AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY

[Archibald]

Since the American president involved himself a lot in that agreement then...
...we French could say ironically...
...
AUKUS POTUS, my submarine megacontract has just vanished !
Magic sorcery...!
.
I'll get my coat.
...

 

[Flyaway]

On the news they were talking about the reason the French haven’t withdrawn their ambassador from the U.K. is that we are perceived by them to be very much junior partners in this deal. Also that the deal runs a risk of driving a wedge into NATO and that France will be wondering who it can now trust and looking for more European cooperation. Also that the feeling is that the US & Australia have not just insulted the French government but the whole of France and its people. Like with the withdrawal from Afghanistan I think this decision will come back to haunt the US administration.

 

[GTX]

Also that the feeling is that the US & Australia have not just insulted the French government but the whole of France and its people.

While the issue could have been handled better, people allowing themselves to get worked up over this are only doing so because they wish to. Maybe a good dose of Epictetus is in order: “Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them.”

Like with the withdrawal from Afghanistan I think this decision will come back to haunt the US administration.

I doubt it. In another month it will be old news. This in linked to the tragedy in Afghanistan though in that it is all part of a strategic refocussing on China.

 

[uk 75]

France will realise that it is not in the same position that it was during the Cold War.
Then the Soviet Union was the greater threat than China and so French withdrawal from NATO had a serious impact on US and UK defence.
Today it is China that constitutes the principal threat to the US and even to the UK. However much he might wish it, Putin's Russia is not the Soviet Union.
In particular 155,000 Brits are no longer sitting astride the invasion route of the Red Army.
France also needs UK and US support to hold on to its anachronistic network of states in Francophone Africa.
Imagine the reaction in Britain if we still had RAF units and Special Forces based and fighting in say Ghana or Kenya.
Macron may throw his toys out of the pram to win the election but behind the scenes France will be seeking reassurance that it will continue to get the UK and US support it needs and offer its own help in return.

 

[Rhinocrates]

A reminder that diplomacy is only like a chess game if there are no more than two players, but with more involved it can be like a Rubik's Cube.

The article doesn't contain the word "ANZAC" and that is an essential historical yardstick used to measure the NZ/Australia relationship, so it's worth looking that up. As a symptom of further complications, the RNZAF recently decided to order more C-130s instead of A400Ms with interoperability with our US and Australian allies cited as a major reason.

Aukus pact could allow New Zealand to deepen relations with Europe and Pacific | Pete McKenzie

As country’s traditional allies take a more confrontational approach to China, it could offset Anglosphere divide with new partnerships

www.theguardian.com

 

[Rhinocrates]

Context, a series on the future of American power in The Economist. It's an ongoing series, so keep an eye out for something on AUKUS soon.

American power | The Economist

A special series on America’s changing geopolitical standing

www.economist.com

 

[jeffb]

Have to wonder why, if Australia had decided to "go nuclear", they didn't simply approach the French about a contract modification to build nuclear Suffren SSNs under license in Australia and install French built reactors shipped to Australia? Why were the US and UK suddenly so willing to share nuclear submarine power technology?

Can't help but wonder if it doesn't have something to do with Diego Garcia. Suddenly, the reasons for a major repositioning of US assets becomes a lot clearer, as well as why the UK is involved.

The Chagos was home to the Chagossians, a Bourbonnais Creole-speaking people, until the United Kingdom evicted them between 1967 and 1973 to allow the United States to build a military base on Diego Garcia. Since 1971, only the atoll of Diego Garcia is inhabited, and only by military and civilian contracted personnel. Since being expelled, the Chagossian have been prevented from returning to the islands.

When Mauritius was a French colony, the Chagos Islands were administered as a dependency of Mauritius. With the Treaty of Paris of 1814, France ceded Mauritius and its dependencies to the United Kingdom.

In 1965, the United Kingdom separated the administration of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius to form the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Mauritius gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1968, and has since claimed the Chagos Archipelago, still administered by the British, as Mauritian territory.

In 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the UK's occupation of the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia, is unlawful, and that the United Kingdom is legally obliged to hand them back to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible.” Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution exhorting the United Kingdom to hand the territory over to Mauritius. In 2021, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea confirmed that the United Kingdom has "no sovereignty over the Chagos Islands" and that the islands should be handed back to Mauritius.

