Australia confident AUKUS security pact will proceed despite US review
Australia's Defence Minister Richard Marles said he is 'very confident' that the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom will continue to move forward despite news that the Pentagon is reviewing the 2021 deal between the three nations.
News of the review was first reported on Thursday as US defence officials said re-assessing the pact was necessary to ensure that the military deal, agreed to with much fanfare under former US President Joe Biden, was in line with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' agenda.
The pact includes a deal worth hundreds of billions of dollars to provide Australia with closely-guarded nuclear propulsion technology. Only five other countries besides the US can build nuclear submarines: the UK, China, Russia, France and India.
'The meetings that we've had with the United States have been very positive in respect of AUKUS,' Defence Minister Marles told the ABC network.
A review of the deal is 'something that it's perfectly natural for an incoming administration to do … It's exactly what we did', Marles said.
'There is a plan here. We are sticking to it, and we're going to deliver it,' he said.
Under the terms of the AUKUS deal, Australia and the UK will work with the US to design nuclear-class submarines ready for delivery to Australia in the 2040s, according to the US Naval Institute.
The three countries are already close military allies and share intelligence, but AUKUS focuses on key strategic areas, such as countering the rise of China and its expansion into the Pacific.
Due to the long lead time in building the submarines under the AUKUS deal, Australia also agreed to buy up to three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines during the 2030s. The US and UK also plan to start the rotational deployment of their submarines out of Australia in 2027.
But some Trump administration officials, such as Pentagon policy adviser Elbridge Colby, say the submarine deal puts foreign governments ahead of US national security.
'My concern is why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?' Colby said last year.
Other officials, including US Representative Joe Courtney from Connecticut – a US state which has an industry focused on building submarines for the US Navy – say the deal is in the 'best interest of all three AUKUS nations, as well as the Indo-Pacific region as a whole'.
'To abandon AUKUS – which is already well under way – would cause lasting harm to our nation's standing with close allies and certainly be met with great rejoicing in Beijing,' Courtney said.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is expected to discuss the deal when he meets Trump next week during a meeting of the G7 leaders in Canada.
Earlier this year, Australia made a $500m payment towards AUKUS and plans to spend $2bn this year to speed up the production process in the US of the Virginia-class submarines.
The UK, like Australia, has downplayed concerns that the Trump administration could renege on the pact.
A UK official told the Reuters news agency that the deal is 'one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades' that will also produce 'jobs and economic growth in communities across all three nations'.
'It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the UK did last year,' the official said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
In nixing EV standards, Trump strikes at two foes: California and Elon Musk
United States President Donald Trump has signed a series of congressional resolutions to roll back standards in California that would have phased out petrol-powered cars and promoted the use of electric vehicles (EVs). But Thursday's signing ceremony gave Trump a platform to strike blows against several of his political foes, including the Democratic leadership of California and ally-turned-critic Elon Musk. Musk famously leads the electric vehicle company Tesla. California, meanwhile, has long been a Democratic stronghold, and since taking office for a second term in January, Trump has continuously sparred with its governor, Gavin Newsom. Thursday's resolutions gave Trump a chance to skewer one of Newsom's signature environmental achievements: a state mandate that would have gradually required new cars in California to produce zero greenhouse gas emissions. That goal was meant to unfold in stages. By 2026, 35 percent of all new cars sold would be emission-free vehicles. By 2030, that number would rise to 68 percent. And by 2035, California would reach 100 percent. But Trump argued that California's standards would hamper the US car industry and limit consumer choice. Already, 17 other states have adopted some form of California's regulations. 