Could Trump sink Australia’s submarine plans?

The Minister of Defense in Australia woke up with a nightmare earlier this week – and it is the one that has been looming since the United States re -elected Donald Trump as president in November.

A historic trilateral agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia-which would give this latest cutting-edge nuclear submarine technology in exchange for more aid for the China police in Asia-Pacific-was being examined.

The White House said Thursday that he wanted to make sure The so-called Aukus pact was “aligned with the president’s first program in America” ​​of the president “.

It is the last blow of Washington which questions its longtime friendship with Canberra, arousing fears under this, while conflicts warm up in the whole world, Australia can be left standing without its greatest ally.

“I do not think that an Australian only thinks our ally is fully attached to our security at the moment,” said Sam Roggeveen, who runs the safety program at the Lowy Institute Think Tank in Australia.

On paper, Australia is the clear beneficiary of the Aukus agreement, worth 176 billion pounds sterling (239 billion dollars; $ 368 billion).

The technology underlying the pact belongs to the United States, and the United Kingdom has already, as well as their own nuclear submarines. But those who are designed jointly and built by the three countries will be an improvement.

For Australia, this represents a pivot upgrade of military capacities. The new underwater model can operate further and faster than the country’s diesel engine fleet, and allow it to make long-term strikes against enemies for the first time.

This is a big problem for the United States to share what has been described as the “jewel of the crown” of its defense technology, and nothing small for the United Kingdom to put the engine plans either.

But Arming Australia was historically considered by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserve peace in the Asia-Pacific region, which is far from theirs.

It’s about putting their technology and equipment in the right place, according to experts.

But when the Aukus agreement was signed in 2021, the three countries had very different leaders-Joe Biden in the United States, Boris Johnson in the United Kingdom and Scott Morrison in Australia.

Today, when it is seen through the increasingly isolationist objective that Trump uses to examine the global links of his country, some maintain that the United States has much less to win the pact.

Under-Secretary to Defense Policy, Elbridge Colby, a previous criticism of Aukus, will lead the White House review to the agreement, with a Pentagon official telling the BBC that the process was to ensure that it was responding to “Common Sense, America First Criteria”.

Two of the criteria they cite are revealing. One is a request that the allies “intervene fully to make their part for collective defense”. The other is an alleged need to ensure that the American weapons industry adequately meets the country’s own needs.

The Trump administration has always expressed its frustration towards the allies, including Australia, who, according to them, do not get their weight with defense expenses.

They also say that America has trouble producing enough nuclear submarines for its own forces.

“Why do we offer this active ingredient of the crown when we need it most?” Colby himself had said last year.

The Australian government, however, presents a calm front.

It is natural that a new administration is reassessing the decisions of its predecessor, according to the officials, noting that the new British Labor government also revised the Aukus last year.

“I am very convinced that this will happen,” said Defense Minister Richard Marles about the Pact, in an interview with Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

But there is no doubt that the review causes first panic shocks to Canberra.

“I think that the anxiety has been inseparable from Aukus since its beginning … The review itself is not alarming. That’s the rest,” said Euan Graham, of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, at the BBC.

There is an increasing concern through Australia on which America cannot rely.

“”[President Donald Trump’s] Behavior, during these first months of this term, I do not think that an observer of confidence on America’s commitment to his allies should be fulfilled, “said Roggeveen.

“Trump said, for example, that Ukraine is mainly the problem of Europe because they are separated by a large and magnificent ocean. Well, of course, there is also a large and magnificent ocean separating America from Asia.”

The decision of Washington to slap major prices on Australian products earlier this year did not inspire confidence, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese saying that he was clearly “not the act of a friend”.

Albanese has remained silent on the Revue d’Aukus so far, probably holding his breath for a face -to -face meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week. It is a conversation that he always tries desperately to bring the American president to accept.

But several former prime ministers rushed to give their two hundred.

Scott Morrison, the conservative chief who negotiated the Aukus pact in 2021, said that the exam should not be “too interpreted” and laughed at the suggestion that another country could meet the security needs of Australia.

“The concept … is honestly delusional,” he told ABC Radio.

Malcolm Turnbull, who was behind the French submarine contract that Morrison was radically torn in favor of Aukus, said that Australia should “wake up”, realize that it is a “bad deal” on which the United States could inform at any time and make other plans before it was too late.

Meanwhile, Paul Keating, an ardent defender of closer ties with China, said that “could very well be the moment when Washington saves Australia from herself”.

“Aukus will be shown for what he has always been: an accorded agreement in a hurry on the back of an envelope of Scott Morrison, as well as the Vacuum British Bulhard Boris Johnson and the President Confus Joe Biden.”

The smell of American indecision on Aukus fospens long -term criticism in some quarters that Australia becomes too dependent on the country.

Calling on the own investigation of Australia, the Greens, the third political party in the country, said: “We need an independent defense and a foreign policy, which does not force us to fold our will and to shovel the increasingly erratic and reckless wealth of Trump USA.”

There is every chance that the United States will turn to a few weeks and recommend to the pact.

In the end, Australia bought up to five nuclear propulsion submarines at huge costs, helping to keep the Americans employed. And the United States has a lot of time – just under a decade – to solve their supply problems and provide them.

“”[The US] Also benefit from the wider aspects of Aukus – the three parties can raise their boat jointly by having a defense technology and a more interoperable defense ecosystem, “adds Graham.

Despite this, the anxiety that the journal has injected into the relationship will be difficult to erase completely – and has only made inflamed disagreements on Aukus in Australia.

But there is also a possibility that Trump wants to rewrite the agreement.

“I can easily see a future in which we do not get Virginia class boats,” said Roggeveen, referring to temporary submarines.

This would potentially leave Australia with its fleet increasingly exceeded for two decades, vulnerable while the new models are designed and built.

What happens in the event that the United States completely leaves the Aukus alliance?

At this point, little sound this alarm.

General opinion is that, for the United States, the fight against China and the maintenance of the Pacific in their sphere of influence is always crucial.

Mr. Roggeveen, however, says that when it comes to potential conflicts in the Pacific, the United States has not put their money where his mouth has been for years.

“China has embarked on the greatest accumulation of military power in all countries since the end of the Cold War and the position of the United States in Asia has not changed,” he said.

If the United States leaves, Aukus could very well become an awkward Auk-but could the United Kingdom realistically offer enough for Australia to support the agreement?

What if everything collapses and Australia finds itself without submarines, who could it turn?

France feels like an improbable savior, given the previous row there, but Australia has options, Mr. Roggeveen says: “It would not be the end of the world for Australian defense.”

Australia is “geographically blessed”, he says, and with “a reasonable defense budget and a good strategy” could sufficiently dissuade China, even without submarines.

“There is this sentence that you hear from time to time, that the danger is at our door. Well, it’s a big door if it’s true … Beijing is closer to Berlin than Sydney.”

“There is this mental block in Australia and also this emotional block – a fear of abandonment, this idea that we cannot defend ourselves alone. But we can absolutely if we owe it.”