Reconsider AUKUS, say former Labor foreign ministers
David Crowe, The Age November 7, 2024
Former Labor foreign ministers have warned that Australia must reconsider the AUKUS pact with the United States in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election, predicting the US will scale back the deal to protect itself.
The warnings heighten the argument over the far-reaching defence pact as Foreign Minister Penny Wong insists the government will keep ambassador Kevin Rudd in place in Washington, DC, despite his past criticism of Trump.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have both insisted the alliance is secure because of Australia’s historic friendship with America, while the defence plan assumes the US will sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia from 2032.
Former foreign minister and NSW premier Bob Carr said the United States was already struggling to meet its targets to build more nuclear-powered submarines and would be reluctant to sell vessels to Australia as promised.
Carr said the most likely outcome was that the US president – such as the leader who comes after Trump – would decide to keep the Virginia-class vessels to maximise the number of nuclear-armed submarines in the US fleet. Once sold to Australia, the vessels could not be nuclear-armed.
“They’re not going to harm themselves by selling precious subs to Australia that, once they are sold to Australia, will cease to be nuclear-armed,” he said.
“I think that’s going to be the transmutation of AUKUS into a simple pact that says US subs will be based on the west and quite possibly the east coast of Australia.
“And it means the only sovereign submarine capacity we’ve got is the ageing Collins-class and what in the future might emerge from British shipyards.”
Carr said the “grandiosity” of AUKUS rendered it vulnerable to decisions by the Trump administration and a decision in the 2030s by a future president.
“I think at the very least there’s got to be a serious discussion in Canberra about whether we want a sovereign submarine capacity and whether we’ve got to accept that under intense competition with China, whether America in the 2030s can conceivably adhere to the grand promise.
“We’ve got to discuss the prospect that the decision will be made by people not yet in power in America.”
Gareth Evans, foreign minister in the Hawke and Keating governments, said the new administration was likely to voice support for AUKUS until practical pressures forced a new approach.
“Trump is transactional and will start like the Biden administration – seeing this as a good deal for the US financially and because the boats will be, for all practical purposes, US assets,” said Evans.
“But that will last only until it becomes apparent, probably in the next year or two, that the US shipyards are not meeting their own Virginia replacement targets.”
The AUKUS pact says the first vessel in a new design, known as the SSN-AUKUS, will be completed at an Australian shipyard in the early 2040s.
As an interim step, the government assumes US and UK submarines will start operating on rotation from HMAS Stirling, near Perth, from 2027, easing the burden on the ageing Australian Collins-class vessels.
Australia will also pay $4.7 billion to US companies to help fund the technologies – such as nuclear propulsion – needed for the new fleet.
Former attorney-general George Brandis, who was Australian high commissioner to the UK when the AUKUS pact was struck, said he believed the agreement was not under threat from Trump.
…………………………………………Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said he did not think Australia would ever get the Virginia-class submarines promised under AUKUS, but he said this would be due to constraints on the US Navy and not the personal views of Trump as president.
“The bottom line is the American Navy is at least 17 Virginia-class submarines short of what they believe they need,” Turnbull told Radio National on Thursday.
“The legislation which authorises America to sell Virginia-class submarines to Australia says that before doing so, the president has to certify that the US Navy’s underwater capabilities would not be diminished by the sale.
“In other words, that they’re surplus to the US Navy’s requirements. Now, I don’t see how an American president could do that.”…………………. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/reconsider-aukus-say-former-labor-foreign-ministers-20241107-p5koko.html
Australia votes at the UN General Assembly
A few days ago, Australia voted on a number of nuclear weapons resolutions at the UN General Assembly. Thank you to the hundreds of you that emailed Foreign Minister Wong urging Australia to vote in the right way! In good news, Australia voted “Yes” on the scientific research resolution (L.39) supporting a major new UN-mandated study on the effects of nuclear weapons. Several nuclear-armed states were trying to mobilise supporters to vote against this resolution so we know they are threatened by it. Knowledge is power!
Disappointingly, Australia continued its abstention on the TPNW resolution (L.37) and humanitarian impacts resolution (L.36), instead of voting “Yes”.
Earlier in October ICAN visited Parliament to advocate for the TPNW with parliamentarians across the political spectrum. We were also delighted to have met with Siswo Pramono, Indonesia’s Ambassador to Australia, and congratulate him on Indonesia’s recent ratification of the TPNW. Mr Pramono addressed the Parliamentary Friends of the TPNW group and stated that the success of the TPNW also hinges upon the participation of countries who possess nuclear weapons. “We need a concerted effort to convince them to become Parties to the Treaty,” he said. “In doing so, leadership from developed countries such as Australia is needed.”
Top Australian honour (whaa-at !!!!) for American politician who helped push Australia into the shonky AUKUS agreement
Rex Patrick, 24 Oct 24
Albanese pours $5B of Australian taxpayers’ cash into US shipyards (with no guarantee #AUKUS subs will ever be delivered). He then arranges for the local US Congressman to get a top Australian honour. Icing on the cake for that guy.
