Why Australia’s deep Aukus submarine division is pushing Albanese’s Labor into hot water
- Domestic
anxiety about the Aukus agreement with the US and UK to help provide
Canberra with nuclear-powered submarines has been growing
- As
the ruling Labor party begins a key conference, some members,
unionists, anti-war groups keen to rebel, saying ‘so many things are
wrong’
Su-Lin Tan
in Singapore 17 Aug, 2023
A showdown between the Australian Labor government and its rank and
file over the government’s nuclear-powered Aukus submarine deal is set
to unfold at a key decision-making conference this week as domestic
disapproval of Aukus grows.
Following the March announcement of an agreement with the United States and Britain for Australia to acquire up to eight submarines, and the necessary military and civilian training, the government’s party members, anti-war groups and many unions have become increasingly agitated.
They say the Aukus deal could cede Australia’s sovereignty to the US, unravel the country’s non-nuclear commitments and hurt the pockets of taxpayers because of the A$368 billion (US$237 billion) cost over the next 30 years.
Similar concerns have also been echoed by neighbouring countries including Malaysia and Indonesia, mainly about how the two-year-old Aukus threesome could unsettle the region’s security or start an arms race, although analysts say the Albanese government’s diplomacy efforts have managed to assuage some of these reservations.
Domestic anxieties about the Aukus military pact and the underlying submarines purchase – particularly from party members – have, however, reached a crescendo ahead of Labor’s key triennial conference starting Thursday, prompting Defence Minister Richard Marles and Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy to hold a special video briefing on Monday night to try to placate members and defuse tension.
The conference, which locks down party policies that shape how the government manages Australia, is largely a rubber-stamp of what has already been fought out and agreed upon. However, more than 50 branches have passed motions for the government to review or withdraw from the Aukus alliance and groups within the party such as Labor Against War have consequently managed to force a debate on Aukus into the conference’s agenda.
Labor Against War acknowledges the 50 branches – out of hundreds – is just a start and says “it is inappropriate to endorse Aukus given its problematic features”. “There are so many things wrong with Aukus … putting Australia on a ‘war footing’ with our main trading partner just makes no sense,” said Marcus Strom, a spokesman for Labor Against War and a former press secretary for the Albanese government.
He said Aukus is seen as “crossing a line on nuclear power that has been at the heart of Labor principle” and would “create a loophole in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty [in force since 1970] for non-nuclear-armed countries to access weapons-grade uranium”.
The government admits it has no solution for nuclear waste, he added.
The potential erosion of Australia’s sovereignty is also worrying some amid people like Kurt Campbell, US President Biden’s so-called Asia tsar, telling Washington that submarines provided to Australia “are not lost”, Strom said.
Campbell said the vessels were merely deployed to “the closest possible allied force” during a discussion with the US-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies in June. “This clearly implies the US expects to retain control of the submarines,” Strom said.
Party members and the Australian public alike have spoken up publicly about the current government’s detraction from Labor values, values traditionally seen in the commitment towards peacebuilding and the scepticism of US militarism.
Prominent members like former prime minister Paul Keating and former foreign minister Bob Carr have been openly critical of Aukus.
A debate is now set for Friday morning to discuss the removal of “Aukus” from Labor’s platform on defence, but not before a major protest takes place outside the conference.
Strom’s Labor Against War, trade unions – the grass roots of the party – and peace groups will be rallying against Aukus and a potential war with China. The demonstrations have also been backed by 20 organisations. It is not the first display of dissent against Aukus. In May, Labor unionists rallied at Wollongong’s Port Kembla, near Sydney, to rule out the site as a future base for the submarines.
“Many Australians are starting to understand that the decision of whether or not to go to war has been taken away from the Australian government and, by virtue of that, the Australian people,” Arthur Rorris, head of the South Coast Labour Council, a union, told local media after the Port Kembla rally in May.
“There’s clearly been a coup in defence policy. Slowly but surely they shifted the focus of our defence from defending Australia to defending US economic interests in the South China Sea.” A US submarine docks at a port in Rockingham on the outskirts of
In March, Michele O’Neil, the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions – which brings 36 unions together – said they backed a “nuclear-free defence policy”.
Various debates and rallies have been held across the country by groups like the Australian Anti-Aukus Coalition, Australians for War Powers Reform and the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network, which conducted a peace speaking tour earlier this month that was joined by representatives from the Pacific Ocean’s island of Guam – a US territory since its capture from Spain in 1898 – and Japan’s island of Okinawa. There are thousands of American troops in both places.
In March, Nobel Peace Prize winner, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) civil society coalition campaigned against Aukus, saying it had moved Australia from a non-nuclear state to a position of “provocation” supporting the US in a potential war in northeast Asia.
In May, high-profile politicians, former military leaders and academic experts took out a newspaper advertisement calling for a parliamentary inquiry, saying “questions about Aukus remain unanswered”.
More than 100 university academics penned an open letter decrying Aukus that same month. “The government has not made clear how Aukus will translate into a safer Australia,” the letter said.
But all of this does not mean there will be significant victory against Aukus on Friday, said one of the signatories, Scott Burchill, a honorary fellow in international relations at Deakin University.
“If anything, Albanese has been more pro-Washington than [former prime minister Scott] Morrison. He knows he doesn’t have to worry about significant factional opposition,” he said, referring to full support for Aukus from both the left and right factions of the party thus far.
