Islamabad: Pakistan: “Pakistan needs strong intellectual groups, academic and research activities and Think Tank culture for providing intellectual support for policymakers and to understand what linguistic games have been playing around us. This is suggested that the State of Pakistan should tailor a system where credible Think Tanks can work independently without the fear of suspension of their funding/grants so they can produce high-level content/suggestions/reviews/foresight papers to support policymakers of the country”.

These are observations that appeared in an academic paper written by Shazia Anwer Cheema who is a Prague-based author of books and foreign affairs expert. She is a doctoral student in semiotics and philosophy of communication at Charles University Prague. Her paper titled “AUKAS: Analysis of its Claimed Objectives in Asia-Pacific” is published by the Islamabad-based Think Tank Center for International Strategic Studies (CISS) in its latest edition of bi-annual journal “Insight”.

She indicates that the United States has a long history of coining attractive and positive terminologies for executing its designs. A long list of such words can include “Embedded reporting”, “Operation Enduring Freedom”, “Operation Red Dawn”, “Operation Rolling Thunder”, “Operation Overload”, “Operation Urgent Fury”, “Operation Desert Storm”, “Operation Wrath of God”, “Operation Magic Carpet” etc. The reality of all the above-mentioned dictions were altogether contrary to their automatic thoughts.

Experts of Communication Philosophy should explain that diction used by the United States have mostly nothing to do with the agendas or the objectives that are named beautifully, therefore it is imperative for students and practitioners of Semiotic and Communication Philosophy to dissever and dissect any terminology used by the United States for any of its project to find out the factual underlying and underplaying realities.

For example, does using “Enduring Ideal” really mean that the US wishes to execute some ideas better for humanity? And what actually are enduing ideals for the US?

Similarly, Shared Commitment does not represent something that everyone in the relationship strives to honor. It more seems like an imposition to become party to an agenda which only serve the purpose of USA. So the frame used here is not only deceiving but also misleading, as experts mentioned that the only shared commitment behind AUKAS is to block Chinese trade route.

Automatic Thought comes from such beautiful, crafted terminology is positive and pragmatic and one can think that an ideal must be achieved through endurance for the better cause and greater good .US political frames play with cognitive faculties such as Beliefs, Expectations, Commitments, and Contracts. Which always manifest a social phenomenon and a civic society. Words like Shared Commitment, Rule-Based Order, Deepen Diplomacy, Security, and defense cooperation look positive and pragmatic when put into the frame of better society and humanity, however the deepen analysis articulate otherwise, this is a usual mechanism to install US hegemony and Control in a certain region as it did in Afghanistan, Iraq Libya, etc.

AUKUS was reviewed in the light of an official statement provided by member states via opinions from regional experts in the field of military and Foreign Affairs along with semiotic rules were also used to dissect claims mentioned in the statement.

The results of this exercise indicate that the US has given again positive, pragmatic, and good for all, features to AUKUS that has altogether different hidden desires than words used to explain them. The result of research indicates that AUKUS is announced to create US hegemony in the Asia Pacific for encircling trade routes of China, for providing nuclear capabilities to Australia by using loopholes in international laws to control nuclearization.

UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff believes language always comes with what is called “framing.” Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. He indicates that United States political parties and the system is backed by researches over coining dictions and this work is mostly done by Think Tanks. (Powell 2003)

Usage of calculated words/phrases by the US leadership and policy makers are mostly backed by framing of what they wish to achieve while a simple reader and journalist take their phrases as political statements but they are more than mere political statements— having deepen meanings and crafted for future manipulation of words/phrase and events.

The complete academic paper is reproduced hereunder:

AUKAS: Analysis of its Claimed Objectives in Asia-Pacific

AUKUS is multipurpose Alliance exploiting Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act with a serious risk for nuclear proliferation. The US-UK and Australian coded “enduring ideal and shared commitment of attaining ultimate signal security into the Indo-pacific waters” looks like a starting point of a new wave of strategic maneuvering against China accompanying by the havoc of Nuclear Proliferation.

Keywords:  AUKUS, Signal security, Nuclear Submarine, Indo-Pacific, BRI, Nuclear Proliferation, Frame Semiotics

Abstract:

Australia, United Kingdom and United States on September 15, 2021, formed multipurpose Military alliance with a drive of Collective security in the region of Indo-Pacific. The alliance is called AUKUS (abbreviation of Australia (A), United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US).

