Bob Carr says Aukus a ‘colossal surrender of sovereignty' if submarines do not arrive under Australian control
Australia faces a 'colossal surrender of sovereignty' if promised US nuclear-powered submarines do not arrive under Australian control, former foreign affairs minister Bob Carr has said, arguing the US is 'utterly not a reliable ally' to Australia.
'It's inevitable we're not getting them,' Carr told the Guardian, ahead of the release of a report from Australians for War Powers Reform that argues the multibillion-dollar Aukus deal had been imposed upon Australia without sufficient public or parliamentary scrutiny.
'The evidence is mounting that we're not going to get Virginia-class subs from the United States,' Carr said, 'for the simple reason they're not building enough for their own needs and will not, in the early 2030s, be peeling off subs from their own navy to sell to us.'
Under 'pillar one' of the planned Aukus arrangement, it is proposed the US would sell Australia between three and five of its Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines in the early 2030s before the Aukus-class submarines were built, first in the UK, then in Australia.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
However, the US has already forecast it might not have capacity to spare any of its Virginia-class boats, the Congressional Research Service instead floating a proposal in which: 'instead of … them being sold to Australia, these additional boats would instead be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia'.
Carr said that alternative would leave Australia without Australian-flagged submarines and no control of when, and to where, those boats were deployed.
'It involves the total loss of any sovereign submarine capacity and, more than that, a colossal surrender of Australian sovereignty in general.'
Australia, Carr said, needed to look past the 'cheerful flag-waving propaganda' of the proclaimed Aukus deal, saying the alternative likely to be presented by the US would leave Australia 'totally integrated in American defence planning and we'll be hosting even more potential nuclear targets'.
Australians for War Powers Reform, a group that advocates for parliamentary oversight of the decision to send Australian troops to war, launched a report on Thursday morning arguing that the Aukus deal – signed by the Morrison government in 2021 and adopted by its Albanese-led successor – had been instituted without any public or parliamentary scrutiny.
'The public and the national parliament have been kept in the dark every step of the way,' the report argues.
'The Aukus pact has become a textbook example of how to disenfranchise the community, providing almost no transparency or democracy in a sweeping decision which will affect Australia for decades.'
Aukus and the Surrender of Transparency, Accountability and Sovereignty argues the multi-decade, multibillion-dollar Aukus deal was presented to the Australian public without any discussion, consultation, and without parliamentary debate. The current forecast cost of 'pillar one' of Aukus – to buy US Virginia-class submarines and build Aukus subs – is $368bn to the 2050s.
The report raises concerns over vague 'political commitments' offered by Australia in exchange for the Aukus deal, as well as practical concerns such as where and how nuclear waste would be stored in Australia.
'Aukus has no legitimate social licence because the public has been shut out of the process, and as a result, scepticism and cynicism have increased.'
Dr Alison Broinowski, AWPR committee member and a former Australian diplomat, said Australia's agreement to the Aukus deal was manifestation of a structural flaw in Australia's democracy, where decisions to go to war, or to make consequential defence decisions, were not subject to parliamentary scrutiny or public debate.
Broinowski said Aukus was acutely significant because of its size and potential consequence 'and yet the same failure to be frank with the people characterises every government this country has had, during every war there's been'.
She argued Australia had no control over Aukus. 'We don't know what Trump's going to do and we have no control over what he does. And so we're left hoping for the best, fearing the worst and with absolutely no way of controlling or influencing what happens, unless we first get ourselves out of Aukus.'
The Australian Submarine Agency's Aukus strategy, released this month, said the optimal Aukus pathway would see US boats sold to Australia 'from the early 2030s'. The strategy argues Australia's acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines would represent 'one of the most consequential endeavours' in Australia's history, 'at a time when our nation faces the most challenging strategic circumstances since the second world war'.
'An Australian submarine industrial base capable of delivering a persistent, potent and sovereign multi-class submarine capability is vital to the defence of Australia.'
Welcoming a rotation of US marines to the Northern Territory this week, the defence minister, Richard Marles, said the Australian defence force continued to work closely with the US: 'The power of our alliance with the United States is a testament to our shared dedication to fostering a secure, stable and inclusive Indo-Pacific.'
But Carr, the foreign affairs minister between 2012 and 2013, said the Aukus deal highlighted the larger issue of American unreliability in its security alliance with Australia.
'The US is utterly not a reliable ally. No one could see it in those terms,' he said.
'[President] Trump is wilful and cavalier and so is his heir-apparent, JD Vance: they are laughing at alliance partners, whom they've almost studiously disowned.'
Carr said America had been fundamentally altered by Trump's second administration and that American leadership of a rules-based international order was 'not returning'.
