Pentagon’s AUKUS review raises the ante for Albanese on China
The Pentagon’s AUKUS review will shock many inside the Australian government, but the move should come as no surprise. At this stage, it is only a review or an assessment of the agreement. How the government responds has significant bearing on the Pentagon’s final assessment.
We can be angry and obstinate, and feed the false narrative that Donald Trump’s America First agenda means the abandoning of allies, or, more constructively, do what we must to maximise the chances AUKUS survives in its current form.
What is really at stake? The military-technology-industrial sharing agreement of AUKUS is safe. It is Pillar I – the purchasing of Virginia-class submarines and joint development of the future Astute-class nuclear-powered submarine for the Australian Defence Force – that is at risk. Pillar II should be safe.
America First means the US will do what it needs to enhance American power, prosperity and security. The Trump administration is deadly serious about the rivalry with China and that deterring a Chinese attack against Taiwan is its highest military priority.
As far as the Pentagon is concerned, there are two critical elements determining deterrence of China. First, that Taiwan can withstand an attack long enough until help arrives. (This is why the Trump administration is insisting Taiwan spend at least 5 per cent of GDP on defence.) The second is the US and its allies have the hard-power resources and intent to prevent a successful Chinese invasion.
If Beijing does not believe in the credibility of either of these two elements, a Chinese attack against Taiwan becomes more probable.
For Trump, it is US military power that matters most, even if the US is dependent on using the territory of other countries for contingencies in East Asia. As the military balance in the Taiwan Straits has long trended in China’s favour, the US believes it needs every resource at its disposal to deter and, if required, defeat China.
This is far removed from the supposedly isolationist mindset of Trump’s America First agenda. If the President were truly an isolationist, he would be more relaxed about selling submarines to Australia as the US retreats. But the review is not driven by a US in retreat: it is about the US becoming more anxious that it’s not producing enough nuclear submarines to take on the People’s Liberation Army and persuade Beijing it will not win a war in Asia.
In this respect, the dramatic expansion of its domestic military-industrial capability is the key determinant of whether Pillar I is assessed to meet the demands of America First. This doesn’t mean Australia cannot affect the assessment. On the contrary, we have considerable agency to influence the final determination; this means the pressure will mount on the Albanese government.
Flippantly rebuffing Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s insistence that Australia spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence did more than annoy the administration. It sent a signal that Australia is prepared to weaken our existing forces over this decade to purchase nuclear-powered submarines sometime in the next decade.
If the Albanese government holds its current line on spending, it increases the chance that the review will conclude Pillar I is an unaffordable extravagance and AUKUS members are better off redirecting resources to upgrading existing capabilities and increase funding for Pillar II.
As with the Biden administration, those now in power have expressed irritation to me personally that Australian leaders remain ambiguous about their commitments to a possible conflict in Northeast Asia.
No country can offer iron-clad commitments for what are merely hypotheticals. But much is read into not only the refusal for Australia to urgently spend more on defence, but also the trajectory of our bilateral relationship with China under this government.
AUKUS was forged as a joint agreement to confront and deter China – there is no getting around this central reality. Yet it has been noticed that the Albanese government’s pursuit of a more stable diplomatic relationship with China essentially means Australia has become more hesitant to deal squarely with geopolitical and strategic differences vis-a-vis China.
The administration has offered the view that if Australia were meeting its defence obligations and contributing more significantly to joint deterrence – some call it the “AUKUS spirit” – China would not offer us the pretence of civility. Anthony Albanese might object to this assessment, but it exists nevertheless.
Finally, there is no escaping the need for more defence spending if we want AUKUS to survive.
The least constructive response is to ridicule and use Trump as an excuse for us to do less. We can become far more helpful in the collective effort to deter China across joint production, capability and deployment. But this requires more money and a far greater preparedness to do things that will displease China.
John Lee is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington
More Coverage
Albanese living in the past as Carney, Starmer, Zelensky get ahead
Anthony Albanese didn’t get his meeting with Donald Trump at the G7 summit. Yet, three leaders who faced similar challenges as Australia found a way to overcome them.
If we value children, should we subsidise the cost of egg freezing?
More and more women are choosing to store eggs to ‘protect’ their fertility. But with the cost rising, is it time for us to consider an egg bonus?