Aukusing for War: The Real Target Is China

Dr Binoy Kampmark, April 7 2024  https://theaimn.com/aukusing-for-war-the-real-target-is-china/

A remarkably perverse reality is in the offing regarding AUKUS. In terms of submarines, it will lag, possibly even sink, leaving the US and, to a lesser extent the UK, operating their fleets as Australians foot the bill and provide the refreshment

Not only is Australia effectively promising to finance and service that particular capacity, it will also do so in the service of a potentially catastrophic conflict which will see its automatic commitment. A truly high price to pay for an abdication of sovereignty for the fiction of regional stability.

The occasional burst of candour from US diplomats provides a striking, air clearing difference to their Australian and British counterparts. Official statements about the AUKUS security pact between Washington, London and Canberra, rarely mention the target in so many words, except on the gossiping fringes. Commentators and think tankers are essentially given free rein to speculate, masticating over such streaky and light terms as “new strategic environment”, “great power competition”, “rules-based order”.

On the occasion of his April 3 visit to Washington’s Center for a New American Security (CNAS), US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell was refreshingly frank. His presence as an emissary of US power in the Pacific has been notable since the AUKUS announcement in September 2021.

In March last year, Campbell, as Deputy Assistant to the US President and Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific National Security Council, was unfurling the US flag before various Pacific states, adamant that US policy was being reoriented from one of neglect to one of greater attentiveness. The Solomon Islands, given its newly minted security pact with Beijing, was of special concern. “We realise that we have to overcome in certain areas some amounts of distrust and uncertainty about follow through,” he explained to reporters in Wellington, New Zealand. “We’re seeking to gain that trust and confidence as we go forward.”

In Honiara, Campbell conceded that the US had not done “enough before” and had to be “big enough to admit that we need to do more, and we need to do better.” This entailed, in no small part, cornering the Solomon Islands Premier Manasseh Sogavare into affirming that Beijing would not be permitted to establish a military facility capable of supporting “power projection capabilities.”

In his discussion with the CNAS Chief Executive Officer, Richard Fontaine, Campbell did the usual runup, doffing the cap to the stock principles. Banal generalities were discussed, for instance, as to whether the US should be the sole show in projecting power or seek support from like-minded sorts. “I would argue that as the United States and other nations confront a challenging security environment, that the best way to maintain peace and security is to work constructively and deeply with allies and partners.” A less than stealthy rebuke was reserved for those who think “that the best that the United States can do is to act alone and to husband its resources and think about unilateral, individual steps it might take.”

The latter view has always been scorned by those calling themselves multilateralists, a cloaking term for waging war arm-in-arm with satellite states and vassals while ascribing to it peace keeping purposes in the name of stability. Campbell is unsurprising in arguing “that working closely with other nations, not just diplomatically, but in defensive avenues [emphasis added], has the consequence of strengthening peace and stability more generally.” The virtue with the unilateralists is the possibility that war should be resorted to sparingly. If one is taking up arms alone, a sense of caution can moderate the bloodlust.

Campbell revealingly envisages “a number of areas of conflict and in a number of scenarios that countries acting together” in the Indo-Pacific, including Japan, Australia, South Korea and India. “I think that balance, the additional capacity will help strengthen deterrence more general [sic].” The candid admission on the role played by the AUKUS submarines follows, with the boats having “the potential to have submarines from a number of countries operating in close coordination that could deliver conventional ordinance from long distances. Those have enormous implications in a variety of scenarios, including in cross-strait circumstances.” And so, we have the prospect of submarines associated with the AUKUS compact being engaged in a potential war with China over Taiwan.

When asked on what to do about the slow production rate of submarines on the part of the US Navy necessary to keep AUKUS afloat, Campbell acknowledged the constraints – the Covid pandemic, supply chain issues, the number of submarines in dry dock requiring or requiring servicing. But like Don Quixote taking the reins of Rosinante to charge the windmills, he is undeterred in his optimism, insisting that “the urgent security demands in Europe and the Indo-Pacific require much more rapid ability to deliver both ordinance and other capabilities.”

