Aukus: Could Trump sink Australia's submarine plans?
A pivotal deal for Australia
On paper, Australia is the clear beneficiary of the Aukus agreement, worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn).The technology underpinning the pact belongs to the US, and the UK already has it, along with their own nuclear-powered subs. But those that are being jointly designed and built by the three countries will be an improvement.For Australia, this represents a pivotal upgrade to military capabilities. The new submarine model will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet, and allow it to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first time.It is a big deal for the US to share what has been described as the "crown jewel" of its defence technology, and no small thing for the UK to hand over engine blueprints either.But arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in the Asia-Pacific region, which is far from their own. It's about putting their technology and hardware in the right place, experts say.But when the Aukus agreement was signed in 2021, all three countries had very different leaders - Joe Biden in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK and Scott Morrison in Australia.
Today, when viewed through the increasingly isolationist lens Trump is using to examine his country's global ties, some argue the US has far less to gain from the pact.Under Secretary of Defence Policy Elbridge Colby, a previous critic of Aukus, will lead the White House review into the agreement, with a Pentagon official telling the BBC the process was to ensure it meets "common sense, America First criteria".Two of the criteria they cite are telling. One is a demand that allies "step up fully to do their part for collective defence". The other is a purported need to ensure that the US arms industry is adequately meeting the country's own needs first.The Trump administration has consistently expressed frustration at allies, including Australia, who they believe aren't pulling their weight with defence spending. They also say America is struggling to produce enough nuclear-powered submarines for its own forces."Why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?" Colby himself had said last year.
A chill in Canberra
The Australian government, however, is presenting a calm front. It's only natural for a new administration to reassess the decisions of its predecessor, officials say, noting that the new UK Labor government had a review of Aukus last year too."I'm very confident this is going to happen," Defence Minister Richard Marles said of the pact, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).But there's little doubt the review would be causing some early jolts of panic in Canberra."I think angst has been inseparable from Aukus since its beginning… The review itself is not alarming. It's just everything else," Euan Graham, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, tells the BBC.
There is growing concern across Australia that America cannot be relied upon."[President Donald Trump's] behaviour, over these first months of this term, I don't think should fill any observer with confidence about America's commitment to its allies," Mr Roggeveen says."Trump has said, for instance, that Ukraine is mainly Europe's problem because they are separated by a big, beautiful ocean. Well of course, there's a big, beautiful ocean separating America from Asia too."Washington's decision to slap large tariffs on Australian goods earlier this year did not inspire confidence either, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese saying it was clearly "not the act of a friend".Albanese has stayed quiet on the Aukus review so far, likely holding his breath for a face-to-face meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week. This is a chat he's still desperately trying to get the US president to agree to.But several former prime ministers have rushed to give their two cents.Scott Morrison, the conservative leader who negotiated the Aukus pact in 2021, said the review should not be "over-interpreted" and scoffed at the suggestion another country could meet Australia's security needs. "The notion… is honestly delusional," he told ABC radio.
Malcolm Turnbull, who was behind the French submarine contract that Morrison dramatically tore up in favour of Aukus, said Australia needs to "wake up", realise it's a "bad deal" which the US could renege on at any point, and make other plans before it is too late.Meanwhile, Paul Keating, a famously sharp-tongued advocate for closer ties with China, said this "might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself"."Aukus will be shown for what it always has been: a deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson and the confused President Joe Biden."The whiff of US indecision over Aukus feeds into long-term criticism in some quarters that Australia is becoming too reliant on the country.Calling for Australia's own inquiry, the Greens, the country's third-largest political party, said: "We need an independent defence and foreign policy, that does not require us to bend our will and shovel wealth to an increasingly erratic and reckless Trump USA."
What could happen next?
There's every chance the US turns around in a few weeks and recommits to the pact.At the end of the day, Australia is buying up to five nuclear-powered submarines at a huge expense, helping keep Americans employed. And the US has plenty of time - just under a decade - to sort out their supply issues and provide them."[The US] also benefit from the wider aspects of Aukus - all three parties get to lift their boat jointly by having a more interoperable defence technology and ecosystem," Mr Graham adds.Even so, the anxiety the review has injected into the relationship is going to be hard to erase completely – and has only inflamed disagreements over Aukus in Australia.But there's also a possibility Trump does want to rewrite the deal."I can easily see a future in which we don't get the Virginia class boats," Mr Roggeveen says, referring to the interim submarines.That would potentially leave Australia with its increasingly outdated fleet for another two decades, vulnerable while the new models are being designed and built.What happens in the event the US does leave the Aukus alliance completely?At this juncture, few are sounding that alarm. The broad view is that, for the US, countering China and keeping the Pacific in their sphere of influence is still crucial.