Under this alliance, Australia will acquire new long-range strike capabilities for its air force, navy and army and nuclear submarines and related nuclear fuel from United States and United Kingdom. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) do not allow non-nuclear-weapon states to produce the highly enriched uranium for naval reactor fuel. Nevertheless, the agreement to transfer US or UK nuclear submarine technology including highly enriched uranium has been described by experts as an act of nuclear proliferation, therefore a serious strategic concern for the region. Australia, United Kingdom, and United States, in a shared communiqué elicits the idea of AUKUS as guided by their “enduring ideals” and “shared commitment” to the international “rules-based order”, “deepen diplomatic security”, and “defense cooperation” in the Indo-Pacific region

This paper has done the frame analysis of these terms to bridge the gap between AUKAS frame of reference and frame of work.

1.Introduction

The AUKUS will provide an opportunity to other neighboring states of Australia to explore opportunities for going nuclear. Although the nuclearize factor of AUKUS will not have much strategic relevance in South Asia reference to already nuclearized region but it will open doors for nuclearization of Southeast Asia (The Economist 2021)and is an attempt to encircle Chinese economy and military might and this attempt will affect South Asian countries, particularly Pakistan that is directly involved with Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) (Miller 2019) .

The American strategy to confront the rise of China is a lose proposition because Five Eyes and Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) failed to stalk Chinese influence in Southeast and South Asia so AUKUS would just another American attempt in desperation at the turn of events in the 21st Century. Despite potential gains to the region the Unites States considers BRI possess potential risks to US Economic interests. (Jennifer Himan 2021) Regional Military and Foreign Affairs experts including Lt Gen (retd) Asad Durrani, Ambassador Hassan Javed, Ambassador Massod Khalid, Maj Gen (retd) Zahid, Maj Gen Khalid Jafery and Ambassador Faisal Tirmizi, unanimously believe that the US is not ready to accept that it has lost the global Narrative, Soft Power edge, hard power efficacy, technological lead and economic strength etc. that regional platforms like Five Eyes, Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and AUKUS are ‘gimmicks’ of a bygone era and serve no useful or positive purposes rather to destabilize peaceful neighborhoods.

This Paper aims to shed light on the AUKUS manifesto— “enduring ideals” “shared commitment” “rule-based order” “deepen diplomacy” and “security and defense co-operation”. Senior Military and Foreign Affairs experts of Pakistan were interviewed in reference to above-mentioned terms. The Paper will provide detail frame analysis of these terms and establish the argument that beneficiaries are only member states while regional countries are affectees of it. Therefore, AUKUS frame of reference contradict its frame of work.

The Indo-Pacific is also known as the Indo–West Pacific or Indo–Pacific Asia. It is comprising the tropical waters of the Indian Ocean, the western and central Pacific Ocean, and the seas connecting the two in the general area of Indonesia. In simple word, it is spread over all sea routes that connect China with the rest of the world.

Australia, United Kingdom and United States are known as the best world naval powers and now they will together, present in waters around China with nuclear submarines.

United States, Australia and Japan in 2007 formed the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD, also known as the Quad or QUAD) which was called as a “strategic dialogue” by the members that also included India while China considers this as Asian NATO. (HEYDARIAN 2021)

The NATO allies have another alliance in same Indo-Pacific waters under the banner of “The Five Eyes” (wells 2020)that is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Minus Canada and New Zealand, these countries are also parties to the multilateral United Kingdom – United States of America Agreement (UKUSA) (Kinley 1987)

Regional expert Ambassador (retd) Hassan Javed considers AUKUS (NAIR 2021)a truly Anglo Saxon Alliance as all three countries are not part of the Eurasian landmass while UK is closest to Eurasia. They believe that AUKUS is formed to further consolidate NATO efforts to fight the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) initiative.

