Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AUKUS - "enhanced trilateral security partnership"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AUKUS - "enhanced trilateral security partnership"

    CBP-9335.pdf

    Above is a pdf file of the AUKUS agreement. Below is a press release joint statement announcing the agreement. The thread title borrows wording directly from the press release text quoted below.

    Originally posted by White_House_Briefing_Room

    Joint Leaders Statement on AUKUS

    15 September 2021
    Statements and Releases

    As leaders of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, guided by our enduring ideals and shared commitment to the international rules-based order, we resolve to deepen diplomatic, security, and defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, including by working with partners, to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. As part of this effort, we are announcing the creation of an enhanced trilateral security partnership called “AUKUS” — Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

    Through AUKUS, our governments will strengthen the ability of each to support our security and defense interests, building on our longstanding and ongoing bilateral ties. We will promote deeper information and technology sharing. We will foster deeper integration of security and defense-related science, technology, industrial bases, and supply chains. And in particular, we will significantly deepen cooperation on a range of security and defense capabilities.

    As the first initiative under AUKUS, recognizing our common tradition as maritime democracies, we commit to a shared ambition to support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. Today, we embark on a trilateral effort of 18 months to seek an optimal pathway to deliver this capability. We will leverage expertise from the United States and the United Kingdom, building on the two countries’ submarine programs to bring an Australian capability into service at the earliest achievable date.

    The development of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines would be a joint endeavor between the three nations, with a focus on interoperability, commonality, and mutual benefit. Australia is committed to adhering to the highest standards for safeguards, transparency, verification, and accountancy measures to ensure the non-proliferation, safety, and security of nuclear material and technology. Australia remains committed to fulfilling all of its obligations as a non-nuclear weapons state, including with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Our three nations are deeply committed to upholding our leadership on global non-proliferation.

    Recognizing our deep defense ties, built over decades, today we also embark on further trilateral collaboration under AUKUS to enhance our joint capabilities and interoperability. These initial efforts will focus on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities.

    The endeavor we launch today will help sustain peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. For more than 70 years, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have worked together, along with other important allies and partners, to protect our shared values and promote security and prosperity. Today, with the formation of AUKUS, we recommit ourselves to this vision.

    ###

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ment-on-aukus/

    .

    ...
    Last edited by JRT; 28 Oct 21,, 16:11.
    .
    .
    .

  • #2
    Originally posted by CSIS


    Schieffer Series: AUKUS and its Impacts
    Center for Strategic & International Studies
    Streamed live on 21 October 2021

    The recent nuclear submarine deal between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—known as AUKUS—has sent shockwaves throughout the globe. While AUKUS greatly expands the capabilities of the Australian navy in the hotly contested Indo-Pacific region and puts pressure on China, France, a critical ally of the United States, was left on the sidelines after previously agreeing to sell Australia $66 billion worth of conventional submarines. As a result, France went as far as temporarily recalling its ambassador, and President Biden admitted there was a lack of consultation between both countries.

    In this Schieffer Series, experts will analyze the global impacts of the AUKUS deal, with a particular focus on how it reshapes the strategic landscape of the Indo-Pacific as well as how U.S. allies in Europe and elsewhere are responding. Moderator, Bob Schieffer, will be joined by Tom Schieffer, former U.S. Ambassador to Australia, CSIS’s Michael J. Green, Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, and Heather A. Conley, Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic; and Director, Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program.

    About the CSIS-TCU Schieffer Series In honor of and previously hosted by CBS News legend and CSIS Trustee Bob Schieffer, the Schieffer Series features thoughtful panel discussions with senior officials, lawmakers, journalists, and policy experts to discuss global challenges and critical issues of national security and foreign policy.

    Now in its 13th consecutive year, the Schieffer Series is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in partnership with the Bob Schieffer College of Communication at Texas Christian University (TCU) in Fort Worth, Texas.

    This series is made possible with the generous support of the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF).

    For information or inquiries contact externalrelations@csis.org.
    ---------------------------------------------
    A nonpartisan institution, CSIS is the top national security think tank in the world. Visit www.csis.org to find more of our work as we bring bipartisan solutions to the world's greatest challenges.