Rep. Courtney to receive Australia’s top civilian award
WSHU | By Brian Scott-Smith, October 23, 2024
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT-2) has been chosen for one of Australia’s top civilian awards. Courtney is one of a few Americans to be given the Order of Australia, which recognizes extraordinary service by a non-citizen…………………… He has also been instrumental in the AUKUS trilateral defense agreement between Australia, the UK and the U.S. to help provide nuclear submarines to Australia. It’s the first time the U.S. has entered into such an agreement with another country…….. https://www.wshu.org/connecticut-news/2024-10-23/ct-joe-courtney-australia-civilian-award
Congressional report suggests Australia could dump plans to acquire AUKUS nuclear submarines
“This division of power no doubt makes sense from a US perspective with Australia providing them with funds and bases and getting no actual submarines,”
“From an Australian perspective that looks far more like a strategic surrender than a partnership – Greens Senator David Shoebridge
ABC News, By Defence Correspondent Andrew Greene and State Political Reporter Rory McClare, 18 Oct 24
In short
An influential US research body has published a report arguing Australia could invest in long-range bombers and other capabilities instead of nuclear-powered submarines.
The report says there is “little indication” that “rigorous” analysis was conducted on whether there were more cost-effective options.
What’s next?
Greens senator David Shoebridge, a vocal opponent, said the AUKUS partnership looked like a “surrender” of Australian interests.
Research prepared for the United States Congress argues Australia could abandon its $368 billion AUKUS push to buy nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs), outlining several alternatives including US owned boats serving both nations.
According to the report published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), billions of Australian dollars could instead be diverted to military capabilities for this country and the US, such as missiles and B-21 long-range bombers.
Under the AUKUS Pillar 1 plan, US and British nuclear submarines will rotate out of Western Australia from 2027, before Australia buys up to five second-hand Virginia class boats in the 2030s, and then begins constructing a new fleet known as SSN-AUKUS.
In the 105-page report, a number of policy options are presented including Australia no longer purchasing US submarines but instead having American boats perform missions on its behalf, while still continuing to design and build the SSN-AUKUS fleet.
“An alternative to Pillar 1 as currently structured would be a US-Australia military division of labour under which US SSNs would perform both US and Australian SSN missions while Australia invested in military capabilities for performing non-SSN missions for both Australia and the United States,” the report reads.
“Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities — such as, for example, long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers, or other long-range strike aircraft.
“Under this variation, the size of the US SSN force would eventually be expanded above previously planned levels by eight boats (i.e., the planned eventual number of SSNs that Australia had planned to acquire).”
Using stark language, the report warns that the costs of AUKUS Pillar 1 for Australia could “reduce, perhaps significantly, funding within Australia’s military budget for other Australian military capabilities” particularly if the project’s budget blows out.
“If this were to occur, there could be a net negative impact on Australia’s overall military capabilities for deterring potential Chinese aggression,” the report says.
The CRS report claims no alternatives were ever considered by AUKUS partners and concludes by diverted spending elsewhere it would help “create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States”.
“There is little indication that, prior to announcing the AUKUS Pillar 1 project … an analysis of alternatives (AOA) or equivalent rigorous comparative analysis was conducted to examine whether Pillar 1 would be a more cost-effective way to spend defence resources”.
Proposals a ‘strategic surrender’
Greens Senator David Shoebridge, a vocal opponent of AUKUS, says the proposals outlined in the congressional report appeared more like “a strategic surrender than a partnership”.
“This division of power no doubt makes sense from a US perspective with Australia providing them with funds and bases and getting no actual submarines,” he said.
“From an Australian perspective that looks far more like a strategic surrender than a partnership.
“For the US, the whole AUKUS deal always had at its heart US access to Australian real estate for their submarines, bombers and marines, with any marginal additional Australian capacity being very much secondary.”……….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-17/report-suggests-australia-dump-aukus-nuclear-submarine-plans/104486868—
Indonesia, Solomon Islands join countries banning nuclear weapons, putting Australia at odds with neighbours
ABC, By Lachlan Bennett and Erwin Renaldi, 29 Sept 24.
Indonesia, a country of 275 million and one of Australia’s closest neighbours, is stepping up efforts to enforce a global ban on nuclear weapons.
This week, it officially joined the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons — confirming its ratification of the pact along with Solomon Islands and Sierra Leone.
Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement it would put “moral and political pressure on nuclear weapon states to stop their development”.
The treaty, which came into force in 2021, now boasts almost 100 signatories.
But it has thus far failed to secure Australia or the big nuclear powers: China, the US, Russia, India, the UK and France.
Amid rising tensions in the Asia-Pacific, many smaller nations want the bomb banned before it’s too late.
Why hasn’t Australia signed the new prohibition treaty?
Australia has a long history of supporting anti-nuclear weapons initiatives.
This includes helping to establish the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the 2010 Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative.
Most importantly, Australia’s efforts are underpinned by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons — which it signed in 1970.
That treaty has 191 signatories, more than any other arms disarmament agreement in history, and has overseen a decline in global stockpiles and countries including South Africa and Ukraine agreeing to relinquish their arsenals.
But international relations lecturer Muhadi Sugiono, from Gadjah Mada University in Indonesia, said non-proliferation alone had failed to force nuclear powers to abandon their weapons programs.
“It is impossible, in fact, to expect the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty will achieve this goal,” he said.
“There is no legal framework which demands them to do so.”………………………………………………………………………
Is Australia really serious about banning nukes?
Despite Australia’s strong anti-nuclear activities, its alliance and reliance on nuclear superpower the US has raised eyebrows among advocates.
Dr Sugiono said Indonesian authorities recognised Australia’s “very, very strong” opposition to nuclear proliferation.
“But at the same time, the position is very ambiguous because Australia is very close to the US,” he said.