China, Germany, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, North Korea, Philippines and Russia have shown their concerns over the alliance and presence of nuclear submarines in Indo-Pacific waters. (Marlow 2021). International nuclear weapons watchdogs, Atomic Scientists, and anti-nuclear groups call this development highly sensitive and dangerous. Atomic scholar Sébastien Philippe criticised AUKUS (Philippe 2021) and wrote “we can now expect the proliferation of very sensitive military nuclear technology in the coming years, with literally tons of new nuclear materials under loose or no international safeguards”. Justin Katz of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote that the nonproliferation implications of the AUKUS submarine deal are both negative and serious. For Australia to operate nuclear-powered submarines, it will have to become the first non-nuclear-weapon state to exercise a loophole that allows it to remove nuclear material from the inspection system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Justin Katz  says: “I have no real concerns that Australia will misuse this material itself, but I am concerned that this removal will set a damaging precedent. In the future, would-be proliferators could use naval reactor programs as cover for the development of nuclear weapons.” (Katz 2021)

Australia and Brazil would be the first countries without nuclear weapons to have nuclear-powered submarines (Erath 2021). Concerns were raised that this may lead to increased risk of arms proliferation if other countries follow the same approach because it would involve other countries enriching uranium for naval reactors, potentially creating more avenues to develop material needed for nuclear weapons without the safeguards provided by regular inspections. This would not apply in the case of Brazil because the reactor will use low enriched uranium at 7% concentration.  20% is the minimum level required to make a nuclear weapon.

US justifies its decision of offering Nuclear Submarines to Australia under Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act. Such agreements, commonly referred to as “123 Agreements,” facilitate cooperation in other areas, such as technical exchanges, scientific research, and safeguards discussions. In conjunction with other nonproliferation tools, particularly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 123 Agreements (NISA n.d.)help to advance U.S. nonproliferation principles. They establish the legal framework for significant nuclear cooperation with other countries. In order for a partner to enter into a 123 Agreement with the United States, that partner must adhere to a set of strong nonproliferation requirements. The U.S. State Department is responsible for negotiating 123 Agreements, with the technical assistance and concurrence of NNSA (NISA n.d.) and in consultation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As of Jan. 1, 2021, the United States has 24 such agreements in force that govern peaceful nuclear cooperation with 48 countries.

2. Methodology

2.1 Frame Semiotics

Frame Semiotics (Gilles Fauconnier 2003) deals with mechanisms of thought that structure meaning for us. The thought processes based on linkage between and within the ideas (Hamel 2011). Human mind builds the structure for the purpose of understanding and that structures are called frames.

Frames include semantic roles, relations between roles, and relations to other frames. A Parliament frame, can includes the roles (Fauconnier 1997): Parliamentarians, their staff, journalists sitting in Press Gallery, Visitor, Guards, Receptionist, Speaker Chamber, Retiring Room, Library etc. Among the relations are specifications of what happens in a Parliament, e.g., debating on national and international issues, tabling laws, discussion in Standing Committees etc. These structures are physically realized in neural circuits in the brain. All our knowledge is composite of frames, and every word is defined through a frame it neurally activates. Our thinking and talking involves “framing.” Frames construct a system, a single word typically activates not only its defining frame, but also much of the system its defining frame is in (Hampe 2005).

Many frame-circuits have direct connections to the emotional regions of the brain. Emotions are an inescapable part of normal thought. Rationality is linked with emotions and without the faculty of emotion. (Chatterjee 2014) All human logic is colored by emotions. Though it sounds strange that human reasoning judging, and decision making is basically always influenced by emotions.

Mission statements or manifesto are based on systems of frames including ideological language (statements, slogans etc) emotional exploitation and maneuvered greater good.

We are though researching how frames facilitate in transferring required information such as the term shared commitment and enduring ideals etc. , why they have been used and what purpose they are serving. Frames are always dependent on the existing system of frames. Moreover, it must work emotionally. And it must be introduced in a communication system that allows for sufficient spread over the population (reach), sufficient repetition (rhetoric) and sufficient trust in the messengers (ethos). (Geeraerts 2006)

Words are defined in relation to frames, and hearing a word can activate its frame—and the frames within its system—in the brain of a receiver (Musolff 2019). Words themselves are not frames, but under the right conditions, words can be chosen to activate desired frames. This is what effective communicators do. In order to communicate a complex idea, one must choose one’s words carefully to activate the right frames so that the idea can be understood (AlexaSpence 2014). If the receiver has no such frames, then you have to choose your words carefully to build up those frames.

