Foreign Experts Comment On AUKUS Trilateral Partnership – Analysis

Australian submarine HMAS Rankin. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman James R. Evans

 October 11, 2021 

By Penza News

The creation of AUKUS – a new security partnership between Australia, Great Britain and the United States, which led to the breakdown of the defense contract between Canberra and Paris for the supply of 12 Barracuda-class attack submarines totaling more than 50 billion euros, received mixed assessments.

As part of the agreement, Australia plans to build at least 8 nuclear submarines using American technology, as well as re-equip its armed forces with American cruise missiles. In Paris, Australia’s decision was called a “stab in the back” and betraying.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian noted that the start of trilateral cooperation on nuclear submarines “gravely undermines regional peace and stability, aggravates arms race and impairs international nuclear non-proliferation efforts.”

According to Christoph Heusgen, a former German ambassador to the UN, the emergence of the new alliance has led to a “big loss of trust” in the Biden administration.

Meanwhile, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida expressed his approval for AUKUS, while Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Russia has raised a number of questions with the United States in connection with the creation of the alliance and will also present them to colleagues from Australia and Great Britain.

Earlier, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne stated that the AUKUS partnership was created for the exchange of technology and is not a military or security alliance.

Analyzing the creation of AUKUS and its prospects, independent researcher Murray Hunter pointed out that the factual information provided on the new partnership is not yet sufficient to draw clear conclusions.

“At this stage there is very little detail about the actualities of AUKUS. The Australian subs will take a decade to go online into service. […] Australia today has little ability to militarily project itself, except for some naval ships more in Aux roles. […] I see AUKUS more as a regeneration of the ANZUS agreement with the UK taking New Zealand’s place,” the expert said.

According to him, on paper today, the AUKUS alliance makes no strategic difference in the Indo-Pacific – the only tangible issue so far is the intention of Washington and London to transfer nuclear submarines to Australia on a long-term lease and to give to Australia technology for their construction.

At the same time, the prospects for the development of cooperation, in his opinion, remain unpredictable.

“It will completely depend upon the next US presidency. Nothing can happen much in the next few years, except for some exercises. […] However, AUKUS will not replace any defense policy. It’s not a policy, just some undefined intentions,” the analyst said.

He added that there are some adverse effects – other than France – coming out.

“Singapore is not enthusiastic to the idea, but accepting it, Malaysia is critical that it may promote an arms race in the region. Indonesia is the most critical – it reminded Australia to observe treaties,” Murray Hunter said, stressing that the South East Asian response hasn’t been positive for Canberra.

In turn, Clive Williams, Visiting Fellow at the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, expressed the opinion that AUKUS is intended to contain China’s growing military capability.

“The AUKUS agreement covers cooperation on artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, underwater capabilities, and long-range strike capabilities. It will also include assistance with establishing nuclear support facilities, probably to be located near Adelaide in South Australia. AUKUS will focus on military capabilities, differentiating it from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance that includes New Zealand and Canada,” the expert said.

“Under the AUKUS agreement, the US and UK agree to help Australia to develop and deploy nuclear-powered submarines as Australia’s major contribution to the AUKUS military presence in the Indo-Pacific region. Australian submarines will not be equipped with nuclear weapons but will probably instead carry Tomahawk Cruise Missiles with conventional warheads,” Clive Williams added.

According to him, the deal represents a long-term security arrangement between the three countries.

“Australia is expected to acquire at least eight nuclear-powered submarines. Over the next 18 months, Australia, the UK, and the US will be planning the way forward, with expected delivery of the first submarine in the 2040s. In the meantime, Australia is looking at a leasing arrangement to familiarise the Royal Australian Navy with operating nuclear-powered submarines,” the analyst said.

From his point of view, the development prospects of AUKUS will depend largely on China’s actions.

“The AUKUS security partnership should ensure that the US, UK, and Australia are the dominant military actors in the Indo-Pacific during this century,” Clive Williams stressed.

Meanwhile, Grant Newsham, retired US Marine Colonel, said that the AUKUS deal is good from both a military operational and a political standpoint.

“The sharing of nuclear submarine technology with Australia is a big deal and a clear sign of commitment. But now the Americans and the British and the Australians need to make something happen – and fast. Get a sub or two to Australia quickly – the Americans have some spares available — and get the training and infrastructure going. Don’t wait ten years. It is needed now,” the expert said.

He also stressed that AUKUS is not just a submarine deal.

“It calls for cooperation in a range of areas including AI, advance technologies, and even missile systems. So there are plenty of other areas for cooperation beyond AUKUS’s ‘nuclear submarine’ part that gets most of the attention,” Grant Newsham explained.

“As for the French, they had to know the sub deal was on thin ice. The deal had become the equivalent of a mafia gang squeezing huge amounts of money out of somebody unwise enough to sign a legitimate seeming ‘deal’ with them. […] That said, this should have been handled better diplomatically,” the expert said stressing that the Biden administration showed its unprofessionalism in this situation.

In his opinion, the US will need extra effort to convince its partners of its own serious intentions for cooperation, since “AUKUS will not be enough by itself.”

“How serious is the US when Wall Street, Boeing, Apple, et al are pouring billions into the PRC and begging the administration not to anger the Chinese Communists? Letting that Huawei lady Meng Wanzhou go scot-free [her release was the result of a deal struck after lengthy negotiations between Chinese and American diplomats] will undercut AUKUS more than one imagines. All the Chinese have to do is scream, threaten, and pound the table, and the Americans will often back down, it seems,” the ex-diplomat said.

