Often, too often, we are used to looking at political and socio-economic dynamics as something strictly related to the “humanistic” field. Humanistic in the sense of referring to man, to the anthropological and narrative aspects that preside over the relations between collectivity and individuals. However, the scientific link, or that chain of cause-effects which, starting from one, escapes state A, produce per sequence of time a certain state B. In short, from hypothesis to thesis, passing through a demonstration that requires knowledge, intuition and – above all – promptness.
In the geopolitical field, these requirements are nothing short of fundamental. Both for the actors directly involved in negotiations and diatribes, as well as for the spectators who attend them: the latter more or less aware of how globalization makes the echo (and the consequences) of any upheaval occurring in a part of the world “global” and planetary. There is therefore no event, however “exotic” and geographically distant from us, that does not directly reflect – more or less quickly – on the policies of our home. If we want, this is the geopolitical transliteration of the well-known climate mantra, for which in a highly complex system such as the atmospheric one, “the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Japan can cause a tornado in California”.
With only one difference: in geopolitics the element of randomness is reduced to a flicker, responding rather to events to a calibrated and strategic physical logic of “action and reaction”. It is the third principle of Dynamics: at each input matches a output of equal intensity and opposite direction; likewise, if a body exerts a given force on a second body, the second body responds with an equal and opposite force.
All the maneuvers adopted by the West to contain China must be read in this key: a hungry, ravenous superpower, whose appetites can only be contained by perimetering the table, the area of greatest influence of its hegemonic and expansionist interests. There is much discussion, on the international stage, of the trilateral pact safety Aukus, signed by Washington, London and Canberra to protect themselves from Beijing. And they are discussing it in a particularly heated way in France, which found itself overnight lacking a contract for conventional submarines, which would have been worth something like 60 billion euros in Paris.
Nevertheless, despite the grievances of Emmanuel Macron which judged the agreement as a fact of “exceptional gravity” (recalling, “for consultations”, under the Tour Eiffel its ambassadors in Australia and the USA), Aukus is attested as the logical reaction of the United States to the centrifugal action of Beijing. In its China’s containment challenge (which became, after the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the absolute priority), Washington seems to want to play the best cards.
Australia is geographically close to Dragon: reason to equip it with more performing underwater means (there is talk of 8 nuclear-powered submarines) it undoubtedly responds to a strategic need for more effective protection – as well as active deterrence – compared to the common Mandarin threat. Which in those seas has long stretched its claw.