US launches review of AUKUS submarine deal; Australia confident pact will proceed
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has talked about the importance of ensuring maximum military readiness and pressing allies to contribute fully to collective defense.
The review will be led by Elbridge Colby, a senior Pentagon official and critic of the deal, who had previously questioned why the US would part with what he called the 'crown jewel' of its defense technology at a time of heightened global tensions.
Australia has responded with calm, expressing confidence that the pact remains intact. Defence Minister Richard Marles told ABC Radio Melbourne on Thursday that the deal is crucial to Australia's long-term security needs. 'I'm very confident this is going to happen,' Marles said. 'You just need to look at the map to understand that Australia absolutely needs to have a long-range submarine capability.'
Marles said that it is not a surprise for a new administration to reassess such a major agreement. 'This is a multi-decade plan. There will be governments that come and go and I think whenever we see a new government, a review of this kind is going to be something which will be undertaken,' he said.
Signed in 2021 under then-President Joe Biden, the AUKUS pact is a trilateral security agreement aimed at countering China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific. Under the deal, Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines with technology shared by the US and UK, becoming only the second country after Britain to receive such access from Washington.
The plan involves Australia purchasing up to three second-hand Virginia-class submarines from the US starting in the early 2030s, with options for two more. Eventually, Australia and the UK will co-develop a new AUKUS-class submarine, with production shared between the two countries.
The deal is valued at $368 billion is Australian dollars (US$239 billion) over three decades and is expected to generate thousands of manufacturing jobs in both nations.
In 2025, Australia is scheduled to make a $2 billion payment to help upgrade US submarine shipyards. The first $500 million tranche was paid earlier this year during a visit by Marles to Washington.
The US review will also examine the production rate of Virginia-class submarines, which have fallen behind schedule. Colby and other officials have expressed concerns about whether the US can meet its own fleet demands while also supplying submarines to Australia.
'It is important that those production and sustainment rates are improved,' Marles said.
Meanwhile, Australia is under pressure from Washington to increase its defense spending from 2% to 3.5% of GDP.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has committed to raising it to 2.3%, citing capability needs rather than percentage targets. He is expected to meet President Donald Trump at the upcoming G7 summit in Canada to discuss both AUKUS and defense burden-sharing.
An Australian government spokesperson told the BBC that such reviews are natural for a new administration, noting that the UK had also recently completed its own evaluation of the pact. There is 'clear and consistent' support for the deal across the 'full political spectrum' in the US, they said.
The UK Ministry of Defence echoed this sentiment, calling AUKUS a 'landmark security and defence partnership' and 'one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades.'
The AUKUS pact has drawn criticism from China, which accuses the trilateral alliance of destabilising the region and stoking an arms race. Analysts warn that any sign of US withdrawal could be seen as a strategic win for Beijing.
(With inputs from BBC, Reuters)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
19 minutes ago
- First Post
Lunch at White House, hunger at home: Asim Munir's NY trip show what's wrong with Pakistan
When the US establishment engages directly with the Pakistan Army chief while bypassing its elected leadership, it proves that the country's democracy is nothing more than a decorative formality read more In a diplomatic spectacle that could only be described as 'deliciously ironic', Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan's Army Chief, was invited to the White House for a tête-à-tête with President Trump. A prime example of irony, this meeting arrived at a time when the very foundations of civilian authority in Pakistan were under siege. A prime minister who can barely finish a term, and a military leader who holds more sway than any elected official. It is a display so spectacular that even the most cynical observer would be tempted to applaud the audacity. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But this wasn't just a polite exchange of pleasantries; it was a statement. The optics were impeccable, two powerful men sharing a meal while the rest of the world watched, wondering if they were discussing strategy or simply reminiscing about the good old days of military coups. The message was clear: the US wasn't just engaging with Pakistan, it was engaging with the Pakistani military as its de facto representative. A military that doesn't just play a supporting role in Pakistan's governance, but increasingly becomes the lead actor. This was not Pakistan being celebrated in Washington; it was the Pakistani military being reinforced as the permanent sovereign. A state of affairs where civilian leadership is increasingly sidelined in favour of military power. A true diplomatic win? Hardly. More of a political indictment of a system that can't seem to find a way to empower its people through democratic institutions. The Disappearing State: When Civilians Are Optional The absence of Pakistan's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister from this historic meeting wasn't just a diplomatic faux pas; it was a glaring testament to the sidelining of civilian authority. The message was loud and clear: Pakistan's real