Meanwhile, Anthony Glees, The University of Buckingham, said that, according to British Prime Minister, nuclear powered submarines will allow Australia to “keep silent watch,” “observe,” undetected, Chinese movements in the Indo-Pacific region.

“It will have been negotiated with the US and Australia over many months, perhaps since Dec 2019, even before and, of course, this was done in secret and behind the backs of France, even though France had a contract to build diesel submarines with Australia, and unlike the UK, France is, genuinely in territorial terms, an Asia-Pacific power and has always been a close strategic partner of the UK, perhaps closer at times even than the US,” the expert said.

From his point of view, the exclusion of France was a major strategic error by the UK and by the US president Joseph Biden who seems not to have focused on the implications of deceiving France.

At the same time, Anthony Glees reminded that the UK’s national security adviser, Sir Stephen Lovegrove said AUKUS was “the most significant capability collaboration anywhere in the world in the past decade,” which means it is really a big deal that might be much more than just an 18 month collaboration.

“It seems to me [British Prime Minister Boris] Johnson really does intend this to be a big project, to begin to re-establish the UK as a global, rather than a European power,” the expert added.

He also did not rule out that the agreement may contain clauses that have not yet been announced publicly.

“It is possible that Australia will agree to build a harbour for the UK’s nuclear submarine fleet, or even that Australia might have some kind of access to UK nuclear weapons, which is hard to achieve without breaking the Nuclear Arms Limitations Treaties,” Anthony Glees said.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/67275-2021

AUKUS adds ambiguity to the Australia–New Zealand alliance
11 Oct 2021|

Soli Middleby, Anna Powles and Joanne Wallis

The Australian government often describes Australia and New Zealand as ‘natural allies’. But Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s announcement of the AUKUS security partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom on 16 September—which he described as ‘a forever partnership for a new time between the oldest and most trusted of friends’—raises questions about the changing dynamics of Australia’s natural alliance.

Morrison called AUKUS ‘the single greatest initiative … since the ANZUS alliance itself’ for achieving the ‘stability and security of our region’. It is perhaps no coincidence that the announcement was made only weeks after the 70th anniversary of the 1951 ANZUS Treaty. On that occasion, Morrison said ANZUS was ‘the foundation stone of Australia’s national security and a key pillar for peace and stability in our Indo-Pacific region’.

But AUKUS doesn’t include New Zealand, which remains a treaty ally of Australia under ANZUS (the US having rescinded its security guarantee to New Zealand in 1986 after a dispute about nuclear vessels visiting New Zealand).

The new trilateral agreement will deepen defence and security integration between Australia, the US and the UK, strategically aligning Australia even more closely with the US. This will have consequences for Australia’s relationship with its only other formal treaty ally, New Zealand.

Much attention has focused on the fact that nuclear-powered vessels are banned from New Zealand waters. And Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has confirmed that any nuclear-powered submarines Australia acquires under AUKUS will not be allowed into New Zealand’s territorial waters. When discussing the partnership, the head of Australia’s Defence Department, Greg Moriarty, said that Canberra is ‘conscious of and respectful towards New Zealand’s approach to nuclear-armed vessels’. Even so, for Australia’s natural ally not to permit the submarines, which (if or when they eventuate) will form a major part of Australia’s defence capability, into its territorial waters may create later tensions.

Ardern has clarified that, while New Zealand wasn’t invited to join the partnership, she wouldn’t have expected to be asked. Notably, she was the first world leader Morrison informed before the announcement, although not before the decision. The lack of communication has generated frustration in New Zealand, with opposition leader Judith Collins expressing her disappointment that New Zealand wasn’t involved in the discussions.

Ardern has taken a more neutral approach, making clear that New Zealand ‘welcomes the increased engagement of the UK and US in the region’ and reiterating that ‘our collective objective needs to be the delivery of peace and stability and the preservation of the international rules based system’. She also insisted that AUKUS ‘in no way changes our security and intelligence ties’ with Australia, the US and the UK.

But AUKUS does underscore two emerging dynamics in the trans-Tasman alliance. The first is that, after several decades trying to articulate its role in Asia and the Pacific, Australia has made explicit its identification with the ‘Anglosphere’. In contrast, while an ‘original’ Anglosphere member, New Zealand now presents itself as ‘first and foremost a nation of the Pacific’ that ‘views foreign policy developments through the lens of what is in the best interest of the region’.

This divergence reflects a growing degree of ambiguity between the two allies about whether they’re part of the Pacific islands region. Although Canberra likely hopes that Wellington will help smooth over concerns about AUKUS with Pacific island nations, it’s unclear how long New Zealand will be willing to act as Australia’s ‘good cop’ in the region.

The second issue is that the defence alliance between Australia and New Zealand, considered the closest in our region, is already changing in practical ways. New Zealand already struggles to maintain interoperability with Australia’s defence capabilities. AUKUS, which seeks to deepen interoperability across many areas of defence and security technology, including artificial intelligence, cyber, quantum, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities, may widen the gap with New Zealand even further.

Wellington may also find that Canberra’s expectations of what burdens its junior alliance partner will share, in a material as well as a soft-power sense, may actually increase if New Zealand is to demonstrate its contribution to the alliance. As concerns about China’s rise and influence in the Indo-Pacific rise and Washington prioritises renewing and strengthening its alliances, the demands that AUKUS places on Australia could also shrink the bureaucratic bandwidth that Canberra can grant to Wellington.

