The AUKUS alliance is back in the spotlight. This trilateral security pact among Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. has triggered a long-overdue review in the U.S. administration. AUKUS came into being during the auspices of Scott Morrison, Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson. Its aim is to promote deeper security ties amid a world that’s growing more chaotic by the day. At the core of this partnership is Australia’s purchase of eight conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines. The first three would be built strictly in the U.S. as the allies collaborate to produce a completely new SSN AUKUS fleet.
Our partnership has enjoyed robust and rare bipartisan support in Congress. Most notably, this signals an unequivocal commitment to deepening integrated defense capabilities between the three countries. Additionally, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has found a powerful ally in James Hegseth, who recently met face-to-face with Australia’s Defense Minister Richard Marles to discuss the implications of the deal and defense burden-sharing in the Indo-Pacific region.
Earlier this month, alarm bells were raised over Australia’s defense expenditures. At the same time, questions hang over whether U.S. shipyards could quickly build enough submarines to meet the increased demand that the deal will create. Despite being so recently enacted, critics in Australia are using this opportunity to attack the AUKUS’s viability. They’re demanding a full re-evaluation of the deal.
AUKUS Pact and Its Strategic Implications
The AUKUS trilateral defense agreement is an unprecedented shift in Australia’s defense policy. It allows Australia to increase its naval capabilities even further given the rapidly rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific. Under the terms of the pact, Australia is to acquire at least eight nuclear-powered, but conventionally-armed, advanced submarines. Submarines will continue to be critical in their contribution to regional security. We plan to acquire the first three submarines from the United States. After these initial vessels, we can work together on building the balance of the new SSN AUKUS fleet.
While this deal is initially focused on the purchase of submarines, it represents a more profound institutionalized pledge among the three countries. Congress should have the same strong bipartisan support for AUKUS delivered to American workers. This shows a consensus understanding of its need to counteract the US much needed balance of power against increasing threats, most notably from China.
Richard Marles expressed confidence in the agreement’s trajectory, stating, > “We walk forward with a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.”
Despite this optimism, some experts caution that Australia should enhance its defense spending significantly to effectively address the threats posed by its regional adversaries. Even AUKUS skeptic Elbridge Colby has noted that, as it stands, Australia’s defense spending lags dramatically below NATO’s 2 percent guideline. He emphatically recommended that Australia aim for at least 3.5 percent of its GDP as soon as possible.
Review Launches Uncertainty
Last week, the U.S. administration confirmed that it had agreed to a U.K.-led review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal. This drastic departure has left supporters and foes perenially curious. As UK Financial Times just reported, we have launched a new dramatic and comprehensive review. It comes at a time when worries are increasing about U.S. shipyard capacity and Australia’s overall defense spending.
Concerns over whether U.S. shipyards can produce sufficient submarines to replace those being sold to Australia have added an air of uncertainty surrounding AUKUS. Critics, ranging from former Australian Prime Ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, are starting to make some noise. Instead, they argue that it is time to call off the deal once and for all.
In the wake of these criticisms, Australian officials have tried to project an air of cool confidence. They claim that it is “absolutely appropriate” for a new administration to review something as large and complex an agreement. Anthony Albanese underscored Australia’s sovereignty in defense matters, stating, “Australia should decide what we spend on Australia’s defence.”
Bipartisan Support Amidst Criticism
Though there have been valid criticisms and debate around the deal, bipartisan support is still running strong in Congress for AUKUS. This backing reflects a shared understanding of the strategic importance of strengthening defense ties with allies in response to evolving global threats. The US-Australia alliance benefits from profound institutional buy-in between Washington, London and Canberra, further entrenching its elemental importance.
Despite this welcome announcement, skepticism remains from some quarters about Australia’s defense spending levels and its preparedness if a conflict were to arise in the Indo-Pacific. Colby noted that Australia’s spending is not nearly enough to meet the rising menace from China. Australia needed to go beyond NATO advice because of the nature of its own strategic situation, he wrote.
Hegseth recently reiterated calls for allies in the Indo-Pacific region to increase their defense burden-sharing, emphasizing that “the G7 must meet this moment with purpose and with force.” This sentiment is a reflection of deeper insecurities that allies must do more and spend more to share the burden of collective security.
Conversations about AUKUS continue apace, demonstrating each partner’s deep commitment to the agreement. They need to meet the challenges of funding and military readiness to make the pact sustainable.
