Think Tanker Demands for AUKUS: What Australia Should do with US Submarines

Submarine surfacing in the open ocean waters.
Image from the Coversation (Photo credit: Zieusin/Shutterstock)

The moment the security pact known as AUKUS came into being, it was clear what its true intention was. Announced in September 2021, ruinous to Franco-Australian relations, and Anglospheric in inclination, the agreement between Washington, London and Canberra would project US power in the Indo-Pacific with one purpose in mind: deterring China. The fool in this whole endeavour was Australia, with a security establishment so Freudian in its anxiety it seeks an Imperial Daddy at every turn.    

To avoid the pains of mature sovereignty, the successive Australian governments of Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese have fallen for the bribe of the nuclear-powered Virginia Class SSN-774 and the promise of a bespoke AUKUS-designed nuclearpowered counterpart. These submarines may never make their way to the Royal Australian Navy. Australia is infamously bad when it comes to constructing submarines, and the US is under no obligation to furnish Canberra with the boats.  

The latter point is made clear in the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, which directs the US President to certify to the relevant congressional committees and leadership no later than 270 days prior to the transfer of vessels that this “will not degrade the United States underseas capabilities”; is consistent with the country’s foreign policy and national security interests and furthers the AUKUS partnership. Furthering the partnership would involve“sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments” to meet undersea capabilities; the provision by Australia of “appropriate funds and support for the additional capacity required to meet the requirements”; and Canberra’s “capability to host and fully operate the vessels authorized to be transferred.”

In his March confirmation hearing as Undersecretary of Defense Policy, Eldridge Colby, President Donald Trump’s chief appointee for reviewing the AUKUS pact, candidly opined that a poor production rate of submarines would place “our servicemen and women […] in a weaker position.” He had also warned that, “AUKUS is only going to lead to more submarines collectively in 10, 15, 20 years, which is way beyond the window of maximum danger, which is really this decade.”  

The SSN program, as such unrealised and a pure chimera, is working wonders in distorting Australia’s defence budget. The decade to 2033-4 features a total projected budget of A$330 billion. The SSN budget of A$53-63 billion puts nuclear powered submarines at 16.1% to 19.1% more than relevant land and air domains. A report by the Strategic Analysis Australia think tank did not shy away from these implications: “It’s hard to grasp how unusual this situation is. Moreover, it’s one that will endure for decades, since the key elements of the maritime domain (SSNs and the two frigate programs) will still be in acquisition well into the 2040s. It’s quite possible that Defence itself doesn’t grasp the situation that it’s gotten into.”

Despite this fantastic asymmetry of objectives, Australia is still being asked to do more. An ongoing suspicion on the part of defence wonks in the White House, Pentagon and Congress is what Australia would do with the precious naval hardware once its navy gets them. Could Australia be relied upon to deploy them in a US-led war against China? Should the boats be placed under US naval command, reducing Australia to suitable vassal status?

Now, yet another think tanking outfit, the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), is urging Australia to make its position clear on how it would deploy the Virginia boats. A report, authored by a former senior AUKUS advisor during the Biden administration Abraham Denmark and Charles Edel, senior advisor and CSIS Australia chair, airily proposes that Australia offers “a more concrete commitment” to the US while also being sensitive to its own sovereignty. This rather hopeless aim can be achieved through “a robust contingency planning process that incorporates Australian SSNs.” This would involve US and Australian military strategists planning to “undergo a comprehensive process of strategizing and organizing military operations to achieve specific objectives.Such a process would provide “concrete reassurances that submarines sold to Australia would not disappear if and when needed.” It might also preserve Australian sovereignty in both developing the plan and determining its implementation during a crisis.

In addition to that gobbet of hopeless contradiction, the authors offer some further advice: that the second pillar of the AUKUS agreement, involving the development of advanced capabilities, the sharing of technology and increasing the interoperability between the armed forces of the three countries, be more sharply defined. “AUKUS nations should consider focusing on three capability areas: autonomy, long-range strike, and integrated air defense.” This great militarist splash would supposedly “increase deterrence in both Europe and the Indo-Pacific.”

In terms of examples, President Trump’s wonky Golden Dome anti-missile shield is touted as an “opportunity for Pillar II in integrated air defense. (It would be better described as sheer science fiction, underwritten by space capitalism.) Australia was already at work with their US counterparts in developing missile defence systems that could complement the initiative. Developing improved and integrated anti-missile defences was even more urgent given the “greatly expanding rotational presence of US military forces in Australia.”

This waffling nonsense has all the finery of delusion. When it comes to sovereignty, there is nothing to speak of and Australia’s security cadres, along with most parliamentarians in the major parties, see no troubles with deferring responsibility to the US imperium. In most respects, this has already taken place. The use of such coddling terms as “joint planning” and “joint venture” only serves to conceal the dominant, rough role played by Washington, always playing the imperial paterfamilias even as it secures its own interests against other adversaries.

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

About Dr Binoy Kampmark 266 Articles
Dr Binoy Kampmark is a senior lecturer in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University. He was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, University of Cambridge. He is a contributing editor to CounterPunch and can be followed on Twitter at @bkampmark.

8 Comments

  1. I’d love to use the USUKA submarines as suppositories for our politicians who want them so much.

  2. The gobbledegook bureaucratese is wonderful to read, if mentally painful to translate, but any way you look at it the US gets everything but gives us bugger-all, and we pay (hugely) to continue to be a mendicant. I don’t expect anything sensible from the Opposition who are, figuratively, so far up the US’s arse we can only see the soles of their shoes. Unfortunately Marles and some of the military leadership are fighting for space. I do not understand how Albanese and Labor broadly have allowed themselves to be sucked into this debacle. But they need to get us out of it. Start by repudiating USUKA, demand our money back, send Marles to the backbench, run a big broom through our military leadership then demand rent from the US for use of our bases and facilities. See how long their presence here would last. Never happen of course, we have copped the big brother treatment for so long I don’t think we know how to stand on our own two feet.

  3. Accurately put,RomeoCharlie.The longer this bullshit goes on the deeper the hole we’re in.Albanese needs to start pulling the plug in no uncertain terms, and right now is the opportunity.The septics were always going to go for more,it’s in their warped DNA.No more pissing about,we need to doubly assert our sovereignty, not just mouth it.
    Of course, the usual suspects will scream and rend their garments,but fuck them, it’s our country, not a vassal state of the most dangerous and unreliable country on earth.

  4. This article also exposes why the massacres in Yemen last decade and Gaza now are about…trialling new defence systems on suffering scapegoats and guinea pigs.

  5. There’s a simple answer as to what to do with those submarines, but certain people would consider that suggestion both treasonous and obscene.

  6. leefe, I’m with you ,starting with Morrison,then Abalone, Trump and Marles…..We could video it, sell tickets and put the funds into say, housing, for example.And I don’t consider it treasonous or obscene…it’s mandatory.

  7. I am astonished at Leefe! Fancy suggesting they should shove the subs up their nostrils!!

  8. So we are only going to rent the subs at the cost, with massive blowouts, of upwards of $1 trillion. That is, of course, if the Orange Minidick doesn’t throw a massive tantrum and cancel the contract.

    Paul, one up each nostril and rest up their arses…sideways.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*