Latest news with #Aukus
The National
a day ago
- Politics
- The National
Cancel Aukus? The silver linings if Australia's $239 billion submarine deal with the US gets scrapped
When Aukus, the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the UK, and the US, was announced in 2021, the then Australian prime minister Scott Morrison hailed it as 'an historic opportunity for the three nations, with like-minded allies and partners, to protect shared values and promote security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.' Under the deal the US would provide Canberra with three to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, with delivery from 2032 onwards, while Australia would be able to build its own version of a new British 'Aukus' submarine by the early 2040s. Not everyone was convinced. In 2023, the former Australian prime minister Paul Keating called the $239 billion plan the 'worst deal in all history' and said, 'the proposal is irrational in every dimension'. Last year, a former foreign minister, Gareth Evans, said that 'Australia's no-holds-barred embrace of Aukus is more likely than not to prove one of the worst defence and foreign policy decisions our country has made,' and put its sovereign independence 'at profound risk'. The agreement is currently under a 30-day review by the Trump administration, and since it is being led by US Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby, a known Aukus-sceptic, the deal may well be scuttled. Here's why I think that would be a positive move, and why other countries should take notice if it does unravel. Australia previously had a far cheaper deal with France to supply 12 submarines, and when Canberra abruptly cancelled the deal the French were livid, with Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian describing it as 'a stab in the back'. To be fair, it had been subject to delays. Nevertheless, the arrival time of the Aukus subs is lengthy, to put it mildly. I've talked about this several times with a friend who was a longstanding member of the Australian Government's Foreign Affairs Council, and we agreed that 'you'd better be careful with us, we've got some top-grade submarines coming in, er, nearly 10 to 20 years' was not the greatest of deterrents to a would-be aggressor. For Australia, the only sensible path is to try to build an Asia-Pacific security architecture that includes China The Aukus submarines are also too big. Concerns have been raised about how they would operate in Australia's shallow coastal areas. Mr Keating was clear. The new subs were, he said, 'designed to attack in China's peripheral waters'. The purpose of Aukus, in his view, was to tie Australia 'unambiguously, unqualifiedly and solely arraigning itself' to the most China-hawkish of American positions, and the agreement constituted 'the last shackle in the long chain the United States has laid out to contain China'. Quite apart from the issue of sovereignty – it is almost certain Australia will not be able to use these subs without 'interoperability' with America – it is unclear if they're ever going to arrive. Another former Australian foreign minister, Bob Carr, is sure of it. 'The evidence is mounting that we're not going to get Virginia-class subs from the United States,' Mr Carr said in March, 'for the simple reason they're not building enough for their own needs and will not, in the early 2030s, be peeling off subs from their own navy to sell to us'. This is partly a matter of law. Before transferring any submarines to Australia, the US president must certify that this would not diminish American naval capability. Mr Colby has publicly expressed doubts on this front. But it's also a matter of inclination. The Department of Defence has said that the review is to ensure 'that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's 'America first' agenda'. We know that 'America first' considers itself to be unbound by anything, including international law – as the Trump administration's strikes on Iran showed. Assuming 'America first' continues to be the guiding ideology of a possible JD Vance presidency in the future, why should it keep to the Aukus agreement if it is not deemed in the US's best interests? So, I agree with Mr Keating and Mr Evans. Their country is best out of it, and Mr Colby's review 'might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself', as Mr Keating put it. The broader point to be taken from this is that many countries need to be thinking about taking care of themselves, including seeking more collective security, rather than relying on an America safety net that may not be there if push comes to shove. For Australia, the only sensible path is to try to build an Asia-Pacific security architecture that includes China. For Europe, it means looking further ahead of the current war on the continent and imagining Russia as a common neighbour, not an enemy. And for the Middle East, if Mr Trump could assist the creation of a region in which Israel, a Palestinian state, and Iran all live in peace, he would deserve the Nobel prize that he covets. For now, however, the US President may think he's pulled off a brilliant manoeuvre in terms of Iran and Israel, but his contradictory behaviour inevitably unnerves other countries, some allies perhaps especially so. On the other hand, if they need to stand on their own feet rather more in the future, that may not be a bad thing – even if it's a consequence of 'America first' in all its stark reality. It's a lesson Australia is learning. Other countries should take note.