To do so, the military industrial complex needs to be broadened (good news for the defence industry, terrible for the peacemakers). “I think probably there is going to be a need over time for a larger number of vendors, both in the United States in Australia and Great Britain, involved in both AUKUS and other endeavours.”

There was also little by way of peace talk in Campbell’s confidence about the April 11 trilateral Washington summit between the US, Japan and the Philippines, following a bilateral summit to be held between President Joe Biden and Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. When terms such as “modernize” and “update” are bandied about in the context of an alliance, notably with an eye towards a rival power’s ambitions, the warring instincts must surely be stirred. In the language of true encirclement, Campbell envisages a cooperative framework that will “help link the Indo-Pacific more effectively to Europe” while underscoring “our commitment to the region as a whole.”

A remarkably perverse reality is in the offing regarding AUKUS. In terms of submarines, it will lag, possibly even sink, leaving the US and, to a lesser extent the UK, operating their fleets as Australians foot the bill and provide the refreshments. Campbell may well mention Australia and the UK in the context of nuclear-powered submarines, but it remains clear where his focus is: the US program “which I would regard as the jewel in the crown of our defense industrial capacity.” Not only is Australia effectively promising to finance and service that particular capacity, it will also do so in the service of a potentially catastrophic conflict which will see its automatic commitment. A truly high price to pay for an abdication of sovereignty for the fiction of regional stability.

April 8, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Killing Aid Workers: Australia’s Muddled Policy on Israel

Australian anger at the government level must therefore be severely qualified. Support roles, thereby rendering Australian companies complicit in Israeli’s military efforts, and in ancillary fashion the Australian government, continue to be an important feature. The F-35, a mainstay US-made fighter for the Israeli Air Force, is not manufactured or built in Australia, but is sustained through the supply of spare parts stored in a number of allied countries. According to the Australian Department of Defence, “more than 70 Australian companies have directly shared more than $4.13 billion in global F-35 production and sustainment contracts.”

April 5, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.com/killing-aid-workers-australias-muddled-policy-on-israel/

The Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, was distraught and testy. It seemed that, on this occasion, Israel had gone too far. Not too far in killing over 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza, a staggering percentage of them being children. Not too far in terms of using starvation as a weapon of war. Not too far in bringing attention to the International Court of Justice that its actions are potentially genocidal.

Israel had overstepped in doing something it has done previously to other nationals: kill humanitarian workers in targeted strikes. The difference for Albanese on this occasion was that one of the individuals among the seven World Central Kitchen charity workers killed during the midnight between April 1 and 2 was Australian national Lalzawmi “Zomi” Frankcom.

Frankcom and her colleagues had unloaded humanitarian food supplies from Cyprus that had been sent via a maritime route before leaving the Deir al-Balah warehouse. The convoy, despite driving in a designated “deconflicted” zone, was subsequently attacked by three missiles fired from a Hermes 450 drone. All vehicles had the WCK logo prominently displayed. WCK had been closely coordinating the movements of their personnel with the IDF.

In a press conference on April 3, Albanese described the actions as “completely unacceptable.” He noted that the Israeli government had accepted responsibility for the strikes, while Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu had conveyed his condolences to Frankcom’s family, with assurances that he would be “committed to full transparency”.

The next day, the Australian PM called the slaying of Frankcom a “catastrophic event”, reiterating Netanyahu’s promises from the previous day that he was “committed to a full and proper investigation.” Albanese also wished that these findings be made public, and that accountability be shown for Israel’s actions, including for those directly responsible. “What we know is that there have been too many innocent lives lost in Gaza.”

Australian Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, restated the need for “full accountability and transparency” and Australian cooperation with Israel “on the detail of this investigation.” She further acknowledged the deaths of over 30,000 civilians, with some “half a million Palestinians” starving.

Beyond an investigation, mounted and therefore controlled by the Israeli forces themselves, nothing much else can be hoped for. The Albanese approach has been one of copybook warnings and concerns to an ally it clearly fears affronting. What would a ground invasion of Rafah do to the civilian population? What of the continuing hardships in Gaza? Push for a humanitarian ceasefire, but what else?

