Why US Interference in Australia Must Stop.
May 21, 2025 AIMN Editorial By Denis Hay https://theaimn.net/why-us-interference-in-australia-must-stop/
Description
US Interference. Discover how U.S. propaganda, led by the National Endowment for Democracy, manipulates global politics, including in Australia. Is our democracy truly sovereign?
Introduction: Are We the Masters of Our Destiny?
Picture this: Canberra, late 2023. A backbencher quietly raises concerns about Australia’s hawkish stance on China. He’s quickly silenced by a chorus of talking points – suspiciously uniform across think tanks, media panels, and government briefings. Behind the curtain? A well-funded global influence machine with links to Washington.
This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a documented, multi-decade campaign spearheaded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a U.S.-funded entity once described as the CIA’s “soft power arm.” As revelations surface that the NED may soon be defunded, the world, including Australia, has a rare window to reflect.
The Problem: US Interference Hidden in Plain Sight
The Rise of the National Endowment for Democracy
Created in 1983, NED appeared from a CIA-backed vision to continue covert operations under the guise of democracy promotion. Its founder, CIA director William Casey, appointed former CIA staff to lead it, turning it into a powerhouse of global opinion-shaping.
According to the NED, it funds over 2,000 organisations annually. These include media outlets, advocacy groups, and political movements – all carefully aligned with U.S. foreign policy interests. But where transparency was once claimed, secrecy now prevails.
Australia: A Silent Target?
While countries like India, Iran, and Egypt have expelled or restricted the influence of the NED, Australia has yet to take any such action, leaving us vulnerable to foreign interference.” While there’s no official list of NED-backed groups working here, patterns appear:
• Think tanks echoing U.S. security narratives.
• Media outlets pushing Sinophobic content.
• NGOs subtly shaping Australia’s international alignments.
Certain Australian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and think tanks have been identified as aligning closely with U.S. foreign policy interests, which may influence Australia’s sovereignty.
NGOs and Think Tanks Influencing Australia’s Alignment with U.S. Interests
1. Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
ASPI has received funding from the U.S. State Department and is known for its critical stance on China. Critics argue that ASPI’s work often reflects U.S. strategic interests, potentially impacting Australia’s independent foreign policy decisions.
2. Lowy Institute
Founded by Frank Lowy, the Lowy Institute receives funding from Australian government departments and major corporations. It advocates for a proactive Australian foreign policy, often aligning with U.S. perspectives, which may influence Australia’s international alignments.
3. Australian Council for International Development (ACFID)
ACFID coordinates the efforts of Australian NGOs involved in international development, with activities often reflecting Australia’s strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region. Its alignment with U.S. foreign policy goals may subtly influence Australia’s international relations.
Implications for Australia’s Sovereignty
US interference with its close alignment to organisations with U.S. interests can have several implications:
- Policy Influence: Their research and advocacy may shape Australian foreign policy in ways that prioritise U.S. strategic goals over Australia’s independent interests.
- Public Perception: By framing international issues through a U.S.-aligned lens, these organisations can influence public opinion, potentially limiting diverse perspectives on foreign policy matters.
- Sovereignty Concerns: Integrating U.S. perspectives into Australian policy discussions may challenge Australia’s ability to formulate and implement policies that fully reflect its national interests and values.
Moving Forward: Away from US Interference
To safeguard Australia’s sovereignty, it is essential to:
- Promote Diverse Perspectives: Encourage a range of viewpoints in foreign policy discussions to ensure balanced decision-making.
- Enhance Transparency: Ensure that funding sources and affiliations of influential organisations are transparent to assess potential biases.
- Strengthen Independent Policy Development: Invest in independent research and policy development, prioritising Australia’s national interests.
By critically evaluating the influence of NGOs and think tanks on Australia’s foreign policy, steps can be taken to ensure that national sovereignty is upheld, and that policies reflect the diverse interests and values of the Australian people.
How Australia Is Losing Control
Normalising Hostility, Undermining Diplomacy
Since 2020, public sentiment against China has spiked. What changed? A surge in media narratives framing China as a threat, many linked to foreign-funded analysis.
Thoughts: “Why do we always follow Washington’s lead?” asked a young policy adviser who remained anonymous. “Every time we try to de-escalate, there’s pressure – think tanks, pundits, even donor influence.”
The True Cost of Obedience
This foreign narrative dominance has consequences:
• Foreign policy subservience: Lockstep alignment with U.S. wars and AUKUS.
• Economic fallout: Trade tensions with China are harming Australian exporters.
• Public trust erosion: Citizens increasingly distrust institutions that parrot foreign lines.
Reclaiming Australia’s Political Sovereignty
1. Demand Transparency and Oversight
• Create a public register of all foreign-funded organisations.
• Require disclosure of media and think tank funding sources.
2. Commission a Royal Inquiry
• Investigate the influence of U.S. foreign policy agents in Australian politics.
• Examine the links between domestic policies and foreign think tank agendas.
3. Embrace Australia’s Monetary Sovereignty
With our sovereign currency, the government can:
• Fully fund independent media.
• Support civic education that strengthens democratic resilience.
• End reliance on corporate-funded foreign narratives.
4. Shift to Peace-Based Foreign Policy
• Withdraw from U.S.-led military coalitions that don’t serve Australia’s interests.
• Build diplomatic and trade ties based on mutual respect, not rivalry.
Sovereignty Starts with Awareness
The potential defunding of the NED signals a pivotal moment. For too long, Australia has been a proxy for U.S. geopolitical ambitions. But it doesn’t have to stay that way.
Australians can reclaim policy independence by exposing foreign influence, demanding transparency, and using our monetary sovereignty.
Q&A: Common Reader Concerns
Q1: Isn’t the NED just promoting democracy?
No. Numerous academic studies and U.S. journalists have exposed NED’s role in funding regime change operations, often supporting authoritarian regimes aligned with U.S. interests.
Q2: Has Australia really been influenced by foreign propaganda?
Yes. While evidence is carefully veiled, indirect ties through foreign-funded think tanks and media campaigns are clear. Unlike India or Venezuela, Australia has not pushed back.
Q3: What can we do as citizens?
Support independent media, call for transparency, contact your MP, and educate others about Australia’s monetary power and the need for sovereign policymaking.
Call to Action: Take Back Australia’s Voice
If you found this article insightful, visit Social Justice Australia to learn more about political reform and Australia’s monetary sovereignty.
Share this article with your community to help drive the conversation toward a more just and equal society.
Click on our Reader Feedback menu. Please let us know how our content has inspired you. Submit your testimonial and help shape the conversation today!
Support Social Justice Australia – Help Keep The Platform Running.
This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia
Who’s afraid of big, bad China?
Neither side wanted to bring China into the debate, and neither side wanted to discuss AUKUS, which is based on a perceived need to take military action against that country.
In the recent Australian election, Neither side wanted to bring China into the debate, and neither side wanted to discuss AUKUS, which is based on a perceived need to take military action against that country.