'Under the previous administration, the federal government gave left-wing radicals in California dictatorial powers to control the future of the entire car industry all over the country — all over the world, actually,' Trump said on Thursday. ' This horrible scheme would effectively abolish the internal combustion engine, which most people prefer.' But critics point out that many carmakers did not necessarily oppose California's mandate: Rather, automobile companies like General Motors had already put in place plans to transition to electric-vehicle manufacturing, to keep up with global trends. Already, California and 11 other states have announced they will sue to keep the electric vehicle mandate in place. Here are three takeaways from Thursday's signing ceremony. The decision to roll back California's electric-vehicle standards was only the latest chapter in Trump's long-running beef with the state. Just last week, protests broke out in the Los Angeles area against Trump's push for mass deportation, as immigration raids struck local hardware stores and other workplaces. Trump responded by deploying nearly 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to southern California, in the name of tamping down protest-related violence. Though Thursday's ceremony was ostensibly about the electric-vehicle mandate, Trump took jabs at the state's management of the protests, blaming Governor Newsom for allowing the situation to spiral out of control. 'If we didn't go, Los Angeles right now would be on fire. It would be a disaster. And we stopped it,' Trump said, accusing Newsom of having 'a faulty thought process' and trying to protect criminals. Trump also drew a parallel to the wildfires that ravaged the Los Angeles area in January, whose flames were whipped and spread by dangerous wind conditions that kept aerial support out of the skies. 'Los Angeles would be right now burning to the ground just like the houses burned to the ground,' Trump said, referencing the wildfires. 'It's so sad, what's going on in Los Angeles.' California's electric-vehicle mandate, he argued, would have likewise spurred another emergency. 'Today, we're saving California, and we're saving our entire country from a disaster. Your cars are gonna be thousands of dollars less,' Trump said. 'Energy prices would likewise soar as the radical left forced more electric vehicles onto the grid while blocking approvals for new power plants,' he continued. ' The result would be rolling blackouts and a collapse of our power systems.' Earlier this week, Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta dismissed Trump's concerns as little more than an attack on state rights. 'Trump's all-out assault on California continues — and this time he's destroying our clean air and America's global competitiveness in the process,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.' Newsom has also denounced the deployment of troops to Los Angeles as an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism' and has sued to limit that action as well. As Trump continued to outline his reasoning for peeling back the EV mandates, his speech briefly veered into another area of conflict: his recently rocky relationship with Musk. A billionaire, Musk leads several high-profile companies with government contracts, including the rocket manufacturer SpaceX and the satellite communication firm Starlink. And then, of course, there is Musk's car company Tesla, which produces electric vehicles. Musk was one of the largest donors in the 2024 elections, spending north of $280m to back Trump and other Republicans. Trump, for his part, featured Musk on the campaign trail and named him the leader of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) shortly after his election. In January, Musk joined the Trump administration as a 'special government employee', an advisory role with a time limit of about 130 days per year. As he reached the end of that term, Musk became increasingly outspoken about Trump's signature budget legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill. While the bill would have cemented Trump's 2017 tax cuts and funnelled more money into immigration enforcement, it would have also increased the national debt by trillions of dollars. Musk also objected to the 'pork' — the extra spending and legislative provisions — that were packed into the lengthy, thousand-page bill. The billionaire took to social media to call the bill a 'disgusting abomination', as the two men entered into an increasingly heated exchange of words. Trump called Musk 'crazy', and Musk suggested Trump should be impeached. The billionaire has since said he 'regrets' some of his remarks. On Thursday, Trump repeated his assertion that Musk's outburst was the result of his policies towards electric vehicles, something Musk has denied. Early in his second term, Trump pulled the plug on a goal set under former President Biden to have 50 percent of all new vehicles sold be electric by 2030. 'On my first day in office, I ended the green new scam and abolished the EV mandate at the federal level,' Trump said on Thursday. 'Now, I know why Elon doesn't like me so much. Which he does, actually. He does.' He continued to muse on their unravelling relationship, saying that Musk 'never had a problem' with his electric vehicle policies. 'I used to say, 'I'm amazed that he's endorsing me,' because that can't be good for him,' Trump said. 