Straits Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
Australian PM's ‘lame silence' on Iran bombing points to wariness about optics of Trump ties
Australian PM Anthony Albanese speaks to the media during a press conference after attending the G7 Leaders' Summit on June 17. PHOTO: EPA-EFE – US President Donald Trump's surprise decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities on June 22 prompted an unusual silence this week from the leader of one of America's closest allies, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. As the local media clamoured for a response to the bombing and critics warned that silence from Canberra could damage ties with Washington, Mr Albanese took 24 hours to finally issue a formal statement in which he endorsed the strike and called for 'dialogue and diplomacy'. His 'lame silence' – as an editorial in The Sydney Morning Herald on June 24 described it – was viewed as a lukewarm endorsement of Mr Trump's strike, particularly from a country that proudly claims to have fought alongside the US in every major conflict since World War I. Yet, just a day after Mr Albanese's statement, Mr Trump's announcement of a ceasefire on June 24 prompted a much quicker reaction. Within hours, Mr Albanese released a statement welcoming the ceasefire and calling for regional peace. 'We have consistently called for dialogue, diplomacy and de-escalation,' he said. The Prime Minister insisted that his delayed response to the US strikes was not 'slow' or 'flat-footed', saying that Australia was not a central player in the conflict. 'What my government does is act in an orderly, coherent way,' he told Sky News on June 24. 'And we were very clear for some period of time that Iran could not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.' But Mr Albanese's delayed comments appeared to reflect a serious dilemma he faced in response to the US intervention. On the one hand, Mr Albanese was keen to avoid damaging the alliance with the US, which could cause a domestic political backlash and could undermine his effort to acquire American nuclear-powered submarines as part of the three-way Aukus pact between the two countries and the United Kingdom. But Mr Albanese is also wary of being seen to be grovelling to Mr Trump, who is unpopular in Australia, and is mindful that Australia – unlike Mr Trump – is staunchly committed to the international rules-based order. Plus, there is the ever present need to consider Australia's ties with its closest trading partner, China, and other regional neighbours that do not share Canberra's warm ties with Washington. Dr Ben Zala, a senior lecturer in international relations at Monash University, told The Straits Times that he believed the government's delay occurred because 'they actually did feel the need to think carefully about it'. 'It is potentially a sign of concern about the implications of Australia just joining the US on any foreign policy decision that it makes,' he said. 'In the past, the response would have been, how quickly and in what way do we support what the US is doing... It is harder to unquestioningly support the US now, when US power is contested (by China), and there is also the Trump factor.' The Trump administration's contempt for the international rules-based order, Dr Zala said, had led to 'a nervousness about what happens if we are all the way with the USA'. Mr Albanese's somewhat tepid response to the US intervention in Iran also added to perceptions of potential friction in his ties with the Trump administration. The two leaders have not yet met, and their planned meeting in mid-June, on the sidelines of a Group of Seven leaders' summit in Canada, was cancelled after Mr Trump returned to Washington to deal with the conflict in the Middle East. Mr Albanese is under pressure to meet with the US President to push for Australia to be exempted from US trade sanctions and for some clarity on the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine deal, which the Trump administration is currently reviewing. The US also expects Canberra to raise its defence spending to about 3.5 per cent of its GDP, from about 2 per cent currently. Opinion polls in Australia show there is strong support for its alliance with the US, but that Australians tend to oppose providing troops to fight in distant US-led wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Lowy Institute poll released on June 15 found that 67 per cent of Australians support acquiring nuclear-powered submarines and 32 per cent are opposed, and that 80 per cent believe the US alliance is important for Australia's security. But just 25 per cent of Australians trust Mr Trump to do the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 72 per cent who do not, and 3 per cent who are uncommitted. Professor Nick Bisley, an expert on Australian foreign policy from La Trobe University, told The Straits Times that Mr Albanese's handling of the US intervention in Iran was 'understandably cautious'. He said the government's 'keep your head down' approach also reflected his determination to keep Australia's foreign policy focus on the region, particularly on bolstering ties across South-east Asia and the South Pacific. 'The Middle East is not part of Australia's core interests,' he said. 'The government didn't want to be jumping on the grandstand cheering on a high risk proposition that could tip things in the Middle East in a dangerous way. The balance they struck is understandable.' Prof Bisley said Mr Albanese faced the difficult task of sending a message of restrained endorsement for the US actions in Iran without risking the wrath of Mr Trump and his acolytes. 'When you're dealing with the Trump folk, you only want to attract attention if you have to,' he said. Jonathan Pearlman writes about Australia and the Pacific for The Straits Times. Based in Sydney, he explains matters on Australia and the Pacific to readers outside the Oceania region. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
South China Morning Post
4 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
Australia faces a ‘guns or butter' problem: defence spending or social programmes?