 

[Forest Green]

The AUKUS pact seems very vague, the nuclear submarines angle seems to have been pushed hard in the media. It does cover AI, quantum computing and cyber warfare security technologies (not sexy subjects for jurnos to espouse on, they just about know what a submarine is) and there have been one or two vague references to UK and US nuclear sub basing in Australia but the emphasis has very much been on the technology transfer side although there must be other commitments,

There is definitely more to this than just the Subs.

Tomahawks are part of the deal too.

 

[Forest Green]

Have to wonder why, if Australia had decided to "go nuclear", they didn't simply approach the French about a contract modification to build nuclear Suffren SSNs under license in Australia and install French built reactors shipped to Australia? Why were the US and UK suddenly so willing to share nuclear submarine power technology?

Can't help but wonder if it doesn't have something to do with Diego Garcia. Suddenly, the reasons for a major repositioning of US assets becomes a lot clearer, as well as why the UK is involved.

The Chagos was home to the Chagossians, a Bourbonnais Creole-speaking people, until the United Kingdom evicted them between 1967 and 1973 to allow the United States to build a military base on Diego Garcia. Since 1971, only the atoll of Diego Garcia is inhabited, and only by military and civilian contracted personnel. Since being expelled, the Chagossian have been prevented from returning to the islands.

When Mauritius was a French colony, the Chagos Islands were administered as a dependency of Mauritius. With the Treaty of Paris of 1814, France ceded Mauritius and its dependencies to the United Kingdom.

In 1965, the United Kingdom separated the administration of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius to form the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Mauritius gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1968, and has since claimed the Chagos Archipelago, still administered by the British, as Mauritian territory.

In 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the UK's occupation of the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia, is unlawful, and that the United Kingdom is legally obliged to hand them back to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible.” Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution exhorting the United Kingdom to hand the territory over to Mauritius. In 2021, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea confirmed that the United Kingdom has "no sovereignty over the Chagos Islands" and that the islands should be handed back to Mauritius.

As I understand it, both the UK and US have a veto at the UN and Mauritius accepted money for the Chagos Islands. If you can accept money and then try to reclaim what you sold, how long before Russia ask for Alaska back? This is the reason why everyone ignores the UN these days.

 

[TomcatViP]

On the news they were talking about the reason the French haven’t withdrawn their ambassador from the U.K. is that we are perceived by them to be very much junior partners in this deal. Also that the deal runs a risk of driving a wedge into NATO and that France will be wondering who it can now trust and looking for more European cooperation. Also that the feeling is that the US & Australia have not just insulted the French government but the whole of France and its people. Like with the withdrawal from Afghanistan I think this decision will come back to haunt the US administration.

IMOHO, this is more related to the Lancaster agreements... And Airbus.

 

[Hood]

On the news they were talking about the reason the French haven’t withdrawn their ambassador from the U.K. is that we are perceived by them to be very much junior partners in this deal.

Which of course is the perfect snub to Johnson. There is no hiding the rhetoric coming out of Whitehall in foreign and defence policy and calling us opportunistic minnows will hurt the Cabinet's pride more than withdrawing an Ambassador.

Lancaster agreements

So good cooperation occurred here, arguably it meant more than any deal with Australia. Transcontinental partnerships can never give the same immediacy and benefits as regional ones and the UK and France have several overlapping requirements.
There was some nuclear aspects to the Lancaster House agreements, not sure in which aspects but presumably not involving any US IP.

 

[Fluff]

On the news they were talking about the reason the French haven’t withdrawn their ambassador from the U.K. is that we are perceived by them to be very much junior partners in this deal.

Which of course is the perfect snub to Johnson. There is no hiding the rhetoric coming out of Whitehall in foreign and defence policy and calling us opportunistic minnows will hurt the Cabinet's pride more than withdrawing an Ambassador.

Lancaster agreements

So good cooperation occurred here, arguably it meant more than any deal with Australia. Transcontinental partnerships can never give the same immediacy and benefits as regional ones and the UK and France have several overlapping requirements.
There was some nuclear aspects to the Lancaster House agreements, not sure in which aspects but presumably not involving any US IP.

So its a snub to withdraw an ambassador, and its a snub not to withdraw an ambassador? This is why I'm not a politician.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

Ever danced with a minnow in the pale moonlight......

 

[Foo Fighter]

On the news they were talking about the reason the French haven’t withdrawn their ambassador from the U.K. is that we are perceived by them to be very much junior partners in this deal. Also that the deal runs a risk of driving a wedge into NATO and that France will be wondering who it can now trust and looking for more European cooperation. Also that the feeling is that the US & Australia have not just insulted the French government but the whole of France and its people. Like with the withdrawal from Afghanistan I think this decision will come back to haunt the US administration.

