AUKUS faces bigger tests than Trump’s ‘America first’ review, US and UK experts warn.
The deal could undermine Australia’s sovereignty. it could lock Australia into following the Americans into a confrontation with China over Taiwan.
“You are in the punch-up, whether you like it or not.”
The deal could undermine Australia’s sovereignty. it could lock Australia into following the Americans into a confrontation with China over Taiwan.
“You are in the punch-up, whether you like it or not.”
ABC News, Four Corners, By Mark Willacy, Ninah Kopel and Lara Sonnenschein, 16 June 5
Key defence figures on both sides of the Atlantic warn the risks to AUKUS run deeper than whether a review finds Australia’s biggest ever defence deal is “America first” enough for Donald Trump.
They’ve told Four Corners of the damage being done to decades-old alliances by Mr Trump’s unpredictability and contempt for the US’s allies, the UK’s increasing focus on Europe, and concerns neither country has the capability to deliver the submarines on time or on budget.
With Australia’s allies holding all the cards, and our Indo-Pacific defence strategy at stake, it’s possible we could be left billions out of pocket, without submarines, and with one of our oldest alliances in tatters.
AUKUS alliance ‘undermined’
Even before the US decided to review the deal, a senior member of the country’s powerful Armed Services Committee was warning Mr Trump’s “idiotic” and “bullying” behaviour towards allies presented risks to the alliance with Australia.
The US president has repeatedly said that he regards Canada as the “51st state”, while his belittling of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in February shocked American allies around the world.
Mr Trump has also threatened to take back control of the Panama Canal and has not ruled out military force to wrest Greenland from Denmark.
The House Armed Services Committee’s highest-ranking Democrat, congressman Adam Smith, said Canberra had reason to be concerned about whether “the strong partnership between the US and Australia will remain”.
“I cannot possibly be critical enough of the way the Trump administration has treated our partners and allies since they were elected … it’s really stupid,” he said.
“Their contempt for allies and partners has the potential, not just to undermine the AUKUS agreement, but to undermine the very national security of the United States of America.”
Former US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan also fears that Mr Trump has undermined America’s standing with its allies and partners.
“I think this is a great source of alarm,” Mr Sullivan, who served in the role under president Joe Biden, told Four Corners. “The direction of travel right now is quite disturbing.”
Mr Sullivan said he understood why allies such as Australia, may be wondering where they stand with the US president.
“I’m not sure that [Mr Trump’s] looking for territory Down Under … not to make light of it,” Mr Sullivan said.
“But I can see why people are asking questions. ‘Hey, what the heck is going on here? This isn’t right.'”
Key voices in the UK, the third alliance partner, are also troubled about the implications for AUKUS.
Former Royal Navy admiral Alan West said, “dear old Trump coming in, that has … stood everyone on their heads really”.
“Things that we absolutely took as a certainty are no longer a certainty,” said Lord West, formerly the official who oversaw the Royal Navy’s operations.
“What he’s been saying about Canada [being the 51st state] is outrageous actually. It’s like stamping on a fluffy bunny really, isn’t it? It’s just terrible.”
America first?
Under the AUKUS agreement the US is supposed to transfer at least three nuclear-powered Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia in the 2030s.
But it’s not building enough Virginia-class submarines for its own fleet, let alone enough to supply Australia.
To meet its targets the US would need to build them at a rate of 2.3 a year. It’s only making 1.2 a year.
Christopher Miller, who served as the acting Defense Secretary in the dying days of the first Trump administration, warns production is “moving too slow”.
“I think probably most of that’s on the United States side, to be perfectly honest with you,” Mr Miller said.
“The problem is we don’t have the workforce, the welders, the skilled machinists that are required.”
Adam Smith conceded slow production had put pressure on the AUKUS deal.
“But I’m hoping that the AUKUS deal will also put pressure the other way. It’ll put pressure to solve that problem,” Mr Smith said.
Earlier this year Australia’s Defence minister handed over $800 million to his US counterpart. It’s the first of six payments designed to help bolster the struggling American submarine industry.
The chief of the Royal Australian Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, told Four Corners Washington was determined to boost production and to fulfil its obligations under the deal.
“That is the United States Navy’s job to set the conditions to enable that to succeed,” Vice Admiral Hammond said.
“They’re being backed up with strategic investment by the United States and by Australia. So I’ve got every reason to believe they will succeed.”
‘They can walk away’
The Trump administration said its review of AUKUS includes ensuring it is “aligned with the president’s ‘America first’ agenda” and that “the defence industrial base is meeting our needs”.
AUKUS critics, like the former commander of the Royal Australian Navy’s submarine squadron, Peter Briggs, warn that Australia could lose everything it has bet on the nuclear subs.
“This is a good deal for the Americans,” Mr Briggs said. “If they see that the AUKUS program is impacting on their capabilities, they can walk away from it.”
