Latest news with #USCongress
7NEWS
12 hours ago
- Business
- 7NEWS
Australia left hanging by US on key submarine deal
Anthony Albanese has downplayed the extension of the US review of its multibillion-dollar nuclear submarine deal with its long-term ally. The Pentagon announced a review of the AUKUS security pact in June, which was originally slated to take 30 days. It has sparked alarm Australia might not be s old the promised submarines, as US shipyards fall behind on production. But the US has now flagged the review will take longer and is now expected to finish between September and November. Asked if the delay was concerning, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese replied: 'No, it's not surprising that would be the case'. 'We expect that those things take longer than just 30 days,' he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. Under the $368 billion agreement, Australia has been promised at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US in the early 2030s, before a new fleet of vessels is built for delivery from the 2040s. 'Its purpose will be to provide the president and his senior leadership team with a fact-based, rigorous assessment of the initiative,' the statement reads. US under secretary of defence Elbridge Colby - a sceptic of the submarine deal under AUKUS - is leading the review. A US statement said the review would be an empirical and 'clear-eyed assessment' of the security pact's alignment with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' objective. 'As part of this process, the department looks forward to continuing regular engagements on this matter with other parts of the US government, the US Congress, our allies Australia and the United Kingdom, and other key stakeholders,' it reads. Defence analysts have flagged a likely outcome of the US review will be a request for more money from Australia to support its submarine industrial base. Australia has since made its second $800 million payment to the US to help boost production of submarines, according to the Nine newspapers.
Perth Now
13 hours ago
- Business
- Perth Now
Australia left hanging by US on key submarine deal
Anthony Albanese has downplayed the extension of the US review of its multi-billion dollar nuclear submarine deal with its long-term ally. The Pentagon announced a review of the AUKUS security pact in June, which was originally slated to take 30 days. It has sparked alarm Australia might not be sold the promised submarines, as US shipyards fall behind on production. But the US has now flagged the review will take longer and is now expected to finish between September and November. Asked if the delay was concerning, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese replied: "No, it's not surprising that would be the case". "We expect that those things take longer than just 30 days," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. Under the $368 billion agreement, Australia has been promised at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US in the early 2030s, before a new fleet of vessels is built for delivery from the 2040s. "Its purpose will be to provide the president and his senior leadership team with a fact-based, rigorous assessment of the initiative," the statement reads. US under secretary of defence Elbridge Colby - a sceptic of the submarine deal under AUKUS - is leading the review. A US statement said the review would be an empirical and "clear-eyed assessment" of the security pact's alignment with US President Donald Trump's "America First" objective. "As part of this process, the department looks forward to continuing regular engagements on this matter with other parts of the US government, the US Congress, our allies Australia and the United Kingdom, and other key stakeholders," it reads. Defence analysts have flagged a likely outcome of the US review will be a request for more money from Australia to support its submarine industrial base. Australia has since made its second $800 million payment to the US to help boost production of submarines, according to the Nine newspapers.
Perth Now
13 hours ago
- Business
- Perth Now
‘Leverage?': Huge US decision on AUKUS
Anthony Albanese has denied the US is using its AUKUS review as 'leverage' after the Trump administration delayed it by several months. Donald Trump's defence policy chief, Elbridge Colby, announced the delay on Wednesday morning (AEST) but did not give a firm date. Instead, Mr Colby, an AUKUS sceptic, said the review would be completed 'in the fall' – much longer than the initial 30 days. It comes as the Albanese government resists Washington's demand to hike defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP in response to China's rapid military build-up. Mr Colby's office said the AUKUS review 'will be an empirical and clear-eyed assessment of the initiative's alignment with President Trump's America First approach'. 'As part of this process, the (US Department of Defence) looks forward to continuing regular engagements on this important matter with other parts of the US government, the US Congress, our allies Australia and the United Kingdom and other key stakeholders,' his office said. 'The department anticipates completing the review in the fall. 'Its purpose will be to provide the President and his senior leadership team with a fact-based, rigorous assessment of the initiative.' Speaking to reporters at Parliament House, the Prime Minister was asked if the delay was 'a cause for concern'. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says the US is not using AUKUS as 'leverage'. Martin Ollman / NewsWire Credit: News Corp Australia 'No, it is not surprising that that would be the case and something that we expected something like that,' Mr Albanese said. 'We expected a review from an incoming government just like the Keir Starmer government did (in the UK). 'We expect that those things take longer than just 30 days.' Asked if it was being used as 'leverage', he simply replied: 'No.'