I think they did not want to brass off ALL the pact members in order to use one to drive a wedge between the other two. I cannot see it working and it will all blow over once a bit of face saving, hand wringing and squealing has occurred

 

[jeffb]

Have to wonder why, if Australia had decided to "go nuclear", they didn't simply approach the French about a contract modification to build nuclear Suffren SSNs under license in Australia and install French built reactors shipped to Australia? Why were the US and UK suddenly so willing to share nuclear submarine power technology?

Can't help but wonder if it doesn't have something to do with Diego Garcia. Suddenly, the reasons for a major repositioning of US assets becomes a lot clearer, as well as why the UK is involved.

The Chagos was home to the Chagossians, a Bourbonnais Creole-speaking people, until the United Kingdom evicted them between 1967 and 1973 to allow the United States to build a military base on Diego Garcia. Since 1971, only the atoll of Diego Garcia is inhabited, and only by military and civilian contracted personnel. Since being expelled, the Chagossian have been prevented from returning to the islands.

When Mauritius was a French colony, the Chagos Islands were administered as a dependency of Mauritius. With the Treaty of Paris of 1814, France ceded Mauritius and its dependencies to the United Kingdom.

In 1965, the United Kingdom separated the administration of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius to form the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Mauritius gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1968, and has since claimed the Chagos Archipelago, still administered by the British, as Mauritian territory.

In 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the UK's occupation of the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia, is unlawful, and that the United Kingdom is legally obliged to hand them back to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible.” Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution exhorting the United Kingdom to hand the territory over to Mauritius. In 2021, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea confirmed that the United Kingdom has "no sovereignty over the Chagos Islands" and that the islands should be handed back to Mauritius.

As I understand it, both the UK and US have a veto at the UN and Mauritius accepted money for the Chagos Islands. If you can accept money and then try to reclaim what you sold, how long before Russia ask for Alaska back? This is the reason why everyone ignores the UN these days.

Maybe not that big of a deal after all...not really sure what the implications for Chargossians wanting to return home is though.

The Chagos question

summary

www.lowyinstitute.org

Diego Garcia became a critical node of American expeditionary warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq. It remains an invaluable operating location in a region with few permanent American bases. But rules and values are now at the centre of intensifying competition between Washington and Beijing. While the US claims the Chinese Communist Party is seeking to overturn the rules-based order, it has done so in the face of Mauritius’ calls for restoration of its territory and near-universal rejection of British claims upon the archipelago.

Mauritius has the law on its side. A prolonged campaign by Mauritius to confront the UK over the status of the Chagos Islands was finally addressed by the International Court of Justice in 2019. In a stunning rebuke, the court handed down an advisory opinion which stated that Britain’s claim to the archipelago was illegitimate and that its retention of the archipelago constituted a failure to fully decolonise. A subsequent non-binding UN General Assembly resolution, passed by an overwhelming majority, demanded that the UK withdraw its “colonial administration” from the islands by the end of 2019. In 2021, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) added its own confirmation of Mauritius’ sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, and criticised the UK’s failure to comply with the 2019 UN resolution.

The US is not inclined to abandon its strategic foothold in the Indian Ocean, nor is the UK’s Conservative government prepared to relinquish its claims to this colonial holdover. Both fear the potential consequences of ceding control, being subject to the whims of a state that might evict them from their unsinkable aircraft carrier. Admittedly, returning the islands creates risk – sovereignty trumps lease rights. A future Mauritian government might be less welcoming of the US and could revoke the lease. The US would also likely be forced to negotiate for benefits that it currently enjoys.

But the Mauritian government has sought to assuage those fears by offering, twice, to lease the land to the US for up to 99 years, if it is returned to their control. Mauritius’ UN ambassador made clear that it favoured a continued US presence at Diego Garcia, as well as its stabilising influence in the Indian Ocean region. Mauritius’ prime minister offered his own assurances following the ITLOS judgement, stating that “The end of UK administration has no implications for the US military base at Diego Garcia, which Mauritius is committed to maintaining”. Mauritius has offered both the US and UK a way to underline their commitment to the rules rather than flout them, while maintaining critical military access well into the next century.

 

[muttly]

I believe this operation was as hastily done as the name.

 

[Bhurki]

So, how long before australia buys B-21?

