American Jugglery? Australians Slam AUKUS Pact That Allows U.S. To ‘Pull Out’ Submarines Built On Their Money

The revamped AUKUS agreement, recently tabled in the Australian Parliament, has come under severe criticism as it allows the AUKUS partners—the United States and the United Kingdom—to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement on a year’s notice.

Since it was signed in September 2021, the AUKUS agreement, which aims to arm the Royal Australian Navy with nuclear submarines, has created controversy on multiple occasions. Last year, for instance, there was massive outrage over the project’s astronomical price: $368 billion to be spent over the next three decades. However, many changes have since been introduced.

Under a revised AUKUS agreement, should any country determine that the pact compromises their respective nuclear submarine programs, they could withdraw from the submarine deal at merely a year’s notice, ABC News reported.

According to Article 1, the United States and the United Kingdom are permitted to transfer “material and equipment relating to conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines to Australia” as long as there is no “unreasonable risk” to their security and defense.

“A government may discontinue its participation in this understanding earlier and, in such case, should provide one year’s written notice to the other governments of its intent to do so,” the agreement states. This has been flagged by critics as an ‘escape clause’ that allows the US and the UK to abandon the agreement at their whim.

Although both the US and the UK are required by the agreement to “not unreasonably” withhold information, material, or equipment, the arrangement may be nullified if it materially impairs the partner nations’ capacity to “meet their respective military requirements” or undermines their “respective naval nuclear propulsion programs.”

This has led to an outpouring of outrage from across the spectrum. Following the tabling of the revamped agreement, Greens Senator David Shoebridge said, “This is a $368 billion gamble with taxpayers’ money from the Albanese (Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese) government.”

Critics have argued that this effectively implies that even after investing billions of taxpayers’ dollars in acquiring submarines, the other two countries can exit the agreement at any moment, leaving Australia with no submarines at all.

A renowned naval analyst, Alex Luck took to social media site X to register his disappointment. Alex wrote: “Shockingly, Australia is responsible for equipment provided to it, and all parties to the agreement have a provision to withdraw if they so desire. The outrage about this is kindergarten levels of geopolitical maturity in the Australian media landscape.”

In a more profound statement, Senator David Shoebridge said that the agreement provides multiple escape hatches for the US. “Article 1 of the new AUKUS agreement says that if at any point the United States thinks supplying material under the AUKUS agreement to Australia prejudices their defense, they can effectively terminate the agreement and pull out. We know that the United States does not have enough nuclear submarines for its purposes,” he said.

Shoebridge further added, “I think there is a very real risk that we will roll through the next five or ten years, see billions and billions of dollars paid for nuclear installations, for new generals and admirals, and in the early 2030s, Australia will have exactly zero new submarines.”

“What this agreement makes clear in black and white is that if the United States, at any point, thinks they don’t have enough submarines for themselves, they can pull out of AUKUS 2.0,” he said.

The statement likely indicates that there is prevailing distrust within the Australian opposition regarding a possible misuse of Australian money by the US to build resources for itself. The US has been preparing for a potential conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific.

The US will sell three or more Virginia-class submarines, with a maximum of five, as part of the AUKUS agreement in the early 2030s. However, the sales would be subject to approval. As agreed upon by the three partners earlier this month, the new AUKUS agreement is slated to remain in force until December 2075.

Although Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles termed it as another milestone for the AUKUS partnership and Australian aspirations, the agreement is being condemned by military observers, politicians, and Australian citizens alike. Besides allowing the Western states to abandon the submarine program unilaterally, a few other clauses have also similarly drawn public ire.

AUKUS Attracts Public Ire — Once Again 

According to the new terms of the agreement, Australia would bear the financial responsibility for any loss or damage resulting from the storage and disposal of radioactive material from nuclear submarines. In any such situation, Australia would have to compensate the US and the UK.

According to the document, “Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants.”

Additionally, the new terms of the AUKUS agreement stipulate that Australia must secure approval from the US and UK before signing any new agreements with the International Atomic Energy Organization. Several observers have flagged this as an erasure of the country’s sovereignty.

Further, the agreement for “cooperation on naval nuclear propulsion” is contingent upon Australia and the US maintaining their participation in the ANZUS alliance while the US and UK continue to be members of NATO.

Last year, in strong opposition, a young Australian Senator, Jordon Steele-John, said in Parliament: “$368 billion on the purchase of eight nuclear-powered submarines won’t be delivered until I’m 60 years old. And for this, the Australian people will get the privilege of becoming a nuclear waste dump.” The senator pointed out that Australian taxpayer funds will effectively support defense manufacturers in the US and UK.

“It is a waste of public funds. It puts us at risk. It is one of the most catastrophic foreign policy decisions an Australian government has ever entered into, and it fundamentally undermines our ability to be considered as independent actors in our own region,” he had observed.

Critics are also worried about the lack of transparency and Australia’s increasing alignment with the United States. This apprehension is particularly heightened following a letter from US President Joe Biden to the leaders of the US Senate and House of Representatives last week. In his letter, the US President revealed a supplementary agreement involving “additional related political commitments” among the AUKUS nations.

The formal agreement presented to the Australian parliament did not include the new promises. It superseded an earlier pact that only permitted the exchange of information about naval nuclear propulsion.

Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating also raised this issue. In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Keating claimed that AUKUS may sell Australia out as “the 51st state of the United States.”

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari9555(at)gmail.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News