As the Pentagon continues to assess the AUKUS partnership, that could be a welcome development. The new trilateral security pact among Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, known as AUKUS, seeks to bolster military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific. That’s why Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government is taking this review so seriously. So far it has generated unprecedented anger from almost all sectors of the Australian state and municipal government.
As recently amended, AUKUS entails a controversial, expensive submarine acquisition that has set off alarm bells. Many are concerned about the growing influence this poses to Australia’s sovereignty. Those critics contend that the financial burden of this deal now leaves Australia with no backup options if the partnership does not work out. U.S. officials, such as Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, have long sought for allies to spend more on defense. This imperative has angered Australian defence planners.
Growing Concerns Over AUKUS
The most recent internal AUKUS review broke enough of this protocol to raise anger and alarm in the Australian government. With funding for defense expected to be equally constrained, the outlook is grim. Others worry that the costly obligations associated with AUKUS will take funds away from other important military priorities.
Australian Admiral David Johnston related the lost opportunity costs from defense spending. Moreover, he continued, “defence spending is a big opportunity cost for government on a range of other outcomes.” This feeling is compounded by worries that the AUKUS deal will pull billions of dollars away from domestic priorities, adding insult to injury.
Defense officials on the other side of the Atlantic are especially outraged by the American case for increased military spending by allies. They interpret this position as a signal that the UK intends to shift costs burden on to Australia. In contrast, Washington is preoccupied with defending its strategic imperatives. James Curran, a prominent commentator, has criticized this dynamic, asserting, “They just look at it in cold hard realpolitik terms that ‘you had it easy with all those golden years during the Cold War where we carried you.’”
Domestic Debate on AUKUS
The AUKUS pact has sparked a robust domestic discussion about its advantages and what it means for Australia’s future defense posture. Supporters argue that the initiative will be key to improving military readiness. Yet, to some, it is all seen as a dangerous pledge that undermines and even endangers our national sovereignty.
Anthony Albanese has been understandably hesitant to wade into direct diplomatic talks over the AUKUS deal while this war of words continues. His administration’s cautious approach reflects a desire to balance defense priorities with social justice objectives—a balancing act reminiscent of former Prime Minister John Curtin’s views on defense spending.
Curran compared Albanese’s current predicament to that of Curtin, stating, “Albanese is like John Curtin, who saw defence spending as a diversion from Labor’s social justice mission.” This view reminds us of the constant conflict between bones thrown to military priorities and real, necessary domestic policy priorities.
The Implications of Increased Spending
Australia is under increasing strategic pressure in its own Indo-Pacific backyard. As a result, there is a huge push for more per-person defense spending. Even AUKUS proponents acknowledged from the beginning that the growing costs of the trilateral deal would create severe political challenges. Their take is that if Australia fails to match U.S. spending levels, it will be a liability in future conflicts. Mike Pezzullo warned that “The more we’re under 3.5 per cent, which is what the Americans spend, the more we’re a liability in a fight.”
Even as the Pentagon finalizes its own review of AUKUS, it still isn’t clear how all this will contribute to Australia’s military readiness and strategic autonomy. With competing defense budgets on the line, there’s plenty to be concerned about when it comes to resources earmarked for AUKUS taking away from other critical military capabilities.