These concerns were brought into focus during a Senate hearing in 2023, when the Defence Department was grilled about Australia’s commitment to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.
That treaty prohibits the stationing of nuclear explosives on Australian territory.
However, the United States’ policy of “neither confirming or denying” the presence of its weapons raised suspicions about what might be onboard visiting US aircraft…………………………………………………..
University of Sydney international relations professor Justin Hastings said that explains why most signatories of the new prohibition treaty were “non-aligned states” — in other words, countries that are neither allied with Western powers or their strategic rivals like China and Russia.
“Australia and many other countries want to have their cake and eat it too,” he said.
“They don’t have nuclear weapons, but they do want to benefit from the extended deterrence that comes from other countries having nuclear weapons.”
What does AUKUS have to do with it?
The optics were further clouded by the signing of the AUKUS defence pact with the US and UK, even though it will bring nuclear-powered submarines and not nuclear weapons to Australian shores.
The Indonesian government said it was blindsided by the announcement, forcing Australian diplomats to rush to calm the anxieties in South-East Asia and emphasise that Australia has no desire to obtain nuclear weapons.
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons coordinator Tim Wright said signing the prohibition treaty would help Australia allay the concerns of its Pacific neighbours and “create additional guardrails against nuclear weapons”.
And Australia wouldn’t have to end its alliance with the US, given other allies like the Philippines have already signed.
“There would clearly be issues that arise in relation to the alliance that would need to be dealt with,” Mr Wright said.
“But there are precedents that we can point to that suggests that this wouldn’t spell an end to the alliance, as some people have feared.”
Why is there a new treaty, when we’ve already got one?
The prohibition treaty is designed to work in conjunction with existing non-proliferation agreements and fill a “legal gap” to ensure nuclear nations eliminate their weapons……………………………………………………
The new treaty also contains provisions to people and places impacted by nuclear testing, such as the Pacific, which saw hundreds of bombs denoted over several decades.
“It’s not just a treaty about disarmament, it’s also a treaty for nuclear justice,” Mr Wright said.
“There’s a real strong sense of regional solidarity in advancing disarmament, this understanding that people in the region have suffered.”
So what does this mean for Australia’s relations in the region?…………………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-29/indonesia-ratifying-nuclear-pact-what-it-means-for-australia/104401610—
Marles, with all pretension, flogging a dead seahorse
By Paul Keating, Sep 28, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/marles-with-all-pretention-flogging-a-dead-seahorse/
Richard Marles and his mate, the US defence secretary, are beginning to wilt under the weight of sustained comment in Australia critical of the AUKUS arrangement.
Marles, unable to sustain a cogent argument himself, has his US friend propping him up in London to throw a 10,000-mile punch at me – and as usual, failing to materially respond to legitimate and particular criticisms made of the AUKUS arrangement.
The US Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin, claims AUKUS would not compromise Australia’s ability to decide its own sovereign defence issues, a claim made earlier by Richard Marles and the prime minister.
But this would only be true until the prime minister and Marles got their phone call from the president, seeking to mobilise Australian military assets – wherein, both would click their heels in alacrity and agreement. The rest of us would read about it in some self-serving media statement afterwards. As my colleague, Gareth Evans, recently put it, “it defies credibility that Washington will ever go ahead with the sale of Virginias to us in the absence of an understanding that they will join the US in any fight in which it chooses to engage anywhere in our region, particularly over Taiwan”.
In London, Marles claimed that the logic behind AUKUS matched my policy as prime minister, in committing to the Collins class submarine program. This is completely untrue.
The Collins class submarine, at 3,400 tonnes, was designed specifically for the defence of Australia – in the shallow waters off the Australian continental shelf.
The US Virginia class boats at 10,000 tonnes, are attack submarines designed to stay and stand on far away station, in this case, principally to wait and sink Chinese nuclear weapon submarines as they exit the Chinese coast.
At 10,000 tonnes, the Virginias are too large for the shallow waters of the Australian coast – their facility is not in the defence of Australia, rather, it is to use their distance and stand-off capability to sink Chinese submarines. They are attack-class boats.
When Marles wilfully says “AUKUS matches the Collins class logic” during the Keating government years, he knows that statement to be utterly untrue. Factually untrue. The Collins is and was a “defensive” submarine – designed to keep an enemy off the Australian coast. It was never designed to operate as far away as China or to sit and lie in wait for submarine conquests.
And as Evans also recently made clear, eight Virginia class boats delivered in the 2040s-50s would only ever see two submarines at sea at any one time. Yet Marles argues that just two boats of this kind in the vast oceans surrounding us, materially alters our defensive capability and the military judgment of an enemy. This is argument unbecoming of any defence minister.
As I said at the National Press Club two years ago, two submarines aimed at China would be akin to throwing toothpicks at a mountain. That remains the position.
The fact is, the Albanese Government, through this program and the ambitious basing of American military forces on Australian soil, is doing nothing other than abrogating Australia’s sovereign right to command its own continent and its military forces.
Marles says “there has been demonstrable support for AUKUS within the Labor Party”. This may be true at some factionally, highly-managed national conference — like the last one — but it is utterly untrue of the Labor Party’s membership at large – which he knows.
The membership abhors AUKUS and everything that smacks of national sublimation. It does not expect these policies from a Labor Government.