leader is in uniform, not in a suit. This isn't just about who gets to share the spotlight in Washington. It's about who gets to make the decisions at home. The concept of the 'disappearing state' is rooted in the idea that state visits used to reflect a sovereign hierarchy, where heads of state would meet heads of state. But in Pakistan's case, that chain of command has been brutally ruptured. When the US military or political establishment engages directly with Pakistan's army chief while bypassing its elected leadership, it doesn't just reflect a diplomatic trend; it exacerbates the perception that Pakistan's democracy is nothing more than a decorative formality. The US engagement with General Munir further highlights this, reinforcing the message that military-led governance is acceptable, even preferable, to civilian-led democracy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For a country already plagued by a fractured political class, co-opted, humiliated, and frequently sidelined, the result is nothing short of disastrous. Every time a foreign power, particularly the United States, plays along with this narrative, it chips away at the legitimacy of Pakistan's civilian institutions. What's worse, this serves to further marginalise the political class, transforming elected officials into mere figureheads, ornamental but without any real power. This is not just a diplomatic faux pas; it's a death by a thousand photo ops. The Illusion of Strength: Posturing in a Global Theatre While General Munir's invitation to Washington may appear to project strength to domestic audiences in Pakistan, this is a brittle, borrowed form of strength. It's the kind of strength that only appears powerful from a distance. The paradox is unsettling: the more powerful Pakistan's military seems at home, the more dependent it becomes abroad. Far from promoting strategic autonomy, this is strategic theatre, a show designed to distract from the reality of Pakistan's political and economic dependence on foreign powers. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD American engagement with Pakistan's military has historically been less about partnership and more about utility. Whether during the Cold War, the War on Terror, or in the current climate of strategic alliances in the region, the pattern has been unmistakable: when the US needs something, be it military bases, transit routes, or leverage over Afghanistan, it reaches out to Rawalpindi, not Islamabad. This has always been a transactional relationship, not one based on mutual interests or respect. General Munir's visit to Washington follows this exact script. It's a carefully choreographed engagement designed to serve the interests of both parties, but primarily those of the US. What's worse, every such engagement further entraps Pakistan in a cycle of conditional aid, military-to-military cooperation, and silent compliance. As long as Pakistan's military establishment remains the face of the state, it becomes easier for foreign powers to treat Pakistan not as a multifaceted democracy but as a monolithic security apparatus. And in this regard, the US is complicit, not just in supporting Pakistan's military dominance, but in ensuring that civilian power remains an afterthought. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Timing of the Lunch and Shared Dessert General Munir's invitation to the White House raised questions about its true intent. While President Trump framed the meeting as a thank-you for preventing a nuclear crisis between India and Pakistan, the timing and context suggested deeper motives. The meeting came at a time of rising tensions with Iran, underscoring Munir's growing influence in Pakistan's power politics. The lunch symbolised a diplomatic gesture that excluded Pakistan's elected leaders, reinforcing the military's dominance in foreign policy. While Munir met with Trump, Pakistan rejected Iran's request for support during its attacks, a move that aligned with Israel's interests. US officials made it clear that no support would come from the broader Islamic world, isolating Iran. Trump's praise of Munir's insight into Iran further highlighted the military's central role, as the civilian government was sidelined. Additionally, Munir's reported attendance at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meeting fuelled concerns over Pakistan's increasing alignment with US and Israeli interests. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This meeting reflected a return to Cold War-era dynamics between the US and Pakistan. Pakistan reportedly offered rare earth materials and potential crypto council partnerships, benefiting both nations. For Pakistan, it was a way to shift from China to the US, while Trump secured vital resources. However, this deal reinforced the transactional nature of US-Pakistan relations, with the military continuing to dominate foreign policy, sidelining civilian institutions. India Watches, Unbothered! The entire spectacle of General Munir's visit and the subsequent media frenzy in Pakistan might lead some within Pakistan's strategic circles to believe that this is a victory in the ongoing geopolitical rivalry with India. After all, when Pakistan's army chief is feted by the world's most powerful nation, surely it must be a step toward restoring the balance of power, right? Wrong. The truth is far less flattering. From India's perspective, the situation is a source of reassurance rather than concern. India's strategic calculus regarding Pakistan has always been shaped by one key observation: Pakistan's military dominance is its Achilles' Heel. Pakistan's inability to fully embrace civilian rule and forge a truly democratic identity has been a point of pride for India's strategic thinkers for decades. General Munir's trip to Washington only confirms what India has long suspected, that Pakistan is still a security state masquerading as a democracy. And as long as the US continues to treat Pakistan as such, India's concerns about its geopolitical standing are minimal. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This isn't just about who gets invited to Washington; it's about the deeper dynamics of regional power. While the US-Pakistan military relationship may serve specific American interests, it doesn't fundamentally alter the trajectory of the Pakistan-India rivalry. Instead, it highlights the deepening chasm between Pakistan's civilian institutions and its military-dominated reality. As far as India is concerned, Pakistan's internal dysfunction is less a threat and more a confirmation of its own stability and growing influence in the region. What's Lost in the Optics? The optics of General Munir's luncheon in Washington are not what they seem. While the Pakistani military may read this as an endorsement, a validation of its central role in the state, the deeper reality is far more cynical. The US is not empowering Pakistan's military to make it stronger; it's engaging with it to keep it compliant. The handshake at the White House is not about strengthening Pakistan's sovereignty; it's about ensuring Pakistan doesn't stray too far from the US's strategic orbit. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD By endorsing the military as the primary interlocutor, Washington effectively sidesteps the messy, unpredictable nature of democratic governance. Elections, public dissent, and popular opinion all complicate diplomatic engagement. But by dealing exclusively with the military, the US gets the kind of stability it craves, centralised power that can be easily influenced. The military becomes the puppet, and the US pulls the strings. This dynamic is particularly dangerous because it consolidates Pakistan's place in a cycle of military dominance, foreign dependency, and institutional decay. Pakistan's sovereignty is sacrificed on the altar of strategic convenience, and the long-term health of its democratic institutions is jeopardised in the process. What does this mean for Pakistan's Future? Every state must choose the architecture of its legitimacy, and in Pakistan, that choice has been made again and again: uniforms over ballots. But this form of legitimacy is inherently unstable. Legitimacy built on coercion and foreign validation is always temporary. It erodes slowly, until it collapses suddenly. General Munir's lunch at the White House may satisfy egos and silence critics for a few news cycles, but its strategic cost is enormous. It does nothing to address the underlying tensions between Pakistan's military and its civilian institutions. Instead, it institutionalises the military's role as the face of the nation, an institution that is increasingly less accountable to the people it purports to represent. This is not just a short-term setback for Pakistan's democratic prospects. It is a long-term erosion of the democratic norms that Pakistan once aspired to. And unless something changes, the future of Pakistan looks increasingly like a military-led state, where the voices of its people are drowned out by the noise of military parades and diplomatic dinners. Conclusion: A Meal Served Cold General Munir's luncheon at the White House was more than just a diplomatic event. It was a symbol of Pakistan's ongoing struggle between military dominance and democratic governance. While the world watched, the real question remained: who truly holds the reins of power in Pakistan? The military, cloaked in ceremonial grandeur, seems to be making a play for the throne, one handshake at a time. Until that question is answered, the nation risks remaining a republic in name only. A republic that, like the lunch served at the White House, has grown cold, stale, and increasingly irrelevant to the needs of the people it was designed to serve. Chitra Saini holds a PhD from the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University and currently serves as an Assistant Professor (Guest) at the Delhi College of Arts and Commerce, University of Delhi. Amit Kumar is a Senior Research Fellow at the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, Rajasthan, India. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Domino's Australia franchise CEO steps down
HighlightsMark van Dyck, the Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of Domino's Pizza Enterprises, will step down before Christmas this year, causing the company's shares to plummet approximately 16%. In his eight months in charge, Van Dyck implemented cost-saving measures and closed low-volume stores as the company faced declining sales in a post-COVID environment. Domino's Pizza Enterprises is beginning a global search for a new Chief Executive Officer, with Chairman Jack Cowin stepping in as the interim executive chair. Domino's Pizza Enterprises said on Wednesday its CEO and managing director, Mark van Dyck , would step down before Christmas this year, sending the Australian franchise operator's shares plummeting about 16% to their weakest in over 11 years. Van Dyck, a former Coca-Cola executive, took over from the franchise operator's longstanding head, Don Meij, in November last year as the company struggled to maintain sales in a post-COVID era. In eight months, Van Dyck laid the groundwork for a turnaround, closing low-volume stores and initiating cost-saving measures. His departure, effective December 23, sent the stock spiralling. Shares ended 15.8% lower at A$16.96 apiece, their lowest since February 2014, and logged their worst session since late January 2024. The stock was the second biggest loser in the ASX 200 benchmark on the day, and has lost 90% of its value since scaling an all-time high in September 2021, when pizza sales surged and the company was mapping out expansion plans for the coming decade. "A new CEO will take some time to appoint, raising the risk (of an) extended period of sub-par execution and lost earnings and further talent loss," said John Lockton, head of investment strategy at MST Financial. The company's underlying profit declined 8% in 2024 and was 36% below its record 2021 profit . A consensus of analyst estimates forecasts an 85% slump in fiscal 2025 profit, per Visible Alpha. The board has begun a global search to replace the incumbent CEO, the firm said. Chairman Jack Cowin, who has over five decades of experience in the quick-service restaurant sector and is the company's largest shareholder, will assume the role of interim executive chair . Cowin was one of the founders of KFC in Australia and played a key role in Domino's expansion into Europe and Asia. Domino's Pizza Enterprises runs the largest master franchise of the U.S.