This is CBSI in the world. I'm John Bats, a Gregory Copley editor and publisher of Defense

and Foreign Affairs and my guide on Arcus, the very careful construction of a defensive

alliance that is also about the future in developing security because of the threat of the

people's Republic of China now and of the threats in the future of the 21st century.

Arcus, however, is much in the news because of political voices, financial times, London reporting.

U.S. and Australia insists political tussle will not damage submarine deals. Subhead,

Washington will increase troop deployments and maritime patrols to counter Chinese threat

in Nindo Pacific. And then we go to the London Times. This is Catherine Philip,

diplomatic correspondent of the London Times in these last hours. The U.S. Australia Defense

pact only underlines Britain's weakness. The UK reads the subhead does not have the gear

to match its ambitions in the Nindo Pacific. Gregory, this deal, Arcus, pleased everybody and

suddenly their doubts is that what I'm reading here. Thank you.

Well, doubts, I mean, not really. Is it moving as quickly and as smoothly as comprehensively as

everybody would like? Probably not because it was an incredibly ambitious project to create

Arcus, Australia, United Kingdom and the U.S. acting in absolute harmony to create a totally new

global alliance, which the world had not seen before, bearing in mind that NATO is very

geographically restricted now trying to be a global alliance. But the reality is that

Arcus is a global alliance and there's a lot to do. There is no real political tussle within

the alliance at present between any of the three states. The projects are working very well with

all of them. There is dissent, if you like, in the U.S. Senate, where some senators are saying

we don't like the idea that three Virginia class submarines are going to be taken offline

from the U.S. Navy and sold for good cash money to the Royal Australian Navy because they say

...