'The speed of America disowning allies to embrace a new world order where it cuts deals with Russia and China has been so astonishing that people are struggling to grasp it, especially in this country, where people just cannot contemplate a world where America treats so lightly its alliance with Australia.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Pentagon launches review of US-UK-Australia Aukus security alliance
The Pentagon has launched a review of the Aukus submarine agreement to make sure it is aligned with Trump's 'America first' agenda, throwing the $240bn defense pact with Britain and Australia into doubt The review may trigger more allied anxiety over the future of the trilateral alliance designed to counter China's military rise. 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's 'America first' agenda,' a Pentagon official said. 'This means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defense and that the defense industrial base is meeting our needs.' The 2021 Biden-era agreement – met with mass excitement in Australia's security world – would see Australia acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines, with the US promising to sell up to five Virginia-class vessels from 2032. A new joint submarine class would follow in the early 2040s. But now, the Aukus-skeptic US undersecretary of defense, Elbridge Colby, has called for the review to determine whether the Australia-UK-US security alliance aligns with Trump's 'America first' agenda, a number of anonymous sources told Reuters. Colby posted on X last year that it 'would be crazy' for the US to have fewer nuclear submarines if conflict erupted over Taiwan. The British government responded cautiously to news of the US review, saying: 'Aukus is a landmark security and defence partnership with two of our closest allies. It is one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades, supporting peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic, while also delivering 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 UK will continue to work closely with the US and Australia at all levels to maximise the benefits and opportunities which Aukus presents for our three nations.' Nuclear submarine powers are members of an exclusive club – only six countries currently operate them: the US, the UK, Russia, China, France and India. Aukus would make Australia the seventh. And while generally favored by US lawmakers focused on national security – and as Australia tries to step up its security spending in line with Trump's wishes – the deal's survival now appears to be in the balance. The US president himself does not seem to have made a priority of the pact. Asked about Aukus during Keir Starmer's visit in February, Trump appeared unfamiliar with the acronym, responding: 'What does that mean?' The review follows defense secretary Pete Hegseth's demand last week that Australia increase military spending from 2% to 3.5% of GDP. The country's prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has pledged only 2.4%, insisting Australia will set its own defense priorities. One British government official acknowledged the review to the FT and emphasized their commitment to the partnership. Hours before the news broke, the UK government announced a handsome $7.69bn investment to its nuclear submarine industrial base. Aukus represents the most substantial military cooperation between the three nations in generations, extending beyond submarines to include hypersonic missiles and advanced weapons technology. More details soon …
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
Australia is no model for assisted dying
Photo by Kelly Barnes / AAP Image via Alamy Australian laws on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) are deemed so similar to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that three quarters of overseas witnesses invited to give evidence to MPs were from Australia. 'This is not a revolutionary law reform,' Alex Greenwich, a politician from New South Wales, told the bill's scrutiny committee earlier this year. 'It has been tried and tested, we have appropriate safeguards in place throughout Australia, and they work.' Although Australian states extend the six-month life expectancy requirement to a year for those with neurodegenerative conditions, in terms of eligibility, process and safeguards, their laws are similar to the UK's bill. The two differ only in that self-administration of life-ending drugs would be permitted here, and a multidisciplinary panel would review cases. So when Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP and the bill's sponsor, responded with a heart emoji and '#ChoiceAtTheEndOfLife' to a Guardian article published on 7 June that showed the Australian system being abused, eyebrows were raised. An elderly couple had been granted VAD when neither were terminally ill; medics in New South Wales effectively greenlit their suicide pact. 'Looks like the safeguards didn't work,' Mark Taubert, an NHS consultant and the vice-president of the European Association for Palliative Care, responded on X. According to the palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke, the story 'could not highlight more starkly the dangers of the law we are currently debating'. MPs hearing evidence on the bill had little time with six Australian witnesses, all of whom were supportive of VAD. Their arguments didn't always stand up to scrutiny. 