AUKUS - "enhanced trilateral security partnership"

[JRT]

View attachment 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.

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/

.

...

 

[JRT]

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 [email protected].
---------------------------------------------
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.

.

...

 

[JRT]

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

.

...

 

[JRT]

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/

.

...

 

[JRT]

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.

.

...

 

[JRT]

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.

.

...

 

[JRT]

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.

.

...

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Great. Just what we need. Another HQ.

 

[Gun Grape]

Great. Just what we need. Another HQ.

Gotta have those joint billets to see stars (or more stars)

 

[JRT]

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.

.

...

 

[Officer of Engineers]

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

 

[Albany Rifles]

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.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

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.

 

[Albany Rifles]

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.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

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.

 

[Albany Rifles]

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.

Colonel....oh I remember them well!!! While you were tied up in the Balkans the rest of NATO was trying to shed force structure like crazy. At the time I was a staff member on the US delegation to a NATO subcommittee on interoperability for C2 systems so got to live in the belly of the beast for a little from 1996 to 2002. (It was a part time gig which came from my job.) In the US Army we had learned that lesson at the outset of the Korean War so did not repeat that mistake. We reduced force structure as well as headquarters...in other words, balanced. The US Navy retired an entire class of destroyers (the Spuances) well ahead of schedule to pay for the new Arleigh Burke destroyers. The only branch which was not cut was our Coast Guard. So we learned our lessons in blood and treasure in 1950. The mantra by the then Chief of Staff of the US Army, GEN Gordon Sullivan was "No more Task Force Smith's!" (Here is a primer if you are unaware of them.)

And, yeah, I do not expect a theater army staff to come from any other NATO nation than the US. The CG may be a Canadian, Pole or a Dane but the unit will be on the backbone of a US theater army. In Korea is about the only place where I see the another nation's military (ROK) provide the theater army which we plug into...but the overall commander will always be American as that brings all parts of our national power to bear.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Osan

 

[JRT]

AUKUS leaders report on progress after six months
06 April 2022

Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom have released a joint statement on their progress on cooperation under the AUKUS agreement, through which Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines.

"Implementation of the AUKUS partnership has now begun," the White House said in a joint media release. "It has two related lines of effort. Submarines: AUKUS will provide Australia with a conventionally armed, nuclear powered submarine capability at the earliest possible date, while upholding the highest non‑proliferation standards. Advanced capabilities: AUKUS will develop and provide joint advanced military capabilities to promote security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region."

The review of progress revealed that multiple Joint Steering Group meetings have been held for each of the two AUKUS lines of effort, including in-person sessions in Canberra, London, and Washington, D.C. Seventeen trilateral working groups have also been established (nine relating to conventionally-armed nuclear-powered submarines, and eight relating to other advanced military capabilities) and each has met multiple times.

On March 10, National Security Advisors from the three allies met virtually to review AUKUS progress and 'provide direction to the trilateral partnership going forward.'

Submarines

On the first line of effort, the joint media release said that the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement (ENNPIA) entered into force on February 8, meaning Australia now has access to US and UK naval nuclear propulsion information.

In February, combined teams from all three countries toured Australia 'to baseline its nuclear stewardship, infrastructure, workforce, and industrial capabilities and requirements' and reported their findings to the Joint Steering Group for review.

In addition, the Australian government is taking initial steps to secure land for the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Construction Yard, including land adjacent to the existing Osborne North Shipyard in South Australia.

Advanced capabilities

On the second line of effort, the joint media release outlined progress in a number of areas of cooperation, including undersea robotics, electronic warfare, and hypersonic weapons.

Through the AUKUS Undersea Robotics Autonomous Systems (AURAS) project, the AUKUS nations are currently collaborating on autonomous underwater vehicles with initial trials and experimentation planned for 2023.

Meanwhile, the AUKUS Quantum Arrangement (AQuA) has an initial focus on quantum technologies for positioning, navigation, and timing, and early work in Artificial intelligence and autonomy is focused on accelerating adoption and improving the resilience of, autonomous and AI-enabled systems in contested environments. Cyber efforts are focused on strengthening cyber capabilities, including protecting critical communications and operations systems.

On hypersonics, the release only said: "The AUKUS partners will work together to accelerate development of advanced hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities."