These dynamics raise questions about the future of the Australia–New Zealand alliance, including the sustainability of New Zealand’s perceived free-riding on Australian defence spending and the two states’ roles in their immediate region, the Pacific islands. The allies have overcome major shocks before—such as the collapse of ANZUS between the US and New Zealand—but as strategic competition gains pace in the Indo-Pacific the presumed naturalness of their alliance is likely to be tested.

AUTHORS
Soli Middleby is a PhD candidate in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Adelaide and a former Australian diplomat to the Pacific. 

Anna Powles is a senior lecturer in security studies at the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University. 

Joanne Wallis is a professor of international security in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Adelaide. 

Image: Phil Walter/Getty Images.

How Much Will AUKUS Change Australia?

October 10, 2021
Zack Cooper
Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute

Royal Australian Navy submarine HMAS Sheean arrives for a logistics port visit in Hobart, Australia. The United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have announced a new strategic defense partnership to build a class of nuclear-propelled submarines and work together in the Indo-Pacific region.
Photo: LSIS Leo Baumgartner/Australian Defence Force, Getty Images

The recent submarine deal between Australia, the U.K. and the United States, known as AUKUS, is likely to initiate a profound shift in Australia’s defense posture. To better understand the commercial implications and how it might change Australia’s relationship with China, BRINK spoke to Zack Cooper, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who has been following it closely.

COOPER: The United States is shifting its strategic attention to Asia. And that means that it’s shifting attention to Australia at the same time. Australia has always been a critical ally of the United States, so I think of this deal more as using a strong existing alliance more closely, rather than necessarily making Australia more important.
A Critical Ally

BRINK: Could Australia become a major base for U.S. forces and operations?

COOPER: Yes, this is something that some of us have talked about for a long time, but it has been very slow in coming together.

The strategic logic of U.S. forces being able to deploy more frequently to Australia is very clear. Australia is largely outside the threat ring from China, and yet, it’s still in the region and has access to parts of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, which is otherwise hard for the United States to get to quickly.

This is not the end of U.S./Australia cooperation on defense technology. This is more like the beginning.

So there is clear logic for the United States to have a robust air and naval presence in Australia. The part of this deal that has received less attention than it should have is the U.S. being able to base aircraft in Northern Australia, and potentially for U.S. ships and submarines to be either based or rotate through places like Perth. That, in my mind, is even more important than the submarine aspects of this deal, particularly in the short term.

Some people think that this deal is really about Australia getting dragged into a conflict with China over Taiwan. That has never been my view. My view has been that this is a deal about Australia defending itself and making sure that it can watch the maritime chokepoints that lead to Australia.
The Australian Defense Industry Will Expand

BRINK: What will it mean for the Australian defense industry?

COOPER: I’m sure there will be some significant changes. It’s hard to know exactly what those will be right now because we don’t know all of the details of this deal. We don’t even know whether these are going to be American submarines, or British submarines or some combination. And we don’t know which parts of those submarines will be made in Australia and which parts will not.

It’s pretty clear that there is a desire on part of the Australian government to ensure that as much of this revenue as possible comes back to Australian shipbuilders. And so I think Australian companies will have a large portion of this work. But it does mean the Australians would be working much more closely with American contractors, especially as it comes to technologically challenging elements of the submarines.

We don’t know who’s going to be building the nuclear reactors, but I think it’s likely that a lot of that work will be done outside of Australia, and the other parts of the submarine are probably going to be developed and produced in Australia. So the bottom line is this opens up a lot of opportunities for Australian companies, and we’ll see at the end of this 18 month review period exactly what those look like.

This is not the end of U.S./Australia cooperation on defense technology. This is more like the beginning. I would expect cooperation on defense technology will go well beyond submarines as a result of this deal.
Australia/China Relations

BRINK: China has already imposed sanctions of varying kinds on Australia. Do you foresee that these will stiffen as a result of this?

COOPER: I think the Chinese pressure is going to continue and maybe even increase a little bit on the margins. But this is part of the problem that the government in Beijing has had — the more pressure they put on Australia, the less incentive Australia has to avoid the kinds of actions that China doesn’t want.

There are blowbacks in both countries. We don’t talk about this a lot. We focus a lot on the downsides in Australia to Chinese economic pressure. But if you read the headlines coming out of China, there’s an energy shortage, right? And part of the reason that there’s an energy shortage is that Australia is trying to decrease its exports of coal, for example, which is making it harder for China to come up with alternatives.

So yes, I think there will be an economic response. I don’t think we know exactly which sector it will come in yet, but I think this is something that Australia just has to assume is going to be continuing regardless.

But the Chinese have taken away one of their best levers to disincentivize this deal because they’ve been using economic coercion so actively for the last couple of years.

To put it more pointedly, I don’t think there would’ve been a deal if China hadn’t pushed this hard. Back in 2013, I proposed in a report that Australia would be wise to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. At the time, most of my friends in Australia sort of laughed at this idea — they thought it was ridiculous because they felt like it was politically untenable in Australia.

But the Chinese pressure over the last couple of years has made things that were politically impossible then political realities now, and frankly, Beijing has no one to blame other than themselves for that.


Zack Cooper is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and co-director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy. He previously served on staff at the Pentagon and White House, as well as at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He is writing a book on the rise and fall of great militaries.

Australia: Background And Relations With The United States – Analysis

Flags of Australia and United States. (DoD photo by D. Myles Cullen/Released)

April 11, 2026
The Congressional Research Service (CRS)
By Jared G. Tupuola


The Commonwealth of Australia is a close ally and partner of the United States, and the relationship is underpinned by the 1951 Australia-New Zealand-United States (ANZUS) Treaty. The two countries enjoy close trade, political, cultural, intelligence, and defense relations. As geopolitical competition in the Indo-Pacific has increased, the alliance has deepened over shared concerns about the military and economic rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China). In September 2021, the governments of Australia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States launched the “AUKUS” security partnership, which is intended to provide Australia with nuclear propulsion technology for its next generation submarines and to jointly develop advanced military capabilities. Australia and the United States also coordinate through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (or “Quad,” with Japan and India).

