Bob Carr says Aukus a ‘colossal surrender of sovereignty' if submarines do not arrive under Australian control
'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
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US court says Trump's Doge team can access social security numbers and other sensitive data
A US appeals court on Tuesday rejected a bid by a group of unions to block the Trump administration government downsizing team known as the 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) from accessing sensitive data on Americans. The Virginia-based fourth US circuit court of appeals in a 2-1 decision said the unions were unlikely to prevail on claims that Doge would violate federal privacy laws by accessing data at the US Department of Education, treasury department, and Office of Personnel Management. The court refused to block Doge's access to the agencies' computer systems and data such as social security numbers and individuals' citizenship status pending the outcome of the case. The decision reverses a temporary injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland, which had been paused by the appeals court in April. The agencies involved in the case and the unions that sued, which include the American Federation of Teachers and the National Federation of Federal Employees, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Donald Trump after taking office in January launched Doge, then headed by billionaire Elon Musk, to dramatically shrink government bureaucracy and federal spending. Doge, which is not a formal government agency, has overseen job and spending cuts at nearly every federal agency and has been the focus of numerous lawsuits. Musk stepped down from Doge in May after publicly falling out with Trump. The fourth circuit on Tuesday said the unions that sued along with a group of military veterans had not shown how they would be injured by Doge accessing agencies' computer systems. They also probably lacked legal standing to sue because that access is not a 'final agency action' that can form the basis of a lawsuit, the court said. A dissenting judge said it was prudent to temporarily block access to the data while the case plays out, and that the standard his colleagues had imposed on the plaintiffs was too high.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Aukus laws will mean anywhere in Australia could be potential nuclear waste dump, critics say
Critics of Australia's Aukus submarine deal say the government has given itself the power to nominate any place in Australia as a potential nuclear waste dump, without proper consultation with communities and indigenous landowners. Australia has agreed to take sole responsibility for the management, security and storage of all nuclear waste from its fleet of proposed nuclear-powered submarines, including the spent fuel from the submarines' reactors – high-level nuclear waste that will be radioactive for millennia once the submarines are decommissioned from the early 2050s. The spent fuel is also a non-proliferation risk: Australia's nuclear submarines will run on highly enriched uranium which can be reprocessed to make nuclear weapons. The spent fuel will require military-grade security to safeguard it. Other navies use low enriched uranium, which cannot be used in a warhead, to power their submarines, but requires refuelling every few years. A spokesperson for the Australian Submarine Agency said the government was 'committed to the highest levels of nuclear stewardship, including the safe and secure disposal of waste', and that the 'selection of any designated zone for high-level waste will be informed by extensive consultation with the community and key stakeholders'. Sign up: AU Breaking News email But critics argue the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024, passed in October last year, is far more broadly drawn, allowing the government to 'pick any place on a map, then the next day make a nuclear waste dump there'. The Greens defence spokesperson, senator David Shoebridge, said Aukus was a 'slow-motion disaster' that would leave Australia with a toxic legacy for millennia. He said the legislation, as passed, failed to protect the rights of communities. 'This law allows the minister to pick any place on a map, then the next day make a nuclear waste dump there. It sounds impossible, but the way the law is written could make your neighbourhood, or the defence facility next door, a nuclear waste dump almost overnight. 'The second this law passed, Perth and Adelaide became home to two nuclear waste dumps. The local community was not informed, they were not consulted, and they are not being told what is happening now.' Shoebridge said the government, instead of learning the lessons of previous failed attempts to build a national nuclear waste facility, had 'decided the best course of action was to make sure the public, First Nations people, and environmental groups had no way to protect the land'. The legislation, as passed, designates HMAS Stirling off Perth and the Osborne naval shipyard in Adelaide as 'designated zones' for nuclear activities, including storage of radioactive waste: low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste from Australia, UK, and US submarines will be stored there. But the legislation also grants the government the power to establish: 'any other area in Australia that is prescribed by the regulations to be a designated zone'. Draft regulations, circulated by the government, state the government regulator must be satisfied 'that meaningful consultation has been undertaken' with communities, indigenous landowners and the wider public, over a proposed nuclear waste facility. But the legislated new Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator will sit within defence, answerable to the defence minister, raising concerns over the independence of the proposed new body. The law was amended last year to prohibit the US and UK dumping high-level radioactive material – such as spent fuel or irradiated nuclear reactors – in Australia. But both countries will dispose of low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste from their nuclear submarines in Australia. Former South Australian senator Rex Patrick, an ex-submariner and Aukus critic, is currently waging a freedom of information battle in the federal court to get access to a November 2023 defence department report – examining potential sites for a nuclear waste site – but to which he has been refused access. Patrick said his opposition to Aukus was related to the project's cost – at last estimate $368bn – and the increasing risk it would fail, and leave without the Australia the naval defences it required. 