Opposition to Aukus might not gain traction anyway as it “encompasses such an incoherent mishmash of grumbles”, said Matthew Sussex, a fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. Labor Against War’s Strom is aware many party members will be loyal to the government and keep their counsel on Aukus, but he says the debate on Friday is just the beginning.
“The dangers of Aukus are too important for us not to speak out,” he said.
Following the March announcement of an agreement with the United States and Britain for Australia to acquire up to eight submarines, and the necessary military and civilian training, the government’s party members, anti-war groups and many unions have become increasingly agitated.
They say the Aukus deal could cede Australia’s sovereignty to the US, unravel the country’s non-nuclear commitments and hurt the pockets of taxpayers because of the A$368 billion (US$237 billion) cost over the next 30 years.
Similar concerns have also been echoed by neighbouring countries including Malaysia and Indonesia, mainly about how the two-year-old Aukus threesome could unsettle the region’s security or start an arms race, although analysts say the Albanese government’s diplomacy efforts have managed to assuage some of these reservations.
Domestic anxieties about the Aukus military pact and the underlying submarines purchase – particularly from party members – have, however, reached a crescendo ahead of Labor’s key triennial conference starting Thursday, prompting Defence Minister Richard Marles and Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy to hold a special video briefing on Monday night to try to placate members and defuse tension.
The conference, which locks down party policies that shape how the government manages Australia, is largely a rubber-stamp of what has already been fought out and agreed upon. However, more than 50 branches have passed motions for the government to review or withdraw from the Aukus alliance and groups within the party such as Labor Against War have consequently managed to force a debate on Aukus into the conference’s agenda.
Labor Against War acknowledges the 50 branches – out of hundreds – is just a start and says “it is inappropriate to endorse Aukus given its problematic features”. “There are so many things wrong with Aukus … putting Australia on a ‘war footing’ with our main trading partner just makes no sense,” said Marcus Strom, a spokesman for Labor Against War and a former press secretary for the Albanese government.
He said Aukus is seen as “crossing a line on nuclear power that has been at the heart of Labor principle” and would “create a loophole in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty [in force since 1970] for non-nuclear-armed countries to access weapons-grade uranium”.
The government admits it has no solution for nuclear waste, he added.
The potential erosion of Australia’s sovereignty is also worrying some amid people like Kurt Campbell, US President Biden’s so-called Asia tsar, telling Washington that submarines provided to Australia “are not lost”, Strom said.
Campbell said the vessels were merely deployed to “the closest possible allied force” during a discussion with the US-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies in June. “This clearly implies the US expects to retain control of the submarines,” Strom said.
Party members and the Australian public alike have spoken up publicly about the current government’s detraction from Labor values, values traditionally seen in the commitment towards peacebuilding and the scepticism of US militarism.
Prominent members like former prime minister Paul Keating and former foreign minister Bob Carr have been openly critical of Aukus.
A debate is now set for Friday morning to discuss the removal of “Aukus” from Labor’s platform on defence, but not before a major protest takes place outside the conference.
Strom’s Labor Against War, trade unions – the grass roots of the party – and peace groups will be rallying against Aukus and a potential war with China. The demonstrations have also been backed by 20 organisations. It is not the first display of dissent against Aukus. In May, Labor unionists rallied at Wollongong’s Port Kembla, near Sydney, to rule out the site as a future base for the submarines.
“Many Australians are starting to understand that the decision of whether or not to go to war has been taken away from the Australian government and, by virtue of that, the Australian people,” Arthur Rorris, head of the South Coast Labour Council, a union, told local media after the Port Kembla rally in May.
“There’s clearly been a coup in defence policy. Slowly but surely they shifted the focus of our defence from defending Australia to defending US economic interests in the South China Sea.” A US submarine docks at a port in Rockingham on the outskirts of
In March, Michele O’Neil, the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions – which brings 36 unions together – said they backed a “nuclear-free defence policy”.
Various debates and rallies have been held across the country by groups like the Australian Anti-Aukus Coalition, Australians for War Powers Reform and the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network, which conducted a peace speaking tour earlier this month that was joined by representatives from the Pacific Ocean’s island of Guam – a US territory since its capture from Spain in 1898 – and Japan’s island of Okinawa. There are thousands of American troops in both places.
In March, Nobel Peace Prize winner, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) civil society coalition campaigned against Aukus, saying it had moved Australia from a non-nuclear state to a position of “provocation” supporting the US in a potential war in northeast Asia.
In May, high-profile politicians, former military leaders and academic experts took out a newspaper advertisement calling for a parliamentary inquiry, saying “questions about Aukus remain unanswered”.
More than 100 university academics penned an open letter decrying Aukus that same month. “The government has not made clear how Aukus will translate into a safer Australia,” the letter said.
But all of this does not mean there will be significant victory against Aukus on Friday, said one of the signatories, Scott Burchill, a honorary fellow in international relations at Deakin University.
“If anything, Albanese has been more pro-Washington than [former prime minister Scott] Morrison. He knows he doesn’t have to worry about significant factional opposition,” he said, referring to full support for Aukus from both the left and right factions of the party thus far.
Opposition to Aukus might not gain traction anyway as it “encompasses such an incoherent mishmash of grumbles”, said Matthew Sussex, a fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. Labor Against War’s Strom is aware many party members will be loyal to the government and keep their counsel on Aukus, but he says the debate on Friday is just the beginning.
“The dangers of Aukus are too important for us not to speak out,” he said.