    .

    ...
    Last edited by JRT; 27 Oct 21,, 00:38.
    .
    .
    .

    Comment


    • #3


      The Meaning of AUKUS for China, Europe, and the U.S.

      Theresa Fallon, Richard McGregor, Jason Kelly
      National Committee on U.S.-China Relations
      Discussion: 12 October 2021
      Published: 25 October 2021

      On September 15, U.S. President Joe Biden, Australia Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a new trilateral security partnership described by PM Morrison as “a next-generation partnership built on a strong foundation of proven trust.”

      What does the partnership, known as AUKUS, suggest for the three countries involved, for France and the rest of the European Union, and for China and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region?

      In an interview conducted on October 12, 2021, Theresa Fallon and Richard McGregor analyze the significance of AUKUS in conversation with Jason Kelly.

      About the speakers:
      https://www.ncuscr.org/event/aukus-china-europe-usa

      .

      ...
      .
      .
      .

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by IISS


        AUKUS and Future of Indo Pacific Security
        The International Institute for Strategic Studies
        26 October 2021

        The trilateral AUKUS pact bringing together Australia, UK and US represents a significant new strategic development for Asian and global security. But how will the deal now develop? How will nations around Asia and beyond respond? And what does AUKUS, alongside the Quad and other groupings, tell us about a new world of overlapping multi and mini-lateral security partnerships? Join four leading IISS experts, based respectively in Berlin, London, Singapore and Washington DC, to hear insights on these questions and more.

        For more information visit https://www.iiss.org/

        .

        ...
        .
        .
        .

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Woodrow_Wilson_Center


          China's Reaction to the AUKUS Alliance
          Woodrow Wilson Center
          29 September 2021

          In this edition of Wilson Center NOW, we are joined by the Kissinger Institute’s Robert Daly who discusses China’s reaction to the just-announced security pact between the United States, Britain and Australia, dubbed the "Aukus" alliance. Daly highlights the regional and geo-strategic implications for the United States, European allies, and Pacific nations.

          .

          ...
          .
          .
          .

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GMF


            After AUKUS: Which Perspectives for Transatlantic Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific?
            The German Marshall Fund of the United States
            20 October 2021

            The creation of a trilateral defense partnership between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia has triggered heated debates on transatlantic cooperation and alliances in the Indo-Pacific. AUKUS has also opened a new phase in the strategic competition with Beijing, with the reinforcement of minilateral and ad hoc formats of cooperation to counter China's influence. In view of these latest developments, transatlantic actors such as France, Canada, and the EU must adapt their strategies as they aim to play a role in the Indo-Pacific.

            With perspectives from both sides of the Atlantic, this webinar addresses the most pressing questions in this new context: How does AUKUS impact the French and Canadian, as well as European and transatlantic approaches on the competition with China in the Indo-Pacific? What are the implications for the future of transatlantic cooperation in the region, and how will transatlantic partners that are not part of AUKUS respond?

            This event is organized in partnership with the Canadian embassy in Paris.

            .

            ...
            .
            .
            .

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Rueters


              PM Morrison: Aukus Pact Much More Than About Nuclear Submarines
              16 November 2021

              Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Aukus, the new defense deal with the U.S., U.K. and Australia, is meant to deepen diplomatic security and defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region.

              "To state the obvious, Aukus is about much more than nuclear submarines," said Morrison as he spoke remotely at an Australian Strategic Policy Institute summit. "Aukus will see Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States promote deeper information sharing, foster greater integration of security and defense-related science, technology, industrial bases and supply chains, and strengthen our cooperation in advanced and critical technologies and capabilities."

              What is Aukus? It's a new security partnership that will see Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarine technology -- but not nuclear weapons -- from the U.S. and U.K. While it could take more than a decade for Australia to build its first sub, the agreement shows the U.S. seeking to form a more cohesive defense arrangement in Asia to offset China’s rapidly modernizing military. Australia has long tried to balance security ties with the U.S. and its close economic ties with China, insisting it didn’t need to pick sides. But Beijing’s barrage of punitive trade reprisals following Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s push for an investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic appears to have drastically changed the strategic calculus in Canberra.

