Australia's Albanese confident on AUKUS after British leader says it will proceed
SYDNEY: Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed comments by his British counterpart at the G7 that Britain and the United States will proceed with the AUKUS nuclear submarine treaty with Australia, despite a Pentagon review.
"We're proceeding with that, it's a really important deal to both of us," British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters when asked about AUKUS, standing next to US President Donald Trump after they met on Monday to discuss trade and security.
"I think the president is doing a review, we did a review when we came into government so that makes good sense to me," he added.
Albanese had been scheduled to hold his first meeting with Trump the next day to press support for AUKUS, however the White House announced Trump would leave the G7 early.
Albanese later told reporters that AUKUS held "great advantages" for the three partners.
"That is why we support AUKUS and that is why I am confident that all three nations will continue to provide support for it," he told reporters in Calgary.
In 2023, the United States, Australia and Britain unveiled details of the plan to provide Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines from the early 2030s to counter China's ambitions in the Indo-Pacific.
A Pentagon official said last week the administration was reviewing AUKUS to ensure it was "aligned with the President's America First agenda".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
B-2 bombers moving to Guam amid Middle East tensions, US officials say
FILE PHOTO: A U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber takes off from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam January 11, 2018. Picture taken January 11, 2018. U.S. Air Force/Airman 1st Class Gerald Willis/Handout via REUTERS/File Photo WASHINGTON - The United States is moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Saturday, as President Donald Trump weighs whether the United States should take part in Israel's strikes against Iran. It was unclear whether the bomber deployment is tied to Middle East tensions. The B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground. That is the weapon that experts say could be used to strike Iran's nuclear program, including Fordow. The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, declined to disclose any further details. One official said no forward orders had been given yet to move the bombers beyond Guam. They did not say how many B-2 bombers are being moved. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
Hundreds of US citizens left Iran in last week, State Dept cable says
WASHINGTON: Hundreds of American citizens have departed Iran using land routes over the past week since an aerial war between the Islamic Republic and Israel broke out, according to an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters on Friday (Jun 20). While many left without problem, "numerous" citizens had faced "delays and harassment" while trying to exit, the cable said. It said, without giving further details, that one unidentified family had reported that two US citizens attempting to leave Iran had been detained. The internal cable dated June 20 underscores the challenge Washington is facing in trying to protect and assist its citizens in a country with which it has no diplomatic relations and in a war in which the United States may soon get involved. President Donald Trump and the White House said on Thursday he will decide in the next two weeks whether the US will get involved in the Israel-Iran war. Trump has kept the world guessing on his plans, veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting Washington might join the fighting on Israel's side. The air war began on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran and has alarmed a region that has been on edge since the start of Israel's war in Gaza in October 2023. Israel is the only country in the Middle East widely believed to have nuclear weapons, and said it struck Iran to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons. Iran, which says its nuclear program is peaceful, has retaliated with its own strikes on Israel. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel is not. "Due to the limitations of US consular support in Iran, US citizens seeking departure should take advantage of existing means to leave Iran," a State Department spokesperson said in comments emailed late on Friday, when asked about the cable, which was first reported by The Washington Post. POTENTIAL EVACUATION The US State Department in a travel alert earlier on Friday urged its citizens wishing to depart Iran to use land routes via Azerbaijan, Armenia or Turkey. Iranian airspace is closed. The US Embassy in the Turkmenistan capital of Ashgabat has requested entry for over 100 American citizens, but the Turkmenistan government has yet to give its approval, the cable said. The Islamic Republic treats Iranian-US dual citizens solely as nationals of Iran, the State Department emphasized. "US nationals are at significant risk of questioning, arrest and detention in Iran," the alert said. Washington is looking at ways to potentially evacuate its citizens from Israel, but it has almost no way of assisting Americans inside Iran. The two countries have had no diplomatic ties since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee on Thursday said the administration was looking at different ways to get US citizens out. "We're working to get military, commercial, charter flights and cruise ships for evac," he said in an X post, urging US citizens and green card holders to complete an online form. As of Friday, more than 6,400 US citizens filled out that form for Israel, a separate internal department email seen by Reuters said. The form allows the agency to predict an approximate figure for potential evacuations. "Approximately 300-500 US citizens per day would potentially require departure assistance," said the internal email, also dated June 20 and marked "sensitive". The State Department does not have official figures but thousands of US citizens are thought to be residing in Iran and hundreds of thousands in Israel. Israel's strikes over the last week have killed 639 people in Iran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency. Israel says Iranian attacks have killed 24 civilians in Israel.
