AUKUS security pact,
Future of International Agreements
by Adam Rangihana

AUKUS security pact, and the Future of International Agreements

The AUKUS security pact, and the Future of International Agreements

The AUKUS security pact, signed by Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, was touted as a strategic alliance aimed at enhancing military cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region. However, as the deal progresses, serious questions have emerged regarding Australia’s role in the agreement, particularly under the prospect of a second Trump administration. With Australia potentially funding the development of foreign defense industries without receiving the promised returns, the AUKUS pact may inadvertently trap the country into an unhealthy dependency on its allies. This article explores how Trump’s "America First" policy, Scott Morrison’s controversial decisions, and the UK’s involvement in AUKUS may leave Australia in a precarious position.
AUKUS: The Fragility of Trilateral Alliances
AUKUS, signed in September 2021, promised Australia access to nuclear-powered submarines, a crucial step in modernizing its defense capabilities and asserting itself as a regional player in the face of China’s growing military influence. But the reality of the deal may be more complicated. Australia, as part of AUKUS, has committed to a significant financial contribution to secure its defense future. However, the very structure of the agreement could leave Australia at the mercy of its larger allies, particularly the United States, while undermining its ability to develop an independent defense industry.
Scott Morrison, as the Prime Minister who announced the deal, positioned AUKUS as a vital "gift" to the people of Australia, a promise of security and technological advancement. Yet this "gift" is proving to come at an enormous cost. By committing to AUKUS, Australia is not only paying billions to the US and the UK but also locking itself into a system where its military capacity is tethered to the whims of foreign powers. The promise of nuclear-powered submarines has been greeted with cautious optimism by many in Australia’s defense sector. However, as time progresses, it’s becoming clear that Australia may not be receiving the autonomy it needs to build its own defense infrastructure.
Australia’s Dependence on the US and UK: The Gift That Keeps on Taking
The concept of strategic autonomy is central to Australia’s long-term defense strategy. However, AUKUS risks undermining this by making Australia excessively dependent on the US for critical military technology and resources. The submarines promised under AUKUS are not Australian-made; instead, they are US-designed Virginia-class subs, and the SSN-AUKUS model being developed is a British initiative. Australia has invested billions of dollars into these defense industries without gaining any direct technological advantage of its own.
While Morrison’s government framed this commitment as a "gift" to the Australian people, it could instead be seen as a massive subsidy to foreign defense industries. Australia's payments to the US and the UK, particularly the A$4.7 billion to the US and A$4.6 billion to the UK, are intended to help expand the capacity of these countries' shipyards to produce the submarines. This means that Australia is effectively financing the development of foreign defense industries rather than creating its own military assets.
In many ways, this approach mirrors Morrison’s broader defense strategy—one that leans heavily on foreign powers while providing little room for Australia to develop the independent defense capabilities it needs for true sovereignty. By funding the development of the UK’s SSN-AUKUS submarines, Australia is essentially contributing to the expansion of British defense infrastructure while remaining wholly dependent on foreign powers for its own defense.
The UK’s Economic Windfall: Australia’s Unwitting Contribution
For the UK, AUKUS represents a significant economic boon. The UK’s involvement in AUKUS is not just about military cooperation but about securing billions of pounds worth of defense contracts. The British government is using AUKUS as a springboard to rebuild its submarine industry. As part of the deal, the UK will develop and produce the SSN-AUKUS submarines, with contracts for thousands of jobs in the defense sector. The UK Ministry of Defence’s £4.0 billion contract for SSN-AUKUS construction is expected to create thousands of skilled jobs, benefitting companies like BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce .
While these contracts are beneficial to the UK, they come at a steep cost to Australia. Australia’s commitment to the program—particularly the billions funneled into the UK defense industry—raises questions about whether the benefits for Australia will ever materialize. As it stands, Australia is pouring money into foreign defense sectors while its own military capabilities remain dependent on the US and the UK. Despite the promise of nuclear submarines, the reality is that Australia is funding the defense industries of other nations rather than strengthening its own. This financial arrangement is far from a win for Australia, as it risks locking the country into a position of perpetual reliance on foreign powers.
Trump’s White House: A Reckoning for AUKUS and Global Alliances
If Trump returns to the White House in 2024, the future of AUKUS, along with other key international agreements, becomes even more uncertain. Throughout his first term, Trump’s "America First" policy wreaked havoc on global diplomacy, with the former president repeatedly undermining or abandoning agreements that didn’t serve the US’s immediate interests. From the Paris Climate Accord to the Iran nuclear deal, Trump’s administration demonstrated a willingness to disregard longstanding international commitments. A second Trump presidency could have disastrous implications for Australia’s role in AUKUS, particularly if the US decides to renegotiate the terms of the deal—or worse, withdraw from it altogether.
Trump’s transactional style of diplomacy is focused on extracting as much benefit as possible for the US while minimizing costs. This raises the specter of Trump revisiting the terms of AUKUS, potentially demanding that Australia pay more or take on additional costs, all while receiving little in return. Given Trump’s history of disregarding agreements—particularly trade deals with China and tariffs imposed on European allies—there’s a real risk that AUKUS could become yet another broken commitment under his leadership.
In fact, Trump’s administration has already shown signs of undermining Australia’s security posture. During his first term, Trump openly questioned the US’s security commitments to NATO allies and pulled the US out of multiple international agreements. If Trump were to return, his "America First" approach could see the US scaling back its military support to Australia, leaving the country’s defense strategy in tatters.
Conclusion: The High Cost of Dependence
​AUKUS has, on paper, offered Australia a significant upgrade to its military capabilities, particularly in the form of nuclear-powered submarines. However, the agreement risks cementing Australia’s dependence on the US and the UK, while offering little in return. By committing billions to foreign defense industries, Australia is not securing its own defense autonomy; instead, it is subsidizing the military assets of other countries.
As Scott Morrison’s “gift” to Australia begins to look more like a financial burden, the future of AUKUS remains uncertain. With a potential Trump presidency looming, the very agreements Australia has invested in could be at risk of renegotiation or abandonment. The UK, meanwhile, stands to gain billions from its involvement in the deal, leaving Australia with little more than a promise of future submarines, and a crippling level of dependence on foreign powers.
The AUKUS pact, rather than being a win for Australian sovereignty, could ultimately prove to be a cautionary tale about the dangers of placing too much trust in international agreements with uncertain outcomes. Without strategic independence and a clear commitment to developing its own defense capabilities, Australia risks being left to bear the financial cost of a pact that may never fully deliver on its promises.