Australia is the world’s sixth-largest country by surface area (2.96 million sq. miles). Originally inhabited by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the modern Australian state developed from a British penal colony established in 1788. In 1901, Australia was granted sovereignty over its domestic affairs; in 1942, it adopted the 1931 Statute of Westminster, claiming legal independence from the UK and full control over its foreign relations. Australia is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, an association of former British territories, and retains the King of the United Kingdom as its head of state.

Politics and Governance

Australia has a bicameral legislature and holds elections at least once every three years, with snap elections possible. The most recent general election was held in April 2025.The incumbent Labor Party Prime Minister Anthony Albanese won reelection while the Liberal Party opposition candidate lost his seat in parliament. The Labor Party and the Liberal-National Parties Coalition are the country’s two main political forces. The Green Party of Australia has been an influential political force at times.

Economics and Trade

The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) came into force in 2005. Under AUSFTA, the two countries provide reciprocal duty-free access to a broad range of exports. The United States is Australia’s second-largest trading partner in goods and services. The United States also is Australia’s largest source of foreign direct investment. Data from the U.S. Trade Representative reveals that total U.S. goods and services trade with Australia was $62.8 billion in 2025.

In April 2025, the Trump Administration announced that imports from Australia would face a baseline 10% tariff with some exceptions, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). After the Supreme Court ruled against the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs in February 2026, President Trump imposed a 10% global tariff for 150 days under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The Trump Administration also has imposed 50% global tariffs on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, but has not provided Australia with a tariff exemption as it did during the President’s first administration.

Strategic Outlook

The Australian government’s assessment of its security environment has shifted considerably in the past decade. In the mid-2010s, Australia’s security community perceived few imminent or proximate threats to its national security. In 2024, Australia’s inaugural National Defence Strategy (NDS) noted the commonwealth faced its most challenging strategic environment since World War II.

In part, this assessment is motivated by concerns related to U.S.-China competition, China’s military modernization, a lack of perceived transparency in China’s military build-up, and China’s activities in Australia’s near neighborhood (particularly the Pacific Islands). While Australian officials have not labeled China a military threat, the NDS states that China has employed coercive tactics in pursuit of its strategic objectives, including to alter the regional balance of power in its favor. The NDS asserted Australia “must work even more closely with the U.S., our closest ally and principal strategic partner.”

To adjust to this changed strategic environment, Australia is pursuing updates to its force structure and defense spending practices. The government has laid out plans to expand its military capabilities and increase defense spending, including by allocating an additional AU$50.3 billion to defense spending through 2034. Australia also is expanding its diplomatic and security partnerships with countries in the Indo-Pacific, especially the Pacific Island Countries.

Ties with the United States

The U.S. government describes U.S.-Australia defense ties as “exceptionally close.” U.S. armed forces have a rotational military presence in Australia, including at the northern port city of Darwin, and the United States has invested in defense infrastructure at northern Australian sites under the U.S. Force Posture Initiative. Australia partners with the United States through the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing arrangement, which also includes Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. The defense relationship has included bilateral and multilateral military exercises such as the Talisman Sabre, Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC), and Malabar exercises.

The annual Australia-U.S. Ministerial (AUSMIN) consultations are central to the bilateral relationship. The 2025 AUSMIN Joint Statement emphasized “shared challenges” and the need to “uphold an open and stable international order.” Observers have interpreted this language as referencing shared concerns about economic and military competition with China.

Critical Minerals. Australia has joined the United States on several initiatives aimed at securing critical mineral supply chains, while also investing in its own production and refining capabilities, which some analysts argue could become an alternative to PRC-dominated supply chains. In 2023, the allies committed to enhanced mineral cooperation under a Climate, Critical Minerals and Clean Energy Transformation Compact. As part of the compact, a Critical Minerals Taskforce pursues supply chain diversification and investment opportunities and addresses barriers to cooperation. At the Quad Foreign Ministers Meeting in July 2025, the grouping announced a new Quad Critical Minerals Partnership. During an October 2025 visit to the United States, Prime Minister Albanese and President Trump signed a Critical Minerals Framework Agreement that expects to see $3 billion worth of shared investments in critical mineral projects within six months of the signing as well as deepening defense and technological cooperation.


AUKUS. AUKUS Pillar 1 would allow Australia to purchase 3-5 U.S. Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) in the 2030s as authorized in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The three AUKUS partners also plan to develop a new class of SSNs based on the UK’s next-generation design that incorporates technology from all three countries, including cutting-edge U.S. submarine technologies. Pillar 2 focuses on joint development of advanced military capabilities in technological areas—including AI, cyber, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic, electronic warfare, and quantum technologies—and functional areas such as innovation and information sharing. In 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense conducted a review of AUKUS; President Trump stated the initiative is “full steam ahead.”

The Quad. Australia has bolstered relations with the United States, Japan, and India through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. During the 2025 Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, the partners welcomed recent and upcoming activities that advance a free and open Indo-Pacific, including initiatives regarding maritime security, digital infrastructure, emerging technology, and humanitarian assistance.

Australia-China Relations

China is Australia’s largest two-way trade partner, and the two countries signed a free trade agreement in 2015. China restricted some imports from Australia in 2020 following Canberra’s endorsement of an inquiry into the origins of the COVID-19 disease.