Australia confronts a 'guns or butter' choice between a bigger defence budget and expanding national disability insurance and other social programmes, according to multinational banking and financial services company Rabobank, which calls for economic statecraft to navigate a risky regional security environment. For now, the government is opting for 'butter', but it retains substantial fiscal headroom to bolster military spending when compared to peer economies, Rabobank economist Benjamin Picton said in a research note on Tuesday. The nation's debt is lower than that of counterparts as a share of its gross domestic product. Australian officials have warned that the nation faces its most complex strategic circumstances since World War II. The government aims to pivot its military posture to deterrence, including via drones and missiles, to complement a planned fleet of nuclear-powered submarines due to be delivered in the 2030s under the Aukus deal. A Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine of the type Australia is set to acquire from the early 2030s. Photo: US Navy But Canberra is caught between the expanding military footprint of China, which is also Australia's biggest trading partner, and its traditional US ally that is seeking to check Beijing's expansion in the Asia-Pacific. Picton pointed out the contradiction of Australia deepening military engagement with Washington via Aukus to deter China while trying to keep defence spending low enough to 'remain relatively inoffensive' to Beijing. 'This have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too approach carries risk that Australia will be forced into supporting US foreign policy interests against its own, while also being underprepared if a major conflict were to break out, or if the US were to revise its strategic doctrine in the Western Pacific,' Picton said. As a result, Australia faces higher defence, social programmes and debt servicing costs which may put pressure on long-dated government bonds, Picton said.
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Aukus vital to ‘deter Chinese aggression', say US lawmakers, as Trump urged to recommit to submarine deal
The Aukus pact is vital to 'deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific region', Republican and Democrat lawmakers in the US have told the Pentagon, urging the US to recommit to the nuclear submarine deal with Australia and the UK. The Trump administration announced this month it would undertake a 30-day review of the Aukus agreement – the deal struck in 2021 that would see US nuclear submarines sold to Australia, and new-design nuclear-powered Aukus submarines built in the UK and Australia. A letter addressed to defence secretary Pete Hegseth, signed by five Republican and Democrat lawmakers, urged the Pentagon to back Aukus, despite growing concerns over laggard shipbuilding in both the US and UK. 'As the department of defense begins its 30-day review of the trilateral Aukus mission, we write to you to express our strongest support for the agreement. 'This is a defense alliance that is overwhelmingly in the best interest of all three Aukus nations, as well as the entire Indo-Pacific region. Indeed, as you noted in February when Australia provided the U.S. with a $500m Aukus payment, 'this is not a mission … America can undertake by itself. It has to be [done by] robust allies and partners. Technology sharing and subs are a huge part of it.' The letter said the breadth and depth of support for Aukus within the US Congress had grown dramatically and 'we have worked quickly to recognize Aukus's mission to deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific region'. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email It also pointed to progress made, saying 'legislation necessary for Aukus to proceed had passed Congress; shipbuilding rates in the US had lifted substantially; and Australian naval officers had begun joint training on US nuclear-powered submarines.' Australia's defence minister, Richard Marles, who is in London on his way to the Nato meeting at The Hague, said he was 'not going to speculate about what the review will ultimately say' but stressed a review of a major defence project was a 'perfectly natural step' for an incoming administration to take, one that was supported by Australia. Asked about workforce challenges faced by both the US and UK shipbuilding industries, Marles said the 'human dimension' was a key challenge in securing Aukus submarines. 'We are confident that we can get this right, but we're not sanguine about it. There is a lot of work to be done to meet the human challenge, but we believe we can get it done.' Democratic Congressman Joe Courtney, co-chair of the Friends of Australia Caucus (and whose district in Connecticut includes the shipbuilding hub of Groton), as well as Republicans Michael McCaul, chair emeritus of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, were the lead signatories on the letter. Elbridge Colby, the under secretary of defence for policy at the Pentagon, is leading the 30-day US review, due to report in July. Colby has consistently declared he is 'very sceptical' about the pact and its benefits for America. He told the US Senate armed service committee that the US was not building enough submarines for its own defence, and would not sell submarines to Australia if that might jeopardise American interests. 'We don't want our servicemen and women to be in a weaker position and more vulnerable … because [the attack submarines] are not in the right place at the right time.' Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Under pillar one of the Aukus agreement, the US will sell Australia between three and five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, with the first to be delivered in 2032. These will replace Australia's ageing Collins class diesel-electric submarines to cover the 'capability gap' before Australia's own Aukus nuclear-powered submarines can be built. By the 'late 2030s', according to Australia's submarine industry strategy, UK shipbuilders will deliver the first specifically designed and built Aukus submarine to its own Royal Navy. Australia's first Aukus submarine – based on the UK design but to be built in South Australia – will be in the water 'in the early 2040s'. Aukus is forecast to cost Australia up to $368bn to the mid-2050s. Australia is providing significant subsidies to the industrial bases of both the US and UK. It has already paid $A798m (US$500m) – the first instalment of $A4.7bn pledged – to the US. It will pay A$4.6bn to the UK. But the deal's feasibility has come under significant pressure regarding both nuclear-capable senior partners. The US navy already has a shortfall of submarines, expected to worsen over coming years, and shipyards in America are running up to three years late in building new Virginia-class submarines, a 2024 US navy report found. The UK parliament announced its own inquiry into Aukus in April, which will examine whether 'geopolitical shifts since the initial agreement in 2021' have rendered the agreement unworkable. In Australia, there have been calls from a chorus of voices – including naval experts, former prime and foreign ministers, submariners, anti-war groups, and the Greens – for a domestic inquiry into Aukus, its feasibility and potential benefits to Australia.
