Latest news with #RichardMarles
News.com.au
12 hours ago
- Business
- News.com.au
Penny Wong stresses AUKUS ‘benefits' in call with Marco Rubio
The country's chief diplomat has stressed the 'benefits' of AUKUS in a call with US State Secretary Marco Rubio amid concerns Washington could be looking to pull out of the defence pact. The US Department of Defence earlier this month announced it was reviewing AUKUS to ensure it aligned with Donald Trump's 'American first' agenda. The Albanese government has brushed off concerns the 30-day audit signalled waning US support for the deal with Australia and the UK, with Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles repeatedly calling it a 'natural' move. But with AUKUS the centrepiece of Australia's defence strategy over the first half of this century and Anthony Albanese yet to secure a face-to-face with the US President, it has offered little reassurance. Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday she and her US counterpart discussed 'the importance of our partnership to stability, peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific'. 'I have outlined … the benefits to all countries, all three countries of the AUKUS agreement – an agreement which I think is so important for strategic balance in the region,' Senator Wong told reporters in Adelaide. 'That means protecting peace, preventing conflict, and assuring prosperity and security for all countries. 'I've also outlined, just as the Prime Minister has, the near-term benefits to the United States, including additional maintenance days and more days in the water for more submarines.' She refused to give a read on whether Mr Rubio backed the deal, only saying that 'he's on record as understanding the importance of AUKUS'. 'But obviously we'll work through the review with the United States,' Senator Wong said. 'It's unsurprising that they would engage in a review just as the United Kingdom did.' Canberra has already spent billions laying the groundwork to acquire and build nuclear-powered submarines and train personnel to crew them under AUKUS. Washington has committed to supply up to five Virginia-class submarines starting in 2032. But sluggish submarine production has put the US on track to face a shortage early next decade. Mr Trump can renege on AUKUS commitments if they endanger US national security. To help bolster production, Australia has agreed to inject $4.6bn into the US defence industrial base.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Australia-US alliance is facing a decisive test, and not just over the Middle East
Would Australia go to war to support the United States in conflict with China over Taiwan – or elsewhere? The government avoids discussing the question, let alone answering it, by dismissing it as hypothetical. But it will not go away, for two reasons. First, the possibility of us going to war over Taiwan looms over the whole debate about our military preparedness and defence spending, and gives it urgency. That is because choosing to fight China alongside the US is a scenario in which Australia would find itself drawn into a major conflict. Surely we should be talking about that choice now, in advance, rather than wait till a crisis breaks? But the other reason the question won't go away is that Washington wants it answered, and soon. Today, of course, all eyes are on the Middle East as Donald Trump ponders whether to join Israel's apparently open-ended war with Iran. Until recently that would almost certainly mean Australia too was faced with a choice as to whether to follow the US into yet another Middle East war. But things are different now. The defence minister, Richard Marles, has dismissed any Australian involvement, saying on Tuesday: 'We are not a part of this conflict.' That is because, despite Iran and Gaza, China's epochal challenge to the US makes the Taiwan question, not the Middle East, the decisive test of our US alliance. Trump's isolationism means the risk of a US-China war over Taiwan is lower now than it was under Joe Biden. But it remains the US military's key concern, as the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, made clear in Singapore. Australia's commitment in such a conflict has become a touchstone of our seriousness as an ally at a time when ever-closer enmeshment with Washington under Aukus has become the core of the Albanese government's foreign and defence policies. It goes to the heart of whether Aukus really is in US interests, and thus whether Aukus will survive. It will be a central question in the Pentagon's review of the pact. That is because under Aukus the US is supposed to be passing some of its vital and scarce Virginia-class submarines to Australia. It makes no sense to do that unless it is sure that we would send them to join the US fleet in a war. The same is true of the buildup of US combat forces, including long-range bombers, at Australian bases. That too makes no sense unless we guarantee in advance that those forces can be used in a war against China. So for the Pentagon the question of Australia's stance in a US-China war is not remotely hypothetical. All this no doubt explains why Marles edged closer to