 

[bring_it_on]

The AUKUS pact seems very vague, the nuclear submarines angle seems to have been pushed hard in the media. It does cover AI, quantum computing and cyber warfare security technologies (not sexy subjects for jurnos to espouse on, they just about know what a submarine is) and there have been one or two vague references to UK and US nuclear sub basing in Australia but the emphasis has very much been on the technology transfer side although there must be other commitments,

There is definitely more to this than just the Subs.

Tomahawks are part of the deal too.

It may have gotten clubbed in the announcement, but long range anti-ship and LACMs were in the works even before the entire AUKUS thing came together which was March of this year according to the UK defense secretary.

Does the Royal Australian Navy need Tomahawk missiles? | The Strategist

In my most recent article, I noted that the Department of Defence appears to be in the early stages of identifying a ship-launched land-attack missile for acquisition. The government assessed in its 2020 defence strategic ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Now the real question should be whether the Australians will consider the VPM Virginia's with the IR-CPS/LRHW option.

 

[Jimmo952]

The Australians seem to be funding development of a surface-ship launched LRASM variant.

It's not clear to me what the exact division of labor is on this project but it may be that Thales-Australia is designing and eventually producing the booster.

If that works out it gives the Aussies a very good ship-launched anti-surface capability.

 

[GTX]

Have to wonder why, if Australia had decided to "go nuclear", they didn't simply approach the French about a contract modification to build nuclear Suffren SSNs under license in Australia and install French built reactors shipped to Australia?

Because its about more than the subs

 

[GTX]

Folks, as previously asked, please refrain from over quoting. There is absolutely no need to quote the entirety of a previous post to get across that you are referring to it. It is also not necessary to quote quotes within quotes. It is plain lazy! Moderator editing of such posts will potentially be implemented to make it easier for everyone to read.

 

[Grey Havoc]

According to a report in the Irish edition of yesterday's The Times, the nuclear submarine deal and what would become the overall AUKUS pact was known as Operation Hookless within Ten Downing Street, and was very tightly held within the British government. Apparently things were set in motion back in March by a discreet high level Navy to Navy inquiry during a meeting at the Australian High Commission in London. It has also been strongly implied that the United States insisted on being the ones to let the French know about the new deal in advance of it becoming official, only for the State Department to foul up quite badly (possibly the public reveal was hastily moved up to try and prop up the Biden administrations rapidly imploding credibility internationally, certainly American diplomats reportedly suddenly found themselves with only hours to try and contact their French counterparts to let them know what was coming, unsuccessfully as it turned out).

 

[Grey Havoc]

Aukus: Australia defends role in security pact amid French condemnation

The PM defends ending the multi-billion dollar agreement in favour of a new pact with the US and UK.

www.bbc.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

France demands compensation from Australia over abandoned submarine deal

Scott Morrison Australia's PM, said France knew that Canberra had 'deep and grave concerns' over the proposed deal

www.telegraph.co.uk

‘Declaration of war’: how UK’s secret nuclear pact blindsided Europe’s elite

Outrage in Paris and Berlin at being frozen out of Aukus submarine pact to counter Chinese threat

www.telegraph.co.uk

Liz Truss defies EU backlash over submarine pact with vow to fight for freedom

France warns that Britain’s new defence deal with the US and Australia will have repercussions for the future of Nato

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[GTX]

Hmmm....now if the USAF could get E-7A Wedgetails that would make another common platform allowing for interchange of crews easily.

 

[GTX]

So, how long before australia buys B-21?

It has been discussed:

B-21 bomber could be Australia’s best long-range strike option | The Strategist

The government’s 2020 defence strategic update provided refreshing clarity about Australia’s deteriorating strategic environment and the need for new military capabilities to address it. These include long-range strike capabilities to impose greater cost on potential ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

The B-21 bomber, Australia’s next deterrent

With the B-21's long range capabilities, and the advancement of unmanned long range Chinese strike technology, should Australia buy the B-21 as a deterrent? Australia must consider the option of onb

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Comment: Why Australia needs the B-21 Raider

Liam Garman argues why Australia must make the case to our US allies to procure B21s and to house one of the world’s most fearsome deterrents right in our airbases.

australianaviation.com.au

 

[GTX]

Will AUKUS cement ‘Global Britain’? | The Strategist

In 1966, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson wrote to his Australian counterpart Harold Holt to explain that Britain would wind back its military deployments in the Asia–Pacific, reducing its presence ‘east of Suez’. Wilson told ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[Bhurki]

The Australians seem to be funding development of a surface-ship launched LRASM variant.

Lrasm has already been tested to be deployed from a Mk41 launcher.

