This is a thoughtful article. However, it conflates main criticisms of AUKUS in Australia with the debate as a whole. This leaves a misleading impression because it fails to include the arguments put by supporters. It also overlooks the obvious strong public support for AUKUS in Australia, reflected in the relevant polls. The other main weakness is that it fails to take proper account of the views and the more focused debates that have taken place within the official community. My experience of those discussions and debates is that they reflect overwhelming support for Pillars 1 and 2 and focus much more on how to make the arrangements work well, at reasonable cost and on time. Little of that more influential thinking is reflected here. However, overall, this article is a useful contribution. We just need to be careful not to mislead our UK and US colleagues and friends about the real, and most important, discussions and debates on AUKUS down-under.
Thank you for the reply and time spent reading the article Ross.
Perhaps we should have been more explicit that there is indeed a lot of support for AUKUS in Australia as you point out. I think this was omitted as the main point of the article was that, unlike in the US and the UK, there is a lot of criticism levied against AUKUS which comes from many different angles (economic, strategic, environmental) in Australia, and Britain should be more aware of them as it pursues AUKUS. As it was for a British publication, this required fleshing out the more negative (and overlooked) aspects of the debate in Australia. The intention was never to paint the debate in Australia as an only or overly negative one, just the most contentious of the three.
This is a thoughtful article. However, it conflates main criticisms of AUKUS in Australia with the debate as a whole. This leaves a misleading impression because it fails to include the arguments put by supporters. It also overlooks the obvious strong public support for AUKUS in Australia, reflected in the relevant polls. The other main weakness is that it fails to take proper account of the views and the more focused debates that have taken place within the official community. My experience of those discussions and debates is that they reflect overwhelming support for Pillars 1 and 2 and focus much more on how to make the arrangements work well, at reasonable cost and on time. Little of that more influential thinking is reflected here. However, overall, this article is a useful contribution. We just need to be careful not to mislead our UK and US colleagues and friends about the real, and most important, discussions and debates on AUKUS down-under.
Thank you for the reply and time spent reading the article Ross.
Perhaps we should have been more explicit that there is indeed a lot of support for AUKUS in Australia as you point out. I think this was omitted as the main point of the article was that, unlike in the US and the UK, there is a lot of criticism levied against AUKUS which comes from many different angles (economic, strategic, environmental) in Australia, and Britain should be more aware of them as it pursues AUKUS. As it was for a British publication, this required fleshing out the more negative (and overlooked) aspects of the debate in Australia. The intention was never to paint the debate in Australia as an only or overly negative one, just the most contentious of the three.
A very interesting and informative article.