Weeks out from a federal election, and with Donald Trump’s unpredictability and belligerency growing by the day, neither Labor nor the Coalition have demurred from outright support for the AUKUS nuclear military pact.
Despite Trump’s threats about Greenland, Panama, Mexico and Canada and his green light to Israel to obliterate Gaza, both major parties are sticking to the pro-war script.
AUKUS, signed by Coalition PM Scott Morrison in 2021 with Labor’s full support, has had little official discussion.
This election will be an opportunity to vote against the major parties’ military pact with a White House that believes it can win a nuclear war against China, and their eradication of Australia’s anti-nuclear protections.
AUKUS pillar I, the $368 billion nuclear-powered attack submarines, is unlikely to materialise in the next four years. But the endeavour allows Australia into an exclusive nuclear weapons club, as well as setting up the conditions for greater interoperability between the US and Australia’s defence forces.
AUKUS pillar II is about boosting funding for universities to come up with more lethal technologies, which private weapons industries can then capitalise on.
Even before Trump’s election, sections of Australia’s ruling elite were uncomfortable with AUKUS and this has only become more widespread since he made clear his disdain for “rules-based” order. Former Liberal PM Malcolm Turnbull and former Labor foreign minister Bob Carr have been especially outspoken, pushing for what they call a defence “Plan B”.
Turnbull told a “Sovereignty and Security” forum in Canberra at the end of March that “Trump makes it very clear he is both a less reliable and a more demanding ally”. He said Australia must “be more resilient and independent”.
Fremantle MP Josh Wilson is one of the few serving Labor critics of AUKUS, arguing, in an understated way, that it “may” undermine Australia’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. Despite promising to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Labor has not done so.
Turnbull said that as the AUKUS nuclear submarines are unlikely to eventuate because the US is already behind on its own submarine capability, Australia needs to “recalibrate” for its national security interests. He agreed in 2017 with the claim that China was a rising threat.
Carr, whose record shows he has a less belligerent approach to China, says AUKUS leaves Australia “totally integrated in American defence planning” and that means Australia will be “hosting even more potential nuclear targets”.
While establishment critics raise questions of “independence” and “sovereignty”, they nevertheless do not want to break Australia’s military ties with the US.
US canvasses ‘Plan B’
The US Congressional Research Service’s February report affirms that the US’s nuclear-powered submarine building program is way behind.
While Australia was supposed to get five Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) by 2028 (each about US$4.5 billion) before its AUKUS SSNs, even building two such SSNs a year will not remedy the backlog until late 2030.
It then canvasses other options, including a new “division of labour” between the US and Australia, which echoes the deal between the US and NATO countries.
In brief, the US Congress’ Plan B is to turn Australia into a giant base for the US nuclear submarine force. One option is to build up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs and, rather than selling a few to Australia, the US Navy operates them “out of Australia along with the five US and UK SSNs”.
Another option is that, rather than spend on SSNs, Australia “instead invest[s] … in other military capabilities” — long-range anti-ship missiles, drones and long-range bombers. This, it says, would allow Australia to have non-SSN military missions “for both Australia and the United States”.
It then lists variations of these options, including that US Navy SSNs operate out of Australian ports and “perform Australian SSN missions” in a similar arrangement to the Submarine Rotational Force — West Infrastructure Project. From 2027, under Pillar 1, one British and up to four US conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines will use HMAS Stirling.
Opposition grows
After Trump’s election last November, about half those polled by the Guardian said Labor should reconsider AUKUS: 21% “strongly agreed” and 27% said they “somewhat agreed” that Australia should “review its commitment to the AUKUS defence agreement, including the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines”.
A United States Studies Centre poll last September found only 25% of Australians agree with AUKUS. It also found that defence spending is not popular in either Australia, the US or Japan.
A Resolve Strategic poll on April 1 found that 46% believe Australia should form closer relations with other countries — including China.
Meanwhile, Britain has established a parliamentary inquiry into the military pact.
resolve_poll_april_1.jpg
But Labor defence minister Richard Marles still insists the nuclear submarines will arrive from 2032 and that last month’s transfer of nearly $800 million to US shipyards is a “good investment”.
Labor has promised an additional $50.3 billion to the Australian Defence Force and another $1 billion to enable it to “acquire capabilities faster”. The Coalition has, so far, promised $3 billion for more joint strike fighter jets.
A growing number want Australia to lead on making the region more secure and peaceful. The Sydney Anti-AUKUS Coalition says “AUKUS diverts the massive resources we need to cut carbon emissions and to pull our weight in the global effort to achieve a rapid carbon-free transformation”.
The Australian Greens have long opposed AUKUS and argue the new government must “withdraw from the AUKUS political pact and renegotiate Australia’s position in the ANZUS treaty”.
Australians for War Powers Reform (AFWPR) said in March that AUKUS has “no social license”, “because the public has been shut out of the process”. It said AUKUS supporters’ efforts to bolster support for the military alliance have “mostly failed”, because they have “relied on scare campaigns, suggesting China wants to invade Australia, a notion for which they have produced no evidence”.
Further highlighting Australia’s deputy sheriff role, AFWPR criticised Australia for not consulting its Pacific Island neighbours. It said Labor’s diplomatic drive “has not overcome their view that they are not respected”.
AUKUS allows weapons-grade uranium to transit the Pacific, while the Tindal RAAF airbase in the Northern Territory is upgraded to house US nuclear weapons-capable B52 bombers. “Whether or not the later development complies with the Raratonga Treaty hinges on the technicality of whether nuclear-armed B52s will be deemed to be ‘stationed’ at Tindal or merely ‘visiting’,” AFWPR said.
Climate emergency the real threat
Socialist Alliance spokesperson Sam Wainwright told Green Left that while the major parties and much of the media are pushing for “a new cold war” because of a “supposed existential military threat”, it is not borne out by facts.
“They are trying to gear us up for a war with China on the basis that there is a supposed need to block China’s economic and political development. That is terrifying. The wars we’ve seen in Sudan and Ukraine are terrible enough. But the idea that Australia would be allying with the US to block China’s economic growth by force and risk World War III is anti-social in the most profound sense.”
Wainwright said Australia needs to move in a “fundamentally different direction”. He highlighted SA’s policy to scrap AUKUS and cut military expenditure by at least 50% with the funds directed to pressing social and environmental problems.
“Global warming is the emergency society’s resources need to be spent on dealing with. Any discussion about defence and security should start with: ‘What really is essential to security?’”
Admiral Chris Barrie, a former ADF chief and prior supporter of AUKUS, said now is the time to rethink. In his op-ed in the March 30 Canberra Times he wrote that the US is “not a consistent and reliable ally” and that conventional-powered diesel submarines are “sufficient” for defence. He also advocated “strong alliances with the archipelago nations to our immediate north are the basis of an alternative to the China-war strategy”.
Barrie is a founding member of the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group, which says the changing climate is the biggest security risk. He challenged Marles to answer questions about Australia’s economic future in a US-led war on China, a most important trading partner.
Wainwright said Marles’ $800 million down payment for AUKUS shows “the ideological commitment of a dominant section of the ruling class to the US push to contain China”. As not all establishment figures agree, Wainwright said there is the space to debate a better strategy.
Wainwright pointed to Keating and Turnbull’s argument that Australia should not have to choose between the US and China. “They argue Australia could just trade and make up its mind as it goes along — a more sensible pro-capitalist defence policy.
“SA is for an independent foreign policy based on peace and justice. That’s not even comprehended by the front bench of the Liberal and Labor parties and that section of the ruling elite locked in behind AUKUS.”