The proponents of AUKUS appear to be rattled. Their defence of the worst deal of the century is threadbare.
It is now three years since the announcement of AUKUS. As time progresses the criticisms are becoming ever more strident as the various risks that it entails crystalise. It has been excoriated by many, including former Prime Ministers, Ministers and multiple authors here at Pearls and Irritations.
In recent weeks, some of the proponents of AUKUS have attempted to mount a defence of the deal. This includes Euan Graham and Bec Shrimpton from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and ANUs Professor John Blaxland writing at The Conversation with an article titled: Australia can’t afford an AUKUS about-face: 5 things the critics are getting wrong.
These defences, as Professor Michael McKinley describes it, are threadbare. A short critique of Professor Blaxland’s article highlights just how threadbare they are.
Firstly, in defending AUKUS, nowhere is it explained what the United States’ objectives........