I’ve been listening to quite a few podcasts and doing a lot of thinking during my #eBike4Australia journey. And doing so has led me to the view that Australia needs to stop and have a proper conversation about AUKUS. We need to talk. For the last few years, the AUKUS agreement has loomed large and been hailed almost unquestioningly as a critical step in securing our future in an uncertain world. But before we sail too far down the path, it's vital that we step back and reexamine the implications of the AUKUS deal.
I’m not a dove when it comes to national security. I’m a realist when it come to defence policy and strategic relations. That said, in my view there are three key reasons why AUKUS might not be the boon for Australia that some would like us to believe.
First, let's talk about cost. AUKUS is a hugely expensive and technically complex project. The price tag attached to this initiative is astronomical, and history gives us little confidence that the final bill will match the initial estimate. Major defence projects, here and abroad, rarely come in on budget. Whether it's due to unforeseen technical challenges, shifting geopolitical circumstances, or simple mismanagement, defence projects have a way of ballooning beyond their original scope.
For AUKUS, the opportunity cost is immense. The $368 billion earmarked for nuclear-powered submarines could be invested in a multitude of areas - other defence strategies, education, healthcare, renewable energy. These are sectors where investment would not only benefit Australians today but would also build a stronger, more resilient nation for the future. Instead, we're pouring billions into a project that, under the terms of the agreement, could be unilaterally dissolved by the US or the UK with just one year's notice. Should that happen, Australia would be left stranded, having invested vast sums with nothing to show except a big bill and an even greater dependence on our allies.
This leads to my second point - national security. While AUKUS has been marketed as a way to strengthen Australia’s defence capabilities, I'm not convinced that having nuclear-powered stealth submarines will enhance our national security. Indeed, by tying ourselves even more closely to the US, we may inadvertently be making our security situation more precarious. The reality is that China, despite its growing influence, is still a long way from our shores and not interested in conflict with us. None of our neighbours are hostile to us either. By aligning ourselves so tightly with US military interests, we risk becoming a target in conflicts that are removed from our own immediate security concerns.
Instead of following the US into deeper military entanglements, we should be looking at alternative defence strategies - like Sam Roggeveen's "Echidna Strategy." Roggeveen argues for a more independent defence posture, focused on protecting Australia's interests directly rather than projecting power further afield. This approach is not about isolationism; it's about pragmatism. It acknowledges the unique geographic and strategic realities of our nation and seeks to build a defence strategy that is truly Australian.
Finally on AUKUS, we must consider the pace of technological change. The promised submarines are going to take decades to build and operationalise. By the time they’re finally delivered, the technology they are based on could very well be obsolete. Rapid development of drone subs, artificial intelligence, and other cutting-edge technologies could render the submarines redundant before they even hit the water. Ukraine has shown us how fast war is changing. Investing in a submarine future that might never come to pass is a risky bet, especially when the cost is so high.
From a domestic political perspective, let's not forget how this deal came about. Scott Morrison announced AUKUS as a surprise and with great fanfare, But we should remember that Morrison had a habit of making big announcements without doing proper due diligence. His record of wasting taxpayer money is well documented. AUKUS bears the hallmarks of yet another Morrison-era gamble that Australia can't afford. When Labor won the election, rather than scrutinising and potentially revisiting this deal, they chose to keep it largely intact. I suspect this was more about avoiding a political wedge than it was about making the best decision for Australia's national security. In a political landscape where appearing "weak" on defence can be a death sentence, Labor most likely calculated that the safest move was to maintain the status quo.
But we have to ask ourselves - at what cost? The price of political power shouldn't come at the expense of taxpayers, our national security and our economic wellbeing. AUKUS represents an enormous financial commitment and a strategic gamble that could tie us to outdated technologies and draw us deeper into conflicts that are not our own and which we don’t need.
In conclusion, it's clear that AUKUS is not the straightforward win that some might claim. The financial burden, the potential to worsen our national security, and the risk of technological obsolescence all suggest that we need a rethink. We need to have an honest conversation about what AUKUS really means for Australia’s future. We should be skeptical of the promises made by politicians, especially those with a track record of making hasty decisions without proper oversight. Let's not allow ourselves to be drawn into a path that could lead to greater insecurity and a weaker, less independent Australia.
It's time to step back, reassess, and make sure that our nation's defence strategy is truly in the best interest of Australia - now and into the future.
Comentarios