AUKUS boss insists project remains on track despite frustrations and staff upheaval within submarine agency
In an interview coinciding with the third anniversary of the AUKUS agreement, Admiral Mead rejected criticism within defence that the multi-billion-dollar push to acquire nuclear-powered submarines was cannibalising the budget for other military projects
ABC News, by defence correspondent Andrew Greene, 20 Sept 4
In short:
The head of Australia’s submarine agency has acknowledged staff turnover but insists the $368 billion AUKUS project is on track.
Privately, Australian Submarine Agency insiders and other officials have expressed frustrations with the progress of Australia’s nuclear submarine endeavour.
Staff upheaval and frustrations with leadership are emerging inside the new government agency that is overseeing Australia’s $368 billion AUKUS project, as concerns mount about the ambitious push to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) boss Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead has rejected claims his organisation is “top heavy” but acknowledged some recent departures of senior figures, while also insisting “AUKUS is real and it’s happening”.
Defence figures, foreign officials and industry representatives have privately spoken to the ABC about their disquiet with the ASA’s progress on preparing for AUKUS, contradicting recent optimistic statements about the trilateral venture.
AUKUS was first unveiled in 2021 by former prime minister Scott Morrison and aims to deliver a nuclear submarine capability for Australia through a security partnership struck with the United States and United Kingdom.
In July last year, the ASA was established to “safely and securely acquire, construct, deliver, technically govern, sustain and dispose of Australia’s conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capability” under the AUKUS partnership.
Several weeks ago, ASA staff say they were stunned to learn one of the organisation’s most senior technical directors was leaving after playing a significant role that he had taken on following years of distinguished service in defence and the private sector.
“There’s a lot of disquiet here and we are really struggling to keep staff,” one ASA insider told the ABC, speaking under the condition of anonymity through fear of retribution by defence.
Another source connected to the agency claimed “several” relatively senior and experienced people left the organisation in recent months because of “concerns with the ASA’s top leadership”…………………………………………………………………………………….
Mead defends AUKUS project
Since its establishment under Admiral Mead, the ASA has grown to almost 700 full-time staff, including a dozen military officers holding a 1-star rank or higher, and an annual budget of $330 million, which is mainly comprised of salary costs.
In an interview coinciding with the third anniversary of the AUKUS agreement, Admiral Mead rejected criticism within defence that the multi-billion-dollar push to acquire nuclear-powered submarines was cannibalising the budget for other military projects…………………..
Under stage one of AUKUS, British and American nuclear submarines will rotate out of Perth from 2027. Then in the 2030s, Australia will receive second-hand Virginia boats from the United States, before constructing a new SSN-AUKUS fleet in Adelaide.
Privately, US officials have also expressed alarm at the slow progress in preparing for the stationing of nuclear-powered submarines out of Western Australia, under Submarine Rotational Force-West, and the transfer of second-hand boats in the 2030s.
We keep hearing announcements of new workforce recruitment initiatives, but they need to be far greater and much faster — the sense of urgency just isn’t there,” an American official who is not authorised to speak publicly told the ABC.
Admiral Mead insists “the US is very happy” with Australia’s progress but also declined to say what would happen if American shipyards do not deliver 2.33 Virginia submarines a year by 2028, the target required before boats can be transferred here…………………….
Frustration over slow progress
Frustration with the ASA’s direction is also privately shared by local defence industry representatives who have expressed disquiet with the slow progress in striking a joint venture to build the future SSN-AUKUS fleet in Adelaide.
In March, the government announced the Commonwealth-owned ASC would partner with British-owned company BAE Systems Australia to construct the nuclear-powered boats in Adelaide, but the joint venture is yet to be finalised.
One figure involved in the process claims targets are already being missed, highlighting the competing tensions and agendas between defence and ASC, which is run by the finance department……………………… more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-20/aukus-boss-defends-project-amid-frustrations-staff-turnover/104372920?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=mail
Albanese has a second chance with AUKUS
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters.
it is America which now sets our defence policy,
By Mike Gilligan, Sep 14, 2024 https://johnmenadue.com/albanese-has-a-second-chance-with-aukus
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Minister RIchard Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters. The Albanese Government’s defence policy manufactures grievous risk for Australia. That risk must be understood by the government.
The weekend Sydney Morning Herald (7 September) front page said: “Australia key to new US security scheme” by Peter Hartcher in Washington.
Hartcher is known as part of the Herald’s China-threat scare in March 2023, telling Australians that we face war with China within three years. Today that leaves just 18 months at the outside before war breaks out. Clearly ill-founded, it was a sensationalist attempt to panic Australians into embracing America’s planning for conflict with China.
The Americans are still at it, of course. And Hartcher is their messenger – boasting that his access in Washington is special because his interview at the White House is the only one which President Joe Biden’s National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, has given to Australian media in his 3-1/2 years in the role. Hartcher followed up with another report a few days later explaining that the Americans are looking for another big technology project to foist on Australia. In a hurry, because progress against China has been too slow.
Sullivan wants the new scheme stitched up before Biden leaves office. And by the way, Australia must spend more on defence for its role against China.
America is accustomed to dealing with its allies in that way. Europe’s NATO forces always have been shaped by US close oversight. Its member states are regularly hectored to spend more on defence against a common enemy. Sullivan is treating Australia just as he would another NATO ally. Without a second thought. And Australia’s leaders have fallen into line obsequiously.
Again it has to be said – Australia is not like the NATO countries. NATO was set up in response to an agreed security threat, the USSR.
