Australia Under Pressure To Scrap $368bn US-UK Nuclear Submarine Deal As Inquiry Warns Of China War

A public inquiry in Australia has called for the immediate cancellation of the country’s controversial $368 billion nuclear submarine agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom, describing it as potentially the worst, riskiest and most expensive defence decision ever taken by an Australian government.

The inquiry, led by former Australian Labor Party lawmaker and Midnight Oil frontman, Peter Garrett, alongside former Chief of Defence Admiral Chris Barrie, warned that the agreement could undermine Australia’s national sovereignty, expose the country to a possible military confrontation with China and create serious long-term nuclear waste challenges.

The findings were contained in a report titled Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception, which called on the government to terminate the submarine programme and undertake a comprehensive reassessment of the country’s defence and foreign policy priorities.

The report also recommended suspending plans for new military bases linked to the agreement and establishing a royal commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding the deal.

AUKUS is a trilateral security partnership involving Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, established to strengthen defence cooperation, including Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.

The agreement was originally negotiated under the administration of former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, with then United States President Joe Biden and former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

However, the inquiry argued that the agreement was reached without adequate public consultation or parliamentary scrutiny, raising questions about its financial implications and long-term consequences for Australia’s independence.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Canberra, Garrett criticised the current government for failing to conduct a comprehensive review of the agreement since assuming office.

He argued that the deal was conceived in secrecy and had bypassed established defence and parliamentary oversight procedures.

According to the inquiry, Australia’s involvement in the programme could make the country increasingly dependent on Washington’s military and strategic decisions, potentially drawing it into conflicts that might not directly serve its national interests.

Barrie, who served as Australia’s Chief of Defence between 1998 and 2002, also questioned the viability of the submarine programme.

He urged the government to abandon the project and rebuild the country’s national security decision-making processes.

The inquiry further raised concerns about the proposed expansion of the Stirling defence precinct in Perth, warning that it could effectively become a United States military base hosting as many as 2,000 American military personnel.

It warned that the development could expose nearby communities, including Rockingham and Fremantle, to increased security risks in the event of a major international conflict.

Another major concern highlighted in the report was whether Australia would actually receive the nuclear-powered submarines it had committed enormous resources to acquiring.

Under the arrangement, Australia is expected to begin receiving second-hand United States Virginia-class submarines around 2032, before the country eventually develops its own AUKUS-class submarines, expected to become operational around 2042.

However, delays and rising production costs affecting the United States submarine industry have raised doubts about whether Washington can meet the delivery commitments.

The inquiry also questioned the absence of enforceable guarantees protecting Australia’s investment should the United States or the United Kingdom fail to fulfil their obligations.

It warned that Australia could spend hundreds of billions of dollars without receiving the promised military capabilities.

The financial implications extend beyond the acquisition and construction of submarines.

The report estimated that managing nuclear waste generated by the submarine programme could require an additional $180 billion.

It noted that Australia had yet to identify a permanent storage facility for the radioactive waste, including highly toxic materials from submarine reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel.

The inquiry also called for a fundamental review of the second pillar of the AUKUS agreement, which covers cooperation in advanced military technologies and defence capabilities.

It urged the Australian government to reconsider its relationship with Beijing, warning that the submarine programme could further heighten tensions with China.

The findings followed public hearings held across Australia and the receipt of more than 1,000 submissions from citizens, former government officials, military experts, academics and advocacy groups.

The controversy has also attracted criticism from several former Australian leaders, including former Prime Ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, as well as former foreign affairs ministers Gareth Evans and Bob Carr.

They are among prominent figures who have questioned whether the agreement represents the best option for Australia’s national security.

Despite the criticism, the AUKUS partnership remains a major component of Australia’s defence strategy, with successive governments maintaining that nuclear-powered submarines will strengthen the country’s military capabilities and strategic position in the Indo-Pacific region.

The inquiry’s recommendations have now intensified pressure on the government to explain the enormous financial commitment, the risks associated with the agreement and whether Australia can secure its national interests without becoming excessively dependent on its Western allies.

Australia Under Pressure To Scrap $368bn US-UK Nuclear Submarine Deal As Inquiry Warns Of China War

Trump Shocks Israel, Announces End To $4bn Annual US Military Aid

US President Donald Trump has announced that Washington will end its annual financial and military assistance to Israel by the end of 2026, claiming that the decision was reached in an agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump made the announcement on Tuesday, November 3, during a telephone interview with Fox News’ Fox & Friends, saying Israel had become economically strong enough to finance its own military needs without depending on American assistance.

According to the US president, Washington currently provides Israel with approximately $4 billion annually, but the arrangement would be discontinued following discussions with Netanyahu.

“Now, as far as paying Israel, Bibi Netanyahu and I have made a deal that we give Israel $4 billion a year, and we made a deal months ago that we’re stopping,” Trump said.

He added that the agreement had already been reached and that the United States would no longer make the annual payments to Israel after the end of this year.

“We’ve already agreed that by the end of this year we won’t be paying Israel. Now we’ll help Israel if they need it,” he stated.

Trump argued that Israel no longer needed the financial support because of its economic development and growing capacity to acquire military equipment independently.

He also suggested that continued American assistance to Israel had become a political liability for Republicans, particularly as Democratic politicians increasingly criticised the billions of dollars allocated to the Middle Eastern ally.

The president, however, indicated that ending direct assistance would not necessarily prevent Israel from purchasing American-made weapons.

“They can buy whatever they want. They can buy whatever they want. So can Europe. We make the greatest weapons in the world,” he said.

The announcement represents a potentially significant shift in one of Washington’s longest-standing military partnerships in the Middle East.

Under a 10-year security assistance agreement signed in 2016 and implemented from 2018, the United States committed to providing Israel with approximately $3.8 billion annually in military assistance through 2028.

The arrangement includes $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing and $500 million for missile defence programmes.

Trump’s latest declaration has raised questions about how the proposed termination would affect the existing agreement, particularly because American military assistance to Israel has been authorised through congressional arrangements.

Reports indicate that the precise mechanism for ending the funding ahead of the agreement’s scheduled expiration has not been clarified.

Netanyahu has previously expressed support for reducing Israel’s dependence on American military assistance, although he had discussed achieving that objective gradually over several years rather than through an immediate withdrawal.

There was no immediate official response from Netanyahu’s office to Trump’s latest announcement.

The development comes amid growing debate in the United States over military assistance to Israel, particularly following the Gaza war and increasing criticism of Washington’s support for the Israeli government.

Trump’s announcement could therefore mark a major turning point in US-Israel relations, although questions remain over the implementation and legal implications of the proposed funding withdrawal.

Trump Shocks Israel, Announces End To $4bn Annual US Military Aid