Jocelyn Chey, May 7, 2025 , https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/05/whos-afraid-of-big-bad-china/
Be afraid, be very afraid. But not of China. To the contrary, the proper management of co-operative relations with China is essential to Australia’s future.
Finally, the election process is over and done with and the results are in. We look forward to news bulletins not dominated by party spokespeople spruiking how they will deal with the cost of living. Rents, health and transport costs are all important, but the big issues that will make or break their social policies are all global, and the real question is how we can front up to them and hopefully turn them to our benefit. If the world goes into recession, which is a very real possibility, we will all be affected. The cost of living will go up. Cuts to social services will be inevitable.
Why did the candidates not admit this? Do they have contingency plans and, if so, what are they? What are they afraid of? Were they scared that if they mentioned China, the US or Russia, they would lose votes, or be backed into election promises that they could not keep? Or were there structural weaknesses in their policies that they did not wish to expose to scrutiny?
In previous election campaigns, the candidates were not so hesitant to pronounce on international affairs. The 2001 election was dominated by immigration issues and the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York. It was the first “khaki election” since the Vietnam War. In the 2022 election, the Morrison Government tried to repeat their 2001 success by promoting fear of Chinese invasions, both military or cultural, but their attempt failed. This time around, both sides of politics have been careful about their choice of language and avoided difficult topics.
Insofar as national security featured at all in the elections, Labor and the Liberals competed to portray themselves as the better party to protect Australia’s international relationships, particularly in the Pacific. Penny Wong accused the Liberals of leaving a “vacuum” that China was ready to fill, but she did not directly accuse Beijing. The one attempt to whip up fear of an invasion was pinned onto Moscow, rather than Beijing, when news broke of a possible deal between Russia and Indonesia about developing a military airbase in West Papua.
Neither side wanted to bring China into the debate, and neither side wanted to discuss AUKUS, which is based on a perceived need to take military action against that country. Labor and Liberal both promised to increase defence spending, one side to 2.3% of GDP, and the other side to 3% over 10 years. Neither mentioned the reasons for such an increase, or where the money would be found. AUKUS is already absorbing all the increases announced by the last government and affecting other procurement needs. AUKUS spending over the next five years is estimated to reach $18 billion and ultimately will total $368 billion, not including the cost of new infrastructure such as a dedicated naval base at HMAS Stirling. The rationale for nuclear-powered vessels is not the defence of our coasts, but the perceived need to attack distant targets, and that target is China.
China has been progressively opening to the world since the 1980s. It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and an active member of many multilateral organisations. With Australian encouragement, it has engaged with the multilateral trade system, joined APEC and the World Trade Organisation. The domestic economy has flourished in this open environment and in a region that has not seen armed conflict since the end of the Vietnam War. Maintaining strong growth and raising living standards have been the main pillars of Chinese domestic policies.
Economic development has not always been smooth, and recently new problems have emerged on the international front. China trusted the established international governance system to support and regulate its growth, but, as the country grew stronger, it became evident that the US did not return that trust. Its rapid rise and increasing global presence changed the regional and global balance and generated a geopolitical response that was perhaps predictable.
In 2025, the Trump administration has not yet clarified its policy for handling the relationship with China. Tariffs have been imposed, increased and decreased, and threats and hints have been made by the White House. All is chaos. The only thing that is certain is that Trump will challenge China in a more transactional and unpredictable way, will intensify trade confrontations and sanction Chinese companies in his goal to achieve greater self-sufficiency in the US.
In Beijing, Xi Jinping’s response has been measured and consistent. Official statements emphasise that China supports international rules and regulations and the multilateral system. During the National People’s Congress in March, Foreign Minister Wang Yi in a briefing to the international press presented China as a responsible and stable global power and, without explicitly saying so, drew comparisons with Trump’s America and its chaotic pronouncements.
He said: “We will provide certainty to this uncertain world. … We will be a staunch force defending our national interests. … We will be a just and righteous force for world peace and stability. … We will be a progressive force for international fairness and justice. We will be a constructive force for common development of the world.”
The contrast with Trump’s Tweets could not be more striking.
China is now truly integrated into the global economy. National policy has determined this, and, in any case, it would have been inevitable, given the development of advanced technologies and information and communication systems, all requiring international engagement. China, above all, wants stability and security in international relations to underpin its economic growth. In the future, the major challenges that the world will face are global. Climate change cannot be tackled without international co-operation. Australia needs more than ever to understand China and its domestic and foreign policies.
Co-operation with China is not easy. To borrow Trump’s words, “They hold the cards”. Australia, however, is not alone, and the best response to China is to consult and co-ordinate with neighbouring countries who also regularly interact with the rising superpower. Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, all have important trade and diplomatic ties with China and have much experience to share about how to manage a relationship with China, a regional power and a global superpower. Australia should be able to manage relations with China. If we respect Beijing’s legitimate rights, Beijing will respect ours
It is possible. China has no history of annexing other countries as Russia annexed Crimea. It respects other countries’ autonomy more than Trump respects the sovereignty of Mexico, Canada or Greenland. It has claims over a large part of the South China Sea that on the surface suggest aggressive intent, but this is not a new claim. The “nine dash line” outlining its territorial claim was first proposed by the then Nationalist government in 1948, and the government of Taiwan still maintains this position. Considering that China is surrounded by a string of US bases along the “first island chain” from Japan to the Philippines, amid that Camp Humphreys, near Seoul in South Korea, the largest US overseas military base, is just 549 kms from the city of Dalian in northeast China, it is not surprising that China should wish to limit further US advances.
As for the other superpower, in the first 100 days of the Trump regime, he has attempted to use the legal system to carry out his personal vendettas. He has shut down many government departments. He has attacked scientific research and the universities and disregarded statistical evidence, particularly in medical science and climate science. He is prejudiced against immigrants. He dismisses the most basic ideas of trade and economics. He prefers to deal with other autocrats like Vladimir Putin and has turned his back on international agreements and treaties.
Be afraid, be very afraid. But not of China.
(This is a summary of a talk given at the Festival of Wild Ideas, St Paul’s Burwood, on 4 May 2025)
Why Military Neutrality is a Must for Australia
Embrace military neutrality. Australia faces a choice: join declining empires or lead in peace. Discover why neutrality is the way forward in a multipolar world.
April 30, 2025 , By Denis Hay, Australian Independent Media
Introduction: A Nation at the Crossroads
Picture this: It’s 2030. Australian submarines sail under U.S. command in the Taiwan Strait. Canberra receives intelligence briefings written in Washington. The media frames any dissent as disloyalty. Ordinary Australians ask: “How did we get dragged into another war we never voted for?”
Rewind to 2025: our foreign policy is shaped not by peace or diplomacy, but by deals like AUKUS, designed to entrench Australia within the military-industrial interests of a declining superpower. Meanwhile, the world is shifting. BRICS is rising. The U.S. is losing credibility. And Australia must decide: Will we continue to act as a pawn, or will we embrace military neutrality and sovereignty through peace?
