STATEMENT FROM AUKUS PARTNERS
On 5 August 2024, AUKUS partners signed the trilateral Agreement Among the Government of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion (the “Agreement”).
In March 2023, the AUKUS Leaders announced an ambitious plan to support Australia’s acquisition of a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability at the earliest possible date, while ensuring Australia’s capacity to safely operate, maintain, and regulate this technology. The Agreement will enable AUKUS partners to continue to share submarine naval nuclear propulsion information between the partners, and allow the United Kingdom and the United States to transfer material and equipment to Australia required for the safe and secure construction, operation and sustainment of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership.
Since the announcement of this endeavour, the AUKUS partners have been resolute that this initiative will be undertaken in a way that sets the highest non-proliferation standard, while protecting classified and controlled information, material, and equipment. To this end, the Agreement re-affirms, and is consistent with, AUKUS partners’ respective existing international non-proliferation obligations. As a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Australia has re-affirmed unequivocally that it does not have and will not seek to acquire nuclear weapons.
The Agreement is a significant milestone and a demonstration of the AUKUS partners’ commitment to delivering this critical capability.
Greens Party Statement
Albanese’s new AUKUS 2.0 deal with secret “political commitments”
US President Joe Biden announced that a new AUKUS agreement has been signed with Australia that contains secret “political commitments”. This new AUKUS deal supersedes the previous agreement formulated under the Morrison Government, which entered into force in February 2022.
Attached to this new agreement is an undisclosed “Understanding” which covers the approaches the respective governments will take to the new agreement and provides “additional related political commitments.” These additional political commitments have been kept secret.
The new agreement will allow for the transfer of naval nuclear propulsion plants and other equipment, including equipment needed for the disposal of naval nuclear propulsion plants.
The agreement also expressly protects US intellectual property, including the prevention of information, material or equipment going beyond “the jurisdiction” without the consent of the US.
There is also a provision in the agreement that will allow the UK and US to intervene in the arrangements between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Senator David Shoebridge Greens Spokesperson on Defence said: “Joe Biden has just announced that there is a new AUKUS agreement, and told us how our own government has made secret “political commitments” that go alongside the new AUKUS deal. The silence from the Albanese Government on this is deafening, Australians should not have to find out from Washington what our own Government is doing. What is so damaging to the Albanese government with this new deal that it has to be kept secret from the Australian public? There are real concerns the secret understanding includes commitments binding us to the U.S. in the event they go to war with China in return for getting nuclear submarines. AUKUS 2.0, which now comes with a secret side deal, is driving us further into the US war plans with China. People are rightfully concerned about US war plans, about the US nuclear weapons in Australia and about losing independence over our military. Albanese making secret political commitments to the US only fuels those fears.”
Senator Jordon Steele-John, Greens Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs said: “This new AUKUS pact puts into writing what so many in our community already knew, it signs Australians up to the next half-century of US foreign policy and undermines Australian national sovereignty in favour of US strategic interests. The fact that the Albanese government would make secret political agreements with any country let alone one potentially about to re-elect Donald Trump is abhorrent. It will destabilise our relations with our Pacific neighbours and the world. The Albanese government’s cowardice to not even acknowledge these agreements with the Australian people and instead let the news be announced via the United States shows an utter lack of respect or regard for the community every MP in this country is elected to serve. In the last 50 years, the US has overseen illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos, supported fascist coups around the world and brought Australia into two senseless wars in the Middle East that killed millions. Anthony Albanese seems content to sign every Australian up for Act 2 which could very well include Donald Trump.”
For Editorial Inquiries Contact :
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net
This just gets better and better. Any Chance Moystn can pull a Kerr .
As far as anyone can tell, there’s not much left of Australia’s sovereignty.
No time at all for the Greens normally but it is them who have now raised, in Parliament, the fact that the US and UK can take our money and, by simply giving a years notice, walk away from the deal altogether.
Correct. In Estimates it’s only Greens Senator David Shoebridge who asks detailed questions – and who exposed VADM Mead as an evasive idiot over Australia’s extraordinary gift of $10 billion to US and UK submarine building companies WITH NO EFFING REFUND CLAUSE.