-based Domino's Pizza in 12 countries across Asia, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Japan accounts for around a fifth of its stores.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump voters in for a shock as $800 billion Medicaid cuts hit home in MAGA stronghold
Teresa McNab, a Trump voter from Knox County, Kentucky, came home after dropping her daughter at school and found her husband Jackie having a seizure on the floor. Jackie, who had blood clots, died despite Teresa trying to save him before the ambulance arrived. He was only 45. Teresa and her daughter had to sell lemonade to raise money for his burial and gravestone. One small relief was that Medicaid paid Jackie's hospital bills. Teresa's story shows how important Medicaid is for poor families in rural areas like Knox County. But now that support is under threat due to Trump's plan to cut up to $800 billion from Medicaid, as stated by Telegraph report. Big Medicaid cuts may hurt Trump's own voters Trump wants the cuts to help fund $3.7 trillion in tax cuts, and is pushing lawmakers to pass it by July 4. These cuts would make 16 million people lose health insurance by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Even though Republicans say the bill will help household income, there's fear it will mostly hurt the poor people who actually voted for Trump. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 Most Beautiful Female Athletes in the World Click Here Out of the 200 countries that depend most on Medicaid, 84% voted for Trump in 2024. Knox County, where 72% voted for Trump, is one of the poorest places in the U.S. and 68% of people use public health insurance. These numbers show how risky this move could be for Trump politically, as mentioned in the report by Telegraph. Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon warned the bill might fail because 'MAGA is on Medicaid.' Pollster Frank Luntz says hardcore Trump fans will still support him even if they lose benefits. But Luntz also said working-class voters may turn against Trump if the cuts hurt them directly. Medicaid started in 1965 to help low-income people with healthcare. Live Events Medicare is for people over 65 and fully funded by the federal government. Medicaid is for low-income people and funded by both states and the federal government. Before Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, adults without kids were mostly not eligible for Medicaid, as per the report by Telegraph. The ACA let more low-income adults qualify, dropping the number of uninsured Americans from 44 million to 25 million. Trump's bill could undo those gains by cutting $793 billion from Medicaid over 10 years. Kentucky could lose $21 billion in federal funding and 277,000 people may lose coverage, says research group KFF. ALSO READ: Musk escalates feud with Trump, throws support behind nemesis Thomas Massie for his re-election New work rules and paperwork may make people lose coverage A big change in the bill is a new requirement to work 80 hours a month to keep Medicaid under ACA rules, saving $344 billion. The bill also saves $64 billion by making people re-check their eligibility every 6 months instead of once a year. Darren Bullock, a Trump voter who left the Democrats, might lose his Medicaid because of the new work rules, as mentioned by the report by Telegraph. Darren says jobs are hard to get in rural areas like Knox County, especially since he has no car, phone, or public transport access. Jennifer Tolbert from KFF warns that people aged 55–64, who often retired early from tough jobs, are most at risk. She says even people who do work might lose Medicaid just because they can't keep up with the extra paperwork. Teresa McNab, who now works as a full-time cook, says she can meet the work hours but has no time to do the paperwork due to caring for her daughter and elderly mom. Medicaid is also key to drug rehab programs in Kentucky, especially with the region's opioid crisis. Chris Ross, a former drug addict, says Medicaid paid for his treatment and helped him turn his life around. He now has a job, is married, and got custody of his kids, all thanks to Medicaid support. Daniel Phipps, who runs a rehab group, says most of his patients are on Medicaid, and cuts could harm these services badly, as stated by Telegraph. While the Republican bill exempts people in rehab from work rules, they might still lose coverage if they can't meet reporting demands. Tolbert adds that local hospitals in poor areas will lose money and may cut back staff or services as more people go uninsured. Politically, this could hit Trump hard in countries like Knox, where people strongly vote Republican but rely heavily on Medicaid. Chris Ross said people can't just ignore such big threats to their survival — even if they're loyal Trump voters, according to the report by Telegraph. FAQs Q1. What is Trump's plan for Medicaid? Trump wants to cut up to $800 billion from Medicaid to help pay for tax cuts. This may cause millions of people to lose their health insurance. Q2. Who will be most affected by these Medicaid cuts? Low-income families, especially in rural places like Knox County, Kentucky, where many people voted for Trump, could lose coverage or face harder rules.