The Global Realignment: The World Beyond the U.S.
U.S. Decline and the Rise of Multipolarity
In 2015, analysts inside global financial circles began quietly withdrawing from the U.S. The reasons were clear:
• America’s fertility rate had fallen to 1.8 (below replacement).
• Civil unrest, mass shootings, and institutional collapse painted a picture of chaos.
• Trust in government and media plummeted (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2021).
Meanwhile, the BRICS+ bloc was expanding rapidly. By 2024, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Iran had joined, and member nations began transacting in local currencies. The world was no longer unipolar—and Australia must adapt.
The BRICS+ Bloc and the Global South
The global South is now:
• Home to the largest youth populations (India, Nigeria, Indonesia)
• Receiving billions in tech investment (e.g., Microsoft’s $1B in African AI infrastructure)
• Transitioning to local currency trade
Australia can no longer afford to cling to outdated alliances that tie us to declining powers.
Why Australia Must Reassess Its Strategic Alliances
The Cost of U.S. Dependence
Our military is deeply entwined with U.S. command structures:
• AUKUS submarine deal: $368 billion to be tied into U.S. war planning
• Hosting U.S. troops, ships, and bombers in the Northern Territory
The Failure of U.S. Militarism
• Iraq and Afghanistan: trillions spent, no peace achieved
• Ukraine: Proxy war fuelled by NATO expansion and U.S. arms interests
Quote from the video: “America is being phased out… not because they hate it, but because it’s obsolete.”
What the OCGFC Knows – And Why We Should Listen
The Owners and Controllers of Global Financial Capital (OCGFC) have already moved on from America. They’re investing in the South. Australia should follow their strategy—but for peace, not profit.
The Case for Military Neutrality
What Is Military Neutrality?
Military neutrality means:
• No participation in military blocs
• No hosting of foreign military bases
• No involvement in foreign wars
Example of military neutrality: Switzerland has remained neutral for over 200 years. Reference: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/neutral-countries
Benefits of Military Neutrality for Australia
• Enhanced sovereignty: Canberra decides, not Washington
• Improved regional trust
• Reduced risk of becoming a target in U.S.-China conflict
Strategic Independence……………………………………………………………………………….
Australia is now home to:
The Pine Gap spy base, integral to U.S. drone warfare and nuclear targeting
Rotational deployments of U.S. marines and bombers in the Northern Territory
Massive investment under AUKUS, where Australia receives nuclear-powered submarines it will not command independently
Growing integration into U.S. war planning around China and the South China Sea
The Quiet Absorption of Sovereignty
These developments raise serious questions:
If we cannot deny access to foreign troops on our soil, are we still sovereign?
If our military relies on foreign command systems, do we retain independent defence?
This is not a conspiracy theory. This is creeping dependency. Sovereignty is rarely lost overnight. It is eroded decision by decision, treaty by treaty, base by base—until there is nothing left to reclaim.
The Choice Before Us
We must confront an uncomfortable possibility: Australia is at risk of becoming a de facto 51st state – not through constitutional change, but through military submission.
The warning signs are clear. If we continue down this path unquestionably, we may find ourselves unable to make decisions without a nod from Washington.
Neutrality offers a way out. …………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/why-military-neutrality-is-a-must-for-australia/
Dotty and Cretinous: Reviewing AUKUS
April 20, 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/dotty-and-cretinous-reviewing-aukus/
It was a deal for the cretinous, hammered out by the less than bright for less than honourable goals. But AUKUS, the trilateral security alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, is now finally receiving the broader opprobrium it should have had from the outset. Importantly, criticism is coming from those who have, at points, swooned at the prospect of acquiring a nuclear-powered submarine capability assuming, erroneously, that Australia somehow needs it.
A report by the Strategic Analysis Australia think tank has found that AUKUS, despite the increasingly vain promise of supplying the Royal Australian Navy with nuclear powered submarines in 2032, has already become its own, insatiable beast. As beast it is, with the cost over the next four years for the submarine program coming in at A$17.3 billion, exceeding by some margin the capital budget of the Royal Australian Airforce (RAAF) at A$12.7 billion. One of the authors of the report, Marcus Hellyer, notes that “in terms of acquisition spending, the SSN [nuclear-powered attack submarine] enterprise has already become the ADF’s [Australian Defence Force’s] ‘fourth service’.”
The report notes some remarkable figures. Expenditure on SSNs is estimated to be somewhere between A$53 billion and A$63 billion between 2024-2034, with the next five years of the decade costing approximately A$20 billion. The amount left over for the following years comes in at $33 to $44 billion, necessitating a target of $10 billion annually by the end of the financial decade in the early 2030s. What is astounding is the amount being swallowed up by the ADF’s investment program in maritime capabilities, which will, over the coming decade, come to 38% of the total investment.
The SSN program has made its fair share in distorting the budget. The decade to 2033-4 features a total budget of A$330 billion. But the SSN budget of $53-63 billion puts nuclear powered submarines at 16.1% to 19.1% more than either the domains of land and air relevant to Australia’s defence. “It’s hard to grasp how unusual this situation is,” the report notes with gravity. “Moreover, it’s one that will endure for decades, since the key elements of the maritime domain (SSNs and the two frigate programs) will still be in acquisition well into the 2040s. It’s quite possible that Defence itself doesn’t grasp the situation that it’s gotten into.”
To add to the more specialist literature calling large parts of AUKUS expenditure into question comes the emergence of disquiet in political ranks. Despite the craven and cowardly bipartisan approval of Australia’s dottiest military venture to date, former Labor senator Doug Cameron, who fronts the Labor Against War group, is a symptom of growing dissent. “There are other more realistic and cost-effective strategies to protect our territorial integrity without subjugating ourselves to a dangerous, unpredictable and unworthy Trump administration.”
On the other side of the political aisle, former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is pessimistically inclined to the view that Australia will never get those much heralded submarines. “There will be Australian sailors serving on US submarines, and we’ll provide them with a base in Western Australia.” Furthermore, Australia would have “lost both sovereignty and security and a lot of money as well.”
The spineless disposition of Australia’s political cadres may prove irrelevant to the forced obsolescence of the agreement, given the scrutiny of AUKUS in both the United States and the United Kingdom. The pugilistic nature of the tariff system imposed by the Trump administration on all countries, friendly or adversarial, has brought particular focus on the demands on naval and submarine construction. Senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, told an AUKUS dinner in Washington this month that “We are already having trouble getting these ships and subs on time [and] on budget. Increase those prices – it’s going to be a problem.”
Taine’s point is logical enough, given that steel and aluminium have been targeted by particularly hefty rates. Given the array of products requiring exchange in the AUKUS arrangement, tariffs would, the senator reasons, “slow us down and make things harder.”
