AUKUS: A Very Antipodean Stupidity
Call it abandonment, anxiety, or just latent stupidity. The messy goo of feelings and fuzzy notions behind Australia's most injudicious strategic decision is yielding its nasty harvest. Conceived by paranoid armchair strategists, flabby think tankers and profligate spenders happy to expend other people's money, the tripartite agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States is rapidly unravelling.
Even during the Biden administration, under whose bumbling watch this agreement was hatched, there were doubts. The ogrish price tag (US$239 billion or A$368 billion) that would be billed to the Australian taxpayer; the absurd time schedules (delivery of nuclear-powered submarines by the 2030s and 2040s); the contingencies and qualifications (Congressional concerns about transferring Virginia Class (SSN-774) submarines to the Royal Australian Navy), all pointed to the fact that Canberra had fallen for a lemon, childishly refusing to taste its stinging bitterness.
The central point of the tediously named Pillar One of the AUKUS agreement (there is no pillar, one or otherwise), which involves the transfer of US Virginia class boats to the RAN – was always its viability. While President Joe Biden was gradually losing his faculties in the White House, the Congressional Research Service was pertinently noting the obstacles that would face any transfer. The CRS report released on May 22, 2023 was the sort of thing that should have alarmed Australian defence planners, instead of turning them into paid up ostriches dreaming of consultancies. For one thing, it made it clear that Congress was always going to be the one to convince in the matter. 'One issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify DOD's AUKUS-related legislative package for the FY2024 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] sent to Congress on May 2, 2023'. That package included the authorisation for the transfer of 'up to two Virginia-class SSNs to the government of Australia in the form of sale, with the costs of the transfer to be covered by the government of Australia.'
There were also weighty doubts about the 'net impact on collective allied deterrence and warfighting capabilities of transferring three to five Virginia-class boats to Australia while pursuing the construction of three to five replacement SSNs for the US Navy'. This is a point that has never gone away. To give, even to an ally, and a perceived advantage yet diminish, however small and fictional, the supposed power of the US submarine fleet, is never going to take place if the annual production of 1.2 Virginia boats remains as it is. Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker was always of the view that 'the AUKUS plan would transfer US Virginia-class submarines to a partner nation even before we have met our own Navy's requirements.'
The fact that the Trump administration is now conducting a review of AUKUS can be seen as a mere formality – for those who think formalities smooth matters. The Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles certainly hopes so, calling it 'a completely natural step for an incoming government to take.' That Yankee stronghold of renown in Canberra, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, apes the line with simian consistency: 'It's normal, after a change of government, for a new administration to review existing commitments in the light of new policy priorities: in this case, 'America First'.'
But nothing about the Trump government is a formality, or any review's outcome a foregone conclusion. The presence of Undersecretary of Defense Policy Eldridge Colby should be disconcerting to the AUKUS band leaders and comparisons to Britain's own review of the pact by Sir Stephen Lovegrove should be seen as fantastically distant. 'AUKUS,' in Colby's assessment, 'is only going to lead to more submarines collectively in 10, 15, 20 years, which is way beyond the window of maximum danger, which is really this decade.' Putting to one side the warmongering stirring in the latter part of the statement, Colby is certainly not wrong about the time that will elapse before any delivery takes place.
Down under, the strategists are scurrying and fretting, a sight that is proving enormously entertaining. But the political classes have only themselves to blame for this pigsty of a conundrum. As former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull notes with snappy precision, the AUKUS agreement is perfectly positioned for the US to not follow through. It can still stick to the letter of the agreement without having to ever transfer a single submarine to Australia, all the time raking in Australian largesse. 'This is because it has always been part of the deal, and part of the US legislation, that the transfer of submarines to Australia is highly conditional.'
The legislation in question notes that the President will submit to the relevant congressional committees and leadership a certification no later than 270 days prior to the transfer of vessels that the move 'will not degrade the United States underseas capabilities'; is consistent with the country's foreign policy and national security interests and furthers the AUKUS partnership. That furtherance, however, involves the US ensuring 'sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments' that will meet undersea capabilities; Australia supplying 'appropriate funds and support for the additional capacity required to meet the requirements' under the provisions; and Canberra's 'capability to host and fully operate the vessels authorized to be transferred.'