We have no security threat. No Australian Government has declared, much less demonstrated, that China is a security threat. We had decades of understanding with the United States that our defence spending should be directed to Australia’s own defence with our own forces. Without relying on America. In situations where Australia supported the US militarily overseas, it would be with forces which we held for our own priorities. Nothing special would be done for America. America agreed. That was Australia’s independence in action.
It worked for 35 years until President Barack Obama visited in 2010 effectively requiring Australia to do an about-face. Signalling that henceforth Australia’s defence would be done America’s way.
The Albanese Government’s defence policy manufactures grievous risk for Australia. That risk must be understood by the government.
It is Australia’s experience with the US itself which defines the risk. No need to look elsewhere for examples. Ever since the ANZUS treaty was signed in 1953, America has told Australia not to rely on it if attacked. Again in contrast to NATO, ANZUS deliberately avoids American commitment to assisting Australia if attacked. It was the proof of that American reluctance (over Indonesia) and the Vietnam tragedy which led to Australia facing reality – bipartisanly adopting a self- reliant defence policy in 1976. The risk of not embracing self- reliance was deemed intolerable. To not pursue self-reliance feckless. And that initiative came with America’s enthusiastic endorsement, for 35 years.
Today it suits America to use Australia’s forces for its own ends against China. Yet it won’t commit to our security by dignifying us with a genuine treaty. The obvious risk is that America’s interest in Asia will decline, for many reasons. Then Australia will be left with defences of little use for our own need. What good is an island-hopping army dependent on US Marines, who have gone home? It’s been said before. But the profound risk hasn’t sunk in.
At the business end, the Albanese Government is spending heavily to dump Australia ever deeper into the risk predicament. Marles flaunts the financial cost. Noting that the Defence budget was $48 billion in 2022-23, the Albanese Government will raise it to $55.7 billion in 2024-25:
“These increases will see annual Defence spending almost double over the next ten years to $100 billion in the financial year 2033-34. Taken over a 10-year period, it will be the largest sustained growth in the Defence budget since the Second World War.”
This is the spending which Sullivan says should be increased. Australia’s defence budget of $58 billion is the same as Japan’s, also accelerating because of US pressure.
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters. Sam Roggeveen in his elegant essay “The Jakarta Option” describes the influences which render Marles’ strategy foolhardy. He presents evidence of a structural shift in warfare which renders maritime attack on an opponent’s territory increasingly hazardous. The exchange ratio of maritime forces to land-based weapons has swung heavily to the defender ie China in this case. Marles strategy of “projection” is squarely on the wrong side of this asymmetry.
So, what to do about this latest American “initiative”? Albanese tells the tale of having just one day to consider AUKUS when in opposition. He now has the full resources of Cabinet and can set his own timetable. He can require Marles to talk to the risks and costs to Australia of his National Strategy of power projection. And this latest directive from Washington. Ministers, especially the treasurer, should work through the risks, costs and consequences so that they genuinely know what Australia is being led into at vast cost.
Back to Hartcher. He unwittingly does us a service, demonstrating yet again that Australians have to rely on the candour of American leaders to see through the murky verbiage of Defence Ministers, confirming that it is America which now sets our defence policy, down to project detail. Hartcher will have something to brag about when he has the level of access in Beijing which he claims in Washington.
The tangled nuclear web of lies and half-truths – can we believe that Australia will refuse to take USA toxic wastes?
How is the Australian government going to twist their way around THIS ONE!
I’d really like to believe Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who once was a noble opponent of the military-industrial-nuclear complex.
But – now – I fear that he is as gutless as most Australian politicians when it comes to sucking up to the USA.
https://theaimn.com/can-we-believe-that-the-australian-government-will-really-refuse-to-take-usa-uk-nuclear-submarine-waste/ 12 Sept 24, Today comes one of those amazing bits of news that a national government, in this case, it seems, Australia, has actually listened and responded to the many voices of peace and environment activists who are shocked at the proposed Naval Nuclear Propulsion Treaty which benefits the USA, but not Australia, and which makes Australia responsible for high level nuclear wastes from U.S/UK nuclear submarines.
If we can believe the Labor government – they are going to stand up to the USA and the UK, and refuse to accept high level toxic radioactive trash from USA – ‘Relief’ Australia won’t take high-level nuclear waste under AUKUS.
The latest information on Australia getting nuclear submarines is that as early as 2027, the United States will begin rotational presence in the Western Australia facility. Ultimately, there will be up to four U.S. Virginia-class submarines and one United Kingdom Astute-class submarine at HMAS Stirling. https://www.defenseone.com/business/2024/01/race-prepare-australia-nuclear-subs/393601/
So these nuclear submarines will be stationed in Australia , but owned by the USA and UK, not by Australia.
Well- here are a couple of clauses from this jargon-filled proposed Treaty:
ARTICLE IV – D
Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any
spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Plants transferred pursuant to this Article, including radioactive waste generated
through submarine operations, maintenance, decommissioning, and disposal.
ANNEX B: SECTION I – SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
Such Power Units shall contain highly enriched uranium and, only with respect to irradiated fuel, may contain plutonium.
Friends of the Earth are among the many who have sounded the warning:
Minister for Defence Richard Marles has stated that Australia would not accept radioactive waste from overseas, but this has not been explicitly ruled out in the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 currently before Parliament. The words of an under-pressure defence minister in 2024 are unlikely to count for much decades hence if Australian legislation and the Agreement between Australia, the UK and
the US do not prohibit the acceptance of foreign spent nuclear fuel.
