Alliance reveals UK defense ambitions extend beyond Europe
https://arab.news/pfqjr
One of the key drivers of the UK Strategic Defense Review released earlier this month is the military threat from Russia, especially following its invasion of Ukraine. However, London's focus extends well beyond Europe, including to the Asia-Pacific region with the new AUKUS alliance.
One of the key announcements in the defense review is that the UK will build up to a dozen new submarines within the new AUKUS alliance with Australia and the US. This highlights the importance of the new alliance to London — it is perceived by some senior UK policymakers as potentially the most significant development since the 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement, with the US given the future potential to develop and deliver cutting-edge capabilities, and help revitalize the UK defense industrial base.
Yet, AUKUS may be about to hit a US political iceberg. The Trump team announced, only days after the UK defense review, that it has launched an AUKUS probe led by the Pentagon. Both the UK and Australian governments have declared optimism that Trump officials will, ultimately, 'green light' next steps with the nascent alliance, which was created in 2021 under the Biden administration.
Moreover, at the G7 last week, US President Donald Trump gave credence to this. Speaking with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump said that London, Canberra, and Washington are 'very long-time partners and allies and friends.'
AUKUS may be about to hit a US political iceberg
Andrew Hammond
Yet, uncertainty still remains — potential cancelation, or revising the terms of AUKUS, which may cause delay, are plausible. This is not least because US Defense Undersecretary for Policy Elbridge Colby, who is heading the US review, last year criticized the submarine element of the agreement, asserting that for the US 'it would be crazy to have fewer SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) in the right place and time.'
What Colby, who admits to being 'skeptical' about AUKUS, refers to here is the first pillar of the deal, which is centered around providing Australia with SSNs. Currently, Australia only has diesel-electric submarines, and one ultimate goal of AUKUS is for a fleet of new SSNs to be developed by London and Canberra utilizing UK design blueprints with US technology to spur military interoperability between the three.
In the interim, existing US and UK SSNs will rotate to Australia while a new nuclear submarine base is being built in Perth that is scheduled to be operational by around 2027. Canberra also plans to buy at least three, and possibly up to five, second-hand so-called Virginia-class SSNs from the US from 2032.
Under the terms of the AUKUS deal, Australia has already begun paying the US. This includes around $500 million given to Washington in February, which is a down payment of a bigger $2 billion in 2025.
Colby's comments from last year indicate that the lens he will use for the AUKUS review is whether the deal undermines the ability of the US defense industry to meet the nation's military needs. Part of the wider context here is production delays for the Virginia-class submarines, and cost overruns of billions of dollars. These supply challenges are one reason Colby has queried AUKUS, especially given potential future war scenarios in which Washington might need more submarines, fast.
It is not just Trump, but also other key figures, such as US Ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens, who have indicated support for AUKUS. Last month, Stephens said Washington is 'proud to stand alongside Britain and Australia, two of our closest allies, as we deepen our collaboration to respond to a changing world.'
However, the submarine supply challenge is not the only one that may complicate the deal. In addition, US and UK export controls on sensitive technologies between the three nations has slowed work to develop next generation technologies in wider, so-called pillar-two areas, including development of hypersonic missiles and quantum computing.
In this context, outright cancelation of AUKUS by the Trump team is an option that cannot be ruled out. Such an outcome would frustrate not only the UK, but also Australia, which terminated a deal to buy diesel-powered submarines from France when it signed up to the alliance in 2021. Scott Morrison, prime minister at the time, took a big diplomatic hit from this.
A wider range of nations may also be keen to join
Andrew Hammond
However, cancelation appears the least likely option. What may be more likely is a revision of the deal's wider terms so these are more weighted in favor of Washington.
For instance, the Trump team could seek to pressure Australia to boost its military spending, which is around 2 percent of gross domestic product, with an intent to raise this to about 2.4 percent by 2033-2034. While this 2 percent figure is higher than some countries in the NATO alliance, it is much less than the US, while the UK has committed to reaching 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027.
If the AUKUS alliance does survive, there are a wider range of nations that may also be keen to join as full or associate members in coming years. This includes New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and South Korea.
Take the example of Canada, which two former UK prime ministers, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, have previously backed for AUKUS membership 'to strengthen the West's collective defenses.' Johnson has even said that Canada is the 'most obvious next candidate,' and previous prime minister Justin Trudeau said that he held 'excellent conversations' with London, Washington, and Canberra over joining the alliance.