 

[Forest Green]

Maybe not that big of a deal after all...not really sure what the implications for Chargossians wanting to return home is though.

The Chagos question

summary

www.lowyinstitute.org

They all received money too.

Back on topic.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1438675662533849090

https://twitter.com/x/status/1438320128312049665

https://twitter.com/x/status/1438299045412458496

 

[zen]

Will AUKUS cement ‘Global Britain’? | The Strategist

In 1966, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson wrote to his Australian counterpart Harold Holt to explain that Britain would wind back its military deployments in the Asia–Pacific, reducing its presence ‘east of Suez’. Wilson told ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Well...
There's I think a warf in Singapore.
Isn't there something to do with Brunei.
There's Duqm.
Theoretically, there is Diego Garcia.
There is the 5 Power Defence Pact.
5 Eyes.
We're joining CPTPP.
Ever more rumblings of deals with Japan.
Now AUKUS.
Leave the Rhine and the Vistula to France, Germany and Poland.
Sweden is ramping up defences....started with taking Kockums back from the Germans.

So lots of arguments put forward now for expanding RN forces and ironically the death of Ajax and the likely rise of Boxer. Makes deployment of Army elements EoS more practical.

 

[Pioneer]

So, how long before australia buys B-21?

When they introduce proper and measurable taxes to business and corporations, so they can actually pay for such platforms.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Bhurki]

Probably OT, but I always wondered where were all the investments going to go when Boris announced $22B of extra defense spending over the next 4 years.
Well, now we know.

This treaty has certainly been in the works for quite long. Also helps shore up the confidence deficit from the Afg debacle.

I'm expecting a similar bump in defense spending from Aus as to what has been committed by the UK. The uptick from NATO partners spending also means that the reorganisation of force structure towards the Pacific has been communicated.

 

[Bhurki]

So, how long before australia buys B-21?

When they introduce proper and measurable taxes to business and corporations, so they can actually pay for such platforms.

Regards
Pioneer

No disrespect, but I don't think PLA will wait for Australia to sort out its Tax administration.

 

[Bhurki]

Professor Rory Medcalf, Head of the ANU National Security College and author of Contest for the Indo-Pacific

"We've crossed a strategic rubicon"

We’ve crossed a strategic Rubicon

nsc.crawford.anu.edu.au

 

[In_A_Dream]

So, how long before australia buys B-21?

It's definitely possible, but the strategic implications would be Earth shattering for Australia & China.

If they do acquire any B-21s, it should be done in secret.

 

[Orionblamblam]

So, how long before australia buys B-21?

Probably about ten minutes after New Zealand joins the nuclear club.

 

[Bhurki]

So, how long before australia buys B-21?

Probably about ten minutes after New Zealand joins the nuclear club.

Ok so that was a rhetorical question. Ofcourse Aus would rather spend the money required for B-21 for better purposes.

How long till they allow US to base their B-21 on its airfields? Since its supossed to be quite less maintenance hungry as compared to the B-2.

Although Guam at roughly 1800nm from SCS provides quick turnaround capability to bombers, it still only has a single airbase (with one divert airfield). RAAF, however, provides atleast 5 airbases at the same distance from SCS.

 

[Bounce]

A reminder that diplomacy is only like a chess game if there are no more than two players, but with more involved it can be like a Rubik's Cube.

The article doesn't contain the word "ANZAC" and that is an essential historical yardstick used to measure the NZ/Australia relationship, so it's worth looking that up. As a symptom of further complications, the RNZAF recently decided to order more C-130s instead of A400Ms with interoperability with our US and Australian allies cited as a major reason.

Aukus pact could allow New Zealand to deepen relations with Europe and Pacific | Pete McKenzie

As country’s traditional allies take a more confrontational approach to China, it could offset Anglosphere divide with new partnerships

www.theguardian.com

Why would they go with C-130s? We're dumping the hercs for A400s in 3 years.

 

[Flyaway]

The French are now claiming they were aware there was issues with the deal but it is the fact the US lied to their faces, or that’s the allegation.

Speaking to French officials, one thing important to note. The French did pick up signals and they asked American counterparts directly. “They reassured us. We weren’t lied to by omission, we were lied to openly” told me an official.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1439672125351251973

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/benjaminhaddad/status/1439672125351251973

 

[aonestudio]

AUKUS a game of musical chairs in Indo-Pacific - Asia Times

Much of the outrage around AUKUS, the new trilateral strategic technology-sharing framework involving Australia, the UK and the US in the Indo-Pacific

asiatimes.com