'He makes electric cars, and we're saying, 'You're not going to be able to make electric cars, or you're not gonna be forced to make all of those cars. You can make them, but it'll be by the market, judged by the market.'' Trump added that he feels Musk 'got a bit strange' but that he still likes the car company Tesla — and 'others too'. Amid the talk about his feuds with Musk and California, Trump also dropped a possible bombshell: More automobile tariffs may be on the way. Already, Trump has relied heavily on tariffs — taxes on imported products — to settle scores with foreign trading partners and push for greater foreign investment in domestic industries, including car manufacturing. 'If they want a Mercedes-Benz, you're going to have it made here. It's OK to have a Mercedes, but they're going to make it here,' he said on Thursday. 'Otherwise, they're going to pay a very big tariff. They already are.' Currently, automobiles imported to the US from abroad are subject to a 25-percent tax, a cost that critics say is passed along to the consumer. But Trump warned on Thursday that he is prepared to go higher, as he has done with taxes on steel and aluminium. ' To further defend our auto workers, I imposed a 25-percent tariff on all foreign automobiles. Investment in American auto manufacturing is surging because of it,' Trump said. 'Auto manufacturing — all manufacturing — is surging. I might go up with that tariff in the not-too-distant future. The higher you go, the more likely it is they build a plant here.' Trump pointed to his negotiations over steel imports as a success story. 'American Steel is doing great now because of what we did. If I didn't put tariffs on steel, China and a lot of other countries were dumping steel in our country,' he said. 'Garbage steel, dirty steel, bad steel, not structurally sound steel. Real garbage.' But by raising tariffs from 25 to 50 percent earlier this month, Trump said he protected the US steel industry. He also shared details about a deal that would see the Japanese company Nippon invest in the company US Steel. 'We have a golden stock. We have a golden share, which I control — or the president — controls. Now, I'm a little concerned whoever the president might be, but that gives you total control,' Trump said. 'It's 51-percent ownership by Americans.' US industry leaders had been concerned that the deal with Nippon would see further erosion of the US manufacturing industry, which suffered from decades of foreign competition. The deal with Nippon has been previously described as a takeover, prompting concerns about the future and independence of the US steel industry.
Al Jazeera
13 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why Ukraine peace talks are failing
This month's peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul have once again failed to bring the war any closer to a ceasefire. The only outcome – a limited agreement on prisoner exchanges – underscores a troubling truth: the current negotiation framework is not working. Meanwhile, military escalation on both sides shows no signs of slowing. In such an atmosphere, diplomacy becomes increasingly difficult. A ceasefire feels out of reach, and uneasy comparisons with the Korean Peninsula's frozen armistice are beginning to surface – a scenario that would only entrench division, fuel resentment, and leave key territorial issues unresolved. That is why we must fundamentally rethink how these talks are structured and led. Yes, a full, unconditional 30-day ceasefire – as Ukraine proposed in Istanbul – is the bare minimum needed to create space for diplomacy. Talks must be convened without preconditions, offering all parties a seat at the table on neutral ground. There is no shortage of thoughtful policy proposals in Western circles outlining feasible paths to peace. We support calls for stronger international engagement, particularly from the United Nations, the United States and the European Union. What is needed now is urgent, coordinated global action – before tit-for-tat escalations spiral even further out of control. But there is a deeper flaw in the way current negotiations are being facilitated – often by foreign ministers approaching the conflict as a technical problem to be solved: add a concession here, subtract a demand there. Each side calculates whether the outcome adds up in its favour. That arithmetic approach cannot work – not in a conflict defined by trauma, identity, loss and justice. What continues to be absent from these discussions is any real conversation about justice, accountability and healing. There can be no sustainable peace without a process of transitional justice. As scholars and practitioners have long noted, a frozen conflict without accountability only prolongs suffering and sets the stage for future violence. Likewise, there is too little attention paid to societal trauma – the emotional and psychological toll of war on civilians, soldiers and entire communities. Too much blood has been shed to exclude these dimensions from the peace process. A negotiation cannot succeed if one side is focused on saving face at the expense of the truth. A durable outcome is only possible when facts are acknowledged – the aggression, the occupation and the