engaging on the issue on Monday at a defence conference in Canberra. He did not say, as one breathless headline had it, 'US-China war: we would be involved.' But he did drop two plain hints to Washington. He said: 'Australia's geography today is more relevant to great power contest than it has been … arguably at any point in our history.' This conveyed to Washington that the government understands how central Australia has become to the US military contest with China, and how much US planning for war with China now assumes Australian support. A few moments later he said: 'The defence of Australia is intimately connected with the peace and stability of the Pacific, the peace and stability of south-east Asia, of north-east Asia, of the north-east Indian Ocean.' He went on: 'The geography of our national security, it lies much less along the coastline of the continent, as it does further afield.' This conveys that the government's military posture is focused on fighting alongside the US far from our shores in places like the Taiwan Strait, rather than defending the continent itself. Others speaking at the conference went further, with one former senior official saying: 'We would be involved.' This seems to reflect the broader consensus of the Canberra bureaucracy. But do Anthony Albanese and his senior minsters agree? Do Marles' comments reflect anything more than a desire to placate Washington without really answering a question they would prefer to leave in the too-hard basket, hoping it will go away? If so, they are making a big mistake. It is time for Australia to have a serious conversation about our involvement. Two questions should be uppermost. First, what would be our aims in taking part in a conflict? The obvious ones are to help defend Taiwan's democracy, to help preserve the US position as the leading power in Asia and stop China taking its place, and to 'pay our dues' as a US ally. Second, how likely are we to achieve these aims? The short answer is very unlikely. With or without Australia's support, the US has no serious chance of winning a war with China over Taiwan. That means Taiwan would not be saved, the US position in Asia would be not preserved, and Australia's value as an ally would disappear. Like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have followed Washington into a war that achieved neither its objectives nor ours but this time at unimaginably greater cost. That being so, we should give Washington a plain answer to its Taiwan question. The answer should be no. Hugh White is emeritus professor of strategic studies at ANU. His Quarterly Essay Hard New World: Our Post-American Future was published this month
ABC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Israel-Iran conflict raises questions about Australia's relationship with the US
As the world holds its breath over Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's arm wrestle about whether to drop US "bunker busters" on Iran's nuclear facilities, Australians have every right to feel confused and concerned. Is this proof we've inadvertently yoked ourselves as a nation to the whims of madmen? Does the US-Australia alliance — normally a source of national comfort — hide fearsome consequences? Will we be drawn into a new conflagration involving nuclear powers? Do we have a choice? Is our sovereignty at risk? Or is there a logic to what Israel is doing against Tehran's nuclear program that serves the interests of Australians, even if we dislike the process? Disarming a dangerous regime accused of spreading terror around the world must surely be a good thing? Either way, Richard Marles told 730 on Tuesday that "we are not a part of this conflict" in the Middle East even as the defence minister doggedly side-stepped questions from my colleague David Speers about the nature of our support for potential American involvement in Iran. "Can I just clarify, is the US allowed to launch any missions from Australia's northern bases?," Speers asked. "Well, again, there's a whole lot of speculation in all of that". Not really. Are they allowed to or not? "That's a simple question about what permission the US has regardless of what's happening right now," Speers pressed. "Well, we have a system of full knowledge and concurrence in terms of the way in which any country operates from Australia and that includes the United States," Marles eventually explained. The minister's choice of language was deliberate and strategic. And purposefully obtuse. Having full "knowledge and concurrence" of what American military forces are doing on Australian soil sounds vaguely comforting. In practice, it's a long way from what it might imply. Concurrence is not the same as "approval" or "consent" — both of which ascribe the granter an implicit and concrete veto. Concurrence leaves open the possibility that Americans do what they want from their Australian-based assets, perhaps seeking forgiveness rather than permission. Such questions and constructive ambiguity emerge every time an American administration signs up to war-fighting. But this is not a normal American administration and these are not normal times. The notion this generation of Australians can stand as aloof observers of far-off events could soon be tested. It was only on Monday that Marles triggered a frisson among the defence and strategic community when he stated that China's regional military build-up means "Australia's geography today is more relevant to great power contest than it has been at any point since the end of the Second World War, arguably at any point in our history". At face value — the notion that Australia now has a great big target on its back — is stating the bleeding obvious. But hearing it directly from an acting Labor prime minister is a significant escalation in rhetoric. Marles was emphasising — in essence — that Australia's unique geography and the traditional tyranny of distance means the country does not need to spend what the Trump administration is demanding. The problem, says Marles, is that the nation's strategic interests are in protecting global sea routes that supply Australia's fuels and export revenues. "Our risk is not so much the invasion of the continent," Marles told a security forum in Parliament House hosted by News Corp on Monday. "We are fortunate that we are an island nation surrounded by oceans. "But on the other hand, we are deeply reliant on our sea lines of communication." Almost all of our liquid fuels are imported by sea, he said, but also through export revenues. "And so that is our strategic risk. It's the disruption of those sea lines," he said. "It's the coercion that could result because of the disruption of such sea routes, it is that, and the stability of the region in which we live." The cost of managing those risks is to work with the US on regional security. And to contribute elsewhere when called upon. Anthony Albanese's frustrated attempts to have a meeting with Donald Trump at the G7 meeting in Canada this week have garnered much attention. Claims of being "snubbed" by the US president are silly, given he did the same to other leaders, including India's Narendra Modi. It's not obvious what benefit Albanese would have secured in Alberta either. Trump is in no mood to grant trade exemptions and any assurance about AUKUS is now subject to a Pentagon review. Should the first meeting between the men occur in September, as the government is indicating, then both of those issues might have been resolved. As the PM flies back to Australia, he is now considering whether to race off again next week to a NATO summit in The Hague, which Trump is expected to attend. This poses at least two risks. Critics may accuse Albanese of starting to look desperate in his efforts to meet the president. Can Trump be relied upon to even show up? And the prime minister would also be running headlong into Europe's debate about levels of military spending. NATO boss Mark Rutte wants defence spending lifted to 5 per cent of gross domestic product — which would make Albanese's stated goal of 2.4 per cent look pretty lame. For now, the government is arguing that it would be good to be in the NATO room given the level of global uncertainty. But it has not yet explained to Australians what that looks like in reality. Will the US be using Australian bases in its strikes on Tehran, for instance, by providing re-fuelling services as appeared to be the case for long-range US bombings on Houthi targets last year? Foreign Minister Penny Wong on Wednesday hardened her rhetoric against Iran's regime, having started the week urging the US and Israeli governments to show "restraint". Wong said the "fastest way out of the danger" is for Iran to "come to the table and stop any nuclear weapons program". "Ultimately, the Iranian regime has to make a decision about whether it is going to continue down a path that is so perilous. "The point that we are at, I think we can all see that Iran needs to come back to the table and stop any program." If the conflict erupts, many voters and no doubt parts of Labor's party room will fast become dissatisfied by Marles's "full knowledge and concurrence" explanation. The term itself dates back to the early 1970s, when the Whitlam government was outraged to learn that America was using the North West Cape facility to communicate with nuclear-armed Polaris submarines in the Indian Ocean. But it wasn't until the Hawke government that it was formalised in a 1988 treaty with the Reagan administration in relation to joint operations at Pine Gap. In a speech to parliament in June 2013, then Labor defence minister Stephen Smith said full knowledge "equates to Australia having a full and detailed understanding of any capability or activity with a presence on Australian territory or making use of Australian assets". 'Concurrence' means Australia approves the presence of a capability or function in Australia in support of its mutually agreed goals." Smith then added a critical caveat: "Concurrence does not mean that Australia approves every activity or tasking undertaken". Defence officials and experts — on both sides of the alliance — are understood to be in the midst of a spirited debate about whether "full knowledge and concurrence" (FK&C for short) needs to be reworked in light of the deepening use of Australian soil and waters for US military activities. It might have been enough to clarify things when the alliance was mostly about satellites and communications and over-the-horizon radar activities. But a hot war in the Middle East involving heavy bombers and other things is something quite different. Alex Bristow, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says the government would be "very reticent to get too directly embroiled in this conflict", though the Americans might request some level of support. Bristow notes the Australian Defence Department took the "unusual step" of confirming an ABC story that Australia's northern bases likely supported air-to-air refueling operations for US B-2 stealth bombers flying from the continental US for missions against Houthi targets in October. "Such bombers could play a key role in potential US strikes on Iran, as they can deliver large 'bunker-buster' bombs to hit underground targets that the Israelis would struggle to reach," he says. Australia may be called upon in other ways, "like contributing to maritime security around the Middle East, or backfilling US capabilities nearer to Australia to free up US forces to deploy to the Middle East". Marles's statement that "Australia's geography and continent would be crucial to any United States prosecution of a war against China will go down as a dark moment in Australia's history", said Paul Keating on Monday. Accusing the Labor government of having "intellectually ceded Australia to the United States as a platform for the US" for "military engagement against the Chinese state", Keating warned that Labor's "grassroots will not support Australia being dragged into a war with and by the United States over Taiwan". "The large majority of new members of the parliamentary Labor Party will not find community support for such a course of action," he said. Keating's anger is not isolated. Many continue to call for a proper debate over the terms and circumstances of America's involvement on our continent. A debate that many believe should have been conducted in full when the Gillard government and Smith agreed with the Obama administration to allow US troops to rotate through a base in Darwin.
The Australian
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Australian
Surge in Australians trying to flee Middle East as Trump hints US intervention
Almost 2000 Australians are seeking government help to flee Israel and Iran as the two longtime foes continue trading deadly strikes and Donald Trump hints at US intervention. The Albanese government has shut embassies across the Middle East, issued do not travel warnings and set up a national crisis team to assist citizens in the region. Jim Chalmers said on Wednesday 'more than 1000 Australians and family members in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories' had registered – more than tripling the number on Monday. He said a further 870 had registered in Iran, where the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have advised Australians to 'shelter in place'. Treasurer Jim Chalmers says nearly 2000 Australians are seeking evacuation from both Israel and Iran. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman 'We're monitoring developments in that very dangerous part of the world very closely,' the Treasurer told the ABC. 'Obviously, our major focus is on the human cost of this escalating conflict. 'There are economic costs as well. We're monitoring both of those things, and I'll be briefed on all of that in the next hour or so.' Earlier, Richard Marles said there were 'thousands of Australians in both Iran and Israel' and that the Albanese government expected the number requests for help would rise. The Deputy Prime Minister said the 'fundamental issue' with evacuating Australians was 'that the airspace over both Iran and Israel in fact is closed'. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles says the national crisis team is considering evacuations from Israel by land. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman 'But as soon as there is any opportunity to pursue an assisted departure, we will,' the Deputy Prime Minister told Sky News. Mr Marles said he could not 'give a definitive answer' on when that might be. 'What we're doing is really working up all the options that we've got available to us so that when there is an opportunity we are in a position to provide those assisted departures,' he said. 'And in the meantime … we are advising Australians in the region to shelter in place.' Mr Marles also confirmed DFAT was considering evacuations from Israel by land through Jordan. 'There has been some efforts there, but fundamentally what we are looking at is providing assisted departures by air when there is an opportunity for that to occur,' he said. 'And so they are really the contingencies that we are working up right now.' US President Donald Trump has hinted the US could get involved in the spiralling conflict between Israel and Iran. Picture: Atta Kenare / AFP Donald Trump hinted overnight the US could get involved in the conflict. He posted on social media that the US knew 'exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding', referring to Iran's leader, Ayotollah Ali Khamenei. 'He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,' the US President said. 'But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Minutes later, he posted: 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' It came after he hastily bailed on the G7 summit in Canada and warned 'everyone' to 'evacuate Tehran'. More to come. Read related topics: Donald TrumpIsrael
ABC News
3 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
Albanese eyes next week's NATO summit as he seeks rescheduled Trump meeting
Anthony Albanese is considering attending next week's NATO summit as he tries to land a face-to-face meeting with Donald Trump, after a scheduled sideline chat at the G7 fell through when the US president left early. The PM ruled out deploying naval assets to the Middle East even as allies weigh support for a possible US intervention in Iran after Israel began strikes. Speaking to reporters in Canada shortly before leaving the summit, Mr Albanese said Australia's military focus remained on "where we are in the world" but that he may replace Defence Minister Richard Marles at the NATO gathering in the Netherlands. Mr Trump, who has demanded Iran's "unconditional surrender" and teased direct involvement in the Israeli offensive, will attend the meeting of the military alliance, of which Australia is not a member. Mr Albanese said it was "perfectly understandable" that the US president had cut short his G7 attendance before the leaders could meet in person for the first time and added he was "sure" that they would meet "soon". The US president told reporters he left the G7 summit early because he "did everything [he] had to do". Australia did not receive advance warning of the cancellation and the PM has not received a phone call in its wake, a courtesy given to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum whose meeting was also missed. "We're all mature … We understand the circumstances which are there and we have agreed through our American friends that we'll reschedule the meeting," he said. In Mr Trump's absence, the PM held last-minute talks with his economic team, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and principle economic adviser Kevin Hassett. Mr Albanese said he took the opportunity to press Australia's case for exemptions from tariffs on steel and aluminium and the all-encompassing 10 per cent tariff, and again signalled giving the US access to Australian critical minerals as a bargaining chip. "My clear point is that it's in the United States' interest, because they have a trade surplus with Australia, for that trade to not just continue but to be enhanced. And there are opportunities to do that across a range of issues," he said. He also confirmed he had addressed US concerns about Australia's new tax for social media platforms who do not pay news companies for their content, arguing the tax was not meant to raise revenue from American tech platforms. "I explained the position of what it is … It's something that we want the platforms to negotiate in good faith with the produces of a product that they use to make money." The PM also announced Australia would begin negotiating with European Union leaders for a security and defence partnership to enhance co-operation. "We see this as an important framework for our current and future co-operation in areas like defence industry, cyber and counter-terrorism," he said, adding that ministers would discuss the partnership in coming weeks and hoped to finalise it "pretty quickly". Mr Albanese added that a European free trade agreement was progressing and that there was "sight of where the landing point could be" on sticking points including naming rights for products such as parmesan. The announcement followed a meeting with Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, and European Council President Antonio Costa, one of several bilateral meetings held on the last day of the summit including with Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. With UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Mr Albanese said he discussed the AUKUS alliance and had seen "nothing to suggest" any weakening in support for the alliance from the US despite the recent announcement of a review. The UK government has not ruled out supporting Israel and the US in an escalation of hostilities in Iran, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has backed Israel's actions. Mr Albanese said Australia had received briefings about the situation from the US but downplayed any prospect of Australian involvement. Richard Marles told the ABC Australia continued to call for "de-escalation" and took "at face value" public statements from US officials suggesting the country was for now taking a "defensive posture … of their people and their assets within the region". "We want to see a move towards diplomacy and dialogue and I guess implied in that obviously is a very clear concern that we have about the opposite, about this escalating into some broader conflict," he said. "We have a system of full knowledge and concurrence in terms of the way in which any country operates from Australia and that includes the Untied States. And we are not a part of this conflict."