The latest development in this overpriced show shows it up as a series of fictions: for Australia, the boyish hankering for nuclear powered submarines in the first place; for the United States, the fact that it needs more nuclear armed boats in order to look more ridiculous in having an arsenal it can never use. It was the military industrial complex in full song, nourished by expensive games, dubious scenarios and drab excuses for war.
With Donald Trump in the White House, the Make America Great Again philosophy mushes the terminology of sweet friends and mortal foes, turning it into the mortar of self-interest. Washington's interests come first, and Australia's own idiotically misplaced interests are barely visible in the White House situation room. Then again, never ask Australian strategic thinkers about their interests, ever the hostage of governing fears and treasured prejudices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
40 minutes ago
- Scoop
Pacific News In Brief For 20 June 2025
New Caledonia - cocaine The French Directorate General of Customs says 67 kilograms of cocaine has been seized in New Caledonia between April and May this year. Local media reported the operation resulted in the discovery of more than 500 kilograms of narcotics at various ports across the region. New Caledonia and French Polynesia Customs took part in a joint operation with the Australian Border Force, New Zealand Customs, the US Homeland Security Investigations and Jamaica. At the end of March this year, 142 kilograms of cocaine was seized in French Polynesia. It was found packed in insulation panels of a refrigerated container bound for Australia. Fiji - domestic violence Fiji police have reported 105 cases of family violence against women and children for May 2025. More than 200 women had crimes committed against them - 11 percent of these were sexual offences and 89 percent were assault-related. Seventy-two of those crimes were from a spouse or partner. One hundred and 14 children had crimes done against them and more than two-thirds of those were sexual offences. Five police officers were charged with offences during the month - including one facing charges of unlawful supply and import of illicit drugs. Police said there was a 14 per cent reduction in overall crime which is ahead of its 10 per cent target. Fiji - election workers The Fijian Elections Office says FJ$44,000 - about US$20,000 - in temporary worker payments from the 2018 General Election remain unpaid. FBC reported this has come to light during the Public Accounts Committee submission on the election office's 2021-2022 Audit Report. The election office's financial controller said the delay was caused by incomplete employee information for some of the 12,000 temporary election workers. The office said they are closely coordinating with the Fiji National Provident Fund to verify the remaining employee data to fast-track this process. Papua New Guinea - mining The mining company New Porgera is celebrating achieving its production targets, despite the impact of continuing lawlessness and a devastating landslide in the region. The new company, run by Barrick Gold, but with a significant PNG Government shareholding, replaced the former company after a lease dispute shut it down for more than three years. The Porgera region of Enga Province experienced the devastating Mulitaka landslide, which claimed many lives and shut the main road link out of the district. There have also been extensive law and order issues that resulted in a state of emergency being implemented, and dozens of arrests being made, many for illegal mining within the mine pit. Papua New Guinea - prisons The Papua New Guinea Correctional Service has signed an agreement with the Department of Education which will see education and training programmes rolled out in jails across the country. NBC reported that the memorandum highlights the vital role education plays in restoring dignity, instilling hope, and creating opportunities for those seeking a second chance. The rollout of structured learning and skills training within prisons is expected to transform lives behind bars. Acting corrections commissioner Bernard Nepo called the initiative a lifeline for inmates.
Otago Daily Times
10 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
'She's wrong': Trump contradicts spy boss on Iran nuclear programme
US President Donald Trump said on Friday (local time) that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was wrong in suggesting there was no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Trump contested intelligence assessments relayed earlier this year by his spy chief that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon when he spoke with reporters at an airport in Morristown, New Jersey. "She's wrong," Trump said. In March, Gabbard testified to Congress that the US intelligence community continued to believe that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon. "The (intelligence community) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon," she said. On Friday, Gabbard said in a post on the social media platform X that: "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." She said the media had taken her March testimony "out of context" and was trying to "manufacture division." The White House has said Trump will weigh involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict over the next two weeks. On Tuesday, Trump made similar comments to reporters about Gabbard's assessment. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has justified a week of airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets by saying Tehran was on the verge of having a warhead. Iran denies developing nuclear weapons, saying its uranium enrichment programme is only for peaceful purposes. In March, Gabbard described Iran's enriched uranium stockpile as unprecedented for a state without such weapons and said the government was watching the situation closely. She also said that Iran had started discussing nuclear weapons in public, "emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus." A source with access to US intelligence reports told Reuters that the assessment presented by Gabbard has not changed. They said US spy services also judged that it would take up to three years for Iran to build a warhead with which it could hit a target of its choice. Some experts, however, believe it could take Iran a much shorter time to build and deliver an untested crude nuclear device, although there would be no guarantee it would work. Trump has frequently disavowed the findings of US intelligence agencies, which he and his supporters have charged - without providing proof - are part of a "deep state" cabal of US officials opposed to his presidency. Gabbard, a fierce Trump loyalist, has been among the president's backers who have aired such allegations. The Republican president repeatedly clashed with US spy agencies during his first term, including over an assessment that Moscow worked to sway the 2016 presidential vote in his favour and his acceptance of Russian President Vladimir Putin's denials.