suffering of millions. What is required now is a new kind of diplomacy – one that accounts for the deep trauma of this war. The mood in Ukraine is heavy, haunted by daily reminders of loss: the sirens, the shattered homes, the soldier's coffin quietly passing by on an otherwise ordinary street. Peace must begin with recognition – not only of legal borders and security guarantees, but of pain. This is the essential – and too often overlooked – precondition for any meaningful dialogue, in Turkiye or elsewhere. Recognising the human cost is not weakness; it is strength. Without it, any ceasefire will remain fragile, any agreement incomplete. Peace in Ukraine requires more than a political settlement. It demands social reconciliation – a process as vital as the diplomatic one. History, language, identity: these are not peripheral issues in this war; they are its heart. That means rethinking everything – who hosts the talks, where they happen, and how they are facilitated. We need less of a closed-door negotiation in Istanbul and more of a public-facing truth and reconciliation process, with real international backing. It all hinges on who convenes this process, and how. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead, perhaps more effectively than a divided European Union. But recent statements from the Trump camp – seen by many in Ukraine as indifferent or incendiary – have only inflamed tensions. They do more harm than good. What is needed now is serious, strategic engagement – led by the US, in concert with the EU and UN – that meets this moment with the gravity it demands. This is not a maths problem. It is a matter of justice, healing and human survival. It is time we approached it that way. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Australia confident AUKUS security pact will proceed despite US review
Australia's Defence Minister Richard Marles said he is 'very confident' that the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom will continue to move forward despite news that the Pentagon is reviewing the 2021 deal between the three nations. News of the review was first reported on Thursday as US defence officials said re-assessing the pact was necessary to ensure that the military deal, agreed to with much fanfare under former US President Joe Biden, was in line with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' agenda. The pact includes a deal worth hundreds of billions of dollars to provide Australia with closely-guarded nuclear propulsion technology. Only five other countries besides the US can build nuclear submarines: the UK, China, Russia, France and India. 'The meetings that we've had with the United States have been very positive in respect of AUKUS,' Defence Minister Marles told the ABC network. A review of the deal is 'something that it's perfectly natural for an incoming administration to do … It's exactly what we did', Marles said. 'There is a plan here. We are sticking to it, and we're going to deliver it,' he said. Under the terms of the AUKUS deal, Australia and the UK will work with the US to design nuclear-class submarines ready for delivery to Australia in the 2040s, according to the US Naval Institute. The three countries are already close military allies and share intelligence, but AUKUS focuses on key strategic areas, such as countering the rise of China and its expansion into the Pacific. Due to the long lead time in building the submarines under the AUKUS deal, Australia also agreed to buy up to three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines during the 2030s. The US and UK also plan to start the rotational deployment of their submarines out of Australia in 2027. But some Trump administration officials, such as Pentagon policy adviser Elbridge Colby, say the submarine deal puts foreign governments ahead of US national security. 'My concern is why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?' Colby said last year. Other officials, including US Representative Joe Courtney from Connecticut – a US state which has an industry focused on building submarines for the US Navy – say the deal is in the 'best interest of all three AUKUS nations, as well as the Indo-Pacific region as a whole'. 'To abandon AUKUS – which is already well under way – would cause lasting harm to our nation's standing with close allies and certainly be met with great rejoicing in Beijing,' Courtney said. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is expected to discuss the deal when he meets Trump next week during a meeting of the G7 leaders in Canada. Earlier this year, Australia made a $500m payment towards AUKUS and plans to spend $2bn this year to speed up the production process in the US of the Virginia-class submarines. The UK, like Australia, has downplayed concerns that the Trump administration could renege on the pact. A UK official told the Reuters news agency that the deal is 'one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades' that will also produce 'jobs and economic growth in communities across all three nations'. 'It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the UK did last year,' the official said.
