♪ this is al jazeera and these are the headlines. he struggled with health issues for years such as having a stroke. he stepped down two years ago under pressure amid protest and the army. u.s. officials have admitted a drone strike in kabul last month stake in the targeted civilians instead of isil k fighters. a man was killed along with nine

other members of his family including seven children. >> i am now convinced as many as 10 civilians including seven children were tragically killed in a strike. it is unlikely that the vehicle and those that died were associated with isis-k or were a direct threat to u.s. forces. this strike was taken and the earnest belief that it would prevent an imminent threat to the forces. it was a mistake i offer my sincere apology. i am fully responsible for this strike and its tragic outcome. >> france is recalling its ambassadors from the u.s. and australia. it reverses a multibillion-dollar agreement for australia to buy some marines from france. >military leader say that they

will not yield to pressure say they will not yield to pressure. -- the u.s. has temporarily close the border crossing of mexico. 10,000 migrants waiting to be processed by immigration authorities. they are providing basic services. those are the headlines and stay with us your al jazeera. inside stories commitment. ♪ the u.s., australia, u.k. have

announced a major defense agreement in the pacific. many say is an attempt by the u.s. to contain china's influence in the region. it is an echo of the cold war? this is inside story. ♪ hello and welcome to the program. i am emily. it is a new military alliance that has reaction from around the world. china has strongly criticized the u.s., australia, u.k. after they announced a new deal that would see australia get nuclear powered summaries. they have met us trillion officials and accused -- australian officials and accused china of making --

beijing has accused the three powers of having a cold war mentality. australia will become the seventh nation in the world to operate nuclear power submarines. >> the u.s., u.k., australia reportedly agreed to form a new defense alliance on the sidelines of this year's g7 summit in england. washington and london will help them buy a fleet of nuclear power summaries. the reason for the alliance is china. >> we spoke in detail about china's de-stabling -- destabilizing activities. we will remain clear i'd in our view of beijing's efforts to undermine the established international order. >> we have discussed china at a

number of levels that requires us to respond and recruit -- increase resilience. that does not mean there is not constructive areas of engagement with china. >> not surprisingly, beijing condemned both the alliance and the summary deal. >> the exports of highly sensitive nuclear powered submarine technology from the united states into australia once again proves that they're are using nuclear exports as a means for geopolitical gains. it is double standard. >> in washington they were pummeled with questions about the scaredy package. >> this is about enhancing our cooperation, our work together,

ultimately about enhancing security and stability in the indo pacific and it is not aimed any country. it is certainly not aimed at holding them back. >> the announcement of this new alliance could signal that the u.s. president joe biden is actively shaping american foreign policy. fostering new ties to deal with new threats telling old pirate -- partners that change is not a diplomatic death now. -- now. >> in los angeles we have peter matthews a professor of political science and international relations. in canada michael, a director of natural sugar deprogram. in -- national security program.

thank you so much for joining us. as you heard in roslyn's package the u.s. secretary of state says that this is not aimed at any particular country. it is clearly in response to beijing and the moves of the south china sea and its response to taiwan. >> everybody knows there is tension in the south china chief -- see. this attempt to get australia with nuclear powered summaries for the first time is a very serious attempt to push back with the balance of power. it will take care of the islands and expand influence in the area. it is a very important action that will have major impact in the whole region and globally. going back to the balance power principle. >> from a chinese perspective

this is a way to counter china's influence in the region. is this going to change beijing's behavior? >> this goes back to colonial area gunboat diplomacy with cold war era soviet sauce put on top of it. the real issue, i wonder how the people in different countries there, arguing this. you said the u.s. representative in china was violating international norms and imposing its will. it is kind of ironic. it is the u.s. and great britain talking about this after what happened in afghanistan and the middle east? as far as beijing is concerned it is the age of hypocrisy and self-righteous hypocrisy. it will not change and they will

continue to do what they do. it will be more in trade and less in trying to match this road games -- wargames mentality. >> michael, what is your reaction to what was said and does his packed make us -- strategic sense for australia? >> a lot of will we heard is distraction. magic is all about misdirection. beijing has been the master of saying it is everyone else's action and not ours that is causing the environment. it is quite clear that beijing's use of military and maritime militia and growing military power is linked to this action and the powerful response it is creating a credible deterrence. let's get away from distractions about if this is some kind of

blame of a soviet approach and imperialism and see it as a hard power response to beijing's use of hard power. that is what this is about. it does re-center the power balance and not in beijing's favor. that is where we are hearing strange angry reactions from beijing. >> the u.s. has 72 nuclear powered attack some marines. china has six. they are now being sold to australia at $3.4 billion each. that is not going to include what it will cost at the end of 10 years. given that your military budget is $35 billion a year you'll be committing a tremendous amount. the idea that is all self-righteous nonsense, why

would china close down the ceilings? they get 80% of their oil? how to work? it would be pure suicide. all about how this is a credible deterrent is nonsense. it is an economic war. australia does not have a foreign-policy of its own and it is relying on the u.s. whose only concern is being king of the hill and making sure they have the agenda make in keeping china away. >> peter, i will bring you in here. >> let's keep in mind that china has been very successful economically and growing its economy and reaching out and building its road program and other countries. this is a concern in the u.s. and i do not think it should be.

they should be working to build economies instead of escalating a possible cold war. there is a danger. u.s. and china have about $700 billion in trade. this is not an offense of position. a district leader fence. it could be seen offensively. the only other country that used to do that was britain. this is really serious enhancement of the situation. i think we have to be careful that we will not start a new cold war with china and make it a defensive situation. people talking a minute ago had really good points from a different perspective of course. >> how important is it forced really to clarify international interests in all of this knuckle

-- in all of this? >> it is preclear by central policy direction. it has direct coercive decision-making from beijing. the other big problem is that it's trust globally is collapsing. there is an enormous collapse -- gap between its words and actions. right at the time when china has empowered is heavily armed coast guard to used leasable -- gleeful-- leathful force wherever it wants. it has led to a collapse in trust and a strengthening of

military deterrence in the region is welcomed quietly by much of the region, but not by beijing. >> how likely is trying to use this alliance to expand its own military echo -- military? >> there might be calls from the war hawks to increase it. they were trying to join the former tpp. i think china's response be economic. it's monetary account is under than ever due to iron or exports to china. there are other areas that will impact and it will. >> and other response echo -- ?

