In one sense, AUKUS can be seen as the latest development in Australia's ongoing conversation with itself about what sort of country it is and should be, a development that has been advanced by one particular faction in that argument. Paul Keating's robust criticism of AUKUS similarly reflects his role as one of the leading exponents of an alternative vision for Australia. In crude terms you could say that Keating, Rudd and Turnbull represent one faction in this ongoing debate, while Howard, Abbott, and Morrison can be seen as representing the other. But it is a mistake to focus too much on individuals. What is important is that these are the strands of thought that are alive in Australian public discourse and that the dialogue between them continues.
Good points but i take a particularly damning view of the faction as you put it, led by Howard, Abbott et al.
If anything, they represent the persistent undercurrent of white supremacism that pervades australian society; Australia was formed as what A. Karlin calls a 'fake and gay' country since its only purpose throughout its 100+ years of nationhood was to act as an extension of Anglo Chauvinism, the dream if you will, of Cecil Rhodes.
To that end, Australia culture and society has been characterised as antipodean insecurity: the idea of the West and european heritage and Britishness is idealised to guard against the fear of "being swamped by Asians" or being influenced by Asia; prior to Federation, there was already anxiety over Chinese immigration and language influences on australian english, thanks to the Gold Rush.
If you travel around and live in Asia today, you'll quickly become aware that the White Australia Policy is well remembered by Asians as a disgraceful period of racist outburst, fuelled by white supremacy. This AUKUS deal would have certainly re-invigorated those memories.
Continuing into the future, this dialogue that you speak of can only lead to one of two outcomes:
1) Australia as Switzerland of the Asia-Pacific;
Pros: neutral, multicultural, respected by both the east and west alike. Keating's vision is realistic and Howard was simply being a realist in working with china, albeit in a period of unchallenged anglo american hegemony. This outcome has the highest chance of Australia's survivability and highest chance of positive outcomes in terms of life expectancy and economic growth and social security.
Cons: Australians can no longer feel superior whilst being obnoxious in asia. This is really the biggest downside to your average Australian hoie polloi.
2) AUKUS future, Australia as Rhodesia of the Pacific; this is the path chosen by Australia since gillard;
Pros: An attempt to restore Anglo hegemony in the aftermath of the retreat from A-stan and the doomed Trumpian trade war; every year that passes, the PLAN get stronger and surety of american victory in the Pacific becomes ever more doubtful.
Cons: There may not be an Australia left after this future.
succinctly put, Australia going down 2) puts itself in the path of first strike nuclear target since those nuclear submarines now turn australia into a nuclear power, and as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have said:
Australia possessing nuclear submarines makes it a nuclear power and therefore a target for first strike launch on warning nuclear retaliation.
and there is no middle ground since by default Australia is already at option 2.
Finally
I certainly hope frank talks involved how the Pentagon will mount a coup in the event of a US President ordering ww3 on China.
