Shangri-La Dialogue: Australia says Aukus is 'transparent', questions secrecy around China's military build-up

Australia's defence minister Richard Marles on Saturday sought to project the Aukus security alliance as a transparent initiative and took a jab at China for not being open about its nuclear and military expansion.

There was a difference between how Canberra was positioning its nuclear submarine acquisition from the agreement and how China had been silent on what was "the biggest conventional military build-up by any country since the end of World War II", Marles explained as concerns were raised throughout the weekend's Shangri-La Dialogue defence summit in Singapore.

"Australia having this capability will provide balance in the region. That is important in terms of deterrence, that is important in terms of providing pathways to peace," Marles told CNBC on Saturday.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

"But the biggest issue and the biggest difference is there is complete strategic transparency in terms of Australia's actions of why we are acquiring the capabilities ... we are making clear to the region it's about making our contribution to the collective security."

"So we are out there being really clear about what we're about ... and I think that is a very big difference to what we're seeing in terms of the military build-up in China."

Marles made these comments despite the improvement in bilateral relations between Canberra and Beijng. He said China's secrecy did not provide its neighbours with "strategic reassurances" and was a source of anxiety in Australia.

In March, the Australian press published warnings that Australia could be at war with China in three years.

Marles said his government wanted to ensure global disputes were not resolved by the rule of power and might but by the rule of international law.

When asked, however, he did not elaborate on how having "force projections" such as nuclear-powered submarines and posturing through the Quad grouping comprising Australia, Japan, the US and India - seen as a means to counter China - would achieve that.

Senior colonel Zhao Xiaozhuo from the Chinese PLA Academy of Military Sciences dismissed talk about Beijing's nuclear arsenal build-up as "an imagination", saying the country was clear about its position to "ban and destroy" these weapons.

"We don't actively focus on nuclear power weapons, we don't provide [nuclear building] assistance to other countries. It's a clear attitude from China," Zhao said, adding the superpower believes in maintaining regional peace.

"You talk about major power competition in the Asia-Pacific region - all of you understand why we all face pressures because for many years, we have had no wars in the region. Who really wants to cook up trouble? It is our hope to maintain peace in this region."

Speaking at plenary sessions on Friday, defence experts from China, Pakistan and Malaysia asked what the submarines meant for nuclear non-proliferation treaties and if it could pave the way for other countries to start developing similar weapons.

An academic representative from Islamabad suggested the pact could, for example, encourage South Asian countries to consider developing their own nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Australia will receive up to eight submarines as part of the deal with the US and Britain, with the fleet to be delivered between now and the 2050s.

From 2027, Washington and London will start to rotate their nuclear-powered submarines through a naval base near Perth to train Australians.

Aukus, which has been strongly opposed by China, has also rattled other Asian governments, including Malaysia and Indonesia, who fear the agreement could set off a regional arms race.

But New Zealand defence minister Andrew Little sought to soothe those concerns.

He said Australia had indicated it would be working to ensure the technology they used in the submarines would not be accessible to create nuclear warheads.

"We take some comfort in that," Little said.

"Given the historical context between the two countries, I trust their assurances," he said, emphasising that the neighbours are parties to the nuclear-free zone Treaty of Rarotonga in the South Pacific.

Little said New Zealand would not allow the submarines near its ports or to enter its territorial waters, adding the vessels have little ability to destabilise the nuclear balance in the region.

Angus Lapsley, assistant secretary general, Defence Policy and Planning for Nato, was also confident of Australia's conformity to non-nuclear proliferation accords.

"If you are trying to help a country to acquire nuclear weapons you wouldn't sell them a SSN [nuclear-powered attack submarine]. And you wouldn't sell them a SSN if you know what they are going to do with it," Lapsley said.

Hoo Chiew-Ping, strategic studies and international relations senior lecturer at the National University of Malaysia, asked how non-nuclear states and groups like New Zealand and Southeast Asia were working with other countries with those weapons to promote the "non-building" of such arms.

Through ties with nuclear-armed powers such as the UK and France, Auckland has championed the importance of nuclear non-proliferation treaties, Little said.

This article originally appeared on the South China Morning Post (SCMP).

Copyright (c) 2023. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.