AUKUS gets a Trump card

Just when Australia needed a way out of its $368 billion submarine gamble, along comes the most unlikely escape hatch of all, writes Mark Beeson.

IF THERE’S ONE THING we can all agree on, perhaps it’s that U.S. President Donald Trump is unpredictable. Sterner critics might add erratic, ignorant, narcissistic, egotistic, delusional, irrational and, of course, “transactional”. He’s not above fermenting domestic civil unrest and undermining the foundations of American democracy either.

But whatever goes on in the most powerful man in the world’s head, he might have done our political class and the strategic elites who advise them an enormous favour. By indicating that the AUKUS project is “under review”, the Trump Administration may have handed Australia an opportunity to gracefully withdraw from what is arguably the most misguided defence project in Australian history. And given some of the notorious lemons defence planners have signed up for in the past, this is quite an achievement.

It is not just the eye-watering cost of acquiring a handful of nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed, of course!) submarines that sets AUKUS apart, though. True, $368 billion is a lot of money, especially when we remember that defence contracts always blow out and new kit never performs as advertised, but that’s not even the main reason for cancelling the project.

In defence of diplomacy: A path to Australian independence

Australia cannot make diplomacy its first line of defence until it reclaims the independence it has long surrendered to foreign alliances.

But the principal reason for offloading “our” AUKUS obligations is that they won’t make the slightest difference to Australia’s overall security in the increasingly unlikely event that they ever arrive. Having half a dozen new subs simply won’t influence China’s thinking about whether to invade Taiwan. (I think everyone agrees our largest trading partner is not planning to invade us.)

If China isn’t deterred by the United States’ formidable military capability, we won’t make any difference, apart from providing some legitimising cover for American strategic policy. Having an obliging supporting cast in whatever epic blunder the U.S. undertakes (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, to name a few) makes American actions look slightly less like an expression of unchecked unipolar hubris.

The fact that Australia has taken an active and enthusiastic part in such follies really ought to have triggered an overdue debate about the nature of our collective security. Ideally, this might have included not just political elites who seem to be in thrall to their strategic advisors and terrified of looking “weak” on security, but even the tax-paying public who ultimately have to foot the bills.

Nothing is more unlikely to judge from recent history. After all, the reason we are lumbered with AUKUS is because former PM Scott Morrison, one of the most discredited figures in Australian political history, thought an agreement with our trusted Anglosphere pals in the U.S. and the UK would be a good way of wedging the ALP in the run-up to an election.

Morrison was right about that, at least. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed up to AUKUS with almost no discussion in his then-shadow cabinet, the Labor rank and file, and certainly not with the people he hoped to represent. Even a cursory cost-benefit analysis and recollection of our recent military history, not to mention Morrison’s role in its creation, should have rung very loud alarm bells. But what’s $368 billion if it helps you win an election?

Australian independence beckons as U.S. decays

With the U.S. steadily descending into political chaos and social decline, Australia's independence has never been more important.

Perhaps it might have been more forgivable if the Albanese Government had been even a little more ambitious when it was returned to power. Perhaps it might have begun to at least think about what possible implications having a convicted felon, someone even his own former advisors regard as fascist, in the White House might have for Australia. Not much danger of that, I’m afraid.

On the contrary, there has been a rush to assure Australians that the review is “perfectly natural” and that AUKUS is still going to happen. Well, that’s a relief.

It's not clear if Richard Marles recognises that he’s Australia’s Defence Minister rather than Pete Hegseth’s obliging deputy. In response to Hegseth’s demand that we should spend even more on defence, Marles assured his American counterpart that “we are absolutely up for having this conversation”. The “we” in this context was not the Australian taxpayer.

But a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about serious money, as the old joke has it. There are lots of arguably far more urgent uses we could be devoting our scarce resources to than buying subs that were never likely to arrive, work as advertised, or deter the People’s Republic of China. In any case, it’s entirely possible that Trump will cut a deal with our notional foe over Taiwan and throw all our carefully calibrated plans into chaos.

If ever there was a time for a serious debate about the things that really threaten the long-term security of Australia – like climate change, for example – then surely this is it. Trump has given us a card to play. In this case, the get out of gaol free variety. Let’s use it before he changes his mind and have exactly the sort of review our key ally is undertaking.

Mark Beeson is an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University. He was previously Professor of International Politics at the University of Western Australia.