We are pleased with the progress in our trilateral program for Australia to establish a conventionally armed, nuclear‑powered submarine capability. We are fully committed to establishing a robust approach to sharing naval propulsion technology with Australia that strengthens the global non-proliferation regime.

"We also committed today to commence new trilateral cooperation on hypersonics and counter-hypersonics, and electronic warfare capabilities, as well as to expand information sharing and to deepen cooperation on defense innovation," the three leaders said in a press release published through PM Scott Morrison's office. "These initiatives will add to our existing efforts to deepen cooperation on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities.

"As our work progresses on these and other critical defense and security capabilities, we will seek opportunities to engage allies and close partners."

.

AUKUS Leaders’ Level Statement

05 April 2022
Statements and Releases

Today, the leaders of the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) partnership – Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia, Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom, and President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. of the United States – assessed progress under AUKUS.

We reaffirmed our commitment to AUKUS and to a free and open Indo-Pacific. In light of Russia’s unprovoked, unjustified, and unlawful invasion of Ukraine, we reiterated our unwavering commitment to an international system that respects human rights, the rule of law, and the peaceful resolution of disputes free from coercion.

We are pleased with the progress in our trilateral program for Australia to establish a conventionally armed, nuclear‑powered submarine capability. We are fully committed to establishing a robust approach to sharing naval propulsion technology with Australia that strengthens the global non-proliferation regime.

We also committed today to commence new trilateral cooperation on hypersonics and counter-hypersonics, and electronic warfare capabilities, as well as to expand information sharing and to deepen cooperation on defense innovation. These initiatives will add to our existing efforts to deepen cooperation on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities. As our work progresses on these and other critical defense and security capabilities, we will seek opportunities to engage allies and close partners.

.

...

 

[Bigfella]

We are having an election right now (voting on Saturday for those who haven't already) and it has emerged that the US insisted that both political parties should be on board with AUKUS before it went ahead. This is no big issue, as senior figures in opposition parties (leader and shadow defence minister for example) often get confidential briefings on important issues.

Unfortunately this government has no interest in following convention or even doing as its majot ally asks. They refused to tel lthe opposition about this deal until the day before it was signed. They assured the Americans the opposition would agree (which it was always going to do), and presumably the Americans & UK were keen to do the deal, but it is an example of the way fundamental issues that should be beyond politics have been politicized by this government.

Fucking disgrace. If the polls are even close to being right they will be gone by Sunday morning and adults will finally be in charge. AUKUS will be fine, and the incoming government won't play petty political games wiht our key alliance partner.

 

[JRT]

Australian Labor topples conservatives; PM faces early tests
by Rod McGuirk
Sunday, 22 May 2022 (2AM, AEST)

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia’s center-left opposition party toppled the conservative government after almost a decade in power, and Prime Minister-elect Anthony Albanese in his Saturday election victory speech promised sharper reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while he faces an early foreign policy test.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he quickly conceded defeat despite millions of votes yet to be counted because an Australian leader must attend a Tokyo summit on Tuesday with U.S. President Joe Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Albanese, who has described himself as the only candidate with a “non-Anglo Celtic name” to run for prime minister in the 121 years that the office has existed, referred to his own humble upbringing in the Sydney suburb of Camperdown.

“It says a lot about our great country that a son of a single mom who was a disability pensioner, who grew up in public housing down the road in Camperdown can stand before you tonight as Australia’s prime minister,” Albanese said.

“Every parent wants more for the next generation than they had. My mother dreamt of a better life for me. And I hope that my journey in life inspires Australians to reach for the stars,” he added.

Albanese will be sworn in as prime minister after his Labor party clinched its first electoral win since 2007.

Labor has promised more financial assistance and a robust social safety net as Australia grapples with the highest inflation since 2001 and soaring housing prices.

The party also plans to increase minimum wages, and on the foreign policy front, it proposed to establish a Pacific defense school to train neighboring armies in response to China’s potential military presence on the Solomon Islands on Australia’s doorstep.

It also wants to tackle climate change with a more ambitious 43% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050.

Morrison’s Liberal party-led coalition was seeking a fourth three-year term. It held the narrowest of majorities — 76 seats in the 151-member House of Representatives, where parties need a majority to form a government. In early counting on Saturday, the coalition was on track to win 51 seats, Labor 72, 10 were unaligned lawmakers and 18 were too close to call.

The major parties bled votes to fringe parties and independents, which increases the likelihood of a hung parliament and a minority government.