Australian anger at the government level must therefore be severely qualified. Support roles, thereby rendering Australian companies complicit in Israeli’s military efforts, and in ancillary fashion the Australian government, continue to be an important feature. The F-35, a mainstay US-made fighter for the Israeli Air Force, is not manufactured or built in Australia, but is sustained through the supply of spare parts stored in a number of allied countries. According to the Australian Department of Defence, “more than 70 Australian companies have directly shared more than $4.13 billion in global F-35 production and sustainment contracts.”

The Australian government has previously stated that all export permit decisions “must assess any relevant human rights risks and Australia’s compliance with its international obligations.” The refusal of a permit would be assured in cases where an exported product “might be used to facilitate human rights abuses.” On paper, this seems solidly reasoned and consistent with international humanitarian law. But Canberra has been a glutton for the Israeli military industry, approving 322 defence exports over the past six years. In 2022, it approved 49 export permits of a military nature bound for Israel; in the first three months of 2023, the number was 23.

The drone used in the strike that killed Frankcom is the pride and joy of Elbit Systems, which boasts a far from negligible presence in Australia. In February, Elbit Systems received a A$917 million contract from the Australian Defence Department, despite previous national security concerns among Australian military personnel regarding its Battle Management System (BMS).

When confronted with the suggestion advanced by the Australian Greens that Australia end arms sales to Israel, given the presence of Australian spare parts in weaponry used by the IDF, Wong displayed her true plumage. The Australian Greens, she sneered, were “trying to make this a partisan political issue.” With weasel-minded persistence, Wong again quibbled that “we are not exporting arms to Israel” and claiming Australian complicity in Israeli actions was “detrimental to the fabric of Australian society.”

The Australian position on supplying Israel remains much like that of the United States, with one fundamental exception. The White House, the Pentagon and the US Congress, despite increasing concerns about the arrangement, continue to bankroll and supply the Israeli war machine even as issue is taken about how that machine works. That much is admitted. The Australian line on this is even weaker.

The feeble argument made by such watery types as Foreign Minister Wong focus on matters of degree and semantics. Israel is not being furnished with weapons; they are merely being furnished with weapon components.

Aside from ending arms sales, there is precedent for Australia taking the bull by the horns and charging into the mist of legal accountability regarding the killing of civilians in war. It proved an enthusiastic participant in the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), charged with combing through the events leading to the downing of the Malaysian Airlines MH17 over Ukraine in July 2014 by a Buk missile, killing all 298 on board.

Any such equivalent investigation into the IDF personnel responsible for the killing of Frankcom and her colleagues is unlikely. When the IDF talks of comprehensive reviews, we know exactly how comprehensively slanted they will be.

April 7, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Melissa Parke: The nuclear threat Australia is ignoring

In its 2018 policy platform, Labor committed to signing and ratifying the TPNW in government, after taking account of a number of factors, including the new treaty’s interaction with the longstanding non-proliferation treaty.

It was Albanese who moved the motion, stating at the time, “Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Today we have an opportunity to take a step towards their elimination.”

The motion was seconded by the now defence minister, Richard Marles, and adopted unanimously.

The Saturday Paper, 30 Mar 24

In August 1939, a month before the outbreak of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt advising that a large mass of uranium could be used to make “extremely powerful bombs of a new type”.

Fearing Nazi Germany would be the first to develop such weaponry, he implored Roosevelt to speed up experimental work aimed at harnessing the destructive power of the atom.

It was, he later said, the “one great mistake” of his life.

Like J. Robert Oppenheimer, Einstein became increasingly alarmed at the implications of the Manhattan Project. In just a few years, the human species had acquired the means to destroy itself, along with most other living organisms on Earth.

Horrified by the high death toll from the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, which killed more than 200,000 people, mostly civilians, Einstein reflected, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

Shortly before his death in 1955, Einstein signed a manifesto with other renowned intellectuals, including the mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell, warning “a war with H-bombs might quite possibly put an end to the human race”.

Their growing concern stemmed, in part, from the discovery that nuclear weapons could spread destruction over a much wider area than had initially been supposed.