3. Data Collection:

This paper aims to shed light on the AUKUS “enduring ideals” “shared commitment” “rule-based order” “deepen diplomacy” and “security and defense co-operation”. Senior Military and Foreign experts of Pakistan were interviewed with the following pointers to establish the argument that AKUAS is everything else but enduring ideals” “shared commitment” “rule-based order” “deepen diplomacy” and “security and defense co-operation”.

3.1 Interview

Each interview Prompter (question) is asked to all participants namely Lt Gen (retd) Asad Durrani[1], Ambassador Hassan Javed[2], Ambassador Massod Khalid[3], Maj Gen (retd) Zahid[4], Maj Gen Khalid Jafery[5] and Ambassador Faisal Tirmizi[6].

The gist of answers given by participants is added in a summary form of each question while detailed answers of each participant are available in Appendix. 

What is AUKUS in your opinion?

Answer summary: Regional military and Foreign Affairs experts were of the view that AUKUS is a military alliance against China. It could be considered an Anglo-Saxon military platform and outcome of isolation, frustration, and desperation of United States. It has made commercialization underpinning Nuclear technologies.  Its formation coincided with the defeat of Americans in Afghanistan. Australia will pay for procuring submarine technology to feed US and British companies who will be outsourcing this technology. It is a myopic, short sighted step to achieve security objectives.

Why was it needed when Quadrilateral Security Dialogue is already operational in Indo-Pacific water and how does it different than Quadrilateral Security Dialogue?

The difference between Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and AUKUS is evident from the word Dialogue. QSD is restricted to dialogue, whereas AUKUS is strategic alliance focusing on sharing of nuclear material to Australia which is far serious business than having Strategic dialogue.  The fourth member in QSD is India, which does not enjoy similar relationship that exists between the three members of AUKUS. This Strategic Alliance will have far reaching effects in the Indo Pacific region.

Its formation coincided with the defeat of Americans in Afghanistan. AUKUS is driven by cracks in other platforms such as Quad and Five Eyes. Countries in Asia Pacific are not on one page with US strategic objectives. Several countries are growing frustrated to confront the consequences of US actions. This is more to do with a commercial deal directly benefitting US and UK and entangling Australia in a long-term commitment to align with US anti- China policy and to be a watch guard in that part of the world. Moreover, AUKUS, technological capability is being provided to Australia while QUAD has no such provision for transferring or providing technological capability to member’s states.

There are fears that it may proliferate nuclear material to Australia resulting it can end up with its own Nuclear weapon. What is your opinion?

This deal is a potential threat of nuclear proliferation and misuse of article 123 of US laws, beyond repair. This development can lead to nuclear proliferation if Australia too was given waivers like India in the so-­‐called Civilian Nuclear Deal. The AUKUS has set a precedent for other aspiring Non-Nuclear Weapon States to advance their Programs. The AUKUS will set a chain reaction and make the World much more dangerous place, than already so far.

Nuclear submarines fall in the category of military equipment and not covered by IAEA(international atomic energy agency) safeguards. Secondly it can tempt countries like Japan and Republic of Korea to acquire nuclear technology. The three countries have flouted the NPT spirit. When the nuclear material is supplied to Australia, who will ensure its verification?

The US is sharing its submarine technology for the first time in 50 years. These submarines are much faster and harder to detect than conventionally powered fleets. They can stay submerged for months, shoot missiles longer distance and carry more. This would give Australia much leverage despite it claiming of having no intention to obtain nuclear weapons. The implications of Australia becoming a nuclear power will be much on New Zealand which has already said that it would ban Australia’s submarines from its waters, in line with an existing policy on the presence of nuclear-powered submarines.

Do you think AUKUS targets Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)?

AUKUS is more likely to target China and BRI. The militarization of the Indian and Pacific oceans can trigger military and diplomatic unrest in the region. AUKUS can be taken as a mechanism to counter aggressively China’s trade routes in Indo Pacific. BRI has been in the American crosshairs for many years now. Its subversion by various means too has been afoot. China’s grave concern on AUKUS is self-explanatory. AUKUS and QUAD are primarily meant as a counter strategy h against China. The militarization of Indian Ocean and the Pacific can be used to block free flow of trade and energy supplies of China directly or indirectly affecting BRI. That is why China is working to develop rail and road links with Asia, Africa, and Europe. Last year ten thousand cargo trains went between China and Europe. Moreover, AUKUS is covering the sea around China, so the aim of this alliance is to corner China and to have an influence in the sea routes (Trade routes) that lead to China.