Sky News
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Sky News
Trump claims Epstein 'stole' Prince Andrew accuser Virginia Giuffre from his Mar-a-Lago resort
Donald Trump has claimed billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein "stole" prominent accuser Virginia Giuffre and other young women from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Ms Giuffre became a household name after she sued Prince Andrew for sexual abuse in August 2021 - saying he had sex with her when she was 17 and had been trafficked by his friend Epstein. Prince Andrew reached an out-of-court settlement with Ms Giuffre but has repeatedly denied the claims and has not been charged with any criminal offences. Mr Trump made his remarks about Ms Giuffre as his administration has faced growing pressure in recent weeks, including from within his "MAGA" base, to release files related to Epstein after he promised to do so during his 2024 presidential campaign. The US president was speaking to reporters on Tuesday when he was asked about comments he made over the weekend about a falling-out with Epstein over employees taken from his business. "He took people that worked for me. And I told him, 'Don't do it anymore.' And he did it," Mr Trump told reporters while on board Air Force One as he returned to the US from Scotland. "I said, 'Stay the hell out of here'," the US president added. Pressed about whether any of the employees he referred to were young women, Mr Trump said many of them worked in the spa at Mar-a-Lago. "The answer is yes, they were in the spa," he said. "I told him, I said, 'Listen, we don't want you taking our people, whether it was spa or not spa.' ... And he was fine. And then not too long after that, he did it again." Asked if Ms Giuffre was one of the employees poached by Epstein, the US president replied: "I think she worked at the spa... I think so. I think that was one of the people. He stole her, and by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know, none whatsoever." 1:09 The White House said in a statement last week that Mr Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago because he was acting like a "creep". Epstein took his own life in a Manhattan prison cell in August 2019 as he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges. On Tuesday, lawyer's for his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving 20 years in prison for recruiting young girls for the financier, said that they are open to her answering more questions from US Congress if she is granted immunity from future prosecution. However a spokeswoman for the House Oversight Committee, which requested the interview with Maxwell, said the panel would not consider granting the immunity she requested. The former British socialite was interviewed inside a Florida courthouse by US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last week. Officials have not publicly disclosed what she said. Mr Blanche had earlier said that Maxwell would be interviewed because of Mr Trump's directive to gather and release any credible evidence about others who may have committed crimes in relation to the Epstein case. Separately, Maxwell's lawyers have urged the Supreme Court to review her conviction, saying she did not receive a fair trial. They also say that one way she would testify "openly and honestly, in public", is in the event of a pardon by Mr Trump, who has told reporters that such a move is within his rights but that he has not been not asked to make it. What had Ms Giuffre said about Mar-a-Lago? Ms Giuffre, who took her own life in April, claimed Maxwell spotted her while she was working as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago when she was a teenager in 2000. She added that Maxwell hired her as Epstein's masseuse, which led to sexual abuse. She accused Epstein of pressuring her into having sex with powerful men. Why is the Epstein case such a problem for Trump? Rumours have circulated since Epstein's death about who he may have supplied underage girls to and who visited his private island. Some of those rumours quickly spiralled into conspiracy theories, which Mr Trump fanned the flames of during his campaign for a second term. Mr Trump promised to release more Epstein files to the public if he was elected president for a second time - but is now facing a backlash from his voter base after carrying out a complete U-turn on the move.
