Australia’s top politicians are cheering this morning because a bill related to AUKUS has passed a major legislative hurdle in the United States. So how significant is this development for the so-far opaque deal?
What happened in Washington?
The US Congress passed a package of legislation that includes bills related to AUKUS, authorising the sale of at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia. The bills also help relax export controls, which would allow Australia to access sensitive technology.
The legislation will now be sent to President Joe Biden for his signature.
In the words of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who spoke to radio station 2GB: “That means that AUKUS can go ahead, means that Australia will have access to those Virginia-class submarines, which are nuclear-propelled and that will be so important for Australia’s national security.”
How significant is this?
It’s definitely a major milestone for the AUKUS project, and should somewhat alleviate fears that the submarine deal would stall in Congress.
“The passage through the Senate last night of the relevant legislation is a very significant step forward in the right direction,” Defence Minister Richard Marles said on Thursday afternoon.
“We are very confident that the legislation will ultimately pass the US Congress, which will enable AUKUS to continue to move forward and create the seamless defence industrial base that we are seeking to do across the US, the UK and Australia.”
Does this mean AUKUS is a done deal?
No, because the language of the legislation allows for some wiggle room for the US.
A conference report by the Senate and the House Armed Services Committee accompanying the bill says the president of the day will have to certify that the transfer of the submarines “will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities” and is “consistent with US foreign policy and national security interests”.
Crucially, the US would also have to make “sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments” to meet its own needs in order to make the sale to Australia.
Strategic Analysis Australia research director Marcus Hellyer told The Australian the legislation would authorise, rather than compel, a future US president to make the transfer.
“It’s possible a future president may consider a transfer is not in the US’s interest. The president also has to certify the transfer will not degrade the US’s undersea capabilities. That could be difficult,” he said.
Money that could better be spent on mitigating climate change, building public housing, and improving our healthcare system down the drain because our top heavy military brass have nothing better to do than demand new toys to justify their existence. We can expect only one of the three submarines to be at sea at a time — not much of a significant deterrent. Meanwhile, satellite sensors can only get better at detecting submerged submarines. The US military-industrial complex is laughing all the way to the bank while the navy struggles to recruit submariners.
Still, after years or electoral cycles of brainstorms from various PMs making captain’s picks on submarines, now stuck with the LNP PR booby trap for ALP in AUKUS subs, dependent on the US for authorisation which suggests, we do not have a clear defence security strategy matching up with procurement and supply?
What are the chances a freshly anointed President Trump would declare it “… a horrible deal, a disgusting deal that I would have never made ” pipping even the Obama/Turnbull refugee resettlement. But, unlike Obama’s, he may not honour this one. For Australia it would be the only silver lining in the Trump cloud.
It almost makes me want to see Trump win. I said almost.
Ridiculous really, that we’ll be financially propping up the US Submarine industry without a guarantee we will get any subs in return. Dump this deal and go for the Sterlings, which will arrive sooner and are less likely to be detected.
They’re not dumpling this deal; it’s integral to the white supremacist fantasy circle jerk spurting all over the US military industrial complex we have to have.
Same as we have to have tax cuts for the wealthy.
Same as we can’t afford to invest in the actual future, via society and the environment.
It’s the onaninistic festival of projection and denial we have to have. There Is No Alternative; it’s Thatcher and Reagan all over again, as if that didn’t destroy enough of the future.
I think this is called the QANTAS effect. Large subsidies from the public and no guarantees that services are not delayed or cancelled.
>and should somewhat alleviate fears that the submarine deal would stall
I think you have that back to front
Nuclear subs are huge blobs of metal and are noisy from all the pumps needed to keep the reactor cool and additionally leave a plume of hot cooling water behind. These attributes all make them very detectable.
The Swedish Gotland diesel/electric are cheaper and less detectable and can stay under water for up to two weeks.
Embarrassingly, in war games a few years ago, one of these subs sank the US Aircraft Carrier Ronald Reagan and was able to retreat without being detected.
We would do better talking to the Swedes.
In any case the age of the huge capital ship ended years ago.
We should have been considering the Swedish subs years ago. They are the least detectable and can provide a genuine defensive capability.
Defensive capability? Who said anything about defence? China Sea, Taiwan and all that, doncha know?