'But I also am frustrated by the fact that they haven't costed this thing out from cradle-to-grave. The $368bn that has been allocated to this project does not include the nuclear waste storage and disposal, and there has been no attempt to explain to the Australian people how this is going to work.' Patrick said the secrecy surrounding the Aukus details, and the lack of parliamentary and public discussion around the agreement, meant that critical details were being kept from the Australian people, undermining public confidence and the project's social licence. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'The government has had a road map for Aukus for a long time … they are just not telling the Australian public. I'm not asking for the secret makeup of the fuel inside a nuclear-powered submarine … I'm simply saying 'how are they going to dispose of this radioactive nuclear material?' But all of this has been wrapped in secrecy.' Australia currently stores low- and intermediate-level waste from medical, laboratory and research use: but there is no permanent storage facility. Successive Australian governments have wrestled with how and where to dispose of nuclear waste for nearly three decades without finding a permanent solution. Since 1998, governments have proposed three separate sites – Woomera and Kimba in South Australia, and Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory: in each case, fierce opposition from local communities and indigenous landowners have seen the proposal rejected and abandoned. Defence officials told parliament in 2020 that an evaluation of four possible sites on defence land found none were suitable. 'The defence assessment determined that the siting of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at any of the four sites identified in the request could not be achieved,' officials said in evidence to the Senate. As far back as 2004, released cabinet documents show, the Howard government noted 'there is a pressing need to make progress on establishing a radioactive waste management facility'. Cabinet agreed to make 'field assessments [of] Christmas Island, as the preferred location, and two onshore locations (Pine Gap and Tindal Royal Australian air force base and related locations in the Northern Territory, with a preference for the related locations). The 'related locations' were not specified. In March 2023, the defence minister, Richard Marles, said the nuclear reactors from decommissioned nuclear submarines would be stored on 'defence land, current or future', raising the prospect that a site could be identified and then declared 'defence land'. Marles said 'we will, within the next 12 months, establish a process' for identifying a nuclear waste storage site that would be 'remote from populations'. That process has not yet been established. A spokesperson for the Australian Submarine Agency said the disposal of high-level radioactive waste would not be required until the 2050s, when Australia's first nuclear-powered submarine is expected to be decommissioned. 'Selection of any designated zone for high-level waste will be informed by extensive consultation with the community and key stakeholders. 'Intermediate and high-level waste, including spent nuclear fuel, will be stored and disposed on the current or future defence estate.' There is currently no permanent storage facility anywhere in the world for permanent high-level nuclear waste storage. The US and UK, which have run nuclear submarines for decades, have still not built permanent storage facilities. Finland has spent more than 40 years and more than €1bn building a 100,000-year underground storage facility which is currently undergoing trials.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US court says Trump's DOGE team can access sensitive data
Aug 12 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday rejected a bid by a group of unions to block the Trump administration government downsizing team known as the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing sensitive data on Americans. The Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, opens new tab said the unions were unlikely to prevail on claims that DOGE would violate federal privacy laws by accessing data at the U.S. Department of Education, Treasury Department, and Office of Personnel Management. The court refused to block DOGE's access to the agencies' computer systems and data such as Social Security numbers and individuals' citizenship status pending the outcome of the case. The decision reverses a temporary injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland, which had been paused by the appeals court in April. The agencies involved in the case and the unions that sued, which include the American Federation of Teachers and the National Federation of Federal Employees, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. President Donald Trump after taking office in January launched DOGE, then headed by billionaire Elon Musk, to dramatically shrink government bureaucracy and federal spending. DOGE, which is not a formal government agency, has overseen job and spending cuts at nearly every federal agency and has been the focus of numerous lawsuits. Musk stepped down from DOGE in May after publicly falling out with Trump. The 4th Circuit on Tuesday said the unions that sued along with a group of military veterans had not shown how they would be injured by DOGE accessing agencies' computer systems. They also probably lacked legal standing to sue because that access is not a "final agency action" that can form the basis of a lawsuit, the court said. A dissenting judge said it was prudent to temporarily block access to the data while the case plays out, and that the standard his colleagues had imposed on the plaintiffs was too high.