NZ Herald
5 days ago
- Politics
- NZ Herald
New Zealand hints at support for US over Iran
There are several points of contrast. First are NZ's Opposition parties, which soon after the bombing declared it contrary to international law and called on the Government to say so as well. Second is Australia, which came out yesterday and supported the bombing. But it is more likely that NZ will continue to follow the example of Britain and Canada. That is to avoid the issue of whether it supports or opposes the bombing of three nuclear facilities, to stay silent on whether it was justified or unjustified, not to offer a view as to whether it was lawful or unlawful under international law, and to emphasise what should happen from now on: de-escalation and diplomacy. Unlike NZ, in the 24 hours after the bombing, the Australian Government came under domestic pressure from its highly vocal defence hawks to unequivocally support the bombing. And it did so today. 'The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent that - that is what this is,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. Even if it is a bit squirmish about the legalities of America's unilateral strike, Australia's status as an ally is baked into not just Anzus but into the $368 billion Aukus submarine supply deal. And with Aukus currently under review by the Trump Administration, it is not hard to see why Labor might have seen it as against its national interest to quibble about whether the US acted contrary to international law. No wonder the general response to Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong was why had it taken Australia 24 hours to say that. Britain, although equally the No 1 ally to the US with Australia, is in a different position. While it too has come under pressure from the Conservative opposition to back the US action, the UK Labour Government has stronger grounds for resisting. Its position as an intermediary between Iran and the US – not to mention between Europe and the US - is important. Britain, along with France and Germany, was meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister in Geneva the day before the bombing. Despite US President Donald Trump dismissing their attempts at mediation, it will be important to keep those channels open. And if the UK and European players are to maintain credibility with Iran in such a role, they cannot afford to be cheerleading the US against such Iranian humiliation. Minister of Defence Judith Collins and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters announce an operation to assist New Zealanders stranded in Iran and Israel at RNZAF Base, Whenuapai, on Sunday. Photo / Sylvie Whinray Foreign Minister Winston Peters on Sunday and Monday morning took a non-committal position on the basis of not having enough information. You could tell that well-established US hawk was itching to back the US, but he resisted. He is, after all, part of a three-party Coalition, and with the Prime Minister on the other side of the world for a Nato summit, he and his officials needed time to work on their positioning. But no amount of waiting for information is going to change the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recorded in May that Iran's nuclear stockpiles include 400kg of uranium enriched up to 60% - beyond what it required for supposedly civilian use. No amount of denial by Iran is going to persuade leaders of most Western countries that Iran was not far away – possibly months - from producing a nuclear weapon. And no amount of extra information is going to change the claim by the US that its actions were of collective self-defence and were lawful. NZ is committed to the 'international rules-based order'. Whenever it calls out Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, it describes it as 'illegal.' But whether something is lawful or unlawful under international law is often debatable, especially when it involves the US. When Peters talks about wanting more information, he is not referring to waiting for the final piece of legal advice that will tip the scales and have NZ declare the US actions unlawful. The only direction in which he would want to shift is further towards supporting the US, not criticising it. By 3pm yesterday, Peters had issued a fuller statement calling for diplomacy and dialogue, and noting the US statement to the UN Security Council in defence of its actions. It also noted NZ's history of advocating for disarmament, opposing Iran's nuclear programme, and stated more bluntly than he has stated before: 'Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons'. That may not be an unequivocal statement of NZ's support for the US action, but it certainly moves closer to it. And perhaps that is where NZ's position will rest.