Australia most recent hung parliaments were from 2010-13, and during World War II.

The minor Australian Greens party appeared to have increased its representation from a single seat to three.

The Greens supported a Labor minority government in 2010, and will likely support a Labor administration again if the party falls short of a 76-seat majority.

As well as campaigning against Labor, Morrison’s conservative Liberals fought off a new challenge from so-called teal independent candidates to key government lawmakers’ reelection in party strongholds.

At least four Liberal lawmakers appeared to have lost their seats to teal independents including Liberal Party deputy leader Josh Frydenberg, who had been considered Morrison’s most likely successor.

“What we have achieved here is extraordinary,” teal candidate and former foreign correspondent Zoe Daniels said in her victory speech. “Safe Liberal seat. Two-term incumbent. Independent,” she added.

The teal independents are marketed as a greener shade than the Liberal Party’s traditional blue color and want stronger government action on reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions than either the government or Labor are proposing.

The government’s Senate leader Simon Birmingham was concerned by big swings toward several teal candidates.

“It is a clear problem that we are losing seats that are heartland seats, that have defined the Liberal Party for generations,” Birmingham said.

“If we lose those seats — it is not certain that we will — but there is clearly a big movement against us and there is clearly a big message in it,” Birmingham added.

Due to the pandemic, around half of Australia’s 17 million electors have voted early or applied for postal votes, which will likely slow the count.

Early polling for reasons of travel or work began two weeks ago and the Australian Electoral Commission will continue collecting postal votes for another two weeks.

.

...

 

[JRT]

At IAEA, India Supports AUKUS

India backed AUKUS in the face of Russian and Chinese opposition at the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) held last week in Vienna, Austria.

Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan
By Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan
October 03, 2022
The Diplomat

AUKUS, and specifically the plan to transfer nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, was under intense debate at the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) held in Vienna from September 26-30. Russia and China tried hard but unsuccessfully to get the IAEA to oppose the planned transfer. At the IAEA General Conference held last week, Russia said that AUKUS posed unprecedented challenges to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) regime with two nuclear weapons states supplying a non-nuclear weapons state with 2 tons of highly enriched uranium.

The IAEA, in its earlier report, stated that it was “satisfied with the engagement shown so far by the United States, Britain and Australia on their AUKUS alliance’s plan to supply Australia with nuclear submarines.” IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said that AUKUS, in terms of inspections of the nuclear submarines, is “very tricky” but it “can be managed.”

Under the AUKUS agreement, Australia is set to receive eight conventionally armed but nuclear-powered submarines. The capability build-up by the three parties – Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. – is primarily aimed at the increasingly aggressive and muscular behavior of China in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. For AUKUS to take effect and for the U.K. and the U.S. to transfer nuclear-powered submarines, Australia “has voluntarily committed to not domestically enrich or reprocess nuclear material in support of the nuclear-powered submarine program.” Further, the U.K. ambassador to the IAEA, who made a statement on behalf of the three partners, noted that “Our goal is to enable verification of the non-diversion of nuclear material in our nuclear propulsion-related cooperation under AUKUS by proceeding under the framework of Australia’s Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol with the IAEA.”

India stood with its new security partners even as China vehemently campaigned against the proposed transfer. China even pushed for a resolution at the IAEA against AUKUS for providing Australia with nuclear submarines. China made a case that AUKUS was in violation of responsibilities (by the partner countries) under the NPT. The resolution was also critical of the IAEA’s role.

In a position paper to the IAEA, China claimed that “The AUKUS partnership involves the illegal transfer of nuclear weapon materials, making it essentially an act of nuclear proliferation.” The AUKUS partners and the IAEA noted that the NPT permits nuclear propulsion technology provided the member states make the necessary arrangements with the IAEA such as the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol with the IAEA. China disagrees with that view though. The U.S. in its non-paper on nuclear propulsion cooperation under AUKUS stated that “Like the NPT, the IAEA’s model agreement for NPT safeguards and verification, the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA-INFCIRC/153), permits naval nuclear propulsion activities. INFCIRC/153 is the basis for most countries’ CSAs, including Australia’s, and in conjunction with the application of an Additional Protocol, is the IAEA’s current highest safeguards and verification standard. Australia’s naval nuclear propulsion activities will occur within the framework of Australia’s CSA and Additional Protocol. These agreements provide the firm legal basis on which the IAEA, through the Director General and the Secretariat, is engaging with Australia and AUKUS partners.”