Mr Roggeveen, though, says that when it comes to potential conflict in the Pacific, the US hasn't been putting their money where its mouth is for years."China's been engaged in the biggest build-up of military power of any country since the end of the Cold War and the United States' position in Asia basically hasn't changed," he says.If the US leaves, Aukus could very well become an awkward Auk – but could the UK realistically offer enough for Australia to sustain the agreement?And if the whole thing falls apart and Australia is left without submarines, who else could it turn to?France feels like an unlikely saviour, given the previous row there, but Australia does have options, Mr Roggeveen says: "This wouldn't be the end of the world for Australian defence."Australia is "geographically blessed", he says, and with "a reasonable defence budget and a good strategy" could sufficiently deter China, even without submarines."There's this phrase you hear occasionally, that the danger is on our doorstep. Well, it's a big doorstep if that is true… Beijing is closer to Berlin than it is to Sydney.""There is this mental block in Australia and also this emotional block - a fear of abandonment, this idea that we can't defend ourselves alone. But we absolutely can if we have to."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE I ordered an everyday item of clothing from overseas when it was seized at the Australian border... then came the $2,500 bill to get it back
An Australian business owner has lashed out after his clothing shipment was seized at the border and he was forced to pay more than $2,500 before he could get it back. Andy Lowry, who runs clothing store Pamboes, had ordered a shipment of 'blanket hoodies' from China before they were withheld by the Australian Border Force. Authorities had searched the clothing for illegal materials, however they found nothing suspicious inside of them. Mr Lowry was slugged with a $2,524 bill for airport storage fees and informed he would not be able to collect the items until he settled it. 'Apparently because I'm the importer on record, I had to pay that $2,524 bill and they pretty much told me to get stuffed,' he said. 'This is like the cost of doing business essentially.' Mr Lowry claimed the seizure put him behind schedule for marketing the new clothes. 'I can confirm that [Master Air Waybill number] is subject to border processing and we're unable to provide a timeframe as to when it may be available,' an official advised in an email. 'At this point I'm getting stressed cause they like can't give me a timeframe. I'm like how long are they going to keep it for?' Mr Lowry said. In correspondence from the ABF, Mr Lowry was told he could not collect his items until he paid to lift the storage fees. He believed it would cost a few hundred dollars. 'After I wait a week and a half, I get my storage charges and it's storage for $2,524. For what? A hoodie?' Mr Lowry said. 'Then I sort of had this huge back and forth on why I'm having to pay for this, and lo and behold, it is legal. 'The Australian Border Force can do that to any person who is importing.' Mr Lowry said to chase a reimbursement he was deferred to the Department of Home Affairs. He was told he would have to lodge an investigation and complain. Mr Lowry told Daily Mail Australia any fee 'coming out of nowhere' makes it 'tough' to do business. He said the 'seasonal' business relies on customers purchasing his products at the beginning of winter, and estimates the border mishap in June cost him dearly. Mr Lowry began selling the loungewear during the Covid pandemic before realising there was a market for 'blanket'-style clothes. 'This delay cost us two weeks in June, which would be above a six-figure loss in lost sales,' he said. 'Understandably customers do their winter shopping at the beginning of winter so they can get full use out of whatever they have bought.' When he tried to chase an investigation, Mr Lowry found there was no way around paying the fees, as the importer on record is liable for the costs. 'In the time Australian Border Force is checking your goods, your shipping company is forced to hold the goods at their warehouses until Australian Border Force is finished and storage charges are imposed,' he said. 'Some companies may be kind enough to waive these charges, but understandably they are a business too.' Mr Lowry said the costs around occupying commercial real estate are expensive as port space is in high demand. In general, importing can be 'quite difficult' he said. He added Pamboes has thankfully had few issues but acknowledged he had heard 'horror stories'. 'Border holds cost companies millions each year and it's not something you can really prepare for, it's almost a random check,' he said. 'We understand they have to keep our borders safe, but we pay taxes at the border. You would think part of those taxes we pay would cover ABF's work.' He said it hasn't put him off doing business as Pamboes moves into more fashionable blanket-wear and tries to sell off remaining stock in a winter sale.