It is important to acknowledge Australia’s poor history regarding radioactive waste disposal
facilities.
How is the Australian government going to twist their way around THIS ONE!
I’d really like to believe Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who once was a noble opponent of the military-industrial-nuclear complex.
PM Albanese has been adroit at making himself a “small target” for both the Opposition nuclear enthusiasts, and for his own Labor Party members who deplore the AUKUS nuclear deal. No doubt he will rely on the mealy-mouthed USA-sycophant defence Minister Richard Marles to spin the story on this.
‘Relief’ Australia won’t take high-level nuclear waste under AUKUS
In response to recommendations made by a parliamentary committee, Labor has proposed changes that make clear Australia will be responsible only for high-level waste produced by its submarines
New Daily Tess Ikonomou, Sep 11, 2024
Australia will not accept high-level nuclear waste from other countries under a security pact with the US and UK.
Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines for $368 billion under the AUKUS agreement.
The Albanese government is introducing amendments to the bill which sets up the framework to regulate the safety of activities relating to the nuclear-powered submarines.
In response to recommendations made by a parliamentary committee, Labor has proposed changes that make clear Australia will only be responsible for high-level waste produced by its submarines.
The need to manage nuclear fuel is expected to occur in the 2050s
The University of Melbourne’s Professor Tilman Ruff, from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said the welcome move was a “relief”.
“The other issue that concerns us is the proliferation potential of the fact that there is highly enriched uranium in any nuclear submarine that Australia is likely to acquire,” he said.
Dr Ruff said it was “really unfortunate” the new regulator monitoring how nuclear material would be handled would sit within Defence.
“That’s a fundamental conflict with good governance – the regulators should be independent,” he said.
“This obviously requires very expert, but also very independent, transparent and accountable regulation.”
Under the treaty, the US or UK can quit the pact with a year’s notice.
It also requires Australia to legally protect both allies against costs or injuries arising from nuclear risks.
The agreement will remain in force until 2075 and says the AUKUS deal should not adversely affect the ability of the US and UK to “meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs”.
US government and military officials have moved to reassure the deal will withstand changing administrations for decades to come, amid fears it could be torn up by a new leader. https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2024/09/11/australia-nuclear-waste-aukus—
That time when Canada cancelled its nuclear submarine order
The decision to cut the Australian community out altogether — except where we will be called upon to service the US military as it builds its base in WA — puts us in the relationship of a vassal state, existing only to do the bidding of our powerful friend.
By Julie Macken and Michael Walker, Aug 30, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/that-time-when-canada-cancelled-its-nuclear-submarine-order/
Back in 1987, when no one knew that the Cold War was just about to end, the Canadian Government signed up to build 10 nuclear-powered submarines. That submarine program lasted for all of two years before being cancelled in 1989. No nuclear Canadian sub ever even began construction, let alone getting put in the water.
There is a very real sense of déjà vu when we look at the Canadian experience and the current Australian experience of AUKUS. The good news is that it is not too late to learn the lessons the Canadians learnt for us.
One of the reasons for the Canadian cancellation was the $8 billion price tag, or about $19 billion in today’s money. Two billion dollars per submarine now sounds like a bargain compared to the astronomical $45 billion per submarine under AUKUS. Canada decided it had other priorities where that money could be put to better use.
But before the contract was cancelled in Canada, the ministries involved in its construction became embroiled in conflict, the Government itself was in a cost-of-living-crisis with immediate, real-world needs pressing and the hasty and secretive choice of vessel design came under withering criticism from the Treasury department for poor procurement with the cost expected to blow out to $30 billion ($70 billion today). And finally, media support eroded, with 71% of the population opposed to the project.
Déjà vu much?
On 12 June, the US Congressional Research Document service produced a research and advice document called the Navy Virginia-Class Submarine Program and AUKUS Submarine (Pillar 1) Project: Background and Issues for Congress.
The document points out the AUKUS deal was a three-step process. The first was to establish a US-UK rotational submarine force in Western Australia. The second was that the US would sell us three or five Virginia nuclear powered submarines and the third would be that the UK assists us in building our own AUKUS class nuclear submarines.
But the Congressional report outlines when comparing the “potential benefits, costs, and risks” of the three stage plan, it might just be better for the US to operate more of its own boats out of WA. That is, “procuring up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs that would be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia along with the US and UK SSNs”.
That’s right, why bother with the whole step two and three when the US is best served by simply operating its nuclear-powered attack submarines out of WA?
This is an extraordinary development and one that demands more attention than has been given previously because a number of issues flow from this kind of thinking.
First, this potentially frees up $400 billion that could be put to far better use on a national housing construction program or high-speed rail network running the entire east coast of Australia or other large and much-needed nation-building projects. But not so fast.
The US Congressional Research Document suggests that “those funds (the $400 billion) could be invested in other military capabilities”, such as long-range missiles and bombers, “so as to create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States”.
The decision to cut the Australian community out altogether — except where we will be called upon to service the US military as it builds its base in WA — puts us in the relationship of a vassal state, existing only to do the bidding of our powerful friend.
The fact that the document only referenced the “potential benefits, costs, and risks” from the US perspective, without any attempt to imagine how Australia may view becoming a life support for a US submarine base, makes the nature of our relationship pretty clear.