Another blow also looms. On April 9, the White House ordered the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to comb through the procurement of US Navy vessels in order “to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these processes” and contribute to the Trump administration’s Maritime Action Plan. Consistent with Trump’s near obsession of reviving national industry, the order seeks “to revitalize and rebuild domestic maritime industries and workforce to promote national security and economic prosperity.”
Australian taxpayers have every reason to be further worried about this, given the order’s emphasis that US departments and agencies pursue “all available incentives to help shipbuilders domiciled in allied nations partner to undertake capital investment in the US to help strengthen the shipbuilding capacity of the US.” Given that that US submarine industrial base is already promised $US3 billion from Australia’s pockets, with $500 million already transferred in February, the delicious exploitation of Canberra’s stupidity continues apace.
In the UK, the House of Commons Defence Committee this month announced a parliamentary inquiry into the defence pact, which will evaluate the agreement in light of changes that have taken place since 2021. “AUKUS has been underway for three years now,” remarked Defence Committee chairman and Labour MP, Tan Dhesi. “The inquiry will examine the progress made against each of the two pillars, and ask how any challenges could be addressed.”
The first pillar, perennially spectral, stresses the submarine component, both in terms of transferring Virginia class SSNs to Australia and the construction of a bespoke nuclear-powered AUKUS submarine; the second focuses on the technological spread of artificial intelligence, quantum capabilities, hypersonic advances and cyber warfare. While Dhesi hopes that the inquiry may throw up the possibility of expanding the second pillar, beady eyes will be keen to see the near non-existent state regarding the first. But even the second pillar lacks definition, prompting Kaine to suggest the need for “some definition and some choices”. Nebulous, amorphous and foolish, this absurd pact continues to sunder.
Dump nuclear, restore momentum – new poll shows opportunity for Coalition
Liberals Against Nuclear. 14 Apr 25
New polling shows the Liberal Party would increase its primary vote by 2.8 percentage points if it abandoned its nuclear energy policy, according to research commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear.
Andrew Gregson, spokesperson for Liberals Against Nuclear, said the polling demonstrates that the same political flexibility recently shown by Peter Dutton on the work-from-home policy should be applied to the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan.
“Peter Dutton has shown he can make hard-headed decisions when they’re needed to win government. Our polling shows dumping nuclear would deliver an immediate 2.8% boost to the Liberal primary vote in key seats – potentially the difference between winning and losing this election,” Mr Gregson said.
The uComms survey of 5,177 voters across 12 marginal electorates, including Liberal-held seats and those targeted for recovery from Labor and independents, found that 50.6% of undecided voters are less likely to vote for the Coalition because of its nuclear policy.
“Just as Mr Dutton recognised that the work-from-home policy was hurting his standing with women voters, our polling shows that dropping nuclear would increase the Liberal vote among women by four percentage points,” Mr Gregson said.
“The Coalition’s backdown on forcing public servants back to the office full-time shows Mr Dutton can listen to voters and change direction when necessary. We’re simply asking for that same political flexibility to be applied to a fiscally irresponsible nuclear policy that’s proving even more unpopular.”
Mr Gregson noted that 48% of respondents indicated they don’t support nuclear power at all, with concerns about reducing investment in renewable energy (17.3%), nuclear waste management (14.6%), and high build costs (11.6%) topping the list of voter concerns.
“Our message to Liberal candidates is simple – even if you personally support nuclear energy, this polling shows dropping the policy gives you the best chance of winning your race. We’re running out of time, but it’s not too late to make this change and give the Coalition its best shot at forming government.”
How US Dependence is Not in Our Best Interest
Real Example: The AUKUS submarine deal, projected to cost over $368 billion, ties Australia into US military logistics for decades – yet those funds could be spent on domestic defence innovation, regional aid, or green manufacturing.
Real Example: The AUKUS submarine deal, projected to cost over $368 billion, ties Australia into US military logistics for decades – yet those funds could be spent on domestic defence innovation, regional aid, or green manufacturing.
April 9, 2025 AIMN Editorial By Denis Hay
Description
US dependence. Discover real steps Australia can take to diversify defence, diplomacy & trade while using its currency power to reclaim sovereignty.
Introduction: A Turning Point for Australia
Location: Canberra, 2024. The Defence Minister stands before cameras, repeating familiar rhetoric: “The US alliance is central to Australia’s security.” But in community halls, cafés, and public forums across the nation, a growing number of Australians are beginning to ask: What if it’s not?
Thoughts: Many Australians feel a quiet unease about our nation’s strategic direction. We’ve followed the US into war zones, hosted its military bases, and allowed our foreign policy to align too closely with American interests. Yet few alternative paths are ever seriously discussed in public debate.
Emotions: There’s frustration, even disillusionment. Australia is a sovereign nation. Why then do we act like a client state?
Dialogue: “It’s not anti-American to want independence,” says Jenny, a retired diplomat. “It’s just good strategy.”
Problem: The Australia-US alliance has become a crutch. While it served a purpose post-WWII, the world has changed. The Indo-Pacific is more multipolar than ever. To secure a peaceful, just future, Australia must explore new defence partnerships, deepen regional diplomacy, and reshape trade alliances. Critically, we must use our monetary sovereignty to do this independently, not through the profit-driven mechanisms of public-private partnerships.
The Problem: Locked into a Narrow Strategic Path
Following WWII, Australia signed onto ANZUS, believing American power would guarantee our safety. But since then, Australia has:
• Participated in every major US-led conflict since Vietnam.
• Spent billions hosting US military infrastructure (like Pine Gap).
• Aligned its foreign policy with US military objectives, often at odds with neighbours.
Meanwhile, the security landscape has shifted:
• China, India, and ASEAN nations now influence the Indo-Pacific.
• US influence is declining, with unpredictable leadership changes.
• Regional cooperation, not superpower allegiance, is the new path to peace.
Real Example: The AUKUS submarine deal, projected to cost over $368 billion, ties Australia into US military logistics for decades – yet those funds could be spent on domestic defence innovation, regional aid, or green manufacturing.
Internal Reflections: “Why are we borrowing American power when we have the capacity to build our own?”
Note on Defence Think Tanks: When assessing defence strategies, it’s important to consider the source. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), often referenced by the government and media, receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence, foreign governments, and major US arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.
These financial ties raise serious concerns about bias in ASPI’s advocacy for militarised solutions and deepening reliance on the US military-industrial complex.
Heightened Risk Through US Dependence: By embedding ourselves in the strategic priorities of the United States, Australia risks becoming a target in conflicts that are not of our making.
Should tensions escalate between the US and China, Australia’s hosting of American military bases, integration into US-led command systems, and participation in initiatives like AUKUS make us more – not less – vulnerable to retaliation.
Instead of ensuring protection, over reliance on US dependence could make Australia a frontline state in the event of a major geopolitical confrontation. The risk is amplified when one considers the United States’ long and well-documented history of military interventions, regime change operations, and aggressive foreign policy – often justified under the banner of “freedom” but resulting in destabilisation, displacement, and long-term suffering in regions such as Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, and Afghanistan.