Do you think it is an attempt to create NATO hegemony in Indo-Pacific waters and entire area surrounding China?

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asians Nations) even having differences is a successful economic block but now extra-regional military powers are reaching this region to destabilize unwritten regional cooperation. It is an effort to create a NATO in the Asia Pacific to encircle China although NATO is facing cracks and America is fast losing. NATO is preparing a new security doctrine to counter China’s increasing influence in the Arctic, Europe and elsewhere. China is an upcoming power and many countries) join hands with it. Old enmity between Russia and China (is over) and they are now looking towards making a bloc. To create hegemony may not be possible for USA though they are trying to do that. China has expressed concern saying this is an aggressive act having nuclear capabilities in Indo pacific region. China says that AUKUS is going to nuclearize this area and their point of view is that what businesses America have in this area?

How would this Southeast Asian development impact regional peace of South Asia?

The only impact it could have been the decentralization of ASEAN countries. That is why a fractured Asia Pacific deciding between the US and China will make the region more imbalanced. Powerful Navies surrounding a region will create unaccountability and chaos.  On the other hand, AUKUS is a naive effort to mark US presence just for the impact factor. Most affected will be Southeast Asia or ASEAN countries as they will lose strategic autonomy and their centrality. ASEAN is not ready to choose between China and US due to their important economic relations with China and US both. A more fractured Asia- Pacific is envisaged. In South Asia, India’s bedding with US against China will create destabilization with Pakistan directly get affected due to our close cooperation with China. India is playing a destructive role in this region by being a bully and a hegemon. It has opposed BRI and CPEC and has bad relations with other South Asian countries.

When three most powerful Navies of the world and start surrounding a country then it has the security implications and it is definitely going to upset the balance in the region, and it will have implications therefore I think this is very clear that it will have a lot of impact on the regional peace. We observe that China is not very keen on having wars. China always tries to solve their problems with patience and with boost peaceful means, but this attempt is definitely going to create a sort of imbalance in the area, and it will have serious implications and regional peace of the area will be affected.  The relations between China and USA will be further tensed so it has a lot of the implications the for the region

What is strategic implication of this military alliance on South Asia? What is militarily implication of this alliance on South Asia?  

It has a lot of strategic implications. Three powerful navies of the world surrounding the area of interest of China. Australia will have a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. Now there is possibility that China can jump in an arms race resulting further militarization of Indian Ocean, sharp rivalry between India and Pakistan, divisions in South Asia, more economic challenges and a disturbed balance of power with increased strategic imbalance. India will try to acquire more nuclear weapons and sophisticated arms and technology. AUKUS might not have a different impact on the situation in South Asia since India already owns nuclear-power submarines and has leverage over Pakistan in strategic terms. However, this might impact India-U.S. relations and overall peace in the Asia-Pacific region.

US strategy to confront the rise of China is a loose proposition. The only concern could be the dynamics of India Pakistan relationship and the militarization of the Indian ocean. SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) countries will have to re-strategize and re-establish their diplomatic alliances either with China or US. As Pakistan being an ally of China or not being a maritime power will be of utmost urgency to guard maritime capabilities against India. India already owned nuclear power submarine will get more opportunities to bully SAARC countries.

What is diplomatic implication of this alliance on South Asia?  

Diplomatically Pakistan’s relation and cooperation with China will become more important. Pakistan will find it imperative to further build its relationship with Russia Iran and Central Asian republics. On the other hand, the US can never be fully convinced to abandon Pakistan. Apart from this elaborated scheme of AUKUS solely based on waters the US needs a land presence in the region hence left with only Pakistan having land link with Afghanistan and through Afghan soil to rest of Central Asia (states of former the Soviet Union).

4. Analysis

AUKUS Alliance is primarily communicated based on five ideas. The opening statement of AUKUS delivered by three heads of the states emphasized that AUKUS alliance is based on enduring ideal, shared commitment, rules-based order, deepen diplomacy, and security/ defense cooperation. The Paper has probed into the contradictions between these mentioned ideas and actual manifestation of AUKUS. The Frame of Reference contradicts the Frame of Work. Experts supplemented this hypothesis by explaining the AUKUS Frame of Work. The Frame of Reference in terms of earlier mentioned five ideas are plausible because they deal in a frame of better society and safe and secure living.