Australia’s government has taken several measures to guard against PRC influence in Australian politics and society following instances of PRC organizations attempting to co-opt domestic groups and individuals towards China’s strategic interests. In 2018, the Australian parliament passed laws on espionage, foreign interference, and foreign influence, and the government blocked China’s Huawei from participating in Australia’s development of its 5G mobile network. In July 2024, Australia joined the United States, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the UK in issuing a joint-advisory about a PRC-sponsored cyber group targeting government and private sector networks.

In 2025, Albanese pledged during his re-election campaign to bring the Darwin Port back under Australian ownership (it was leased to a PRC-based company for 99 years in 2015). Many Australians express concern that the arrangement carries national security risks for Australia. China’s ambassador to Australia has insinuated that a forced sale of the lease to an Australian company could result in investment and trade repercussions.
Considerations for Congress

U.S.-Australian bilateral relations continue to be a source of interest for some Members concerned with U.S.-Indo-Pacific defense and foreign policy goals. In the 119thCongress, Members may wish to consider several areas for Congressional oversight, legislation, or appropriations, such as progress towards AUKUS Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 objectives, the U.S.-Australia Critical Minerals Framework and supply chain resilience, and defense cooperation.

Congress also may weigh in on specific trade issues by setting trade priorities for the United States with Australia. For example, some Members of Congress have shared Trump Administration concerns over some trade barriers and reciprocity in trade relations, while others have sought to limit the President’s authority to impose tariffs on allies or free trade agreement partners.

About the author: Jared G. Tupuola, Analyst in Foreign Affairs

Source: This article was published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS)

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.

The US and UK’s Submarine Deal Crosses Nuclear Red Lines With Australia – OpEd

President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the AUKUS meeting in San Diego, March 13, 2023. Photo Credit: Chad J. McNeeley, DOD

 March 17, 2023  Eurasia Review  

By Prabir Purkayastha

The recent Australia, U.S., and UK $368 billion deal on buying nuclear submarines has been termed by Paul Keating, a former Australian prime minister, as the “worst deal in all history.” It commits Australia to buy conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines that will be delivered in the early 2040s.

These will be based on new nuclear reactor designs yet to be developed by the UK. Meanwhile, starting from the 2030s, “pending approval from the U.S. Congress, the United States intends to sell Australia three Virginia class submarines, with the potential to sell up to two more if needed” (Trilateral Australia-UK-U.S. Partnership on Nuclear-Powered Submarines, March 13, 2023; emphasis mine). According to the details, it appears that this agreement commits Australia to buy from the U.S. eight new nuclear submarines, to be delivered from the 2040s through the end of the 2050s. If nuclear submarines were so crucial for Australia’s security, for which it broke its existing diesel-powered submarine deal with France, this agreement provides no credible answers.

For those who have been following the nuclear proliferation issues, the deal raises a different red flag. If submarine nuclear reactor technology and weapons-grade (highly enriched) uranium are shared with Australia, it is a breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which Australia is a signatory as a non-nuclear power. Even the supplying of such nuclear reactors by the U.S. and the UK would constitute a breach of the NPT. This is even if such submarines do not carry nuclear but conventional weapons as stated in this agreement.

So why did Australia renege on its contract with France, which was to buy 12 diesel submarines from France at a cost of $67 billion, a small fraction of its gargantuan $368 billion deal with the U.S.? What does it gain, and what does the U.S. gain by annoying France, one of its close NATO allies?

To understand, we have to see how the U.S. looks at the geostrategy, and how the Five Eyes—the U.S., the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—fit into this larger picture. Clearly, the U.S. believes that the core of the NATO alliance is the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada for the Atlantic and the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia for the Indo-Pacific. The rest of its allies, NATO allies in Europe and Japan and South Korea in East and South Asia, are around this Five Eyes core. That is why the United States was willing to offend France to broker a deal with Australia.

What does the U.S. get out of this deal? On the promise of eight nuclear submarines that will be given to Australia two to four decades down the line, the U.S. gets access to Australia to be used as a base for supporting its naval fleet, air force, and even U.S. soldiers. The words used by the White House are, “As early as 2027, the United Kingdom and the United States plan to establish a rotational presence of one UK Astute class submarine and up to four U.S. Virginia class submarines at HMAS Stirling near Perth, Western Australia.” The use of the phrase “rotational presence” is to provide Australia the fig leaf that it is not offering the U.S. a naval base, as that would violate Australia’s long-standing position of no foreign bases on its soil. Clearly, all the support structures required for such rotations are what a foreign military base has, therefore they will function as U.S. bases.

Who is the target of the AUKUS alliance? This is explicit in all the writing on the subject and what all the leaders of AUKUS have said: it is China. In other words, this is a containment of China policy with the South China Sea and the Taiwanese Strait as the key contested oceanic regions. Positioning U.S. naval ships including its nuclear submarines armed with nuclear weapons makes Australia a front-line state in the current U.S. plans for the containment of China. Additionally, it creates pressure on most Southeast Asian countries who would like to stay out of such a U.S. versus China contest being carried out in the South China Sea.

While the U.S. motivation to draft Australia as a front-line state against China is understandable, what is difficult to understand is Australia’s gain from such an alignment. China is not only the biggest importer of Australian goods, but also its biggest supplier. In other words, if Australia is worried about the safety of its trade through the South China Sea from Chinese attacks, the bulk of this trade is with China. So why would China be mad enough to attack its own trade with Australia? For the U.S. it makes eminent sense to get a whole continent, Australia, to host its forces much closer to China than 8,000-9,000 miles away in the U.S. Though it already has bases in Hawaii and Guam in the Pacific Ocean, Australia and Japan provide two anchor points, one to the north and one to the south in the eastern Pacific Ocean region. The game is an old-fashioned game of containment, the one that the U.S. played with its NATO, Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), and Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) military alliances after World War II.