Australia’s Government may not consider it necessary to have done its due diligence on AUKUS but the Americans are happy to do that for us and, you guessed it, even though they quietly have doubts about the SSN project, they’ve already thought of plenty of other ways to spend our money on their own defence objectives. Spending it on the well-being and prosperity of our own people didn’t even rate a mention.
Is the USA now considering withdrawal from AUKUS?
A little bird sent me this:
“I have just had it from a strong source in America that if Australia fails to reach an article 14 arrangement with IAEA within the next three months then irrespective of the presidential result America will give notice of withdrawal from AUKUS
However it may negotiate with Australia to use Garden Island as a base for its Indian Ocean fleet
Apparently major contractors involved with the first phase of AUKUS are lobbying the USA government to continue irrespective of what occurs with AUKUS but so far with little success”
Answers to the Questions on Notice are published in due course on the Australian Parliament House website.
AUKUS 2.0: Albanese Drives It Like He Stole It, and Then Gives It Away to the US
by Paul Gregoire, 15 Aug 2024, Fact Checked, https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/aukus-2-0-albanese-drives-it-like-he-stole-it-and-then-gives-it-away-to-the-us/
On his jaunt to the US last week, not only did defence minister Richard Marles glorify the US presence across the entire Australian military domain at the AUSMIN, but he also signed an updated version of the AUKUS Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement (ENNPIA).
Then in announcing the updated AUKUS agreement had been tabled on Monday, Marles explained that it “will be central to Australia’s acquisition of a sovereign nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) capability from the 2030s”, including US-made SSN and UK-assisted Australian-made SSN.
“It will also enable Australia to prepare for Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West) at HMAS Stirling from 2027, supporting the rotational presence of up to four Virginia class submarines from the US and one Astute class submarine from the UK,” the deputy PM added in his press release.
Yet, while Marle’s first proposition, that Australia will ever acquire any of the eight proposed SSN of its own, has been shown to be full of holes, a recent paper by the US congress’ thinktank reveals that the mainly US submarine force stationed in WA is a given and it recommends no Australian SSN.
And despite these questions, the Albanese government did table the updated EENPIA, which, if all parties provide a note assuring that domestic requirements are completed, will replace the 2022 original agreement, and this rather lopsided treaty will continue to be in force until the end of 2075.
A lack of sovereignty
The AUKUS ENNPIA establishes a legally-binding framework to facilitate the communication and exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information and nuclear material and equipment from the UK and the US to Australia – the AUKUS powers – in regard to our own coming “sovereign” SSN.
The reason it’s questionable that any boats we may acquire will be sovereign is that the deal adheres to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which guards against new states acquiring the ability to produce such weapons, so therefore, the reactors in the subs are off-limits.
The plan is to purchase three to five second-hand Virginia class SSN from the states, starting in the early 1930s, with sealed nuclear reactors in them, and in terms of the five Australian-made AUKUS subs, the UK will provide welded naval nuclear propulsion plants to be inserted into the AUKUS SSN.
And author of Nuked, investigative journalist Andrew Fowler told the ABC last month in reference to the Virginia class SSN that if Australia buys these boats, it’s questionable that they can every really be referred to as owned solely by the nation, as treaty obligations guard against that final step.
Non-proliferation requirements
The updated ENNPIA further requires Australia to establish an Article 14 Arrangement under the Agreement between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
This 1974 agreement permits Australia to use nuclear material in relation to “peaceful” activities, which is safeguarded under its provisions, and this further entails ensuring that the “material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”.
Article 14 of the agreement requires that if Australia plans to use nuclear material in a “non-proscribed military activity”, that our nation and the IAEA must come to an arrangement, so that Australia is permitted to use it in this non-safeguarded manner.
And if Australia is found to be in breach of the NPT, it’s agreement with the IAEA or the Article 14 agreement, the US and the UK have the right to cease the AUKUS agreement and will require the return of all nuclear material and equipment transferred to it, which again raises sovereignty.
Pulling the plug
Australians have been told that the nation is committing at least $368 billion to this AUKUS sub deal, which certainly signals a nation sliding towards a war economy with less social services. And the ENNPIA notes that no public consultation has been undertaken because the process is classified.
But as Greens Senator David Shoebridge told Sydney Criminal Lawyers in April, our nation has already committed AU$4.6 billion to the US for its nuclear submarine industrial base, and another AU$4.6 billion for the UK’s nuclear submarine industrial base.
The updated ENNPIA further provides that “any party may, by giving at least one year’s written notice to the other parties, terminate this agreement”. Yet, there is nothing within it stipulating that Australia will be receiving any refunds on these already progressing investments.
And on such termination or if one party has breached the deal “each other party has the right to require the return or destruction of any naval nuclear propulsion information, nuclear material and equipment that it communicated, exchanged, or transferred pursuant to the agreement”.
So, while this last clause does technically apply to all AUKUS powers, it doesn’t really have any bearing on our nation, as we are to pay for the transference of information, nuclear material and related equipment, and we’re not supposed to provide any in the other direction.
So, Australia is left in a precarious situation where everything can be taken away.
A dumping ground for nuclear waste
In terms of nuclear waste, the AUKUS ENNPIA only “obligates Australia” to store and dispose of “any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from naval nuclear propulsion plants that are transferred”.
However, this document only relates to the exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information coming from the US and the UK. And it does not, for instance, dictate what will happen to the nuclear waste generated by SRF-West: the US and UK SSN force that will operating out of WA from 2027 onwards.