Recently, a spokesperson at the Chinese embassy in Canberra criticized the IAEA’s report on its safeguards relating to AUKUS by saying that the “Director-General’s report is an act of ultra vires. It is neither neutral nor objective, still less professional.” The spokesperson called the report lopsided and that it “made no mention of the international community’s major concerns over the risk of nuclear proliferation that may arise from the AUKUS nuclear submarine cooperation” and that it “turns a blind eye to many countries’ solemn position that the AUKUS cooperation violates the purposes and objectives of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and draws misleading and ultra vires conclusions that are completely inconsistent with the reality.”

The spokesperson went on to add that the IAEA “must not overstep its authority and carry out activities that are not mandated by Member States and particularly its decision-making body, such as the Board of Governors. AUKUS nuclear submarine cooperation goes beyond the existing international nuclear non-proliferation regime and the scope of responsibilities of the IAEA Secretariat.” The spokesperson said the AUKUS deal amounted to the illegal transfer of nuclear weapons materials and that “it sets a bad precedent” to the rest of the international community. The spokesperson added that AUKUS is a threat to regional peace and stability, by invoking the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty and ASEAN efforts to establish the Southeast Asian-Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. To this point, the U.S. non-paper on nuclear propulsion cooperation clarified that “Australia’s prospective acquisition and operation of naval nuclear propulsion would also be consistent with Australia’s obligations under the Treaty of Rarotonga, which establishes the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.”

More than two weeks ago, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson made similar assertions and called on the IAEA “to adopt an objective, neutral and professional position on the issue, fulfill its duty in strict accordance with its mandate, and provide a platform for discussing and addressing member states’ concerns over nuclear proliferation regarding the AUKUS nuclear submarine cooperation. We also call on all IAEA member states to continue to have substantive discussions on AUKUS nuclear submarine cooperation through the inter-governmental process, take concrete actions to uphold the international non-proliferation system with the NPT as its cornerstone, and safeguard international peace and security.”

Clearly, China has been rattled by the support the AUKUS countries have managed to get on this issue at the IAEA. The steadfast support for AUKUS came not merely from their traditional Western allies but even the new security partners of the global South such as India. India reportedly worked with many IAEA member states to ensure that China’s resolution “did not get majority support.” On the Chinese resolution, the U.S. non-paper stated that “We would be deeply disappointed by a standalone resolution on AUKUS. Such a resolution would be highly inappropriate and clearly undermine efforts to depoliticise this issue in the IAEA.”

According to Indian media reports, “India took an objective view of the initiative, recognising the soundness of the technical evaluation by IAEA.” Reportedly, the Indian Mission to the IAEA worked with many IAEA member states to recognize the merits of the AUKUS. Another Indian media report cited sources saying that “India’s considered role helped many smaller countries take a clear stand on the Chinese proposal.” Seeing that China was not able to get majority support, it withdrew the resolution on the last day of the conference.

India’s proactive engagement at the IAEA on the AUKUS issue is important for a couple of reasons. One, it recognizes the merit of the proposal and the importance of having a more capable Australian Navy. Second, despite the fact that India has not been able to wean itself away from its Russian partnership entirely, such proactive Indian engagement is a testament to the fact that New Delhi’s strategic partnerships with its new security partners are important in its overall strategic calculus. India’s position on the AUKUS at the IAEA is also in recognition and appreciation of the support extended to India by Australia, U.K. and the United States on India’s Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) membership as well as on counter-terrorism issues.

...

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Oh, for heaven sakes, lease the damned engines to the Australians for the life of the subs. It's what the Soviets did with the Indians.

 

[Bigfella]

So, the decision has finally been made on our new submarines....and it is an odd one. We are supposedly getting up to 5 Virginia class subs starting in the early 2030s (3 confirmed, two more possible). At about that time we will apparently start building submarines as a joint venture with the British based on one of their designs. Work will be split between the UK & Australia.

This seems like a bit of a dog's breakfast. Buying the Virginias is clearly designed to fill the capability gap as our already ageing Collins fleet finally disintegrate in the early 2030s. I am assuming that the decision to go British is because they will let us build here and perhaps fully access technology, while the US won't let us build here & may be more reluctant on tech transfers. Building here has a political dimension, as it provides jobs in a state that needs them. I have been told that it also makes it easier & cheaper to deal with the continual & expensive maintenance requirements of subs....which won't help us with the Virginias.