Taken together, if Trump does not scrap AUKUS, the project could assume significant new momentum. While expansion of the alliance is unlikely in the immediate term, collaboration with a range of Western allies in the Asia-Pacific and Americas is possible into the 2030s.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
US Senate pushes ahead on Trump tax cuts as nonpartisan analysis raises price tag
WASHINGTON: The US Senate version of President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill will add $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt, about $800 billion more than the version passed last month by the House of Representatives, a nonpartisan forecaster said on Sunday. The Congressional Budget Office issued its estimate of the bill's hit to the $36.2 trillion federal debt as Senate Republicans sought to push the bill forward in a marathon weekend session. Republicans, who have long voiced concern about growing US deficits and debt, have rejected the CBO's longstanding methodology to calculate the cost of legislation. But Democrats hope the latest, eye-widening figure could stoke enough anxiety among fiscally-minded conservatives to get them to buck their party, which controls both chambers of Congress. The Senate only narrowly advanced the tax-cut, immigration, border and military spending bill in a procedural vote late on Saturday, voting 51-49 to open debate on the 940-page megabill. Trump on social media hailed Saturday's vote as a 'great victory' for his 'great, big, beautiful bill.' In an illustration of the depths of the divide within the Republican Party over the bill, Senator Thom Tillis said he would not seek re-election next year, after Trump threatened to back a primary challenger in retribution for Tillis' Saturday night vote against the bill. Tillis' North Carolina seat is one of the few Republican Senate seats seen as vulnerable in next year's midterm elections. He was one of just two Republicans to vote no on Saturday. Trump wants the bill passed before the July 4 Independence Day holiday. While that deadline is one of choice, lawmakers will face a far more serious deadline later this summer when they must raise the nation's self-imposed debt ceiling or risk a devastating default on $36.2 trillion in debt. 'We are going to make sure hardworking people can keep more of their money,' Senator Katie Britt, an Alabama Republican, told CNN's State of the Union on Sunday. HITS TO BENEFITS Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, said this legislation would come to haunt Republicans if it gets approved, predicting 16 million Americans would lose their health insurance. 'Many of my Republican friends know ... they're walking the plank on this and we'll see if those who've expressed quiet consternation will actually have the courage of their convictions,' Warner told CBS News' 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.' The legislation has been the sole focus of a marathon weekend congressional session marked by political drama, division and lengthy delays as Democrats seek to slow the legislation's path to passage. Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer called for the entire text of the bill to be read on the Senate floor, a process that began before midnight Saturday and ran well into Sunday afternoon. Following that lawmakers will begin up to 20 hours of debate on the legislation. That will be followed by an amendment session, known as a 'vote-a-rama,' before the Senate votes on passage. Lawmakers said they hoped to complete work on the bill on Monday. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, the other Republican 'no' vote, opposed the legislation because it would raise the federal borrowing limit by an additional $5 trillion. 'Did Rand Paul Vote 'NO' again tonight? What's wrong with this guy???' Trump said on social media. The megabill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative achievement during his first term as president, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. Representative Michael McCaul, however, warned that fellow Republicans who do not back Trump on the bill could face payback from voters. 'They know that their jobs are at risk. Not just from the president, but from the voting — the American people. Our base back home will not reelect us to office if we vote no on this,' McCaul also told CBS News. Senate Republicans, who reject the CBO's estimates on the cost of the legislation, are set on using an alternative calculation method that does not factor in costs from extending the 2017 tax cuts. Outside tax experts, like Andrew Lautz from the nonpartisan think tank Bipartisan Policy Center, call it a 'magic trick.' Using this calculation method, the Senate Republicans' budget bill appears to cost substantially less and seems to save $500 billion, according to the BPC analysis. If the Senate passes the bill, it will then return to the House of Representatives for final passage before Trump can sign it into law. The House passed its version of the bill last month.
Arab News
7 hours ago
- Arab News
Is UK government principled or realist in the Middle East?