The Consequences of Strategic US Dependence
Imagine you’re a young Pacific Island leader sitting across from an Australian diplomat in 2030. Rising seas threaten your nation, yet Australia prioritises nuclear submarines over climate aid. “You talk about friendship,” she says, “but you act like a US outpost.”
This isn’t just geopolitical optics:
• Australia risks alienating regional neighbours.
• We are perceived as an extension of Western military ambitions.
• The economic burden of defence decisions like AUKUS will fall on future generations.
Stat: 56% of Australians in a 2024 Lowy Institute poll said Australia should remain neutral in a US-China conflict. The people are ahead of the policymakers.
Diversifying Alliances Through Sovereign Action
Diversifying Defence Partnerships………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://theaimn.net/how-us-dependence-is-not-in-our-best-interest/
Trump tariffs spark questions over US alliance
Andrew Tillett, AFR, Foreign affairs, defence correspondent, 3 Apr 25
The alliance with the United States is facing its toughest test in decades after Donald Trump imposed a 10 per cent tariff on Australian exports as part of his escalating trade war, which has sent shockwaves around the world and heightened the risk of a global recession.
Markets plunged on news of Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs, with Australian stocks shedding more than $21 billion, while traders bet the Reserve Bank could cut interest rates up to four times this year.
Australia escaped Trump’s tariffs relatively unscathed, with just the minimum baseline of 10 per cent applied to goods exported to the US, although the President singled out the longstanding ban on American beef as a grievance.
A government source, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivities, said there had been indications from the US that it was willing to negotiate to reduce or remove tariffs on Australian exports.
However, the government remains on alert for more tariff hikes after pharmaceuticals, copper and gold were among a select few commodities exempted from Trump’s “liberation day” executive order.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the tariffs were totally unwarranted and would prompt some Australians to question the relationship with the US. Former prime minister Paul Keating suggested Trump’s tariff campaign cast doubt on the value of the ANZUS alliance, the cornerstone of Australian defence policy for more than 70 years.
“The administration’s tariffs have no basis in logic and they go against the basis of our two nations’ partnership. This is not the act of a friend,” Albanese said.
The Australian people have every right to view this action by the Trump administration as undermining our free and fair trading relationship and counter to the shared values that have always been at the heart of our two nations’ long-standing friendship. This will have consequences for how Australians see this relationship.”
Keating said the announcement was effectively the death knell of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the US-led military alliance with Europe, a decision which would inform other allied relationships with the US.
“Australia’s clutch of Austral-Americans, that phalanx of American acolytes,
must have choked on their breakfasts, as Donald Trump laid out his blitzkrieg on globalisation, with all its implications for the rupture of cooperation and goodwill among nations,” he said.
“If NATO, America’s principal strategic alliance, is expendable, what credible rationale could underpin US fidelity to ANZUS and with it, to Australia?”
Former foreign minister Bob Carr said the alliance with the US “counts for nothing” and was reason to axe the AUKUS pact, Australia’s agreement to acquire nuclear-powered submarines from the US and UK…………………………………………………………………………………
a mining industry source, speaking anonymously, said the government could buy up critical minerals and stockpile them to use as leverage in future trade negotiations.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said if he won the May 3 election he would use access to Australia’s critical minerals and deeper defence cooperation, particularly in defence industry, as bargaining chips to get tariffs lifted…………………….https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/trump-tariffs-spark-questions-over-us-alliance-20250403-p5lox9
Why The US Australia Alliance Needs a Rethink
Australian Independent Media March 29, 2025, By Denis Hay
Description
Why the US Australia alliance needs a rethink. The U.S. is no ally. Discover why Australia must distance itself to avoid war and reclaim its sovereignty.
How Australia Can Safely Distance Itself from U.S. Hegemony
Introduction – The US Australia Alliance: Myth vs Reality
Picture this: You’re sitting in a Brisbane café, sipping a flat white while reading the headlines – Australia has just signed another defence pact with the United States. More American troops, military hardware, and diplomatic praise about our “unbreakable alliance.” Yet, beneath the headlines lies a growing discomfort – are we allies, or are we just a strategic pawn in U.S. global dominance?
Joh Bjelke-Petersen once said that this is just politicians “feeding the chooks.” Empty words. The truth is, the U.S. government doesn’t respect its people, let alone Australia. It sees nations – including its own – as resources to be mined for profit. This article will explore how Australia can break free from this exploitative alliance without putting itself in harm’s way.
The U.S. Government’s Track Record: A Global Power Without Respect
Exploiting Its Own Citizens
Visit Detroit, Michigan – a city once bustling with manufacturing pride. Now, it stands as a ghost town of forgotten promises, where basic water access has become a luxury. Millions of Americans are homeless or working two jobs or more just to survive. U.S. billionaires soared in wealth, while 45 million Americans live impoverished.
Internal reflection: “If they treat their own citizens this way, what hope do allies have?”
Exploiting Other Nations
Let’s take Iraq. The 2003 invasion, sold on lies about weapons of mass destruction, cost hundreds of thousands of lives, all to secure oil. In Libya, a once-stable nation descended into chaos after U.S.-led intervention. This is not defence—it’s corporate imperialism.
When the U.S. backs coups in Latin America or imposes sanctions on countries like Venezuela or Cuba, the motive is always clear: control the global economy for U.S. corporate gain.
The U.S.–Australia Relationship: Not What It Seems
Political Rhetoric vs Reality
Australian and U.S. politicians often repeat phrases like “shared values” and “strong friendship.” But how many Australians were consulted when Pine Gap was set up or when AUKUS was signed?
Dialogue: “This isn’t a partnership. It’s a surrender of our sovereignty,” says a former Australian diplomat.
The Cost of Loyalty
Australia’s blind support for U.S. policy has real consequences:
• Trade tensions with China – our largest trading partner
• Environmental destruction from military exercises on Australian soil
• Loss of independence as U.S. bases expand here without public debate.
Why China Matters More Than Ever
60% of Australia’s exports go to Asia, with China alone accounting for over 25%. Australia’s economy is tightly linked to Chinese demand, from iron ore to wine. Trade disruptions – often driven by political antagonism encouraged by the U.S. – have already cost farmers, winemakers, and miners dearly.
The Danger of Choosing Sides
We risk becoming collateral damage in a U.S.-China conflict. Australia should not repeat its mistakes from Vietnam or Iraq – wars that had nothing to do with our national interest but cost us dearly in blood, treasure, and reputation. This has been the outcome of the US Australia alliance.
Thought: “Must we always fight other nations’ wars? When do we stand up for ourselves?”
Pathways Toward Australian Independence………………………………………..
Phasing Out US Australia Alliance and Military Influence
Start with transparency:
• Conduct a national audit of U.S. bases and agreements.
• Establish parliamentary oversight.
• Hold a public referendum on AUKUS.
