fernandes. Fernandes argues that the Trump administration\u2019s disdain for Europe has culminated in policies designed to make Europe \u201cfit in with US industrial policy, curtail their economic relations with China and help preserve US technological dominance\u201d. As he wryly observes, \u201cthis system of paying tributes and protection costs will be familiar to students of past imperial arrangements \u2013 and to people who watch films about organised crime and its protection rackets\u201d. <\/p>\n Indeed. The wonder is that Australian policymakers are so in thrall to the US that they appear not to care.<\/p>\n They are hardly unique in this regard, of course. Some countries have no inhibitions \u2013 or shame \u2013 about their willingness to ingratiate themselves, as Qatar\u2019s gift of a Boeing 747<\/a> to Trump himself demonstrates. This was in addition to the US$45 billion investment in American corporations<\/a> promised in 2019 and another US$10 billion to expand the existing American air base in Qatar<\/a>. <\/p>\n The US is developing a system of tributary states, but without the sense of common culture and acceptance that made the earlier Chinese version<\/a> rather more palatable and stabilising.<\/p>\n More importantly, Australia\u2019s historical willingness to do whatever the US wants has seen us take part in pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fernandes\u2019 book is full of sobering illustrations of our foreign policy hypocrisy. Australia rightly criticises China\u2019s actions in Tibet and Xinjiang<\/a>, for example, but has been slow to condemn Israel\u2019s actions in Gaza, and has said nothing about the US\u2019s extrajudicial killings in Venezuela<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cHuman rights will be ignored or highlighted as needed,\u201d Fernandes concludes \u2013 as needed to stay onside with the US, that is. He argues that Australia helps to legitimate America\u2019s imperial project and its goal of controlling the Middle East \u201cthrough a sub-imperial power (Israel) and protectorates (oil-rich Arab monarchies)\u201d.<\/p>\n Threats: real and notional<\/p>\n For many Australians and for the Trump administration, China remains the principal object of concern. Fernandes uses the debate over \u201cfreedom of navigation<\/a>\u201d to illustrate how misguided and limited discussion of the \u201cChina threat\u201d actually is. <\/p>\n As the world\u2019s largest trading nation<\/a>, China is even more reliant on safe passage for its exports than Australia. As Fernades points out, \u201cthe last thing China wants is a war in the western Pacific Ocean, which would disrupt nearly all its seaborn supplies\u201d. <\/p>\n In practice, complaints about freedom of navigation are driven by the desire to spy on China\u2019s strategic assets without being harassed:<\/p>\n The silence over what \u2018freedom of navigation\u2019 really involves protects the government from democratic accountability, and from debate as to how Australia\u2019s intelligence agencies and military should be used. These are questions of politics, not military strategy.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Even China\u2019s much criticised military build-up can be understood more easily in a wider context that includes a recognition of America\u2019s perennial willingness to use coercive power, including nuclear weapons, to achieve its ends. Seen in this light the acquisition of nuclear weapons by China seems \u201crational\u201d, at least when judged by the calculus of great-power grand strategy and the logic of deterrence.<\/p>\n Fernandes is enough of an ex-military man and a strategic realist to take seriously arguments about the need for an independent defence capacity. Indeed, he stresses that \u201csubmarines are an essential defence capability for a maritime nation like Australia\u201d. <\/p>\n In this regard, Fernandes is at one with other prominent commentators, such as Albert Palazzo<\/a> and Hugh White<\/a>, both former insiders turned critics. They are all more concerned about the possibility of making an inappropriate choice of submarine than whether the submarines are needed or not.<\/p>\n Anyone doubting that Australian policymakers are making the wrong choice for the wrong reasons, should read Fernandes\u2019 detailed argument in favour of \u201cair-independent propulsion\u201d submarines, which don\u2019t encourage nuclear proliferation and have the added benefit of being comparatively cheap. <\/p>\n It really isn\u2019t that hard or expensive to defend an island continent<\/a> a long way from global trouble spots. New Zealand manages with the bare minimum of expense and equipment, no awkward alliance obligations, and yet remains one of the safest places in the world.<\/p>\n Redefining realism<\/p>\n Credible critiques from the likes of Fernandes are important contributions to a debate that may be gaining traction thanks to the efforts of academics<\/a> and civil society organisations<\/a>. <\/p>\n For those of us who think that environmental breakdown presents a more immediate and \u201crealistic\u201d threat to Australia\u2019s security than the disruption of sea lanes, much less invasion, the prioritisation of traditional sources of insecurity looks misplaced. <\/p>\n It is striking that even the most informed analyses of security feel obliged to take on the \u201crealists\u201d on their own turf. The debate still revolves around the most cost-effective ways of threatening to kill people in countries we don\u2019t know much about, a potential defence minister Richard Marles euphemistically describes as \u201cimpactful projection<\/a>\u201d. <\/p>\n Rather than fretting about a possible Chinese invasion, we ought to be thinking about ways we can cooperate with a country that is at least trying to address climate change. The US, by contrast, is not only becoming equally authoritarian. It has become unreliable and disruptive. And it is actively working to undermine existing efforts to address what Trump describes as a climate \u201ccon job<\/a>\u201d. <\/p>\n Such attitudes directly threaten the security of the entire planet. They give comfort to those who would prefer not to act and carry on with self-destructive business as usual. <\/p>\n In Australia, the major political parties are not that far apart on the environment. Projects like the North West Shelf gas development<\/a>, which will significantly add to Australia\u2019s \u2013 and the world\u2019s \u2013 greenhouse gas emissions are waved through in the \u201cnational interest<\/a>\u201d. <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/file-20251106-56-6flmp0.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n Melbourne University Publishing<\/a><\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/file-20251103-61-hzk1y3.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n