CNA
7 hours ago
- CNA
I started using corporate lingo ironically – and now I can't stop
I nodded as a coworker listed out a few suggestions on ways her team and mine could collaborate in the next few months. 'Yeah, that sounds like a good way to synergise,' I said. And then we both made a face. Almost a decade ago, when I started my first official 'office job', I made a silent vow to myself that I would never become One of Those. A corporate drone on autopilot, mindlessly regurgitating buzzwords and key phrases day in and day out to no real end until I would one day reach my final form: a glorified LinkedIn bot. I didn't really 'use' corporate lingo so much as make fun of it – in a good-natured, tongue-in-cheek sort of way. It was a quick fix for lightening the mood for everybody, myself included: 'Well, since that project fell through, guess that's one less loop to close, huh?' But these days, I find myself starting to slip into corporate lingo unironically, the same way I started doing years ago with skinny jeans, emojis, and the acronym 'LOL'. LINGO LIMBO More people are expressing annoyance or frustration with it these days, especially on social media, but make no mistake – corporate lingo is nothing new. From the 'value chains' of the 1980s and 1990s to the 'key performance indicators' you hear your own manager wax on about today, such jargon has long been a mainstay of working life. Like with most things that eventually trigger widespread discussions and accusations online of being 'annoying' or 'cringe', there's a legitimately useful element to corporate lingo's villain origin story. Business and work have grown more complex over the last few decades. Thanks to globalisation, the systems we operate in have become more interconnected and as a result, more expansive and intricate. So have the individual roles we play in those systems. We started needing quicker, simpler ways to sum up big or complicated ideas – or ideas that weren't that big or complicated, but were just a mouthful to say. After all, it's definitely easier to say 'outsourcing' than 'farming this out to a peripheral individual, group or organisation so I have more time and energy to focus on more important things'. But over time, something happened to corporate lingo: People started creating buzzwords and phrases for things and situations that didn't seem to require it at all. We stopped postponing or revisiting discussions of an issue and started 'circling back' instead. We eschewed talking to each other and started 'touching base' instead. And then people started 'checking in', but not just any checks, mind you. Temperature checks. Sense checks. Vibe checks. Instead of coining new terms to neatly condense big, complicated ideas, we now seem to be finding overly complex ways to phrase very simple things. WHEN YOU SAY NOTHING AT ALL Again, it's not a bad thing to develop lingo over the course of engaging with other fellow humans in labour. Well before we became office dwellers, plenty of colloquialisms from agricultural work had been leaving the farm to become part of everyday English. For example, "No reason to have a cow about that" or "beat a dead horse". Such jargon of yore does the work it's meant to do, which is to replace a wordy sentiment or thought process with a bite-sized turn of phrase. In comparison, what exactly does the phrase 'moving the needle' accomplish, particularly when in most cases, you immediately have to go on to explain exactly what needle you're hoping to move and in which direction? (Yes, we've done it, we've made shop-talk more efficient – all we had to do was transform our seven-word statement into a 15-word run-on behemoth.) The danger is when we're more concerned about communication for communication's sake, rather than the purposes and objectives for which we're communicating. Are we trying to be in the know, or simply appear so to others? Are we really achieving or improving productivity, or just performing it? MAKE WORK JARGON WORK AGAIN Either way, corporate lingo is here to stay. The exact words and phrases in rotation may come and go, but humans will always want to find a way to jazz up interpersonal communication simply because we're creative, social beings. So is there a way to salvage this? (Or, for the corporate jargon-heads out there: What are the actionable insights and key takeaways to be derived from this?) For my part, I still find myself resisting what I feel are inorganic attempts to shoehorn unnecessary lingo into conversations about work, but I'm trying not to be pedantic about it. If someone says 'Can we align or bridge the gap on this?', I respond, 'Sure, what's unclear right now?' If someone says 'Can I get a sense check on when this might be completed?', I give them a date. (But maybe I'll also have a little rant to a fellow coworker later on about why the question can't simply be 'When will this be done?') Instead of the snark I used to deploy perhaps a little too freely in response to cringey corporate jargon, I try to reach for the same attitude I employ whenever I'm speaking with someone who may not be entirely fluent in English – if I understand what they're saying, maybe how they're saying it doesn't have to matter as much. Still, at the end of the day, there's never any harm in asking, plain and simple: 'What do you mean?'