'The medications are completely effective. I have not experienced any failures,' said Chloe Furst, a palliative care doctor from South Australia and board member of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand. But, MPs pointed out, there is no requirement that a doctor be present when someone self-administers, nor is there provision for reporting complications. In Western Australia, where this information is collected, complications were recorded in 4.3 per cent of deaths in 2023-24. Asked if it was a concern that a 'large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason', another witness, Meredith Blake from the University of Western Australia, replied this was 'not the evidence that we have got'. Except it is. Official state figures showed 35 per cent of those seeking VAD cited being a burden on family, friends or carers as their reason for doing so. Blake replied: 'If there are people who are saying they are a burden, that does not mean that their decision is not voluntary.' While MPs were told Australian palliative care doctors had 'embraced' VAD, I have spoken with medics in Australia who are troubled by how the legislation operates. Academics and politicians are, too. Robert Clark, a former attorney-general and MP in Victoria wrote to the committee twice with his observations: the second time after his fellow Australians had addressed MPs. Numerous aspects of their evidence were 'factually incorrect or incomplete', Clark claimed. There was not adequate palliative care available to all terminally ill patients in Australia. Evidence didn't show any reduction in non-medically assisted suicide. The right of doctors to object to VAD was not respected. Many doctors 'feel unable to raise concerns about VAD… lest they suffer adverse professional or career consequences, or else they are leaving the hospital system altogether', he said. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe British palliative care doctor Alex Hughes recently relayed his experience of assisted dying while working in Australia. Hughes, who is neutral on VAD in principle, described a borderline case in which it seemed the patient had chosen to die because of poor alternative care options. In another, he suspected the man may have been influenced by depression, but this had gone unexplored in assessment. Were assisted dying to come to the UK, doctors would be 'at a heightened risk of unconscious bias… [and] may lean towards giving patients the 'benefit of the doubt', granting assisted dying to individuals who, in reality, have more than six months to live.' The events described in the Guardian confirm that risk is not merely hypothetical. Ahead of its return to the Commons on 13 June, 1,000 doctors urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill. They argued it is 'deeply flawed' and unsafe. Similar statements have been made by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which say they cannot support the legislation as it stands. Such concerns are not 'noise', as Leadbeater has suggested. Many critics have no issue with the principle of safe VAD. But the passage of the bill has revealed law-making at its worst: rushed debate, the views of the vulnerable ignored or downplayed, and crucial information on how the bill would work absent. Supporters say there will be time to iron out details later. That is too risky. Under current plans, some vulnerable people will be helped – in Hughes's words – to have 'an inappropriate assisted death'. He now poses two critical questions for MPs: how many vulnerable people slipping through the net is acceptable? And can adequate safeguards be put in place 'without creating a system so cumbersome that it becomes unworkable'? It's time for MPs to be honest with themselves and the public: enabling some an autonomous death through assisted dying will inevitably put others at risk of harm. [See also: Has any Chancellor faced a challenge this daunting?] Related
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Trump administration launches review of Biden-era defense pact with Australia, UK
WASHINGTON, June 11 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration has launched a formal review of a defense pact that former President Joe Biden made with Australia and the United Kingdom allowing Australia to acquire conventionally armed nuclear submarines, a U.S. defense official told Reuters. The launch of the formal, Pentagon-led review is likely to alarm Australia, which sees the submarines as critical to its own defense as tensions grow over China's expansive military buildup. It could also throw a wrench in Britain's defense planning. AUKUS is at the center of a planned expansion of its submarine fleet. "We are reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda," the official said of the review, which was first reported by Financial Times. "Any changes to the administration's approach for AUKUS will be communicated through official channels, when appropriate." AUKUS, formed in 2021 to address shared worries about China's growing power, is designed to allow Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines and other advanced weapons such as hypersonic missiles. Vocal skeptics of the AUKUS deal among Trump's senior policy officials include Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's top policy advisor. In a 2024 talk with Britain's Policy Exchange think-tank, Colby cautioned that U.S. military submarines were a scarce, critical commodity, and that U.S. industry could not produce enough of them to meet American demand. They would also be central to U.S. military strategy in any confrontation with China centered in the First Island Chain, an area that runs from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines and on to Borneo, enclosing China's coastal seas. "My concern is why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it," Colby said. The Australian and UK embassies in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The U.S. National Security Council also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Only six countries operate nuclear submarines: the U.S., the UK, Russia, China, France and India. AUKUS would add Australia to that club starting in 2032 with the U.S. sale of Virginia-class submarines. Before that, the U.S. and Britain would start forward rotations of their submarines in 2027 out of an Australian naval base in Western Australia. Later, Britain and Australia would design and build a new class of submarines, with U.S. assistance, with the first delivery to the UK in the late 2030s and to Australia in the early 2040s. Although Australia has declined to say ahead of time whether it would send the submarines to join U.S. forces in any conflict between the U.S. and China, Colby noted Australia's historic alliance with Washington, including sending troops to Vietnam. "I think we can make a decent bet that Australia would be there with us in the event of a conflict," Colby said last year. Speaking in Congress on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said "we're having honest conversations with our allies." On Australia, Hegseth said: "We want to make sure those capabilities are part of how they use them with their submarines, but also how they integrate with us as allies."