Mail & Guardian
20 hours ago
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
US Congress should ask questions about the Ivanhoe Atlantic Deal
Iron ore mine in West Africa. The Liberty Corridor railroad provides a mechanism for Ivanhoe Atlantic to get that ore to market on favourable terms. Photo: File On the eve of the Those questions will not only force consideration of favouritism in US commercial diplomacy. They will demand evaluations of the conduct of US ambassadors, a senior adviser to the US president and a reported candidate for US assistant secretary of state for African affairs. There are concerns that the US government has endorsed a commercial project that will benefit Chinese and South African individuals and entities who undermine US national security and foreign policy interests according to the America First Foreign Policy Agenda endorsed by the Trump administration. What is the Liberty Corridor? The Liberty Corridor is a heavy duty railroad that will connect the Nimba District of Guinea with a new deepwater port in Didia, Liberia. The corridor will be developed on top of the existing Yekepa-Buchanan Railway Corridor. Its development will promote regional economic integration in West Africa and allow Ivanhoe Atlantic to export iron ore from its Kon Kweni Iron Ore Project through Liberia. The Liberty Corridor is opposed by a Luxembourg-based multinational steel and mining company ArcelorMittal (AML). Back in 2005, AML entered into a Mineral Development Agreement with the Guinea government. One of the provisions of that agreement granted AML a monopoly over the Yekepa-Buchanan Railway. Since then, AML has invested a The Liberty Corridor has been championed by The Liberty Corridor could prove to be a game-changer for Ivanhoe Atlantic and the US mining sector. There are other undeveloped mineral deposits in the Southern Guinean Highlands. One is the Simandou Iron Ore Mine. It is estimated to have The Liberty Corridor is seen as a valuable alternative to the Trans-Guinean Corridor for the Kon Kweni Iron Ore Project. Industry experts suggest that Ivanhoe Atlantic would have struggled to ever realise the full potential of the Nimba Iron Ore Mine if mining financier Robert Friedland had chosen to stand and fight with Rio Tinto, Winning Consortium Simandou and the government of Guinea for fair and open access to the Trans-Guinean Corridor. Ivanhoe Atlantic simply did not have enough leverage to achieve a desired outcome. The Liberty Corridor has been publicly endorsed by the US government. The US embassy in Monrovia publicly declared that the US government What are the Issues for the US Congress? The Liberty Corridor raises a number of issues that the US Congress may want to consider. Two of the most important involve the appearance of favouritism and insufficient due diligence in US commercial diplomacy. With respect to favouritism, private claims have been made that the letter of intent was signed between the Guma Africa Group and the Liberian government only on the eve of the White House visit through coercive actions undertaken by the US government behind the scenes. According to people with knowledge of the negotiations, that diplomatic intervention was spearheaded by the US ambassador to Liberia, Mark Toner, with the support of senior Africa bureau official Troy Fitrell and senior Africa adviser to the US president, Massad Boulos. Those unattributable remarks demand critical scrutiny from the US Congress. If true, then US commercial advocacy not only favoured one company Ivanhoe Atlantic) over at least one another (AML). It favoured a company whose With respect to insufficient due diligence, private claims have been made that the US government failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the Liberty Corridor fully aligned with US national security and foreign policy interests prior to endorsing the deal. Those allegations revolve around the claim that the project will benefit Chinese and South African individuals and entities who apparently undermine US national security and foreign policy interests as set forth in the America First Foreign Policy Agenda embraced by the Trump administration: People's Republic of China: Through Ivanhoe Capital, there is an indirect South Africa: Through Guma Africa Group, there is a direct association between Ivanhoe Atlantic and South African Robert Gumede, who has reportedly been accused of major corruption. Among other things, the South African Special Investigating Unit recently sought to recoup more than The Liberty Corridor therefore begs important questions for the American people: With respect to favouritism, one has to wonder whether the US government actually coerced the government of Liberia into signing the letter of intent with Ivanhoe Atlantic? Did Boulos, Fitrell, and Toner have any conflicts of interest that may have improperly influenced US commercial diplomacy (for example, business connections; post-retirement employment interests)? Did ambassador Pham ever make improper use of government connections and private information that was gained during his time in office for personal gain in the private sector? With respect to insufficient due diligence, one has to wonder whether the Liberty Corridor is well aligned with the strategic goals of countering major corruption, mitigating the At present, the American people do not know the answers to any of those questions. That makes it difficult to make sense of the private claims and counter-claims about the deal that are swirling around Washington. The US Congress could put an end to all of this political theatre by simply holding a public hearing on the matter and setting the record straight once and for all. Of course, that raises a knock-on question: how should the White House respond if a congressional hearing was called on the matter? Assuming everything was above board with the negotiations, the White House might want to consider welcoming such oversight by the US Congress. A public hearing would not only provide the Trump administration with a platform to put to bed nasty insinuations about Boulos, Fitrell, Pham and Toner, such as those made in the recent Africa is Not a Country . It would provide the Trump administration with a platform to make the case to the American people that their approach to US commercial diplomacy is far superior to those of the Biden administration. That includes their approach to putting an end to the global stranglehold that companies linked to the Chinese Community Party have on access to critical minerals. Michael Walsh is a non-resident senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