A year earlier, at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, America’s infamous Castle Bravo nuclear weapons test had poisoned not only the people of nearby Rongelap but also Japanese fishermen hundreds of kilometres from the blast site.

It was the largest of more than 300 US, French and British nuclear test explosions carried out in the Pacific between 1946 and 1996, with devastating consequences for local populations and the environment.

The British government also tested nuclear weapons on Australian soil in the 1950s and 1960s, poisoning the environment, dislocating and irradiating Aboriginal communities, and affecting many of the 20,000 British and Australian service personnel involved in the testing program.

The toxic legacy of these experiments – in Australia, the Pacific and other parts of the world – persists to this day. Those exposed to radiation and their descendants suffer from birth defects and cancers at much higher rates than the general population.

Still, the nuclear arms race continues apace. The dire warnings articulated so powerfully in the Russell–Einstein manifesto seven decades ago remain just as relevant today.

Our world is teetering on the brink of catastrophe, with close to 13,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine countries. The risk of their use – whether by accident or design – is as high as ever……………………………………………………………

Australia’s plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS has only exacerbated tensions, eroding well-established non-proliferation norms.

Last year, more than 150 medical journals, including The Lancet and the Medical Journal of Australia, put out a joint call for urgent action to eliminate nuclear weapons. They identified the abolition of nuclear weapons as a public health priority. “Even a ‘limited’ nuclear war involving only 250 of the 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world,” the warning stated, “could kill 120 million people outright and cause global climate disruption leading to a nuclear famine, putting two billion people at risk.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

This week, as I walked the halls of Parliament House to advocate for Australia’s signing of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a landmark accord adopted at the United Nations in 2017 with the backing of 122 countries, I was reminded of the power that people in government have to make real and long-lasting change, and also how all too often they let opportunities slip by.

During my nine years as the Labor member for Fremantle, I saw how government action and policy change could make positive differences for people and the environment, but also how inaction could have devastating consequences.

The Albanese government has an opportunity to leave a powerful legacy and help secure the future of all life on Earth. To do so, Australia must step out from under the shadow of the nuclear umbrella and sign the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Wespons (TPNW)

The sticking point for Australia has been the doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence, a feature of our defence strategy for decades. In theory, Australia relies on US nuclear weapons to defend us against nuclear attack. Washington, however, has never made a public commitment to that effect. Furthermore, since nuclear deterrence is based on the willingness and readiness to commit the mass murder of civilians, it is morally and legally unacceptable, even by way of retaliation.

Deterrence theory also assumes complete rationality and predictability of all actors, including one’s enemies, all of the time, which is a bold assumption.

There are many things that cannot be deterred, including accidents, miscalculations, unhinged leaders, terrorist groups, cyber attacks and simple mistakes. There have been many nuclear near-misses over the decades and we have been on the brink of catastrophe more than once, most famously during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

The TPNW provides a pathway to the elimination of nuclear weapons. It is a new norm in international law that delegitimises and stigmatises the most destructive and inhumane weapons ever created. It also includes groundbreaking provisions to assist communities harmed by nuclear use and testing and to remediate contaminated environments.

Indonesia, New Zealand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and nine of the Pacific Island states have signed up. We are clearly out of step with our region.

Australia has a proud history of championing nuclear disarmament, particularly under Labor governments. The late Tom Uren, a Labor luminary and mentor to Anthony Albanese, was one of the party’s most passionate critics of nuclear weapons and war.

It was under the Whitlam government, with Uren serving as a minister, that Australia ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1973. Bob Hawke worked with Pacific neighbours to develop the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty in 1985. Paul Keating established the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons in 1995. Kevin Rudd established a follow-up commission in 2008.

In its 2018 policy platform, Labor committed to signing and ratifying the TPNW in government, after taking account of a number of factors, including the new treaty’s interaction with the longstanding non-proliferation treaty.

It was Albanese who moved the motion, stating at the time, “Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Today we have an opportunity to take a step towards their elimination.”

The motion was seconded by the now defence minister, Richard Marles, and adopted unanimously.

