 |
| Current Australian Collins class Submarine (File Photo) |
By Helen Clark
Confusion seems to reign in the wake of the PM’s “near-death” experience last week.
The submarine debate has been simmering in Australia for quite some time but only rarely has it poked its head above sea-level in the political news cycle, which has mostly been concerned with the unending dramas over Tony Abbott and his likely lifespan as prime minister. Last month we reported on the possibility of a deal with Japan. A few days before last Monday’s spill motion, The Australian suggested that Tony Abbott’s future worried Tokyo enough that the sub deal might be off, except that it was unlikely that it was on in the first place, owing to domestic pressures.
The question of the day has been, what did Abbott promise South Australian politicians in return for votes at the spill (essentially a no-confidence motion)? Meanwhile, the rent-seeking squawks, nationalistic chest beating, political attacks (Abbott: “We could have Kim Jong-il-Class submarines” in response to Labor’s admittedly inadvisable call for open tender), and concern over domestic industry have muddied the main points.
Australia needs to replace its submarines. It needs 12. It currently has six diesel-fuelled Collins class subs which date from the mid-1990s. As we’ve previously reported, there might be an alliance angle in the Japanese sub idea in that this would necessarily increase defense ties and play into some form of three way alliance with the U.S. As we’ve also reported, this does not mean Australia will, or at least its polity will want to, support the U.S. and Japan in a conflict with China. (Whether Australia’s U.S. alliance will compel it to is another matter; Cameron Hawker, writing at the Australian Institute of International Affairs, reckons so.)
Read the full story at The Diplomat