The UK's Labour government was probably thankful that Donald Trump found a way to strike Iran's nuclear facilities without using British bases. After the June 22 attacks occurred, London was quick to emphasize that, though it had been informed in advance, the UK played no role. In the run-up, British officials were concerned that any American request to use the UK base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia would put Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a difficult position. While Britain would feel obliged to aid its most important ally, there were questions over the legality of Washington's strikes. Immediately afterward, David Lammy, the UK's foreign secretary, declined to comment on the legal concerns, stating they were 'for the Americans to discuss.' But the question of international law and the UK's approach to the Middle East is not insignificant. As a lawyer and former head of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, many expected Starmer to place considerable emphasis on upholding international law and the so-called rules-based order when he came to office. Indeed, Starmer's attorney general, the UK government's chief legal adviser, told the BBC recently that international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of London's foreign policy. Lammy, another lawyer, stated when he came to power that Labour would pursue 'progressive realism' in office — using realist means to pursue progressive ends. But the Middle East, especially Israel's actions, have at times appeared a blind spot for this supposedly progressive foreign policy. For all its rhetoric, is Starmer's government ultimately more realist than principled in the region? During its year in office so far, Starmer's Labour government has been keen to emphasize its principles when it comes to the Middle East. Unlike some states like Hungary, which withdrew from the International Criminal Court to allow Benjamin Netanyahu to visit, Starmer's government has stated that, were the Israeli premier to enter the UK, he would be arrested in accordance with the court's warrant. Similarly, in recent months, London has stepped up its criticism of Israel's war in Gaza and initiated legal measures. These have included canceling free trade talks with Israel and 30 arms licenses, as well as sanctioning two Israeli ministers. In May, Lammy stated that Israel's recent actions in Gaza were 'an affront to the values of the British people,' and that ministers' calls to expel Palestinians were 'monstrous' and 'extremist.' During Israel's recent war with Iran, London similarly stuck to its principles of promoting a diplomatic not an armed solution — in contrast to its allies in Israel and the US. As Israel launched its attacks on Iran, Starmer's office released a statement emphasizing 'the need for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution, in the interests of stability in the region.' However, critics complain that the Labour government's principles in the Middle East appear quite elastic and inconsistent. While calling for Israel to de-escalate, Starmer also emphasized Israel's right to 'self-defense,' offering a degree of legitimacy to the attacks — 'self-defense' being the criteria needed under the UN Charter to legally justify military action. Critics complain that the Labour government's principles in the Middle East appear quite elastic and inconsistent. Christopher Phillips Similarly, while London has become increasingly critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, for a long time it was more supportive. As leader of the opposition, Starmer caused waves by saying Israel had 'the right' to cut off water and power to Gaza, despite this being considered illegal collective punishment by many international lawyers. And lawyers supporting the Palestinians have repeatedly challenged the legality of the UK continuing to supply Israel with arms — with the 320 continuing licenses far greater than the 30 that were suspended. Though there is always legal ambiguity with these issues, London's apparent unwillingness to seriously reduce arms supplies, despite its foreign secretary calling Israel's actions in Gaza 'monstrous,' suggests its commitment to principles in the region can be selective. Yet the government's supporters would offer a more nuanced take. In his interview with the BBC, Attorney General Richard Hermer, a long-term friend of Starmer, said that international law was 'important in and of itself, but it's also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we're trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country.' The suggestion is that the latter point, making life better for Britons, is the ultimate priority. Principles like upholding and promoting international law are important, but not at any expense. Labour must balance these principles with other concerns. At home, the Middle East is a hugely divisive issue. In 2024's general election, Labour lost five parliamentary seats to candidates overtly criticizing Starmer's Gaza policy, while the issue has repeatedly caused ruptures within the party itself. A significant number of MPs on the left wing of the party were vocally against the UK playing any role in the US strikes on Iran. Internationally, the UK is in a relatively weak position. Its primary concern is facing down Russia and pursuing rearmament alongside European allies in response to an apparent American reluctance to come to their aid. He is also determined to keep US President Donald Trump onside and to position the UK as a reliable friend to the White House. Grandstanding on international law to either Israel or the US risks damaging that relationship. The Middle East is low down the UK's list of core interests, perhaps explaining why London is often selective about when it wants to push international law — only doing so when it does not clash with core interests. Perhaps this selectiveness is what Lammy regards as progressive realism, but it is not clear whether this is having any effect in the Middle East or whether the US and Israel are more likely to adhere to progressive principles because of Britain's actions. A more cynical read is that Labour are being realist progressives: led by principle when they can but ultimately falling back on realpolitik when it comes to the crunch. The risk, of course, is that key actors not standing up for international laws and rules at these crucial moments means they wither away, making the world more dangerous. In such cases, there are fewer progressive opportunities and realism becomes the only option.