Dialogue: “Our security must not come at the cost of our sovereignty,” says Senator David Shoebridge.
………………………………………….more https://theaimn.net/why-the-us-australia-alliance-needs-a-rethink/
Complicity of Labor and Liberal in Israel’s genocide of Palestinians
David Bradbury, 21 Mar 25
This clip shows the complicity of the Australian Govt – both major parties – in allowing/subsidising over 70 Australian companies to produce vital component parts for Lockheed Martin’s F35 fighter which has caused so many deaths in Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and Syria. Elsewhere in the world.
‘Vandals in the White House’ no longer reliable allies of Australia, former defence force chief says
Henry Belot and Ben Doherty, Guardian, 21 Mar 25
Chris Barrie says Donald Trump’s second term is ‘irrecoverable’, but stops short of calling for end to Aukus pact.
A former Australian defence force chief has warned “the vandals in the White House” are no longer reliable allies and urged the Australian government to reassess its strategic partnership with the United States.
Retired admiral Chris Barrie spent four decades in the Royal Australian Navy and was made a Commander of the Legion of Merit by the US government in 2002. He is now an honorary professor at the Australian National University.
“What is happening with the vandals in the White House is similar to what happened to Australia in 1942 with the fall of Singapore,” Barrie said. “I don’t consider America to be a reliable ally, as I used to.
“Frankly, I think it is time we reconsidered our priorities and think carefully about our defence needs, now that we are having a more independent posture … Our future is now in a much more precarious state than it was on 19 January.
“Trump 1.0 was bad enough. But Trump 2.0 is irrecoverable.”
Barrie said it was “too soon” to say whether Australia should end its multibillion-dollar Aukus partnership, but raised concerns about a lack of guarantee that nuclear-powered submarines would actually be delivered. He also warned about an apparent lack of a back-up option.
Pillar One of the Aukus deal – which would see the US sell Australia nuclear-powered submarines before the Aukus-class submarines were built in Australia – is coming under increasing industry scrutiny and political criticism, with growing concerns the US will not be able, or will refuse, to sell boats to Australia, and continuing cost and time overruns in the development of the Aukus submarines.
“Let’s define why we really need nuclear submarines in the first instance, given a new independent defence posture for Australia,” Barrie said. “If they still make sense in that context, fine. But they might not. There might be alternatives. There might be alternatives with conventional submarines if we didn’t want to go any further than the Malacca Straits.”
Barrie’s warning comes after former foreign affairs minister Bob Carr said Australia would face a “colossal surrender of sovereignty” if promised US nuclear-powered submarines did not arrive under Australian control.
Carr, the foreign affairs minister between 2012 and 2013, said the Aukus deal highlighted the larger issue of American unreliability in its security alliance with Australia.
“The US is utterly not a reliable ally. No one could see it in those terms,” he said. “[President] Trump is wilful and cavalier and so is his heir-apparent, JD Vance: they are laughing at alliance partners, whom they’ve almost studiously disowned.”………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/21/vandals-in-the-white-house-no-longer-reliable-allies-to-australia-former-defence-force-chief-says-ntwnfb?CMP=share_btn_url
Greens leader Adam Bandt says Australia should walk away from AUKUS in wake of Trump’s tariffs
ABC News, By political reporter Maani Truu, 16 Mar 25
In short:
Greens leader Adam Bandt has urged the government to walk away from the AUKUS pact with the United States, describing the imposition of steel and aluminium tariffs as a “wake-up call” to rethink Australia’s relationship with its key ally.
It comes as Trade Minister Don Farrell said the challenge going forward is figuring out what US President Donald Trump wants and to “make an offer he can’t refuse”.
What’s next?
The minor party is open to a formal agreement with Labor in the event of a hung parliament after the upcoming federal election, due on or before May 17.
Greens leader Adam Bandt says the government should get out of the AUKUS deal with the United States and explore other relationships in the wake of Donald Trump’s tariffs, warning it puts a “very big” target on Australia’s back.
The minor party has long opposed the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, which is expected to cost $368 billion, but Mr Bandt said the new tariffs imposed this week were a “wake-up call that we need to rethink our relationship with the United States”.
“We should get out of AUKUS, now is not the time to be hitching Australia’s wagon to Donald Trump — it puts Australia at risk and it is billions of dollars being spent on submarines that might never arrive,” he told ABC’s Insiders on Sunday.
Mr Bandt said the US president was a “very dangerous man” and it was “wishful thinking” to believe he would come to Australia’s aid in the event of a security threat.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has already ruled out walking away from the AUKUS deal as a response to the tariffs, describing it as a “good deal for Australia”.
The trilateral agreement with the US and UK would deliver Australia eight new nuclear submarines based on British design and with American technology, with the first five due by the middle of the 2050s.
The federal government had fought for an exemption to Mr Trump’s sweeping 25 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium imports, but on Wednesday the White House revealed that no country would be spared.
In the wake of the decision, Mr Albanese said it was “not a friendly act” and lashed the US president’s order as “entirely unjustified”.
But he said Australia would not respond with tariffs of its own, pivoting instead to a pre-election pitch at Australians to “buy local”……………………………………………………………………………………………
Greens open-minded to formal hung parliament deal
The Greens are preparing for the possibility of a minority government after the federal election, which is due on or before May 17.
Mr Bandt said the party would be “open minded” to striking a formal agreement with Labor if that eventuated, as was the case in 2010, categorically ruling out working with the Coalition leader.
He said his preference would be to work with Labor to get action on the cost of living crisis and climate change………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
he said a hung parliament would be a “once in a generation chance” to push the major parties to act…………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-16/greens-adam-bandt-aukus-insiders/105057580?utm_medium=social&utm_content=sf276668174&utm_campaign=tw_abc_news&utm_source=t.co
Bandt says Australia should cancel Aukus payments and leave pact.
Bandt says Australia should reconsider its relationship with the US and particularly the Aukus pact.
“It is being led by a very dangerous man, and we should get out of Aukus. Now is not the time to be hitching Australia’s wagon to Donald Trump. It puts Australia at risk, and it is billions of dollars that is being spent on submarines that might never arrive, even the United States Congress has said that they’re not building the submarines at the rate that is needed to in order to abide by the Aukus agreement.”
Bandt says that Aukus commits Australia to serving as “an attack force of the United States” and that any assumption the Trump administration is committed to standing with Australia if there was a security threat is a mistake.
“Thinking that Donald Trump will ride to our rescue if there’s any security threat, is now absolutely wishful thinking.”
Money being spent on Aukus submarines could be reallocated in defence: Bandt
Asked about whether Australia should close Pine Gap, Bandt says his “priority right now is Aukus” given that Australia has already been paying the US and UK to rebuild their shipyards.
“The prime minister and the government just gave Donald Trump the best part of $1bn in the last couple of weeks for submarines that may never arrive. And what’s happened in return? We have tariffs imposed on us and now the threat of more.