Human mind understands ideas by framing them in context, each frame generates an automatic thought and automatic thoughts are based on beliefs, expectations, commitment, and social contracts (Lakoff 2003). However, second and third layers of meaning making deals with conscious thought processing. All the manipulation and propagation are framed to deal with the automatic thought process. The analysis of the same frame on second and third more conscious level reveals intentions, propositions, validity, and signification of the conversed and communicated frames.

1. Enduring Ideal has a frame of acceptance and patience which automatically generate idea of compliance and active participation however the second and third level analysis shows that the frame has been used in loose proposition without mentioning clear ideal and why human being must endure to achieve that ideal. Experts are of the opinion that AUKAS enduring ideal is nation specific and geographically bond moreover set ideal is not universal neither uni-polar so a demand from everyone to suffer for a goal which will benefit only few is irrational. Endurance is a supreme human task has relevance with being heroic and suffusing for the fellow human being. AUKAS in Indo-pacific waters only means chaos as no Indo-pacific country is a sharing the mention ideal Except Australia.
2. Second frame which has been used to propagate AUKUS is “shared commitment”, if it is meant only for the AKUAS partners then it can resume its validity. On the other hand, if it is addressing the entire world to share the commitment of USA hegemony in that Case it is again a loose ball. China and SARC countries do not share any commitment which has been agendafied under AUKAS. A Shared Commitment is something that everyone in the relationship strives to honor, Its underlying mechanism is “if you if you agree with us, you are a productive member of society” but failed to specify which society and what is shared goal. Experts explain that the only shared goal of AUKAS is encircling China and recreating another formation of NATO. Meaning by it is an implication rather a suggestion to become part of something which is going to harm you after all. The idea of social role has been negotiated and exploited through this frame. The signifier is a productive social member which signified the adhere shared commitment leaving the cognitive imprint of social bulling.
3. Ruled based order is a framework of liberal political and economic rules, embodied in a network of international organizations and regulations, is a complicated term for a lay man. The automatic thought processing just involve rule and order and that is the trick behind this frame of reference. Rules are basic components to maintain order, manly in social perspective. If AUKUS is claiming something rule based order, then whose rule and what order? Rules are human phenomenon and human being are not infallible, antiquity norms are based on needs and desires. So, the point is how rule-based order can be flawless and universal? US is prone to using societal human aspect to manipulate its agendas which has proven over the time not humane but anything else. Rules set by powerful are always meant to maintain their hegemony, under the pretense of “if rule-based order will be maintained peace will be kept” is synonymous to “whatever have been suggested by us is part of a social phenomenon” is an attempt to familiarization of personal, political, and military agendas. Experts unanimously discard this frame and openly recorded their reservation about the militarization of the region. Political and military agendas are country specific, therefore their implementation cannot be universal, and any rule suggested by their agenda cannot be necessary for social peace and harmony in general.
4. Deepen Diplomacy is related to an activity, or skill of managing international relations, once again US is playing the uni-polar world card. In the reality US just intend to deepen its diplomatic relations with few countries not all. In the result of deep diplomatic ties with few selected will benefit few and make vulnerable all others. So, the frame deepen diplomacy will lead to achieve the goal leads to square one, what goal and why all must suffer to achieve that. In order to become more power full, the spread of power among chosen one is important so are we among the chosen one? Will we reap the benefit of deepening diplomacy and what cost will have expected from us to pay for the sake of deepen our diplomatic ties? Experts suggested that SAARC, the main battle ground of AUKAS is already into a chaotic choice between US and China, the offer of shared commitment via deepen diplomacy will lead to extremely ambiguous and un-confirmed diplomatic relationships. Bulling the developing countries by forcing them to choose side can be suicidal for already trembling economies surviving on ventilators.
5. Security and defense Cooperation is any contract between/among two or many for ensuring their collective security and defense cooperation. South Asian countries are not part of this cooperation so there is no chance of having their any say in any process. But their compliance and cooperation is expected. Irony of AUKUS is that it desires cooperation from SAARC countries and acceptance of AUKUS from them without their participation/approval and understanding with the desires behind the AUKUS. In other words, US wants support and approval of regional countries without including them and without offering them anything while throwing a fear to keep silent or support US or otherwise US would consider them partners of the China.