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Arab News
Alliance reveals UK defense ambitions extend beyond Europe
One of the key drivers of the UK Strategic Defense Review released earlier this month is the military threat from Russia, especially following its invasion of Ukraine. However, London's focus extends well beyond Europe, including to the Asia-Pacific region with the new AUKUS alliance. One of the key announcements in the defense review is that the UK will build up to a dozen new submarines within the new AUKUS alliance with Australia and the US. This highlights the importance of the new alliance to London — it is perceived by some senior UK policymakers as potentially the most significant development since the 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement, with the US given the future potential to develop and deliver cutting-edge capabilities, and help revitalize the UK defense industrial base. Yet, AUKUS may be about to hit a US political iceberg. The Trump team announced, only days after the UK defense review, that it has launched an AUKUS probe led by the Pentagon. Both the UK and Australian governments have declared optimism that Trump officials will, ultimately, 'green light' next steps with the nascent alliance, which was created in 2021 under the Biden administration. Moreover, at the G7 last week, US President Donald Trump gave credence to this. Speaking with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump said that London, Canberra, and Washington are 'very long-time partners and allies and friends.' AUKUS may be about to hit a US political iceberg Andrew Hammond Yet, uncertainty still remains — potential cancelation, or revising the terms of AUKUS, which may cause delay, are plausible. This is not least because US Defense Undersecretary for Policy Elbridge Colby, who is heading the US review, last year criticized the submarine element of the agreement, asserting that for the US 'it would be crazy to have fewer SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) in the right place and time.' What Colby, who admits to being 'skeptical' about AUKUS, refers to here is the first pillar of the deal, which is centered around providing Australia with SSNs. Currently, Australia only has diesel-electric submarines, and one ultimate goal of AUKUS is for a fleet of new SSNs to be developed by London and Canberra utilizing UK design blueprints with US technology to spur military interoperability between the three. In the interim, existing US and UK SSNs will rotate to Australia while a new nuclear submarine base is being built in Perth that is scheduled to be operational by around 2027. Canberra also plans to buy at least three, and possibly up to five, second-hand so-called Virginia-class SSNs from the US from 2032. Under the terms of the AUKUS deal, Australia has already begun paying the US. This includes around $500 million given to Washington in February, which is a down payment of a bigger $2 billion in 2025. Colby's comments from last year indicate that the lens he will use for the AUKUS review is whether the deal undermines the ability of the US defense industry to meet the nation's military needs. Part of the wider context here is production delays for the Virginia-class submarines, and cost overruns of billions of dollars. These supply challenges are one reason Colby has queried AUKUS, especially given potential future war scenarios in which Washington might need more submarines, fast. It is not just Trump, but also other key figures, such as US Ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens, who have indicated support for AUKUS. Last month, Stephens said Washington is 'proud to stand alongside Britain and Australia, two of our closest allies, as we deepen our collaboration to respond to a changing world.' However, the submarine supply challenge is not the only one that may complicate the deal. In addition, US and UK export controls on sensitive technologies between the three nations has slowed work to develop next generation technologies in wider, so-called pillar-two areas, including development of hypersonic missiles and quantum computing. In this context, outright cancelation of AUKUS by the Trump team is an option that cannot be ruled out. Such an outcome would frustrate not only the UK, but also Australia, which terminated a deal to buy diesel-powered submarines from France when it signed up to the alliance in 2021. Scott Morrison, prime minister at the time, took a big diplomatic hit from this. A wider range of nations may also be keen to join Andrew Hammond However, cancelation appears the least likely option. What may be more likely is a revision of the deal's wider terms so these are more weighted in favor of Washington. For instance, the Trump team could seek to pressure Australia to boost its military spending, which is around 2 percent of gross domestic product, with an intent to raise this to about 2.4 percent by 2033-2034. While this 2 percent figure is higher than some countries in the NATO alliance, it is much less than the US, while the UK has committed to reaching 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027. If the AUKUS alliance does survive, there are a wider range of nations that may also be keen to join as full or associate members in coming years. This includes New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and South Korea. Take the example of Canada, which two former UK prime ministers, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, have previously backed for AUKUS membership 'to strengthen the West's collective defenses.' Johnson has even said that Canada is the 'most obvious next candidate,' and previous prime minister Justin Trudeau said that he held 'excellent conversations' with London, Washington, and Canberra over joining the alliance. Taken together, if Trump does not scrap AUKUS, the project could assume significant new momentum. While expansion of the alliance is unlikely in the immediate term, collaboration with a range of Western allies in the Asia-Pacific and Americas is possible into the 2030s.