Albanese argued the most effective way for Australia to build universal support for the TPNW – including, ultimately, bringing nuclear-armed states on board – would be for our country to join the treaty itself.

He also said that doing so would not jeopardise Australia’s alliance with the US, noting Australia had joined other disarmament treaties to which the US isn’t a party, including those banning anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.

New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand have all ratified the TPNW, with no disruption to their ongoing non-nuclear military cooperation with the US. Indeed, the Philippines recently almost doubled the number of its military bases available to US forces and conducted joint military exercises with the US in the South China Sea.

Labor reaffirmed its commitment to signing the TPNW at its 2021 and 2023 national conferences, but the Albanese government has not yet inked the accord. It is time for the prime minister to act.

The rising, existential danger of nuclear war makes it all the more important for Australia to get on the right side of history.

We need to change our modes of thinking – to use Einstein’s phrase – and dispense with old ideas about what makes us safe and secure. We must remember that disarmament is essential for our collective survival.

In their manifesto, Einstein and Russell appealed as human beings to human beings: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on March 30, 2024 as “The nuclear threat Australia is ignoring”.  https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2024/03/30/the-nuclear-threat-australia-ignoring#mtr

.

March 31, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australia’s move on nuclear submarines raises concern

Editor : Li Yan, https://www.ecns.cn/news/military/2024-03-28/detail-ihcyyfhe2567871.shtml

Despite growing concerns over costs, capabilities, and risks to national interests, Australia has committed to collaborating with the United States and the United Kingdom to advance the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines, a move experts predicted would escalate domestic opposition and heighten regional tensions.

Australia has pledged $3 billion to support British industry in constructing nuclear-powered submarines, ensuring the timely delivery of its new fleet, as announced by both countries last Friday.

Grant Shapps, British defense secretary, emphasized the ongoing importance of AUKUS while drawing attention to the so-called “China threat” in his remarks.

However, the trilateral agreement has faced domestic criticism and protests from the outset. On March 18, local unions and environmental groups in Australia urged the government to abandon plans for a base while holding a protest outside the parliament house, the latest demonstration in a series, some of which drew as many as 5,000 protesters.

The establishment of the base is a key component of AUKUS, Australia’s largest defense initiative since World War II. In total, the submarine project could cost up to $240 billion over the next 30 years.

“We don’t want to be part of someone else’s belligerent nuclear plans,” said Arthur Rorris, head of the South Coast Labor Council, comprising unions representing 50,000 workers in the area.

They fear the base could choke an infant clean energy sector by taking up scarce land and ushering in security curbs, as well as the permanent presence of U.S. warships. Faced with strong opposition, the government said it hadn’t decided on Port Kembla, a favorable location for the base, as local media had reported.

Chen Hong, director of the Australian Studies Centre at East China Normal University in Shanghai, said the protests against AUKUS signify a growing awareness among Australians of the detrimental consequences of the military pact on national interests and regional stability.

“By taking part in the U.S.-led trilateral military pact, Australia hopes to get nuclear submarine technologies and more security promises from the United States and the United Kingdom. However, this move will drag the country and its people into a potential war as the Australian government keeps supporting U.S. hegemony and surrenders its land for U.S. warships,” Chen said.

AUKUS, established in 2021, aims to bolster Australia’s military capabilities by providing it with nuclear-powered submarines.

Fueling tensions

“Through AUKUS, the U.S. and its Western allies are trying to weaponize Australia and force the country to join its ‘anti-China’ bloc. Plus, the U.S. has kept pushing forward its ‘Indo-Pacific’ strategy, which also involves Australia, fueling tensions in the whole region,” he said.

Daryl Guppy, an international financial technical analyst and former national board member of the Australia China Business Council in Melbourne, said that some Australian politicians have moved closely with the U.S. on the assumption that U.S. and Australian interests are largely the same, which has undermined Australia’s sovereign independence.

Apart from the political turbulence, Chen also said the nuclear submarine pact will raise concerns over nuclear proliferation and cause environmental influences that will damage the health of local communities.

“Australia has long championed nuclear-weapon-free zones and was a founding member of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. However, Australia’s attempt to acquire nuclear submarines will undermine its nuclear-free promise,” Chen said.

As Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Australia recently, experts are expecting that the two countries can collaborate to improve the bilateral relationship.

“China and Australia can work together to find more common grounds and build a more stable, mature and fruitful comprehensive strategic partnership, which will benefit the peoples of the two countries,” Chen said.

March 28, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UN Security Council ceasefire resolution a turning point in Gaza war

March 26, 2024, by: The AIM Network, m https://theaimn.com/un-security-council-ceasefire-resolution-a-turning-point-in-gaza-war/

Australian Council for International Development Media Release

Australia’s peak body for international humanitarian organisations welcomes the United Nations Security Council’s resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and release of all hostages as a crucial turning point in the war.

Australian Council for International Development (ACFID) CEO Marc Purcell said it marked a significant breakthrough despite the United States’ decision to abstain from voting.

“This passage of this binding resolution, following four failed attempts since the start of the war, shows global leaders are no longer willing to accept the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, many of them children, as collateral,” he said.

“The US’ decision to abstain is disappointing, particularly since it put forward its own failed proposal for a ceasefire just days ago. It is essential the US use its influence and relationship with Israel to obtain a permanent ceasefire.

“We are hopeful the passage of this resolution overnight marks a crucial turning point in the war that has killed nearly 32,000 civilians through bombing, starvation and dehydration.

“It is vital that both the state of Israel and militant groups immediately lay down arms to allow for the passage of humanitarian assistance, which is still being blocked from entry into Gaza, and the release of all hostages.”

ACFID is urging the Australian government to commit additional and ongoing funding for the humanitarian response in Gaza and the West bank, including for Australian non-government organisations providing lifesaving assistance.

March 26, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Huge UK £286bn nuclear submarine deal with US at risk for one reason warns ex Navy chief

The construction of modern nuclear submarines requires more expertise than it took to land a man on the Moon, says the former chief of the Royal Navy.

EXPRESS UK, By CIARAN MCGRATH, Senior News Reporter, Sat, Mar 16, 2024 

The first will see the US and UK share technology with Australia in order to develop a new class of nuclear-powered submarines, the SNN-AUKUS, while the second pillar will focus on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities.

However, speaking earlier this month, Hugh White, an emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, voiced his doubts about the long-term viability of AUKUS, citing estimated costs of up to £286 billion between now and the 2050s.

Prof White told ABC RN’s Global Roaming: “I think the chance of the plan unfolding effectively is extremely low.”

Meanwhile, in an analysis published last week, Allan Behm, director of Australia’s International and Security Affairs Program, wrote: “The 2021 AUKUS announcement came with the promise of a sovereign Australian fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

“Nearly 18 months on, however, it remains unclear if these submarines will ever be delivered – or if Australia actually needs them.”………………

He explained: “Pillar Two is very useful, and there’s a discussion about whether Japan be allowed to get involved, should Canada be involved, etc, that’s great.

“But with Pillar One, there are a number of complications. So, yes, there’s a cost which is huge, and the Australians seem to be committed to it.

“But there are now a number of voices in Australia saying, can we really do this, as one would expect

“The other thing is the Americans themselves, who are going to be selling four Virginia class submarines to the Australians as a stop-gap.

“They are short of nuclear attack submarines and so there are people in America who are saying, ‘well, how are we sure we want to do this because we can’t build enough quickly enough to fill up the gap when we get rid of the ones we’re giving to Australia’.”

The Royal Navy currently operates six fleet submarines (SSNs), of the Trafalgar and Astute classes, with two more Astute-class boats currently under construction, and four ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), of the Vanguard class, equipped with nuclear weapons. All are nuclear powered.

However, Lord West emphasised that such vessels did not simply “come off the conveyor belt”.

He explained: “The Astute class submarines are more complex than the technical work to land a man on the moon. That is how incredibly complex the technology is.  https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1877871/aukus-deal-australia-royal-navy-astute-class

March 18, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

AUKUS anniversary brings a sinking feeling.

The Age, By Matthew Knott,  March 13, 2024 —

As anniversaries go, this one has turned out to be quite a downer.