6. Discussion

The United States has a long history of coining attractive and positive terminologies for executing its designs. A long list of such words can include “Embedded reporting”, “Operation Enduring Freedom”, “Operation Red Dawn”, “Operation Rolling Thunder”, “Operation Overload”, “Operation Urgent Fury”, “Operation Desert Storm”, “Operation Wrath of God”, “Operation Magic Carpet” etc. The reality of all the above-mentioned dictions were altogether contrary to their automatic thoughts.

Experts of Communication Philosophy should explain that diction used by the United States have mostly nothing to do with the agendas or the objectives that are named beautifully, therefore it is imperative for students and practitioners of Semiotic and Communication Philosophy to dissever and dissect any terminology used by the United States for any of its project to find out the factual underlying and underplaying realities.

For example, does using “Enduring Ideal” really mean that the US wishes to execute some ideas better for humanity? And what actually are enduing ideals for the US?

Similarly Shared Commitment does not represent something that everyone in the relationship strives to honor. It more seems like an imposition to become party to an agenda which only serve the purpose of USA. So the frame used here is not only deceiving but also misleading, as experts mentioned that the only shared commitment behind AUKAS is to block Chinese trade route.

Automatic Thought comes from such beautiful, crafted terminology is positive and pragmatic and one can think that an ideal must be achieved through endurance for the better cause and greater good .US political frames play with cognitive faculties such as Beliefs, Expectations, Commitments, and Contracts. Which always manifest a social phenomenon and a civic society. Words like Shared Commitment, Rule-Based Order, Deepen Diplomacy, Security, and defense cooperation look positive and pragmatic when put into the frame of better society and humanity, however the deepen analysis articulate otherwise, this is a usual mechanism to install US hegemony and Control in a certain region as it did in Afghanistan, Iraq Libya, etc.

AUKUS was reviewed in the light of an official statement provided by member states via opinions from regional experts in the field of military and Foreign Affairs along with semiotic rules were also used to dissect claims mentioned in the statement.

The results of this exercise indicate that the US has given again positive, pragmatic, and good for all, features to AUKUS that has altogether different hidden desires than words used to explain them. The result of research indicates that AUKUS is announced to create US hegemony in the Asia Pacific for encircling trade routes of China, for providing nuclear capabilities to Australia by using loopholes in international laws to control nuclearization.

UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff believes language always comes with what is called “framing.” Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. He indicates that United States political parties and the system is backed by researches over coining dictions and this work is mostly done by Think Tanks. (Powell 2003)

Usage of calculated words/phrases by the US leadership and policy makers are mostly backed by framing of what they wish to achieve while a simple reader and journalist take their phrases as political statements but they are more than mere political statements— having deepen meanings and crafted for future manipulation of words/phrase and events.

Pakistan being a US ally since 1950s had been a partner in US adventurism in the region but unfortunate to say that our civil and military leadership do not enjoy support of such Think Tanks culture because this is a huge resources game. Pakistan needs strong intellectual groups, academic and research activities and Think Tank culture for providing intellectual support for policy makers and to understand what linguistic games have been playing around us.

This is suggested that State of Pakistan should tailor a system where credible Think Tanks can work independently without the fear of suspension of their funding/grants so they can produce high level content/suggestions/reviews/foresight papers to support policy makers of the country.

References

AlexaSpence. 2014. “Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome.” (Global Environmental Change) 20 (4).

Chatterjee, Anjan. 2014. The Roots of Cognitive Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford.

Erath, John. 2021. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. September 17. Accessed October 23, 2021. https://armscontrolcenter.org/whats-beneath-the-surface-of-australias-decision-to-build-nuclear-powered-submarines/.

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mapping in Thought and Laguage. Oxford: OXford.

Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gilles Fauconnier, Mark Turner. 2003. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending And The Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Hamel, Steven C. 2011. Semiotics Theory and Applications. NewYork: NOVA.

Hampe, Beate. 2005. From Perception to Meaning Making. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

HEYDARIAN, RICHARD JAVAD. 2021. “The Asia Times.” theasiatimes.com. March 13. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://asiatimes.com/2021/03/quad-summit-next-step-towards-an-asian-nato/.

Jennifer Himan, David Sacks. 2021. China’s Belt and Road: Implications for United States. New York: Council on Foriegn Relations.

