Importance Score: 82 / 100 🟢
Aukus Submarine Deal: Australia Urged to Persevere Despite US Reliability Concerns
Canberra – A former Australian ambassador, Dennis Richardson, has asserted that while the United States may present as a “less dependable and more demanding ally” under a potential second Trump administration, Australia should remain committed to the Aukus submarine agreement. Despite acknowledged risks and increasing political and military apprehension surrounding the Aukus security pact, Richardson emphasized the importance of continuity for Australia’s defense capabilities.
Richardson’s Stance on Aukus
Speaking at the Security and Sovereignty conference in Canberra, organized by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Richardson stated, “The most detrimental action we could take now would be to alter our course.” His remarks come amidst his leadership of a comprehensive review of the Australian Submarine Agency, prompted by emerging anxieties regarding the management of the Aukus submarine program.
Risks of Abandoning the Agreement
Richardson, a former secretary of both the defence and foreign affairs departments, a past ASIO chief, and a former ambassador to the US, argued that abandoning the substantial $368 billion Aukus agreement would signify a failure to learn from past experiences. He indicated that reversing course on the controversial deal would be a significant setback for Australian defense strategy.
Under the first pillar of the Aukus pact, the United States is slated to provide Australia with three to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, with the initial delivery anticipated in 2032. These submarines are intended to supersede Australia’s aging Collins-class diesel-electric submarines before Australia constructs its own Aukus nuclear submarines.
US Submarine Capacity and Commitments
However, the Aukus agreement stipulates that the sale of US submarines to Australia “must not degrade” American undersea capabilities. Reports indicate that the US submarine fleet is below its target size, and the nation’s production rate is insufficient to meet its own demands. The Congressional Research Service has raised concerns about the US potentially lacking the capacity to both meet its defense needs and supply submarines to Australia.
Australian Commitment and Capacity in Question
Richardson acknowledged inherent risks in a program as extensive as Aukus. Yet, he contended that after four years invested in the deal, reversing the decision and withdrawing Australia from the tripartite agreement would not only delay progress but also compromise its defense posture. He reiterated that shifting direction now would demonstrate a lack of learning from past inconsistencies in defense policy.
“If we do that, we’ve learned nothing over the last 20 years, we’ve constantly switched and changed over the last 20 years,” he asserted.
Nuclear Submarines: A National Security Imperative
Richardson underscored that acquiring nuclear submarines is vital for Australia’s national security interests. He emphasized that nuclear-powered submarines represent the optimal military asset in increasingly challenging global security environments, offering superior capability compared to conventional alternatives. He stressed the necessity of advanced military technology for Australia.
Divergent Views on Aukus Viability
While recognizing the increasing unpredictability of the US as an ally, Richardson identified Australia’s capacity and dedication as the primary risks to Aukus, rather than potential American inconsistency. He cautioned that risks associated with Australian “political will,” budgetary constraints, and the availability of skilled shipbuilding and maintenance personnel pose significant challenges.
Richardson conveyed to the forum that Australia’s relationship with the US is becoming more complex to manage, particularly given the perceived erratic nature of the current US administration and its perceived readiness to criticize and abandon allies.
“The biggest risk is not the Americans walking away from Aukus, the biggest risk is the relationship with the United States more broadly becoming unstuck,” Richardson warned.
Alternative Submarine Proposal
Retired Rear Admiral Peter Briggs, former president of the Submarine Institute of Australia, participating in a panel alongside Richardson, presented a contrasting perspective. Briggs argued that the Aukus deal is fundamentally flawed and should be terminated immediately. He proposed a “plan B” involving the acquisition of French-built Suffren-class nuclear-powered submarines.
Briggs suggested that the Suffren-class submarines, potentially built in Australia, are better suited to Australian needs and that the Royal Australian Navy possesses the capacity to effectively crew them. He promoted the Suffren-class as the only readily available and superior option, offering Australia sovereign control over its submarine program.
Turnbull’s Perspective on US Relations
Opening the forum, Malcolm Turnbull asserted that Australia’s relationship with the US has been fundamentally altered by the current US administration. He cautioned against allowing historical ties to obscure the reality of differing political values, suggesting a divergence between current US political values and those traditionally shared between the two nations.
Turnbull noted that some within defense and diplomatic circles believe that the US administration’s chaotic approach is transient. However, Turnbull expressed doubt regarding the enduring nature of the “America First” approach, suggesting it may persist beyond the current political term.
During a sometimes heated exchange, Turnbull and Richardson debated the merits of Aukus. Turnbull, who initiated a $50 billion deal with French submarine manufacturer Naval in 2016 for diesel-electric submarines (later cancelled by his successor in favor of Aukus), faced criticism from Richardson for his skepticism towards the current agreement.
Richardson countered Turnbull’s reservations, emphasizing the critical importance of the Virginia-class submarine acquisition for Australia’s defense. He warned against undermining the deal through persistent doubt, advocating for a strong national commitment to ensure its success as a national endeavor, rather than merely a defense project.