A year since Anthony Albanese, Joe Biden and Rishi Sunak stood at a naval base in San Diego to unveil Australia’s plan to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, critics of the AUKUS pact are cock-a-hoop and its backers are on the defensive.

It’s a turnaround from December, when AUKUS’s champions were celebrating the fact that the notoriously dysfunctional and divided United States Congress had passed legislation authorising the sale of three Virginia-class submarines to Australia.

“This is a very significant accomplishment for all the parties involved,” declared US Congressman Joe Courtney, co-chair of the Congressional Friends of Australia Caucus.

“A lot of people have been holding their breath to see whether Congress takes this seriously.”

Yet in the lead-up to the one-year milestone, prominent commentators have been promoting a sense of gloom around the submarine plan.

“Dead in the water: the AUKUS delusion,” screams the bright yellow cover of the current edition of the Australian Foreign Affairs journal.

In the lead essay, defence expert and longtime AUKUS sceptic Hugh White argues the submarine plan will “almost certainly fail”, effectively reading AUKUS’s last rites before the pact has even reached teething age.

After laying out multiple ways in which the submarine plan could fall apart, White predicts the crunch is “perhaps most likely to come in Washington, where a number of hurdles could prove fatal to America’s willingness to sell us Virginia-class subs”.

Esteemed Financial Times foreign affairs columnist Gideon Rachman ventilated these anxieties to an international audience in February in a piece titled, “The squawkus about AUKUS is getting louder”.

Then came the Tuesday release of the Biden administration’s 2025 defence budget request, revealing it was only seeking funding for one Virginia-class submarine to built in the coming year. That is down from the two previously expected and well below the production rate of 2.33 subs a year the US says is necessary to sell any submarines to Australia.

As it tries to compete with China for supremacy in the Indo-Pacific, the US Navy is currently 17 attack submarines below its target of 66 – raising obvious questions about whether it will agree to hand over three boats to Australia beginning in 2032.

The legislation passed by Congress last year requires the president of the day to certify that the transfer of the submarines “will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities” and would be contingent on the US “making sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments” to meet its own needs.

The US navy is struggling to cope with supply chain blockages and worker shortages, so much so that the defence sector bought prime-time advertisements during the Oscars telecast to convince welders, forklift drivers, plumbers and marine biologists to help make AUKUS a reality.

Far from elated, AUKUS’s biggest champion in the US Congress is now furious. Describing the budget request as a “hard rudder turn”, Courtney said the decision to produce just one Virginia-class boat in a year “makes little or no sense” and would have a profound impact on both the US and Australian navies.

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who has long argued Australia would be better off under the deal he struck with France to acquire conventional diesel submarines, leapt onto ABC radio to say he told us so.

“This is really a case of us being mugged by reality,” Turnbull said.

“We are bobbing along as a cork in the maelstrom of American politics…Unless the Americans are able to dramatically change the pace at which they’re producing submarines, and there’s no reason to believe they will be able to do so, we will not ever get the submarines that were promised.”

The Australian and US governments have tried to push back on the doubters, with Defence Minister Richard Marles insisting the three nations “remain steadfast in our commitment to the pathway announced last March”.

The US Navy argues it is pouring $11 billion into the US industrial base over five years, with a plan to produce two Virginia-class submarines by 2028 and the 2.33 required to meet its AUKUS commitments soon after that.

………………………………………………………..  depends on how optimistic you feel about the American political system and the strength of the US-Australia alliance. Meanwhile, we have to contend with the possibility of Donald Trump’s return to the White House and no one knows what he would do about AUKUS…………………………….

From the moment it was announced a year ago, it has been clear the submarine plan was courageous in the Yes, Minister sense of the word: a hugely ambitious and risky endeavour that could come unstuck in several ways. While it is vastly premature to declare AUKUS dead, immense challenges remain.

Ultimately, only the delivery of the promised submarines will silence the doubters – not soothing words from Washington and Canberra.  https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/aukus-anniversary-brings-a-sinking-feeling-20240313-p5fc0y.html

March 15, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment