Latest news with #alliances
CNA
15 hours ago
- Politics
- CNA
CNA Correspondent - The Shangri-La Dialogue: Speed dating for defence officials
Tensions, absences and quiet chats at Asia's premier security summit. The US sent Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth but China left its defence minister at home for this year's summit. CNA's Olivia Siong and Leong Wai Kit tell Arnold Gay whether Dong Jun's absence affected Beijing's messaging and why the summit is similar to speed dating, with defence officials meeting and mingling to seal alliances and agreements.
Washington Post
4 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Tariffs, Israel and Trump likely topics as antsy G-7 leaders meet in Canada
CALGARY, Alberta — Leaders of the world's major economies will gather here Monday hoping to persuade a mercurial U.S. president to preserve long-standing alliances and calm a jittery global landscape but, in some cases, are willing to go their own way if they do not succeed. President Donald Trump will attend this year's Group of Seven summit in the foothills of the Canadian Rockies amid deep anxiety among the United States' traditional economic allies. These nations hope to persuade him to continue scaling back the punishing tariffs he has imposed across the world, but they also aim to avoid the kind of confrontation that some world leaders have set off while meeting with Trump in his first and second terms.
ABC News
5 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
AUKUS faces bigger tests than Trump's 'America first' review, US and UK experts warn
Key defence figures on both sides of the Atlantic warn the risks to AUKUS run deeper than whether a review finds Australia's biggest ever defence deal is "America first" enough for Donald Trump. They've told Four Corners of the damage being done to decades-old alliances by Mr Trump's unpredictability and contempt for the US's allies, the UK's increasing focus on Europe, and concerns neither country has the capability to deliver the submarines on time or on budget. With Australia's allies holding all the cards, and our Indo-Pacific defence strategy at stake, it's possible we could be left billions out of pocket, without submarines, and with one of our oldest alliances in tatters. Even before the US decided to review the deal, a senior member of the country's powerful Armed Services Committee was warning Mr Trump's "idiotic" and "bullying" behaviour towards allies presented risks to the alliance with Australia. The US president has repeatedly said that he regards Canada as the "51st state", while his belittling of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in February shocked American allies around the world. Mr Trump has also threatened to take back control of the Panama Canal and has not ruled out military force to wrest Greenland from Denmark. The House Armed Services Committee's highest-ranking Democrat, congressman Adam Smith, said Canberra had reason to be concerned about whether "the strong partnership between the US and Australia will remain". "I cannot possibly be critical enough of the way the Trump administration has treated our partners and allies since they were elected … it's really stupid," he said. "Their contempt for allies and partners has the potential, not just to undermine the AUKUS agreement, but to undermine the very national security of the United States of America." Former US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan also fears that Mr Trump has undermined America's standing with its allies and partners. "I think this is a great source of alarm," Mr Sullivan, who served in the role under president Joe Biden, told Four Corners. "The direction of travel right now is quite disturbing." Mr Sullivan said he understood why allies such as Australia, may be wondering where they stand with the US president. "I'm not sure that [Mr Trump's] looking for territory Down Under … not to make light of it," Mr Sullivan said. Key voices in the UK, the third alliance partner, are also troubled about the implications for AUKUS. Former Royal Navy admiral Alan West said, "dear old Trump coming in, that has … stood everyone on their heads really". "Things that we absolutely took as a certainty are no longer a certainty," said Lord West, formerly the official who oversaw the Royal Navy's operations. "What he's been saying about Canada [being the 51st state] is outrageous actually. It's like stamping on a fluffy bunny really, isn't it? It's just terrible." Under the AUKUS agreement the US is supposed to transfer at least three nuclear-powered Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia in the 2030s. But it's not building enough Virginia-class submarines for its own fleet, let alone enough to supply Australia. To meet its targets the US would need to build them at a rate of 2.3 a year. It's only making 1.2 a year. Christopher Miller, who served as the acting Defense Secretary in the dying days of the first Trump administration, warns production is "moving too slow". "I think probably most of that's on the United States side, to be perfectly honest with you," Mr Miller said. "The problem is we don't have the workforce, the welders, the skilled machinists that are required." Adam Smith conceded slow production had put pressure on the AUKUS deal. "But I'm hoping that the AUKUS deal will also put pressure the other way. It'll put pressure to solve that problem," Mr Smith said. Earlier this year Australia's Defence minister handed over $800 million to his US counterpart. It's the first of six payments designed to help bolster the struggling American submarine industry. The chief of the Royal Australian Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, told Four Corners Washington was determined to boost production and to fulfil its obligations under the deal. "That is the United States Navy's job to set the conditions to enable that to succeed," Vice Admiral Hammond said. "They're being backed up with strategic investment by the United States and by Australia. So I've got every reason to believe they will succeed." The Trump administration said its review of AUKUS includes ensuring it is "aligned with the president's 'America first' agenda" and that "the defence industrial base is meeting our needs". AUKUS critics, like the former commander of the Royal Australian Navy's submarine squadron, Peter Briggs, warn that Australia could lose everything it has bet on the nuclear subs. "This is a good deal for the Americans," Mr Briggs said. "If they see that the AUKUS program is impacting on their capabilities, they can walk away from it." Under the United States' AUKUS legislation, the president has to certify to Congress that any transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia would not degrade America's undersea capabilities. Otherwise, the transfer will not take place. Jake Sullivan is confident that whoever is president when the certification has to take place will honour the deal. "If the US woke up one day and decided it was not going to follow through on AUKUS, could it do that in reality? Yes, of course," Mr Sullivan said. But he said the AUKUS deal ultimately benefits both sides, and added that the US and Australia have long had a relationship of trust and sticking to agreements. The man leading the review, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, has been staunchly opposed to transferring any Virginia-class submarines to Australia while they are needed by the US. Last year, before his elevation to the Pentagon, Mr Colby told the ABC it would weaken American strike power. "It would be crazy for the United States to give away its single most important asset for a conflict with China over Taiwan," he said at the time. That view isn't shared by other Republicans close to Donald Trump. "We're not 'giving them away'. I mean, we are putting them in the hands of our friends in Australia," Republican congressman Rob Wittman told Four Corners. He said having Australia equipped with Virginia-class subs would place an obligation on Canberra to use them to assist the US in the Indo-Pacific. "That's a force multiplier for the United States and our friends in that region of the world." The prospect of "leverage" concerns some, who warn the deal could undermine Australia's sovereignty. Mr Briggs fears it could lock Australia into following the Americans into a confrontation with China over Taiwan. "You are in the punch-up, whether you like it or not," Mr Briggs said. Vice Admiral Hammond said just because Australia would be using US technology didn't mean our sovereignty would be challenged. "I think it just rings a little hollow," he said. "I know that there are critics out there who believe that this technology is so exquisite, it shouldn't be gifted or sold unless there was a guarantee associated with it. That hasn't been part of the program to date." Mr Trump's approach to diplomacy and the US's lagging production are not the only factors threatening to disrupt AUKUS. Under the plan the UK will design a brand-new nuclear-powered submarine called the SSN-AUKUS. Construction is due to begin by the end of this decade in the UK and Australia. But the UK is facing more pressing challenges closer to home. Since the signing of the agreement in 2021, Europe has seen the outbreak of the largest war on the continent since World War II. Senior UK defence experts say that has up-ended the country's defence priorities. Sir Michael Fallon, who served as the UK's defence secretary from 2014 to 2017, is a strong supporter of the AUKUS alliance. "A lot has changed. We've had our own continent invaded by Russia. Something that I don't think every anybody properly predicted," Sir Michael said. "The challenges have grown. The world has got more dangerous." Mr Trump has made it clear that Europe is no longer Washington's first priority, warning this year that the US may not protect NATO members who were not paying enough for their own defence. In response, the UK and other European nations have scrambled to re-prioritise trillions in spending to beef up their armed forces and defences. A review of the UK's defence strategy released this month committed to getting up to 12 SSN-AUKUS attack submarines in the water on schedule. But it has also pointed to a strategic shift caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reinforcing the need for what the review calls a "NATO first" policy. "While Britain, of course, has important relations with Australia, the centre of gravity of the country's security is in Europe," former UK National Security Adviser Peter Ricketts said. "I think the whole context in which the AUKUS deal was struck has changed and has changed Europe. I don't think it's going to go back. I think we are now going to be spending and focusing on our security in Europe for the foreseeable future." The US isn't alone in struggling with submarine production. Former First Sea Lord Alan West said the UK currently does not have the workforce or the specialist skills to deliver the SSN-AUKUS on time. "They're not there yet. We've got to have a really major training program in terms of shipyard ability and also in terms of the nuclear ability," Lord West said. "The trouble is with huge complex programs like building nuclear submarines, you know, it's not like building a shirt for Marks and Spencer. I mean, the length of time is huge." Lord Ricketts said Australia should not expect the SSN-AUKUS to arrive on time or budget. "I think any sensible defence calculation will be that these things will be more expensive and later than is currently expected," he said. "Australia has to expect that the timelines that are now drawn are bound to string out." The final stage of the deal involves Australia starting its own production line of SSN-AUKUS subs. Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, who heads the Australian agency tasked with overseeing the AUKUS program said the SSN-AUKUS subs are on track. "We're absolutely committed to building our own nuclear-powered submarine and having that delivered in the early 2040s. That is our plan. That is our commitment," Vice Admiral Mead said. "I'm not underestimating the complexity of this. This is the most demanding technological and industrial undertaking that any government in Australia has embarked upon. This will be probably the most complex engineering feat in the world." Watch Four Corners's full investigation, Submerged, tonight from 8:30pm on ABC TV and ABC iview.
Telegraph
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Lammy is picking a needless fight with America
The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them. That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries. Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia. At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel. Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism. The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed. Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons. The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'. The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history. Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests. In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla. At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies. It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy. The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis.
CNA
29-05-2025
- Business
- CNA
Japan aims to be bridge between US and Europe, says PM Ishiba at Nikkei Forum
New alliances and greater cooperation — those are the common themes among leaders gathered at the Nikkei Forum in Tokyo today. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said his country will be the knight for free trade, and, as the only G7 country representing Asia, Japan aims to be a bridge to the US and Europe. Michiyo Ishida reports from the gathering of political and business chiefs.