That is something that we could concretely do right now, instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on submarines that may never arrive.”
Pressed on the possibility of increased defence spending if Australia were to walk away from the US alliance, Bandt says the money currently being spent on nuclear submarines could be reprioritised, including to other parts of the defence force.
We have costed the Aukus contributions. It’s over the near-term, the next decade. We’re looking at $70bn being spent on it. Now, reallocating that would go a long way to ensuring that Australia has a fit for purpose defence force.
Australia’s Trump cards
by Rex Patrick | Mar 16, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/tariffs-australias-trump-cards/
Australia does have Trump cards; North West Cape, Pine Gap, US Marine Rotational forces in Darwin, AUKUS and/or critical minerals that the US needs. Perhaps it’s also time to cancel the traitorous quantum computing development contract given to a US company over Australian companies.
These are things that we can put on the table. But doing that requires a measure of boldness. Our problem is our Prime Minister doesn’t have the ticker. Neither does the opposition leader. They are with Trump internationally as they are with the gas cartel domestically; owned and weak.
Anthony Albanese has it all wrong, writes former senator and submariner Rex Patrick. He’s trying to bribe Trump with sweeteners in response to trade tariffs. Instead, he needs to tell Trump he’s prepared to take things away.
US nuclear deterrent
Deep beneath the Indian Ocean, USS Kentucky, a nuclear-powered Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) ploughs its way through the water. Contained within its 18,750 tonne pressure hull structure are 24 Trident ballistic missiles, each capable of carrying eight nuclear warheads to targets up to 12,000 km away.
The launch of all of USS Kentucky’s missiles would, quite literally, change the world by exacting severe destruction on whole societies.
This ability to inflict damage on an exceptionally large scale is the basis of the SSBN’s deterrent capability. Unlike silo based missiles, which are vulnerable to a first strike, or aircraft delivered nuclear weapons, which can be pre-emptively hit or shot down, SSBNs are essentially invisible. They provide certainty of response.
SSBNs serve as the ultimate nuclear deterrent. They’re extremely important to the US, whose navy possesses 14 of them. At any one time six to eight will be at sea, with four of them always on deterrent patrol. They are spread about the globe giving the US President the ability to quickly deliver return-fire with nuclear warheads at any adversary.
24/7 Operation
The primary performance metric for an SSBN is to be able to deliver its nuclear weapons with reliability, timeliness and accuracy.
The Commanding Officer of USS Kentucky must be able to loiter undetected in a place suited for the launching of weapons, be able to receive an order to launch, have an understanding of the submarine’s exact navigational position to a high degree of accuracy and have the ability to launch the weapons quickly and reliably once that order arrives.
Loitering undetected and being able to receive an order to launch is challenging. When a submarine is near the surface, their hulls can be seen by aircraft, and raised periscopes and communications masts can be seen visually and on radar. Operating a submarine at shallow depth can also result in acoustic counter-detection.
The Commanding Officer of USS Kentucky knows that deep is the place to be.
But being deep frustrates a submarine’s ability to receive communications, particularly an ‘emergency action message’.
And that’s were Very Low Frequency (VLF) communications stations come into play. In conjunction with a submarine’s buoyant wire antenna – a long wire that sits just below the sea surface – they can receive a launch command from the President.
The US has a network of these VLF communication stations around the world including in Maine, Washington state and North West Cape, Australia.
North West Cape
The VLF Communication Facility at North West Cape (NAVCOMMSTA Harold E Holt) has been in operation since 1967. Born of secrecy, it was at first exclusively US operated until 1974 when the facility became joint and started communicating with Australian submarines. In 1991 it was agreed that Australia would take full command in 1992 and US Naval personnel subsequently left in 1993.
The facility’s deterrence support role now rests on a 2008 treaty which, ratified in 2011, is formally titled the “Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America relating to the Operation of and Access to an Australian Naval Communication Station at North West Cape in Western Australia”.
The station’s antenna is 360 meters high, with a number of supporting towers in a hexagon shape connected to it by wires. Considered to be the most powerful transmitter in the southern hemisphere, it transmits on 19.8 kHz at about 1 megawatt.
The station enables emergency action messages to be relayed to submerged SSBNs, like USS Kentucky, when operating in the Indian and Western Pacific oceans.
If the facility was taken out by a first strike nuclear attack, the US Air Force can temporarily deploy Hercules ‘TACAMO’ aircraft, with a long VLF wire they deploy while airborne. It’s a back-up measure with much lower transmission power capabilities.
A bedrock of certainty
After US steel and aluminium tariffs were put into play, the Australian Financial Review ran with a headline “How Australia was blindsided on the US tariffs”. The article opened with, “Australia pulled out all stops to avoid Donald Trump’s duties on steel and aluminium, but it’s impossible to negotiate with someone who doesn’t want anything”.
But the US does want something.
A fact not so well appreciated with respect to nuclear deterrence is it must be seen to be a robust and continuous capability. Onlookers must see a 24/7 capability including deployable submarines manned by well-trained crews, proven and reliable missile systems, an organised strategic command, a continuous communication system that reliably links that strategic command to the submarines with appropriate redundant communication pathways, training facilities and maintenance support.
Potential adversaries must know that they could be struck by an SSBN that could be lurking anywhere in the world’s major oceans.
Effective nuclear deterrence must be built on a bedrock of operational certainty.
Remove the transmitter keys
North West Cape forms part of that certainty.
Australia has the keys to take some certainty away. Without our cooperation the US can’t operate a certain global deterrent capability. Turning off transmissions at North West Cape reduces the effectiveness of the US nuclear deterrence while eliminating one Australian nuclear target
The North West Cape Treaty provides leverage. While the agreement has another decade to run, Article 12 provides that “either Government may terminate this Agreement upon one year’s written notice to the other Government.”
It’s open to Australia to signal or give actual notice of termination. That would focus up policy makers in Washington.
Would we do that to a mate? No, but the US is showing they are not a mate. They are not showing us the loyalty we have shown them. Other actions; abandoning Ukraine, threatening Greenland and Panama and a not so subtle push to annex Canada have also shown they are an unreliable ally who doesn’t share our values.
Trump cards
In negotiating with President Zelensky over the war in Ukraine, President Trump told him in no uncertain terms. “We’re going to feel very good and very strong. You’re, right now, not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position. You don’t have the cards right now with us.”
But Australia does have Trump cards; North West Cape, Pine Gap, US Marine Rotational forces in Darwin, AUKUS and/or critical minerals that the US needs. Perhaps it’s also time to cancel the traitorous quantum computing development contract given to a US company over Australian companies.
These are things that we can put on the table. But doing that requires a measure of boldness. Our problem is our Prime Minister doesn’t have the ticker. Neither does the opposition leader. They are with Trump internationally as they are with the gas cartel domestically; owned and weak.
Things have changed
Alliances are means to ends, not an end in themselves; and, as pointed out above, things have changed. We can pretend everything is okay, but that doesn’t make it so.