The problem that the U.S. has today is that even countries like India, who have their issues with China, are not signing up with the U.S. in a military alliance. Particularly, as the U.S. is now in an economic war with a number of countries, not just Russia and China, such as Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Somalia. While India was willing to join the Quad—the U.S., Australia, Japan, and India—and participate in military exercises, it backed off from the Quad becoming a military alliance. This explains the pressure on Australia to partner with the U.S. militarily, particularly in Southeast Asia.

It still fails to explain what is in it for Australia. Even the five Virginia class nuclear submarines that Australia may get second hand are subject to U.S. congressional approval. Those who follow U.S. politics know that the U.S. is currently treaty incapable; it has not ratified a single treaty on issues from global warming to the law of the seas in recent years. The other eight are a good 20-40 years away; who knows what the world would look like that far down the line.

Why, if naval security was its objective, did Australia choose an iffy nuclear submarine agreement with the U.S. over a sure-shot supply of French submarines? This is a question that Malcolm Turnbull and Paul Keating, the Australian Labor Party’s former PMs, asked. It makes sense only if we understand that Australia now sees itself as a cog in the U.S. wheel for this region. And it is a vision of U.S. naval power projection in the region that today Australia shares. The vision is that settler colonial and ex-colonial powers—the G7-AUKUS—should be the ones making the rules of the current international order. And behind the talk of international order is the mailed fist of the U.S., NATO, and AUKUS. This is what Australia’s nuclear submarine deal really means.

Prabir Purkayastha is the founding editor of Newsclick.in, a digital media platform. He is an activist for science and the free software movement.

This article was produced in partnership by Newsclick and Globetrotter.

Australian nuclear subs will be banned from New Zealand waters: Ardern


Issued on: 16/09/2021 - 

New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says Australian nuclear subs will be banned from New Zealand waters Mark Mitchell POOL/AFP/File

Wellington (AFP)

New Zealand will not lift a decades-long ban on nuclear-powered vessels entering its waters in the wake of key ally Australia's decision to develop a nuclear submarine fleet, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Thursday.

Ardern said her Australian counterpart Scott Morrison had briefed her on Canberra's plan to develop nuclear-powered submarines with the help of the United States and Britain.

She described the deal as "primarily around technology and defence hardware", playing down implications for the so-called "Five Eyes" partnership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

"This arrangement in no way changes our security and intelligence ties with these three countries, as well as Canada," the New Zealand leader said in a statement.

But she also said New Zealand would maintain a ban on nuclear-powered vessels that dates back to 1985, meaning Wellington will not allow the prized naval asset being developed by Australia into its waters.

"New Zealand's position in relation to the prohibition of nuclear-powered vessels in our waters remains unchanged," Ardern said.

The ban was introduced in the wake of French nuclear testing in the Pacific and led to the US navy banning its warships from entering New Zealand ports for more than 30 years.

The destroyer USS Sampson visited in late 2016 but only after the then-prime minister John Key gave a special exemption, saying he was "100 percent confident" the vessel was not nuclear powered or carrying nuclear weapons.

Official US policy is to neither confirm nor deny whether its vessels are nuclear-capable.

© 2021 AFP

Australia enters uncharted waters with nuclear sub plan

Issued on: 16/09/2021 - 

Speaking at a virtual press conference with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (left) and US President Jow Biden, (right) Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison (centre) announced his country was going nuclear 

Brendan SMIALOWSKI AFP


Sydney (AFP)

Australia's shock decision to acquire US nuclear-powered submarines and cruise missiles helps bind a faltering alliance with Washington, but risks severely worsening an already fractious relationship with China.

With no public debate and little warning, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Thursday announced Australia was going nuclear.

Not developing nuclear weapons, but building a fleet of at least eight state-of-the-art nuclear-powered submarines with American and British help.

In one swoop Morrison ripped up several local political taboos -- chiefly a long-standing ban on nuclear power and ingrained caution about stoking military tensions with China.

"Until very recently -- perhaps until 12 hours ago" the idea would have been "fringe" according to Sam Roggeveen of Sydney's Lowy Institute, describing the ground shift felt Down Under.

The deal -- jointly announced with President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson -- gives Australia access to potent US military firepower refused even to close allies such as Israel.

It would allow Australia's military to travel, and strike targets, far from its coast.

Nuclear subs "are quieter, faster and have longer endurance, which will allow Australia to deploy its future submarines to Indo-Pacific locations for much longer periods of time", Ashley Townshend of the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney told AFP.

Australia had sketched plans to dramatically tool up its military in 2020 as threats from China mounted and trust in the United States alliance waned after Donald Trump's mercurial presidency.

The deal gives Australia access to potent US military firepower refused even to close allies 

Jonathan Sunderman

 US NAVY/AFP/File

This agreement would seem to bind Australia to the US and Britain for decades to come.

It "may be the first of many, including the deployment of US long-range strategic strike weapons, including missiles and stealth bombers, to Australia", said Michael Sullivan, an international relations expert at Flinders University.

"Eventually," he said, that could also mean "the redeployment of some US forces to Northern Australia from US bases on Okinawa and Guam, which are increasingly vulnerable to Chinese military attack".

