US review on AUKUS nuclear submarine deal makes sense

The Australian

2 days ago

The Americans are clearly having second thoughts on the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal. And who can blame them? The Albanese government has no credibility on defence with anyone, including the Americans.
Elbridge Colby, the US Under-Secretary of Defence for Policy, will conduct a 30-day review to determine whether AUKUS fits in with Donald Trump's America First policies.
Colby is a thoughtful and hugely influential strategic leader in the US. He is also one of the chief sceptics of AUKUS.
The Australian embassy in Washington, under ambassador Kevin Rudd, has put enormous effort into trying to bring Colby round on AUKUS.
Colby, like US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, considers Australia's defence effort, of a pitiful 2 per cent of GDP on defence spending, to be completely inadequate and obviously lacking all credibility.
No country in history has gone down the road of acquiring nuclear-powered submarines without hugely increasing their defence budget.
The Albanese government is trying to have all the benefits of AUKUS but not actually do anything substantial or timely about defence.
It's interesting that in Hegseth's remarks relating to Australia at the recent security conference in Singapore, he mentioned various joint projects involving the US and Australia but didn't mention AUKUS at all.
That's because the Trump administration understands that the most acute strategic challenge to Australia and regional security generally comes from China over the next 10 years, not in 30 years when Australia will notionally have its AUKUS fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.
Colby also has fundamental doubts about the US industrial capacity to produce enough Virginia-class submarines to have one spare for Australia in the early 2030s.
In order for the sale of Virginia subs to Australia to go ahead, the US must reach a production rate of well over two Virginias a year.
The production rate is well below that.
In the past, Colby has expressed a simple contradiction: if the US is short of nuclear-powered submarines itself why would it take one, and eventually three to five, out of its order of battle to sell them to Australia?
The Albanese government, as a cheap alternative to producing a serious defence effort of its own, has committed to donating several billion dollars to the US to expand US industrial capacity.
Defence Minister Richard Marles recently gave Hegseth a cheque for $800m.
The Albanese government surely feels that by handing over hard money early, it will at least have bought kind comments from the Trump administration.
And, of course, when the early 2030s finally come around, any outcome is possible. The US president at the time (JD Vance?) will go ahead with the deal only if it serves the US national interest and won't diminish its capability.
It's hard to see how taking a Virginia-class sub out of the US Navy and putting it in Australia's navy will really satisfy those criteria. Instead, Australia could suffer further delay, and perhaps get, initially as a training boat, a much older sub.
The Americans would also be aware that the necessary work to make the West Australian naval base at Stirling fit for US nuclear submarine basing, even temporary basing, is moving at a glacial pace, and is subject to the usual environmental green regulation madness and delays Australia specialises in.
The bottom line is the Albanese government has not done enough within AUKUS to be a credible partner. And it has certainly not done enough with Australian defence capabilities outside AUKUS to make Australia credible in its own defence, or a seriously credible alliance partner for the US.
The only foreign capital it consistently pleases these days is Beijing.
If AUKUS were to fall over, it would be a blow to US credibility; it would also be a savage blow to Australian credibility, which is already in tatters.
At the same time, there is no sign Anthony Albanese himself has any relationship with Donald Trump. Albanese promised he would visit the US early in this term. The decision not to go to Washington in connection with the G7 meeting in Canada next week is a sign of political cowardice on his part. He rightly has little or no confidence in his ability to handle a public encounter with Trump.
Now it's not even clear if he can secure a proper meeting with Trump in Canada.
The government's one commitment is to do and say the absolute minimum on security matters, in the hope controversy and difficulties blow over.
It's not a remotely adequate approach. Read related topics: AUKUS Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor
Greg Sheridan is The Australian's foreign editor. His most recent book, Christians, the urgent case for Jesus in our world, became a best seller weeks after publication. It makes the case for the historical reliability of the New Testament and explores the lives of early Christians and contemporary Christians. He is one of the nation's most influential national security commentators, who is active across television and radio, and also writes extensively on culture and religion. He has written eight books, mostly on Asia and international relations. A previous book, God is Good for You, was also a best seller. When We Were Young and Foolish was an entertaining memoir of culture, politics and journalism. As foreign editor, he specialises in Asia and America. He has interviewed Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world.