But the bureaucracy is unlikely to advise the Government of alternatives.
Our uniformed leaders are locked into AUKUS, a program that gives them relevance at the big table; something they wouldn’t otherwise have with the depleted Navy they’ve built out of their procurement incompetence. They’re clinging to that relevance, despite all signs showing the program is running aground.
Our spooks are in the same place. In response to calls to put Pine Gap on the table, former Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo (sacked for failing to safeguard sensitive government information) spoke out, putting the facility ahead of trade interests and Aussie jobs.
The bulk of the intelligence from Pine Gap is very usable for the US and rather less so for Australia. Senior spooks just want to maintain their own relevance in the Five Eyes club; but it’s a mistake to conflate their interest with our national interest.
We should be prepared to play our Trump cards and we should be prepared to face the national security consequences.
If that means an Australia that‘s more independent and more self-reliant, that would be a very good thing. If there’s a shock to the system, then all well and good, because in the changing world we find ourselves in, it might be the only thing that wakes the Canberra bubble from its stupor and pushes us to actually be prepared.
In these uncertain times, there are no hands more trustworthy than our own.
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and earlier a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is running for the Senate on the Lambie Network ticket next year – www.transparencywarrior.com.au.
Surface tension: could the promised Aukus nuclear submarines simply never be handed over to Australia?
Guardian, Ben Dohert, 7 Mar 25.
The multi-billion dollar deal was heralded as ensuring the security of the Indo-Pacific. But with America an increasingly unreliable ally, doubts are rising above the waves.
Maybe Australia’s boats just never turn up.
To fanfare and flags, the Aukus deal was presented as a sure bet, papering over an uncertainty that such an ambitious deal could ever be delivered.
It was assured, three publics across two oceans were told – signed, sealed and to-be-delivered: Australia would buy from its great ally, the US, its own conventionally armed nuclear-powered attack submarines before it began building its own.
But there is an emerging disquiet on the promise of Aukus pillar one: it may be the promised US-built nuclear-powered submarines simply never arrive under Australian sovereign control.
Instead, those nuclear submarines, stationed in Australia, could bear US flags, carry US weapons, commanded and crewed by American officers and sailors.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
Reliable ally no longer
Officially at least, Aukus remains on course, centrepiece of a storied security alliance.
Pillar one of the Australia-UK-US agreement involves, first, Australia buying between three and five Virginia-Class nuclear-powered submarines from the US – the first of these in 2032.
Then, by the “late 2030s”, according to Australia’s submarine industry strategy, the UK will deliver the first specifically designed and built Aukus submarine. The first Australian-built version will be in the water “in the early 2040s”. Aukus is forecast to cost up to $368bn to the mid-2050s.
But in both Washington and Canberra, there is growing concern over the very first step: America’s capacity to build the boats it has promised Australia, and – even if it had the wherewithal to build the subs – whether it would relinquish them into Australian control.
The gnawing anxiety over Aukus sits within a broader context of a rewritten rulebook for relations between America and its allies. Amid the Sturm und Drang of the first weeks of Trump’s second administration, there is growing concern that the reliable ally is no longer that…………………….
‘The cheque did clear’
On 8 February, Australia paid $US500m ($AUD790m) to the US, the first instalment in a total of $US3bn pledged in order to support America’s shipbuilding industry. Aukus was, Australia’s defence minister Richard Marles said, “a powerful symbol of our two countries working together in the Indo-Pacific”.
“It represents a very significant increase of the American footprint on the Australian continent … it represents an increase in Australian capability, through the acquisition of a nuclear‑powered submarine capability … it also represents an increase in Australian defence spending”.
………….. just three days after Australia’s cheque cleared, the Congressional Research Service quietly issued a paper saying while the nuclear-powered attack submarines (known as SSNs) intended for Australia might be built, the US could decide to never hand them over.
It said the post-pandemic shipbuilding rate in the US was so anaemic that it could not service the needs of the US Navy alone, let alone build submarines for another country’s navy…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
‘Almost inevitable’
Clinton Fernandes, professor of international and political Studies at the University of New South Wales and a former Australian Army intelligence analyst, says the Aukus deal only makes sense when the “real” goal of the agreement is sorted from the “declared”.
“The real rather than declared goal is to demonstrate Australia’s relevance to US global supremacy,” he tells the Guardian.
“The ‘declared goal’ is that we’re going to become a nuclear navy. The ‘real goal’ is we are going to assist the United States and demonstrate our relevance to it as it tries to preserve an American-dominated east Asia.”
Fernandes, author of Sub-Imperial Power, says Australia will join South Korea and Japan as the US’s “sentinel states in order to hold Chinese naval assets at risk in its own semi-enclosed seas”.
“That’s the real goal. We are demonstrating our relevance to American global dominance. The government is understandably uneasy about telling the public this, but in fact, it has been Australia’s goal all along to preserve a great power that is friendly to us in our region.”
Fernandes says the Aukus pillar one agreement “was always an article of faith” based on a premise that the US could produce enough submarines for itself, as well as for Australia.
“And the Congressional Research Service study argues that … they will not have enough capacity to build boats for both themselves and us.”
He argues the rotation of US nuclear-powered submarines through Australian bases – particularly HMAS Stirling in Perth – needs to be understood as unrelated to Aukus and to Australia developing its own nuclear-powered submarine capability.
“Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-W) is presented by the spin doctors as an ‘optimal pathway’ for Aukus. In fact, it is the forward operational deployment of the United States Navy, completely independent of Aukus. It has no connection to Aukus.”
The retired rear admiral and past president of the Submarine Institute of Australia, Peter Briggs, argues the US refusing to sell Virginia-class submarines to Australia was “almost inevitable”, because the US’s boat-building program was slipping too far behind.
“It’s a flawed plan, and it’s heading in the wrong direction,” he tells the Guardian.
Before any boat can be sold to Australia, the US commander-in-chief – the president of the day – must certify that America relinquishing a submarine will not diminish the US Navy’s undersea capability.
“The chance of meeting that condition is vanishingly small,” Briggs says.
It now takes the US more than five years to build a single submarine (it was between three and 3.5 years before the pandemic devastated the workforce). By 2031, when the US is set to sell its first submarine to Australia, it could be facing a shortfall of up to 40% of the expected fleet size, Briggs says.
Australia, he argues, will be left with no submarines to cover the retirement from service of the current Collins-class fleet, weakened by an unwise reliance on the US.
The nuclear-powered submarines Australia wants to buy and then build “are both too big, too expensive to own and we can’t afford enough of them to make a difference”.
He argues Australia must be clear-eyed about the systemic challenges facing Aukus and should look elsewhere. He nominates going back to France to contemplate ordering Suffren-class boats – a design currently in production, smaller and requiring fewer crew, “a better fit for Australia’s requirements”……. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/07/surface-tension-could-the-promised-aukus-nuclear-submarines-simply-never-be-handed-over-to-australia
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 