>> it should not escalate to a new cold war. if u.s. intervenes militarily australia will be obligated to get involved militarily because of the deal with the summaries. you could get to a dangerous position and all sides should cool their heads work it out as much as possible. >> i think there is real room to clarify the understanding that we have with each other. there is a tendency for talking past each other here and some of that can be improved by a little bit more self reflection beijing knows it is breaking world trade rules with its course of this against really.

-- against australia. australia would like to know how a global pandemic started so we could prevent future ones. this is all public knowledge that can be traced back to beijing's actions. >> let's put the politics to the side now and i want already gentleman about the nuclear powered summaries themselves. mike, i want talk to you about the concerns around that. scott morrison said that australia is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability. how dangerous is this going forward? what are some of the ramifications of establishing nuclear powered summaries -- some marines -- submarines?

>> the u.s. and u.k. will keep making -- meeting their obligations to knopfler freight nuclear weapons. it is not australia's goal to get nuclear weapons. nuclear powered summaries are an extremely powerful nuclear technology and they do add to the balance of power in indo pacific. the safety and the environmental aspects of having nuclear submarines will be carefully managed, building on australia's capacity to have clear warships already. i think, the nuclear power aspects of this are entirely manageable in the framework of international obligations. it will be made effective by the

powerful partnership of the u.k., u.s., australia. >> i noticed your shaking your head there. the chinese foreign minister said that to export nuclear technology to australia is an extremely irresponsible double standard. do you agree? >> i have a slightly different take. beijing says they do not like it, obviously. it will take 10 years to deliver one of the subs. if they want a fleet it will take more. during that time drones will be lower for rating and become more sophisticated. for the price of the subs you could create a fleet of 100,000 submersible drones.

it would be laughable in 10 years, quite frankly, from a technology perspective to have these behemoths around. the issue from china's perspective, beijing's perspective, they see this as an entree to the cold war. a world war i scenario where the u.s. is creating packs and obliging itself. one tender sets off a world war iii, and that is something no one wants. there needs to be talk. you cannot talk and say you are not starting a cold war when you are. >> what is your take on what is said and what are your thoughts on the u.k., u.s. stories of sharing nuclear technology with each other? >> it is a huge step up.

you can stay for a thirst -- first time australia is sharing its technology. it can be seen as china, it being dangerous for them. they do not have strong nuclear or anti-submarine technology. it would be a real problem for china. i think this is where the australian person said it would be important to tone down the rhetoric and not talk past each other. to talk to each other about this and restrain yourselves. he did not want a new arms raised like you had with the u.s. and soviet union -- which had to be brought under control. world war i, it started with a miscalculation and misjudgment. it could be a tender box situation that arises here. i think it needs to be both

sides of the leadership and diplomats that work hard to make sure that does not get a control or spark something. >> michael, is there an expectation that if there is some kind of major conflict over taiwan in the south china sea with these units be deployed in the midst of that? >> i do not think there is any doubt that if beijing chose to use force to change the status of taiwan that america and partners and allies, including australia would become involved. that is a matter of national interest and regional security. i hope that is understood in beijing. it is these kinds of scenarios that lead to this unfortunate needs to increase military deterrence. i want to mention one point about the idea that nuclear some

marines would be dated technology. that is a scenario where there is no real evidence to show the case. this partnership, australia, u.k. partnership has some benefits, too. in the undersea domain which is an area of disadvantage for beijing. i would not want beijing thinking that nearer term additions of capability. >> just on the discussion around timelines, former prime minister kevin says, australia is being left strategically naked for 20 years because some suggest that this would not be a valuable tool until 2040.

>> i do not think so. there will be a series of other important capability improvements before that timeframe. including in the undersea domain. i would be shocked not to see effective undersea capabilities shared between partners. i would also expect to see them in important trilateral's like this one. there is a growing range of capabilities that adds to the deterrent picture in our region. that is well before the first summary turns up. -- submarine turns up. >> is it a direct threat? >> now.

they's -- no. they see as a cold war. china will pursue its economics more regionally. the u.s. needs it and europe need to. great brick and -- britain needs it. politics plays a role. the australian prime minister is reeling from a scandal. boris has reshuffled his cabinet, biden is under attack because of the handling of the afghan war. there is one other aspect of one dimension here. boris johnson said that three english speaking nations getting together. i do not know if that will sit well, not only with china but

with the rest. the idea that english speaking people have superiority and should be taking on the world and teaching everybody. it smacks of colonialism and racism. >> we only have one minute to go. some final thoughts. a solution going forward? >> we need to avoid that impression and i think boris johnson's statement was not that well taken. they should be cooperation, diplomacy, and a handle on not talking past each other. talking with each other on both sides and ensure that there is no missed cancellations. this is a very serious step forward and has he brought under control. >> we appreciate all your insights in this robust discussion. thank you very much to arst -- guests.

thank you for watching. you can see the program any time by visiting our website al jazeera.com. you can also join the conversation on twitter our handle is @ajinsidestory and from me in the entire team goodbye for■9,x,x=÷=÷,>,ñ úç