American deep dive won’t kill off AUKUS defence pact

The Trump administration’s AUKUS review was not initiated to kill off the landmark security partnership, but is seen as a full-scale Pentagon endeavour to identify and get ahead of future challenges.

US Under-Secretary of Defence Elbridge Colby is leading a comprehensive review of AUKUS. Picture: Getty Images

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

The Trump administration’s AUKUS review was not initiated to kill off the landmark security partnership, but is seen as a full-scale Pentagon endeavour – conducted in collaboration with the key organs of the US government – to identify and get ahead of ­future challenges.

Pentagon sources revealed that US Under-Secretary of Defence Elbridge Colby did not ­initiate the reassessment of AUKUS, but was requested to lead a comprehensive review with the full weight and backing of the Department of Defence.

The request came from US ­Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who made the decision with the knowledge of other senior figures in the administration.

There is interest at the most senior levels of the US government in its findings.

The update on the highly ­anticipated review comes as ­Anthony Albanese leaves on ­Saturday for a five-day visit to China where he will meet President Xi Jinping for a fourth time, a stark contrast to his relationship with Donald Trump, whom he has not yet met in person.

Mr Colby’s review, never ­intended as a snap 30-day inquiry, is a much more detailed examination of the AUKUS agreement between the US, the UK and Australia than was initially expected. It is anticipated to take months.

A US Defence Official told The Australian “the 30-day review that was leaked is not accurate.”

“The Secretary of Defence directed Elbridge Colby in his role as the Under Secretary of Defence for Policy to undertake this review.”

US reports of Mr Colby ­blindsiding the White House by delaying weapons shipments to Ukraine last week would have raised alarm bells in Canberra over the direction of the AUKUS review. But The Australian understands that Mr Colby does not have the authority to halt munitions to Kyiv and instead prepared a memo containing a framework or “decision tool” setting out capabilities that Ukraine might need or ask for – with no recommendation to proceed with a pause.

The Australian can reveal there is not a predetermined ­outcome to the Pentagon’s AUKUS review although the US does believe there are challenges with the implementation of the agreement that have already been identified and acknowledged by all parties. While this means changes are possible, assurances have been provided that the review is not a set-up aimed at trying to kill off AUKUS.

Instead it is a way of ensuring the security partnership is fit for purpose by: identifying and getting ahead of future problems; ensuring America is in a position to deliver on the commitments it has made; and avoiding surprises by having tough conversations now rather than trying to “wave them away or ignore them.”

“There are challenges ... We should take them head on. We should talk about it,” the US Defence Official said. “We should work together with the Aussies and British counterparts to address them.”

This approach is framed as being “not just better for American interests, but also for the alliance and the agreement itself.”

The Defence Official told The Australian that “what that means for us is making sure that it (AUKUS) is something we can make good on and that we are all working together as effectively as possible.”

There is a firm view inside the Pentagon that Australia must ­increase its defence spending, with Mr Hegseth having requested 3.5 per cent of GDP. What Australia does with the defence budget is being closely watched in Washington.

But this issue is seen as a separate matter from the ongoing AUKUS review.

“As we think about the alliance more broadly, things like defence spending are really important. I think that’s been made clear publicly. That’s something President Trump feels very strongly about – especially after a tremendous success in Europe,” the Defence Official said. “This review is a separate matter.”

Whether Australia’s intentions and strategic planning in relation to China, as well as its response to any contingencies in the Taiwan Strait, are being considered as part of the review ­remains an open question.

Pentagon sources said Mr Colby’s ­review would involve both co-operation with and input from the US State Department as well as other US government agencies, in addition to deep and constant consultation with both Australia and the UK.

The sources rejected any ­suggestions the review was the result of a rogue decision taken by Mr Colby, defending the ­process as inclusive but acknowledging there would also be separate internal work on AUKUS done by other departments.

“Mr Colby explicitly directed his team to be in close consultation with our Australian counterparts. And they are frequent and constant. So this notion that we’re doing this on our own within the US government is factually incorrect,” the US Defence Official said.

“We’re in constant communication with State Department interagency colleagues about this and ditto for our engagements with Australian and British counterparts.”

“This process - it has been, it will be, appropriately inclusive.”

Mr Colby has previously challenged parts of the AUKUS agreement by questioning whether the US submarine ­industrial base could accommodate the provision of Virginia-class submarines to Australia and if Canberra would support Washington in a contingency in the Taiwan Strait.

Under the $368bn AUKUS agreement, Canberra will ­acquire three Virginia-class ­submarines from America as soon as the early 2030s before going on to build next-generation nuclear-powered submarines based on a UK design – the “SSN-AUKUS”.

The Pentagon is likening the AUKUS assessment to the ­review undertaken for the ­UK Labour government by ­Stephen Lovegrove, which heavily endorsed the security partnership, a comparison that will greatly assure the Australian government.

Sir Stephen – who is this week briefing Australian officials in Canberra and Perth on the ­outcome of the British review – has said he is “not worried” by the Pentagon’s assessment of AUKUS, arguing there is “huge support” for the agreement in Washington.

“I do think that the AUKUS set of programs and the initiative as a whole is a very significant improvement in the security position of all three countries,” Sir Stephen told the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

“I would be very confident that AUKUS will survive for the future.”

Yet there is another key element of the Pentagon review. It is intended to ensure the ­agreement is structured and implemented in a way that serves Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda.

It is unclear at this stage what this may mean in practice.

“The point of the review is to make sure that this agreement is structured and implemented in a way that aligns with President Trump’s objectives and priorities,” a US Defence Official told The Australian.

Render of the SSN-AUKUS Nuclear-Powered Submarine. Credit: BAE Systems

No timeline has yet been given for the completion of the review, but interagency engagement and full co-operation with both Australia and the UK has now commenced.

Speaking at the ASEAN summit in Malaysia, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: “Anytime a new administration takes over, there’s a review of all policies. I mean, policies are reviewed; doesn’t necessarily mean you’re against it.

“Just because you’re reviewing something doesn’t mean you’re going to necessarily act on it. It means you’re a new ­administration, and you want to take an audit, an account, about all the policies that you’ve ­inherited – and policies, how they’ve changed since the last time you were in office when it comes to the Trump ­administration.”

Strategic Analysis Australia founder and director Michael Shoebridge said that the review might uncover vulnerabilities on the US side that Washington was not expecting.

Mr Shoebridge noted that the American admiral running the AUKUS training program had said that about 10 per cent of the crew on Virginia class attack submarines would be Australian.

“Australia actually gets an enormous level of the US Navy’s ability to use its own ­submarines,” Mr Shoebridge said. “That is a real risk and ­vulnerability.

“They could certainly ask for more money because the Pentagon keeps having to put increasing funds into the submarine industrial base and so far it’s not delivering results. So they may well have to put more money in.”