- Playing with the big kids -

But that close embrace and Australia's new capability put a middleweight power at the centre of growing tensions between heavyweights Washington and Beijing.

Not everyone believes that is a wise move.

Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating was scathing, saying the decision would lock Australia into "any military engagement by the United States against China" and reverse decades of engagement with Asian neighbours.

Some "240 years after we departed from Britain, we are back there with Boris Johnson, trying to find our security in Asia through London", he said.

In a series of secret phone calls ahead of the public announcement, Morrison tried to reassure regional allies from Singapore to Wellington that the decision was based on ensuring "security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific".

But it will have come as a shock to many Pacific capitals, who will have to work through the implications for weeks and years to come -- not least Beijing.

"This is a significant escalation," said Roggeveen. "It introduces a significant new military capability into the region."

"It's unlikely to be viewed as anything but a move against China," he said. "I won't be surprised if they don't take it well."

The new project also raises questions about Australia's long-standing ban on nuclear energy and is sure to fuel fierce debate at home and among nuclear-sceptic Pacific neighbours.

New Zealand quickly made clear the subs would not be permitted in its territorial waters.

Morrison said the next 18 months would include "an intense examination of what we need to do to exercise our nuclear stewardship responsibilities here in Australia".

Nuclear power has been highly controversial in Australia and Canberra formally banned the use of nuclear energy in 1998, though the country has rich deposits of uranium.

Morrison insisted Australia was "not seeking to establish nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability".

"And we will continue to meet all of our nuclear non-proliferation obligations," he added.

Adam Bandt, leader of the Greens party, described the nuclear-powered subs as "floating Chernobyls", telling AFP the decision risked a backlash from Australians.

"Australia is a middle power with a lot to lose if conflict escalates in our region," he said.

"Our prime minister is turning up the temperature and putting Australia right in the firing line."

© 2021 AFP

Australia to get nuclear subs in new US, British partnership

Issued on: 15/09/2021 - 

US President Joe Biden is set to announce a new alliance with Australia and Britain Brendan Smialowski AFP/File

Washington (AFP)

The United States will help Australia acquire nuclear powered submarines as part of a new Indo-Pacific strategic alliance also including Britain, a US official said Wednesday.

The announcement -- due to be made shortly in a video meeting by President Joe Biden, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his British counterpart Boris Johnson -- could infuriate France, which has been negotiating a multi-billion-dollar sale of conventional submarines to Australia.

That deal will probably now be scrapped, The Sydney Morning Herald reported.

The US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the three-way partnership, dubbed AUKUS, is a "historic" new piece in Washington's growing focus on the region, where China is challenging decades of US leadership and naval dominance.

What the Biden administration official called an alliance of "maritime democracies" will combine the three countries' forces on "cyber, AI -- particularly applied AI, quantum technologies and some undersea capabilities as well."

AUKUS' first initiative, however, will be "to support Australia's desire to acquire nuclear powered submarines," the official said, stressing this does not mean nuclear weapons.

"Australia does not seek and will not seek nuclear weapons. This is about nuclear powered submarines."

Technical and naval representatives from the three countries will spend the next 18 months deciding how to carry out Australia's upgrade.

The Biden administration official underlined repeatedly how "unique" the decision is, with Britain being the only other country the United States has ever helped to build a nuclear fleet.

"This technology is extremely sensitive," the official said. "We view this as a one-off."

- Stealth and interoperability -

Although the official would not directly name a rising China as the reason for the US move, the intentions of AUKUS are clear.

French President Emmanuel Macron (2nd L) and former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull (3rd L) stand on the deck of a Collins-class submarine in Sydney in May 2018 -- reports say that an expected security deal with the United States and Britain could derail Australia's plans to purchase French submarines 

Ludovico MARIN POOL/AFP/File

"It's meant to send a message of reassurance and a determination to maintain a strong deterrent stance into the 21st century," the official said.

Even if not carrying nuclear weapons, the new submarines will allow Australia to "play at a much higher level," the official said.

"Nuclear powered submarines really maintain superior characteristics of stealth, speed, maneuverability, survivability and really substantial endurance," the official said.

"You will see much deeper interoperability along our navies and our nuclear infrastructure," the official said. "This is a fundamental decision, fundamental. It binds Australia... and the United States and Great Britain for generations. This is the biggest strategic step that Australia's taken in generations."

- French deal in peril -

It was not immediately clear where the development leaves the AUS$90 billion (roughly $66 billion) French deal, which was personally backed by President Emmanuel Macron.

France's Naval Group agreed to build 12 conventional Attack Class subs, but the order is already years behind schedule, well over budget and has become tangled in Australian domestic politics.

As recently as June, Macron promised "full and complete" commitment to the deal. A top Australian defense official said around the same time, however, that Australia was actively considering alternatives.

Australian officials said then that the potential plan B was classified but indicated the issue had been taken more seriously in recent months and included submarines and other vessels.

The AUKUS announcement comes as Australia has been boosting defense spending in response to China's more assertive posture.

Morrison will join Biden again on September 24, this time in person, at a first White House gathering of the "Quad" diplomatic group -- Australia, India, Japan and the United States.

© 2021 AFP

Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines under new security pact with US, UK

Issued on: 15/09/2021 -


The United States, Britain and Australia said on Wednesday they would establish a security partnership for the Indo-Pacific that will involve helping Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines, as Chinese influence over the region grows.

Under the partnership, announced by President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the United States and Britain will provide Australia with the technology and capability to deploy nuclear-powered submarines.

In a three-way virtual announcement from each of their capitals, the leaders stressed Australia will not be fielding nuclear weapons but using nuclear propulsion systems for the vessels, to guard against future threats.