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Huge '$25 cap' cost of living change to help millions of Aussies pay for an everyday staple
Australians will pay no more than $25 for selected medicines for the first time in more than 20 years under a proposal to be brought before parliament. It will be the second cap on medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) introduced by the Albanese government in three years, after it cut the maximum price of PBS prescriptions from $42.50 to $30. 'The size of your bank balance shouldn't determine the quality of your health care,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. 'My government will continue to deliver cost-of-living relief for all Australians.' PBS medicines would be capped at $7.70 for pensioners and concession card holders until 2030. The bill's introduction is largely a formality, with its passage through the lower house all but assured thanks to Labor's massive 94-seat majority in the 150-seat House of Representatives. The election promise is the Albanese government's next priority after it introduced childcare safety and HECS debt reduction legislation. Federal Labor has been talking up plans to strengthen the PBS amid concerns the scheme will be targeted as a bargaining chip in US trade negotiations to ward off threatened pharmaceutical tariffs. Albanese has repeatedly said the scheme was not up for negotiation. Australia eased its biosecurity restrictions on US beef imports last week, but the prime minister has denied the move was linked to US trade talks. He noted the decision followed a 10-year review of Australian biosecurity rules. Beyond new legislation, conflict in the Middle East will likely prompt fierce debate on the parliamentary floor after Albanese said Israel had breached international law by blocking the flow of food aid into Gaza. 'Quite clearly, it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which was a decision that Israel made in March,' Albanese told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. He stopped short of saying Australia would join France in recognising a Palestinian state, but said his government would decide at 'an appropriate time'. 'Hamas can have no role in a future state,' he said. 'Hamas are a terrorist organisation who I find, their actions are abhorrent.' Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said Albanese failed to adequately condemn the role of the group in the ongoing conflict. The government is also likely to come under pressure regarding transparency when parliament resumes, after a Centre for Public Integrity probe revealed only a quarter of freedom of information request responses returned by the government in 2023-24 were un-redacted. By comparison, the Morrison government returned almost half of its FOI requests as complete documents in 2021/22.
Reuters
23 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU's pledge for $250 billion of US energy imports is delusional
LAUNCESTON, Australia, July 28 (Reuters) - There are strong echoes of Donald Trump's failed trade deal with China from his first term as U.S. president in the framework agreement reached with the European Union. Trump and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal for a 15% tariff on U.S. imports of EU goods at the U.S. leader's golf course in Scotland on Sunday. But more important than the 15% tariff rate was the apparent commitment by the EU to massively ramp up energy imports from the United States. The agreement calls for EU imports of U.S. energy, which currently are mainly crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), of $250 billion a year for three years. This is a delusional level of imports that the EU has virtually no chance of meeting, and one that U.S. producers would also struggle to supply. Even if the EU did manage somehow to boost its energy imports from the United States to the $250 billion a year mark, it would also prove massively disruptive for energy flows around the rest of the world. The numbers show the scale of the challenge. The 28 members of the EU imported 3.38 billion barrels of seaborne crude oil in 2024, according to data compiled by energy analysts Kpler. Assuming the 2025 volume stays the same and the price paid per barrel averages around $70, this means the EU will pay about $236.6 billion for its crude. The EU's imports from the United States were 573 million barrels in 2024, which if replicated this year would be valued at around $40.1 billion. For LNG, the EU imported 82.68 million metric tons in 2024, which would have cost around $51.26 billion assuming an average price of around $12 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). Imports of the super-chilled fuel from the United States were 35.13 million tons in 2024, worth about $21.78 billion. The EU also buys coal from the United States, the bulk being higher-value metallurgical coal used to make steel. Total EU imports of metallurgical coal in 2024 were worth $6.72 billion, assuming an average price of $200 per ton, with those from the United States valued at $2.67 billion. Putting together the value of EU imports of U.S. crude oil, LNG and metallurgical coal gives a 2024 total of around $64.55 billion. This is about 26% of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on U.S. energy a year under the framework agreement. If the EU did ramp up its imports of U.S. crude, LNG and metallurgical coal to $250 billion, it would account for 85% of its total spending on those energy commodities. The United States exported 1.45 billion barrels of crude in 2024, according to Kpler, which would be worth $101.5 billion at a price of $70 a barrel. U.S. shipments of LNG were 87.05 million tons in 2024, which would be worth about $54 billion at an average price of $12 per mmBtu. The U.S. exported 51.53 million tons of metallurgical coal in 2024, worth $10.3 billion at an average price of $200 a ton. Putting together the value of all three energy commodities gives a total of $165.8 billion, meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion. The scale of the delusion probably exceeds what Trump and China agreed in their so-called Phase 1 trade deal in December 2019, under which China was supposed to buy $200 billion of additional U.S. energy by the end of 2021. The reality is that China never even came close to buying that level, and its imports of U.S. energy didn't even reach what they were before Trump launched his first trade war in 2017. There are a few caveats when looking at the framework agreement between Trump and Von der Leyen. The first is that not all the details are known and the $250 billion of energy is also said to include nuclear fuel, although this will only be a small value even if included. The second is the deal will probably include refined fuels, with U.S. exports to the EU of products such as diesel, being almost 110 million barrels in 2024, worth about $10.9 billion assuming a price of $100 a barrel. But it's still clear that the commitment to buy $250 billion in U.S. energy is completely unrealistic and unachievable. The smart people in the room must know this, begging the question as to why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number? What happens when the inevitable failure is realised? Perhaps the EU is hoping for the same outcome as China did with the first trade war with Trump in 2019. Run down the clock, talk nice, and hope the next U.S. president is easier to deal with. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