              Why are the submarines important? Nuclear-powered vessels are vastly superior to their diesel-electric counterparts: They’re faster, can stay submerged almost indefinitely, and are bigger -- allowing them to carry more weapons, equipment and supplies. Given Australia’s remote location and the fact its subs may operate in waters stretching from the Indian Ocean up to Japan, these are big pluses. Until now, only six nations -- the U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia and India -- have had the technology to deploy and operate nuclear-powered subs. France was enraged by the Aukus deal, which came as a surprise, because Australia simultaneously canceled a $66 billion agreement it had had with Paris for conventional subs.

              .

              ...


              .
              .
              .

              Comment


              • #8
                Great. Just what we need. Another HQ.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Great. Just what we need. Another HQ.
                  Gotta have those joint billets to see stars (or more stars)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Hudson_Institute


                    AUKUS: A Model for Other US Allies and Partners?

                    Hudson Institute
                    23 November 2021

                    The Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) technology transfer agreement has the potential to accelerate cutting-edge military innovation, deepen ties between Washington and Canberra, and shift the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region. However, if specific elements of the pact are not properly handled, the deal could have unintended consequences that undermine its core goals.

                    How should the AUKUS partners proceed in this early stage? Should the agreement become a model for other U.S. allies and partners?

                    Join Hudson Institute and the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC) for a co-hosted conversation on this timely issue with Hudson Senior Fellows Bryan Clark and John Lee and NPEC Executive Director Henry Sokolski.

                    .

                    ...
                    .
                    .
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Oh HELL NO! We DO NOT need anymore HQs!. Corps and Fleet will do just fine!
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Oh HELL NO! We DO NOT need anymore HQs!. Corps and Fleet will do just fine!
                        Not sure about Canadian doctrine but Fleets & Corps do not provide C2 & Sustainment for a theater. That is what a Joint Forces Command/Theater Army does. Fleets & Corps fight the fight. JFC/TAs run the theater where the fight occurs and may in fact contain more than a single fleet and/or corps.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I stand corrected. Canada fits into the US way of doing things. We're not big enough in which case, we still don't need another HQ. Area will do just fine.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            I stand corrected. Canada fits into the US way of doing things. We're not big enough in which case, we still don't need another HQ. Area will do just fine.
                            Ahh...I understand where you come from Sir. Yeah, an individual Canadian general may end up a JFC Commander under a NATO mission but Canada won't provide the structure of the theater army. Individual units could plug in but really the US is the only remaining power which can stand up a theater from scratch.
                            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                            Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Do you remember in the late 90s when every NATO member was desperate to maintain their force structures because everyone was looking for the Cold War Dividend and cutting the defence budgets left, right, and centre? EVERYONE was trying to do things on the cheap. I remember CF talks about shifting tube artillery into the reserves and assigning regforce guns regiment the mortar role, stripping the infantry battalions of the mortar platoons. There was going be a single armoured regiment (LAV-105s) with 2 arm'd reccee regiments, ie we were getting rid of tanks. The Europeans raised EUROCORPS in which they were going to rely on each country to provide a specific arm so that the other countries don't have to spend money on. Something like Germany was going to provide tanks and Denmark was going to provide the reccee so both countries can cut back on what they don't need to provide.

                              The Americans, rightly so, stated that we've already got NATO. We need regiments, not another HQ.

                              Come 11 Sept, we found out that none of our glorious re-orgs worked and HQs do not replaced fleshed out regiments. I am only familiar with the Canadian Army obligations. Within 10 days, Canada needs to provide a battalion group. 30 days, a brigade group, 90 days a division. Only NATO (read American) brigades, divisions, and corps can accept such forces within those time periods.

                              Now, given those parameters, does anyone seriously think that non-US Generals and Admirals get to dictate Strategic and Operational Objectives? Then, why the hell de we need another HQ for? We'd know who's going to be in charge and it ain't the tooth fairy in Ottawa.
                              Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 30 Nov 21,, 08:25.
                              Chimo

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X