“We all recognize the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long term,” said Biden.

“We need to be able to address both the current strategic environment in the region, and how it may evolve because the future of each of our nations and indeed the world depends on a free and open Indo-Pacific enduring and flourishing in the decades ahead,” he said.it

Morrison said the submarines would be built in Adelaide in close cooperation with the United States and Britain.

“We will continue to meet all our nuclear non-proliferation obligations,” he said.

Johnson called it a momentous decision for Australia to acquire the technology. He said it would make the world safer.

Eyes on China

Washington and its allies are looking for ways to push back against China’s growing power and influence, particularly its military buildup, pressure on Taiwan and deployments in the contested South China Sea.

The three leaders did not mention China and senior Biden administration officials who briefed reporters ahead of the announcement said the move was not aimed at countering Beijing.

China’s Washington embassy reacted, however, by saying that countries “should not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties.”

“In particular, they should shake off their Cold-War mentality and ideological prejudice,” it said.

James Clapper a former director of U.S. national intelligence, told CNN it was a bold step by Australia given its economy’s dependence on China, adding: “Clearly the Chinese will view this as provocative.”

Republican Senator Ben Sasse said the agreement “sends a clear message of strength to Chairman Xi.”

“I’ll always applaud concrete steps to counter Beijing and this is one of them,” he said.

A U.S. official briefing before the announcement said Biden had not mentioned the plans “in any specific terms” to Chinese leader Xi Jinping in a call last Thursday, but did “underscore our determination to play a strong role in the Indo-Pacific.”it

U.S. officials said nuclear propulsion would allow the Australian navy to operate more quietly, for longer periods, and provide deterrence across the Indo-Pacific.

The officials said the partnership, dubbed AUKUS, would also involve cooperation in areas including artificial intelligence and quantum technology.

The partnership looks likely to end Australia’s negotiations with French shipbuilder Naval Group to build it a new submarine fleet worth $40 billion to replace its more than two-decades-old Collins submarines, Australian media reported.

Biden said the governments would now launch an 18-month consultation period, “to determine every element of this program, from workforce, to training requirements, to production timelines” and to ensure full compliance with non-proliferation commitments.

The pact should be a boon for the U.S. defense industry and among the firms that could benefit are General Dynamics Corp and Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.

General Dynamics’ Electric Boat business does much of the design work for U.S. submarines, but critical subsystems such as electronics and nuclear power plants are made by BWX Technologies Inc.

Britain said the 18-month program would work out details as to what countries and companies would do what, with the aim for the first submarine to be delivered as quickly as possible.

U.S. officials did not give a time frame for when Australia would deploy a nuclear-powered submarine, or how many would be built. They said that since Australia does not have any nuclear infrastructure, it would require a sustained effort over years.

One-off techonology swap

One U.S. official said the announcement was the result of several months of engagements among respective military commands and political leaderships, during which Britain – which recently sent an aircraft carrier to Asia – had indicated it wanted to do more in the region.

“What we’ve heard in all those conversations is a desire for Great Britain to substantially step up its game in the Indo-Pacific,” the official said, noting its historical ties to Asia.

The U.S. official said Washington had shared nuclear propulsion technology only once before – with Britain in 1958 – and added: “This technology is extremely sensitive. This is frankly an exception to our policy in many respects, I do not anticipate that this will be undertaken in other circumstances going forward. We view this as a one-off.”

The move was being taken as part of “a larger constellation of steps” in the region, he said, including stronger bilateral partnerships with long-term allies Japan, South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines, and stronger engagements with new partners like India and Vietnam.

The announcement comes just over a week before Biden is to host a first in-person meeting of leaders of the “Quad” group of countries – Australia, India, Japan and the United States – that Washington sees as a key means to stand up to China.

(REUTERS)

AUKUS: UK, US and Australia launch pact to counter China

US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison launched the AUKUS security partnership in a joint virtual appearance. It will supplement Quad and Asean

By Yashwant Raj I Edited by Amit Chanda
UPDATED ON SEP 16, 2021 

In a development termed historic and a game-changer, the US, the UK and Australia on Wednesday announced a trilateral security partnership called AUKUS that will enable Canberra to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Indo-Pacific in a major challenge to China and its claims in the region.

US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison launched the alliance in a joint virtual appearance.

The AUKUS pact will strive over the next 18 months to equip Australia with nuclear propulsion technology, which the United States has shared only with the United Kingdom under a decades-old arrangement put together in the face of the threat from the then Soviet Union.

Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines, when they deploy, will be armed with conventional weapons only and not nuclear weapons, the leaders said.

The leaders also made it clear that the new alliance does not and will not supersede or outrank existing arrangements in the Indo-Pacific region such as the Quad, which the US and Australia form with India and Japan, and Asean, and that it will compliment these groups and others.

China sees 'Cold War mentality' in U.S., British, Australia pact

“This is about investing in our greatest source of strength, our alliances and updating them to better meet the threats of today and tomorrow,” Joe Biden said. “It’s about connecting America’s existing allies and partners in new ways.”

He added: “The United States will also continue to work with Asean and the Quad … our five treaty allies and other close partners in the Indo-Pacific.”

TRILATERAL SECURITY PARTNERSHIP

Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia, a member of the Quad and other multilateral groups in the region, also sought to convey continued salience of these formations for Australia. “The AUKUS will also enhance our contribution to our growing network of partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region: ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand and the US); our Asean friends; our bilateral strategic partners, the Quad; Five Eyes (US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) countries; and, of course, our dear Pacific family.”