Indeed, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency last month, signed off on storing the nuclear waste produced by SRF-West on Garden Island, off the coast of Perth, and this will be both low-grade and intermediate-grade waste. And such arrangements could be expanded.
And the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 continues to sit in the lower house, after it went through the parliamentary committee process, which, amongst other measures, facilitates the establishment of a high level nuclear waste dump/s on First Nations land.
There’s a new sheriff in town
So, while the new AUKUS ENNPIA doesn’t facilitate our nation taking on high grade radioactive waste that the US and the UK hasn’t been able to store themselves, the updated document neither rules out that this will be facilitated via other means in the future.
And nor does it spell out what was clear at last week’s AUSMIN meet, which was that increasing interoperability between the US and Australian defence forces is coming, with Washington being the senior partner, and it will have a much greater military presence and in turn, control on the ground.
“If you look at the force posture of the United States on the Australian continent, we’ve seen a growth in marine rotation in Darwin,” our deputy PM said during the AUSMIN, and added that “in fact, that force posture lay down of the United States in Australia is across all domains”.
Gareth Evans: AUKUS is terrible for Australian national interests – but we’re probably stuck with it
as Paul Keating continues to put it so articulately, that we need to find our security in Asia, not from Asia.
The Conversation, Gareth Evans, Distinguished Honorary Professor, Australian National University, August 16, 2024
This is an edited extract of a presentation by Gareth Evans, Distinguished Honorary Professor at ANU and former Australian foreign minister, to the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia Conference.
Politics played a significant part in the birth of AUKUS in Australia, and politics both here and in the United States will play a crucial role in determining whether it lives or dies. That is so at least for its core submarine component. The second pillar of the agreement, relating to technical cooperation on multiple new fronts, is both much less clear in its scope and less obviously politically fraught.
On the Australian side, partisan political opportunism was a factor in the initiation of the submarine deal, bipartisan political support was a condition of US agreement to it, and maintenance of that bipartisan support into the future presumably will be a precondition of its continuance, at least when it comes to highly sensitive elements like the handover of three Virginia class submarines.
On the American side, it was perception of US strategic advantage that drove Washington’s agreement to the deal, rather than any domestic political considerations. But strong cross-party support in Congress will remain necessary for its complete delivery. And, at the even more critical executive level, it cannot be assumed the deal is now Trump-proof.
It is only in the United Kingdom that we can reasonably regard domestic politics to be irrelevant to AUKUS’s future. The deal is so obviously a gift to the national Treasury, and has so little impact on national defence and security interests, that no one on any side of politics is ever likely to find it unpalatable.
In Australia, domestic politics have been a factor from the outset. While for the Morrison government the primary driver of the AUKUS decision was, no doubt, the ideological passion of senior Coalition ministers for all things American, it is hard to deny political opportunism came a close second.
Morrison was deeply conscious of the opportunity the deal presented to wedge the Labor opposition in the defence and security space, where the Labor Party has long been perceived, rightly or wrongly, as electorally vulnerable. That the nuclear dimension of the deal was bound to ruffle some feathers in Labor ranks was an added political attraction…………………………………………..
What I am now critical of, is that when Labor did come into office in May 2022, it is clear no such serious review of the whole AUKUS deal ever took place. Crucial questions were never seriously addressed; clearly articulated answers to them have never been given by the prime minister, defence minister or anyone else. The answers that are in fact emerging as further time passes are deeply troubling…………………………………..
……..there is zero certainty of the timely delivery of the eight AUKUS boats. We now know that both the US and UK have explicit opt-out rights. And even in the wholly unlikely event that everything falls smoothly into place in the whole vastly complex enterprise, we will be waiting 40 years for the last boat to arrive, posing real capability gap issues.
………………, the final fleet size – if its purpose really is the defence of Australia – appears hardly fit for that purpose. ………………..
…….the eye-watering cost of the AUKUS submarine program, up to $368 billion, will make it very difficult, short of a dramatic increase in the defence share of GDP, to acquire the other capabilities we will need if we are to have any kind of self-reliant capacity in meeting an invasion threat. Those capabilities include, in particular, state-of-the-art missiles, aircraft and drones, that are arguably even more critical than submarines for our defence in the event of such a crisis.
..the price now being demanded by the US for giving us access to its nuclear propulsion technology is extraordinarily high.
……… The notion that we will retain any kind of sovereign agency in determining how all these assets are used, should serious tensions erupt, is a joke in bad taste.
…….the purchase price we are now paying, for all its exorbitance, will never be enough to guarantee the absolute protective insurance that supporters of AUKUS think they are buying. ANZUS, it cannot be said too often, does not bind the US to defend us, even in the event of existential attack. And extended nuclear deterrence is as illusory for us as for ever other ally or partner believing itself to be sheltering under a US nuclear umbrella. The notion that the US would ever be prepared to run the risk of sacrificing Los Angeles for Tokyo or Seoul, let alone Perth, is and always has been nonsense.
We can rely on military support if the US sees it in its own national interest to offer it, but not otherwise.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..as Paul Keating continues to put it so articulately, that we need to find our security in Asia, not from Asia.
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, not only putting at profound risk our sovereign independence, but generating more risk than reward for the very national security it promises to protect. I cannot imagine this decision being made by any of the Hawke-Keating governments of which I was part. Times have changed. https://theconversation.com/gareth-evans-aukus-is-terrible-for-australian-national-interests-but-were-probably-stuck-with-it-236938
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 