“No penalties, no refunds. That’s it.”
Under the United States’ AUKUS legislation, the president has to certify to Congress that any transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia would not degrade America’s undersea capabilities. Otherwise, the transfer will not take place…………………………
American leverage
The man leading the review, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, has been staunchly opposed to transferring any Virginia-class submarines to Australia while they are needed by the US.
Last year, before his elevation to the Pentagon, Mr Colby told the ABC it would weaken American strike power.
“It would be crazy for the United States to give away its single most important asset for a conflict with China over Taiwan,” he said at the time.
That view isn’t shared by other Republicans close to Donald Trump.
“We’re not ‘giving them away’. I mean, we are putting them in the hands of our friends in Australia,” Republican congressman Rob Wittman told Four Corners.
He said having Australia equipped with Virginia-class subs would place an obligation on Canberra to use them to assist the US in the Indo-Pacific.
“To me, that’s a lever. That’s where we can leverage the ability for Australia to do even more in partnership,”
Mr Wittman said.
“That’s a force multiplier for the United States and our friends in that region of the world.”
The prospect of “leverage” concerns some, who warn the deal could undermine Australia’s sovereignty.
Mr Briggs fears it could lock Australia into following the Americans into a confrontation with China over Taiwan.
“You are in the punch-up, whether you like it or not,” Mr Briggs said………………………………………
Shifting priorities
Mr Trump’s approach to diplomacy and the US’s lagging production are not the only factors threatening to disrupt AUKUS.
Under the plan the UK will design a brand-new nuclear-powered submarine called the SSN-AUKUS. Construction is due to begin by the end of this decade in the UK and Australia.
But the UK is facing more pressing challenges closer to home.
Since the signing of the agreement in 2021, Europe has seen the outbreak of the largest war on the continent since World War II. Senior UK defence experts say that has up-ended the country’s defence priorities.
…………………….The US isn’t alone in struggling with submarine production.
Former First Sea Lord Alan West said the UK currently does not have the workforce or the specialist skills to deliver the SSN-AUKUS on time……………………. Lord Ricketts said Australia should not expect the SSN-AUKUS to arrive on time or budget.
“I think any sensible defence calculation will be that these things will be more expensive and later than is currently expected,” he said……………………………………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-16/aukus-risks-trump-review-defence-four-corners/105412740
Pacific Rim countries say no to U.S.-China war
The question that the people of the Pacific and Pacific Rim countries are asking is: Why do we have to respond to this demand by the U.S.? We are not threatened by China. Where is the dire urgency that demands such a huge distortion of our public spending on the military?
The indications are that the United States is preparing for war against China, but cannot wage such a war from the West Coast of the USA. It needs military bases, port facilities and airfields in the countries on the west side of the Pacific Rim; for example, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Guam, Micronesia and Australia. Without these bases, without the backing of the military forces and munitions and manufacturing capabilities of the Pacific Rim countries, the United States cannot launch and sustain a war against China.
By Bevan Ramsden | 16 June 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/pacific-rim-countries-say-no-to-us-china-war,19837
As the U.S. pushes Pacific Rim allies to ramp up military spending for a possible war with China, a new campaign asks: at what cost and for whose benefit? Bevan Ramsden writes.
THE PACIFIC and Pacific Rim countries have a geographical commonality. They are encircled by, or have a border with, the vast, blue, peaceful Pacific Ocean. They also share a political commonality. The people and countries of this region are under pressure to lift their military spending at the expense of addressing their social needs.
The pressure comes from the United States, whose Defence Secretary, Peter Hegseth, at the recent Singapore Defence Summit, declared that the U.S. expects its allies in this region to increase their defence spending to 5% of their GDP. His justification was a “possibly imminent threat” posed by China. He emphasised how the U.S. is “reorienting towards deterring aggression by China” and made it clear that the Donald Trump Administration’s defence strategy revolves around stifling the rise of China.
Responding to this expectation would involve the doubling of South Korean expenditure on military defence, from 2.6% of its GDP to 5%.
It would mean Japan’s military defence spending would have to triple from 1.8 % of its GDP to 5%.
In Australia, such an increase would represent a two-and-a-half times increase from 2% to 5% of its GDP.
These examples show that the 5% target represents a massive increase in military spending, which can only be made by reducing funding for urgent infrastructure, social needs such as health and education and loss of resources to address the real threat to their living environments, the climate crisis.
The question that the people of the Pacific and Pacific Rim countries are asking is: Why do we have to respond to this demand by the U.S.? We are not threatened by China. Where is the dire urgency that demands such a huge distortion of our public spending on the military?
Another commonality among the countries of the Pacific Rim, particularly those on the western and southern rim of the Pacific, is U.S. troops and U.S. military installations stationed on their territory. In the case of South Korea, these are substantial, close to 30,000 and put that country’s military virtually under the control of the U.S.