Katz, Justin. 2021. Breaking Defense. October 6. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/former-officials-call-for-aukus-australia-submarines-to-use-low-enriched-uranium/.

Kinley, Michael Mc. 1987. “Jeffrey T. Richelson and Desmond Ball, The Ties That Bind: Intelligence Cooperation Between the UKUSA Countries.” (Sage Journal) 39 (1).

Lakoff, George. 2003. Metaphors We Live By Paperback. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Marlow, Iain. 2021. Bloomberg. September 23. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-23/why-the-aukus-quad-and-five-eyes-pacts-anger-china-quicktake.

Miller, Tom. 2019. China’s Asian Dream. Chicago: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Musolff, Andreas. 2019. “Metaphor Framing in Political Discourse.” (Mythos Magazin: ) 1.

NAIR, CHANDRAN. 2021. A New Imperial Alliance Threatens Peace In Asia. September 13. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.noemamag.com/aukus-new-imperial-alliance-threatens-peace-in-asia/.

NISA. n.d. Energy.gov. National Nuclear Security Administration. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/123-agreements-peaceful-cooperation.

Philippe, Sébastien. 2021. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. September 17. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://thebulletin.org/2021/09/the-new-australia-uk-and-us-nuclear-submarine-announcement-a-terrible-decision-for-the-nonproliferation-regime/.

Powell, Bonnie Azab. 2003. “UC Berkeley News.” https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml. October 27. Accessed November 4, 2021.

2021. “The Economist.” economist.com. September 17. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does-the-australian-submarine-deal-mean-for-non-proliferation ).

wells, Anthony R. 2020. Between five eyes: Fifty years of intelligence sharing. Oxford: CASEMATE.

Appendix.

1. Experts Responses

2. Frame Analysis

[1]Lieutenant General Asad Ahmed Durrani (Hilal-i-Imtiaz -military) served as the director-general of the Inter-Services Intelligence and former director-general of the Pakistan Army’s Military Intelligence

[2] Ambassador (Retired) Syed Hasan Javed served in the People’s Republic of China in two diplomatic assignments in the Embassy of Pakistan for nearly a decade. Has also had diplomatic postings in Brussels, Geneva, Harare, and Dushanbe. He speaks fluent Chinese and is the author of several books, six of them are on various China-specific subjects, including Chinese Made Easy (a bestseller in Pakistan); Chinese English Urdu Dictionary; Chinese Soft Power Code; Rise of China and the Asian Century; China’s Model of Development; and China, West and the Islamic World. These books have also been translated in the Chinese language and are a great value addition to better understand China and facilitate close Pakistan-China friendship and cooperation.

[3] Ambassador Masood Khalid served as Ambassador of Pakistan to the Peoples Republic of China in 2012 . He is a Career Diplomat. Over the years, he has acquired expertise in various facets of Pakistan’s foreign policy, including multilateral diplomacy and social development, as well as Pakistan’s relations with China, South Asia and the United States.

[4] Major General (R) Zahid Mubashir Sheikh, HI (M) has served Pakistan Army from 1975 to 2011. In addition to doing a number of military courses, he holds a Master’s degree in Defense Administration from Cranfield Institute of Technology, UK. He has a vast experience of Command, Staff and Instructional appointments, and has dealt with the security of sensitive organizations, rendering him well qualified to head an effective security organization. He also served in Ukraine as Ambassador of Pakistan.

[5] Major General Syed Khalid Amir Jaffery HI(M), (Retd) is the former Director General Anti-Narcotics Force and has also remained Pakistan’s Ambassador to Bosnia-Herzegovina. He has served on various command, staff and instructional assignments including Military Intelligence Directorate, General Headquarters and Inter-Services Intelligence Headquarters.

[6] Ambassador Faisal Niaz Tirmizi is a Career Diplomat and currently performing as Additional Secretary (Americans) in Foreign Office Islamabad. He has handled bilateral, multilateral, consular and administrative assignments both in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and abroad. Tirmizi has also given numerous talks on global and regional issues at important Think-Tanks and Universities including Chicago Council on Global Affairs, University of Michigan (Ann-Arbor), Purdue University (Calumet), Valparaiso University (Indiana), and United States Air Force Academy (Colorado Springs).