NZ Herald
12 hours ago
- NZ Herald
David Seymour: I went to Oxford to test my beliefs and learned a sad thing about NZ
Is it a prank? We think it's real. Okay, then, but we can't use taxpayer money. That conversation is how I ended up debating at Oxford Union. The question of the debate was that 'no one can be illegal on stolen land'. It was a clever moot, tapping into colonisation and immigration. What Government has the right to tell would-be migrants they can't come, when every inch of the planet has been fought over at some time? I went to test my beliefs that human rights are universal, that we should stop searching the past for reasons to doubt one another and focus more on where we're going than where we've been. I think those beliefs held up well, but I learned something sad about our country, too. Every Thursday in semester time, the Union invites guests to debate. Most people don't realise Lange was one of six or eight debaters. His speech, and the uranium line, obliterated the others. I had a student and a couple of American 'immigration enforcement experts' on my team. On the other side was the president of the Union, an Australian senator, an Oxford academic, and someone best described as Noam Chomsky's daughter. At the end of the debate, the audience divides, going through one door or another to register their vote for or against the motion, like Parliaments of old. The president of the Union opened, saying our team of white guys in tuxedos had 'something in common', that all borders are drawn in blood, and that New Zealand 'invites, exploits, then hunts' migrants. Since she came in an Alice in Wonderland dress with a two-metre hoop skirt, though, you can't help but like her. I think she was in on the joke. The Australian senator said 'white immigration' to Australia is unlawful, then described her own migration from India without explaining the difference. The academic wanted open immigration rights for anyone whose ancestors had been colonised, but it wasn't clear how far back this went. Chomsky promised to make seven points in her speech. I listened, but can only guess they were above my pay grade. My team agreed that, yes, history is filled with barbarism on all sides, but who decides where it stopped and started? Should we count Scottish victims of the Clearances as victims or villains? How about descendants of Māori who slaughtered other tribes in the musket wars? How do we account for people who, like the new Pope, have ancestors on both sides of conflict? We argued that grouping ourselves into victims and villains, based on ancestry, is exactly what leads to oppression and discrimination – seeing an individual as just another faceless member of a guilty group. Even if you could pick a time when land stopped being owned and started being stolen, you would create another problem, determinism. No wonder young people are depressed and anxious, being told they are either victims or villains in stories written before they were born. Building a better world, we said, needs a commitment to treat each person as a thinking and valuing being, deserving equal rights and dignity. I think the arguments for equal rights stood up well, but I learned something about New Zealand from how the events in Oxford were reported at home. What a depressing little country we can be. TVNZ based its coverage around an activist saying I shouldn't be able to speak because free speech is dangerous. The headline was me 'defending' speaking. What a contrast with the Oxford Union's commitment to free speech. Stuff's coverage announced, sneeringly, that I 'debated at Oxford, and lost'. Nowhere in the article does it explain how the debate is decided, or that my team, not I, lost by a margin of 54-46. It quotes a handful of audience members who disagreed with me, but didn't try to inform the reader of what I said or why nearly half voted for my team. Anyone reliant on these outlets would prove the adage that if you don't read the media, you're uninformed; if you do, then you're misinformed. I thank the Herald for its more balanced coverage and this right of reply. Thank you, Oxford Union, for the wonderful opportunity to freely debate controversial topics. Yes, all borders are drawn in blood, but if you want a better world, you need to ask not where we came from, but where we're going. Some in our media could learn from your spirit. David Seymour is the Deputy Prime Minister and Act Party leader