There are other media perspectives available, some of which actually mention the content and intent of the agreement rather than publishing a statement from ex-student communists. For example, https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2024/08/15/aukus-countries-update-rules-on-sharing-defense-kit/:
“The three nations updated their regulations Thursday, exempting each other from limits on the export of weapons. These rules act like a fence around what equipment each country can share. For example, before Australia could order American weapons, it would first need the State Department to grant a license — a highly technical application that can take more than a month to process…In America, the change involves updating the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, a lengthy bureaucratic process. The State Department Thursday said it would issue an “interim final rule” that will exempt Australia and the U.K. from needing a license for 80% of America’s commercial defense sales.”
ITAR regulations have been a significant bureaucratic hurdle for the ADF for decades. Surely this is more pertinent to APDR readers than the political statements of a party which would ban recruitment advertising for the ADF and prohibit the export of any defence material from Australia?
APDR aggregates all the relevant industry press releases, but If it’s defence news you’re after, perhaps read the Defense News website. I also recommend TWZ.com.
Like all small news organisations we largely rely on media releases being sent to us. I wish I had the resources of the New York Times or the ABC to really do some digging, but this is the world that we live in. ITAR might have been a hurdle for the ADF but I’m not sure if there’s a benefit to Australian industry in these changes despite Richard Marles stating that it will mean billions of dollars for local companies. I’m not aware that ITAR has any consequences for Australian companies trying to sell to the US. The main problems appear to be: a) we don’t actually make very much; and b) unlike the Australian military, the US prefers to buy things made by their own people.
The statement is not really about AUKUS or the recent amendments. It’s just a reiteration of the Greens’ ideology. I don’t think the interests of APDR or its readers are served by publishing press releases from minor parties, regardless of their profile at senate estimates.
You would rather opinions not lining up with your own not be published?
Publish what you want; it’s your magazine.
But the Venn diagram of people who are interested in defence reporting from the Asia Pacific, and people who are interested in reading press releases from the Greens is two barely touching circles with you and David Shoebridge in the overlap.
Thank you for the advice, presumably the result of a detailed market survey. We are happy to give any politicians a run online if they are making a comment on Defence topics. The government comes out with a steady stream of mainly self-serving media releases, which is normal. The opposition is disappointingly mute on most topics, presumably because they feel co-ownership of many troubled programs and prior decisions, such as AUKUS. When it comes to Senate Estimates, I can assure you and everyone else that it is often only Senator Shoebridge making any attempt to hold the government to account in a systematic way. As always, when we run anything it is not an endorsement of that point of view.
If you feel threatened by any particular article, my advice is to not read it. There’s plenty of other less upsetting material on the website.
All political statements are self serving. It’s a mystery how any of them get published.
Reference your last paragraph, if you feel challenged by comments like mine, my advice is to close the comments for contentious articles.
I’m not challenged by your comments at all. They are very welcome.
Thank you, I appreciate your openness
J.B. You can’t seriously be advocating that only options that line up with Government Policy be published, I don’t for one minute agree with the Greens Defence Policy But it would be a bad precedent not to listen or read all view points. I for one appreciate the fact that APDR does exactly that. As we were all once taught “I disagree with what you say but I’ll defend your right to say it….
I am not advocating that.
To reiterate my initial point, the Greens press release is only tangentially about its title. It is a party political statement reiterating the Greens’ policy that, essentially, Australia should repudiate our only military alliance. I suggested other websites which don’t indulge in such advocacy, and which instead, report on defence issues.
If you read my posts again, you will see nothing in them to suggest that APDR should only run government statements.
I am very interested in Defence issues and detest the Greens (Communists) immensely. However I am very happy to have any political party holding the Defence Department and ADF to account. Pursuant to that I found this article informative and helpful. As has been stated by many here previously the secrecy of our Governments of all persuasions and the Defence establishment is over the top and out of place in our Democracy. AUKUS is a huge and important program and we the voting public should not have important details hidden from us.
I want more details about AUKUS and if the only party that is fighting for that is the Greens then so be it.
Thank you Kym and the APDR team for providing more information, keep it up.