Japan has 57,000 U.S. troops, including 20,000 on Okinawa, where the U.S. Kadena Air Base is its largest outside of the USA. Clearly, this level of foreign military occupation exerts substantial pressure on Japan’s foreign policy.
The Philippines has four U.S. bases with troops rotating through its territory and training with its defence forces, and is setting up logistic centres for equipment and munitions.
The people of Guam, a territory under direct U.S. control, are subject to 7,000 U.S. troops, with almost a third of the land controlled by the U.S. military. The Joint Region Marianas is a U.S. military command combining the Andersen Air Force Base and the Naval Base Guam.
Andersen Air Force Base hosts B-52 bombers and fighter jets. Naval Base Guam is the home port for four nuclear-powered fast attack submarines and two submarine tenders. American military commanders have referred to the island as their “permanent aircraft carrier”.
Australian governments, in their subservience to the U.S., have signed the Force Posture Agreement, giving the U.S. military unimpeded access to Australia’s ports and airfields and enabling the establishment of a Northern Territory base for its B-52 bombers, some of which are nuclear-capable. The Agreement is giving the U.S. fuel and munitions storage areas to support war operations and an $8 billion port facility for servicing their nuclear submarines and storage of their nuclear waste.
The people of Pacific Rim countries, including Australia, need to ask: Why does the U.S. have these extensive military facilities in our countries and why are they demanding such huge military expenditures from us?
The answer, unfortunately, is not for the benefit of the people of this region but for its own foreign policy objectives, which include maintaining its dominance in the region by “containing” China and preventing the rise of its influence.
The indications are that the United States is preparing for war against China, but cannot wage such a war from the West Coast of the USA. It needs military bases, port facilities and airfields in the countries on the west side of the Pacific Rim; for example, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Guam, Micronesia and Australia. Without these bases, without the backing of the military forces and munitions and manufacturing capabilities of the Pacific Rim countries, the United States cannot launch and sustain a war against China.
So the United States needs us but we don’t need such a war.
It would only bring devastation to our lives and our economies, and if it turned nuclear, who would survive?
The Pacific Peace Network, with representatives from the Pacific Rim countries and together with World Beyond War, has produced a solidary campaign which is being launched on 21 June 2025.
This is a campaign in which the people of each country on the Pacific Rim, including Australia, can say no to such a war and no to an increase in military spending for it, through a common petition which is a call on their governments.
The common petition can be accessed here at the World Beyond War website.
This call on governments reads:
For sustainable peace and the survival of our peoples and environment, we ask you:
- refuse to join military preparations for a U.S.-China war;
- declare you will not fight in a U.S.-China war;
- declare neutrality should such a war break out; and
- do not allow your territory or waters to be used in such a war, including the collection and relay of military intelligence, sales of weapons and hosting combatant troops and facilities.
Later this year, the petitions will be presented to their respective governments by peace activists in each country.
Where is scrutiny of UK’s nuclear submarine plans?
Samuel Rafanell-Williams, Scottish CND
VERY serious questions have yet to be either asked
or answered about the UK Government’s proposed military spending plans,
following its Strategic Defence Review (SDR) announcement two weeks ago.
In particular, there has yet to be any serious scrutiny of the proposal to
build 12 nuclear-propelled submarines under the Aukus agreement, the
military co-operation agreement between the US, UK and Australia. This
scrutiny is especially necessary given that the Pentagon this week
announced a review of its commitment to the agreement, raising questions
about whether the billions of pounds committed by the UK Government are
destined for the drain.
The Aukus agreement’s main aim is the material
support of the Australian Navy in the Indo-Pacific, primarily by providing
it with eight nuclear-powered submarines of the kind announced in the SDR.
This means several of the 12 nuclear submarines will probably end up
lurking around in the South China Sea, contributing nothing to the defence
of the UK and raising regional tensions.
The UK Government’s irrational and incoherent military spending plans come at a time when the current generation of submarines based at Faslane are in an increasingly atrocious
state of disrepair. Serious radioactive risk incidents at the naval base
are increasing. The Vanguard nuclear-armed submarines are going on
record-long assignments while their substitutes sit rusting in the repair
docks.
Crew are likely enduring awful conditions during six-month stints
underwater, with some reports saying they ran out of food during the last
assignment. Meanwhile, the Dreadnoughts that will supposedly replace these
ailing vessels are unlikely to enter service for 10 years at least – if
the reactors to power them can be built at all. The UK’s nuclear
superpower farce is unsustainable and a disaster waiting to happen. Those
of us who understand this in Scotland must support the parties which oppose
nuclear weapons in the run-up to the 2026 election, and keep up the
pressure on Scottish parliamentarians to support the UN Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
The National 14th June 2025,
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25239090.scrutiny-uks-nuclear-submarine-plans/
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 