Anyway, given the history of our submarine deals this might all change in the next decade.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...ass-submarines-part-aukus-sources-2023-03-08/

 

[Dazed]

So, the decision has finally been made on our new submarines....and it is an odd one. We are supposedly getting up to 5 Virginia class subs starting in the early 2030s (3 confirmed, two more possible). At about that time we will apparently start building submarines as a joint venture with the British based on one of their designs. Work will be split between the UK & Australia.

[/URL]

The quickest an Astute has ever been laid down and commissioned was nine years. It is now around 11 years. A Virgina is about of a year and there are 22 of them out there. I think in terms of manning and facilities the Astute is the RAN best bet, but they are rare and production is measured in units of 1 and a decade long.

 

[Bigfella]

The quickest an Astute has ever been laid down and commissioned was nine years. It is now around 11 years. A Virgina is about of a year and there are 22 of them out there. I think in terms of manning and facilities the Astute is the RAN best bet, but they are rare and production is measured in units of 1 and a decade long.

That is a bit depressing. I can't imagine a UK/AUS combined version is going to speed that up very much. Sigh!

 

[rj1]

The Pentagon are conducting a review considering taking away the Australian submarines because they need those submarines for the U.S. considering the current bad state of American shipbuilding. So what next?

 

[Bigfella]

If they do that they need to refund the $AU800 million we have already given the US to help expand its submarine manufacturing capabilities..

 

[rj1]

If they do that they need to refund the $AU800 million we have already given the US to help expand its submarine manufacturing capabilities..

Good luck with that.

I think Australia's concern is more time than money isn't it? I imagine the Pentagon's recommendation is going to be extending out the delivery date (which I think was an Australian critique of the French sub contracts).

 

[Bigfella]

Good luck with that.

I think Australia's concern is more time than money isn't it? I imagine the Pentagon's recommendation is going to be extending out the delivery date (which I think was an Australian critique of the French sub contracts).

Its both. We can't afford to throw away money on that scale, and time is an issue.

The French contract was the sort of omnishambles that often characterizes defence procurement. Time certainly was an issue, but as part of a wider concern about the viability of the project. My understanding is that something like 6 years into the contract the French hadn't even finished designing the submarine and there was a distinct lack of urgency on the French end. This was fundamentally our own fault: 1) we hired the French to build something; 2) we hired them to build something that didn't already exist & needed to be significantly adapted fro mexisting designs. We did the same stupid thing wiht the Collins class and it took decades to unfuck.

AUKUS has been controversial here from the outset for a variety of reasons, some good, some not so good. The keystone of the deal was the US alliance, which is looking shakier now than at any time since the early 70s. If the US fucks us on this it is going to do serious damage to public support for the alliance.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

BF, can you tell me why the Australians want SSNs vs AIP SSs? SSNs were originally meant to hunt SSBNs so that they don't have to break contact just to refresh their air intake to refresh their batteries. Russian SSBNs are too far away and Chinese SSBNs are damned noisy that contact isn't the problem.

I just find the SSBN threat lacking and could not find justification for SSNs vs AIP SSs.

 

[Monash]

BF, can you tell me why the Australians want SSNs vs AIP SSs? SSNs were originally meant to hunt SSBNs so that they don't have to break contact just to refresh their air intake to refresh their batteries. Russian SSBNs are too far away and Chinese SSBNs are damned noisy that contact isn't the problem.

I just find the SSBN threat lacking and could not find justification for SSNs vs AIP SSs.

It's a range issue. If you look at a map of the south west Pacific Australian subs have to travel long distances just to move from the Pacific to Indian ocean theatres. Travelling north to intercept potential threats before they're within carrier strike range is equally problematic for conventional subs when fighting a peer or near peer foe with lots of advanced sensors.

Australia's entire defence policy now involves interceding threats as far away as possible from our coast because if a foe does manage to reach the coast and establish a beach head we don't have the land forces needed to dislodge them without help.

Finally while hunting SSBNs was their original purpose thanks to the inclusion of VLS systems and newer, more lethal land attack missiles SSNs are also capable of sneaking close enough to an enemies shore to launch surprise attacks of their own. So they can also send a 'don't poke the (koala) bear' message to any potential hostile power.