Morawiecki noted that Warsaw is waiting for “very good compensation” for playing one of the leading roles in supplying Ukraine with a variety of weapons and military equipment. Earlier, by the way, the Polish leadership proudly stated that Poland is in second place after the United States in the list of countries providing military assistance to Ukraine.
The Polish Prime Minister also announced the amount of compensation from the EU authorities. According to him, even before Easter, Warsaw will receive 300 million euros, and then “another” 500-600 million euros. Thus, one of the key allies of the Kiev regime does not hide the financial interest in military assistance to Ukraine, and therefore in the further continuation of the Ukrainian conflict, at least in its current form.
According to Morawiecki, Warsaw will become the largest recipient of funds from the European Peace Fund in the coming months. The Polish government will be able to spend this money on the needs of ensuring the security and defense of Poland itself. For example, it is planned to acquire modern weapons of American and European production for the Polish Army, as well as to create, develop and improve their own lines for the production of weapons, military equipment and ammunition, the head of the Polish Cabinet of Ministers emphasized.
Note that Russia negatively assesses the transfer of military equipment and weapons to Ukraine by the West. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has repeatedly warned the West that “weapon tranches” only entail a further escalation of the armed conflict.
MAXPPP OUT
Mandatory Credit: Photo by LUDOVIC MARIN/POOL/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock (10695784ad)
French President Emmanuel Macron takes part in a working session during the G5 Sahel Summit in Nouakchott, Mauritania, 30 June 2020. The leaders of the G5 Sahel West African countries and their ally France are meeting to confer over their troubled efforts to stem a jihadist offensive unfolding in the region, six months after rebooting their campaign in Pau, southwestern France.
G5 Sahel Summit in Nouakchott, Mauritania – 30 Jun 2020
In a POLITICO interview, Luxembourg’s leader Xavier Bettel slams French push to include nuclear energy in EU’s green tech plan.
French President Emmanuel Macron is facing an uphill battle to persuade EU leaders to designate nuclear energy as a key green technology of the future, after one of his allies blasted his plan on the eve of a summit in Brussels.
Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Xavier Bettel told POLITICO in an interview that while it is up to individual countries to choose their own energy mix, nuclear power must not benefit from an official “European label” that would give the vital French industry a boost.
Bettel’s criticism risks reinforcing divisions between Macron and his fellow leaders as they meet in Brussels to discuss the green tech plans at the European Council summit starting Thursday.
“Nuclear is neither sustainable, nor safe, nor fast,” Bettel said in an interview. “Some people think they are selling nuclear power as the answer to everything,” he continued, but pointed out that it can take at least 10 years for a plant to be operational.
“Secondly, we have had incidents at the international level which are worrying and which have had catastrophic repercussions for many other countries. And thirdly, we still have a problem with nuclear waste. We still don’t know how to deal with it, so we can’t say that it is safe and sustainable.”
France’s energy diet is dominated by nuclear power and Macron’s government has been lobbying Brussels to include nuclear energy in the EU’s Net Zero Industry Act — a package of plans unveiled last week by the European Commission.
The proposals in the act would allow “strategic net-zero” projects to qualify for a fast-track permitting process and smoother access to funding, part of the effort by Brussels to jump-start the transition away from fossil fuels to greener forms of energy.
Bettel said it’s up to each national government to decide its own energy mix, but argued that nuclear power should not be seen as good for the environment. “Everyone can do what they want,” he said. “But for me, the European label on nuclear energy — it would be in fact wrong to call it a green energy, or safe, or renewable.”
As POLITICO previously reported, in recent days France has not only lobbied to include nuclear energy in the EU’s Net Zero Industry Act, but it is also making a renewed push to give nuclear-based hydrogen a bigger role in meeting EU renewable energy goal,
Several diplomats said they expect the issue of nuclear to be discussed by leaders during Thursday and Friday’s summit. In particular, France — as well as countries like the Czech Republic — have been pushing for the phrase “technological neutrality” to be included in the language of the summit conclusions, which will be signed off on by leaders in Brussels. That would represent an oblique acknowledgment that all forms of energy, including nuclear, could form part of the EU’s green tech plan.
Ukraine’s Western backers – and the US in particular – are doing their best to prevent Kiev from entering into any negotiations with Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. The official made the remarks on the sidelines of talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, in Moscow on Tuesday.
Peskov was asked to comment on recent statements by senior Western officials, who said any peace initiative for Ukraine, should it arise from the Russia-China talks, would be “unacceptable.” US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, for example, claimed any ceasefire in the current situation would only “ratify Russia’s conquest to date” rather than contribute to peace.
“Washington, European capitals, but first of all, Washington is filled with the desire not to let, under any pretext, [Kiev] enter into peace negotiations. They simply do not let Kiev even think about it,” Peskov said. Asked whether it was now ‘normal’ to incite war rather than call for peace, the spokesman responded affirmatively.
During the talks, the Russian and Chinese leaders discussed a 12-point roadmap for peace in Ukraine recently proposed by Beijing. Putin has lauded the initiative, expressing his readiness to discuss and build upon it, while also reiterating Moscow’s desire to seek a diplomatic solution to the hostilities, which have been dragging on for over a year.
We believe that many of the provisions of the peace plan put forward by China are consonant with the Russian stance and can be taken as a foundation for a peaceful settlement when they are ready for it in the West and in Kiev. However, so far we have not observed such readiness on their part,” Putin said after the meeting.
The Chinese president has insisted that Beijing continues to maintain its position on the conflict and has urged both sides to stick to diplomacy and engage in dialogue. “We’re always for peace and dialogue, and we firmly stand on the right side of history,” Xi stated.
Josep Borrell says Chinese leader made it clear Vladimir Putin should not deploy atomic weapons
The Chinese president’s trip to Moscow this month has made the world safer, reducing the chance that Vladimir Putin will use nuclear weapons, according to the EU’s foreign policy chief.
Josep Borrell told reporters that President Xi Jinping had made it “very, very clear” to the Russian leader that he should not deploy nuclear weapons, citing China’s peace 12-point Ukraine peace plan, which condemned their use.
Australian Independent Media Binoy Kampmark 19 Mar 23
For some time, Washington has been losing its spunk in the Pacific. When it comes to the Pacific Islands, a number have not fallen – at least entirely – for the rhetoric that Beijing is there to take, consume, and dominate all. Nor have such countries been entirely blind to their own sharpened interests. This largely aqueous region, which promises to submerge them in the rising waters of climate change, has become furiously busy.
A number of officials are keen to push the line that Washington’s policy towards the Pacific is clearly back where it should be. It’s all part of the warming strategy adopted by the Biden administration, typified by the US-Pacific Island Country summit held last September. In remarks made during the summit, President Joe Biden stated that “the security of America, quite frankly, and the world, depends on your security and the security of the Pacific Islands. And I really mean that.”
Not once was China mentioned, but its ghostly presence stalked Biden’s words. A new Pacific Partnership Strategy was announced, “the first national US strategy for [the] Pacific Islands.” Then came the promised cash: some $810 million in expanded US programs including more than $130 million in new investments to support, among other things, climate resilience, buffer the states against the impact of climate change and improve food security.
The Pacific Islands have also seen a flurry of recent visits. In January this year, US Indo-Pacific military commander Admiral John Aquilino popped into Papua New Guinea to remind the good citizens of Port Moresby that the eyes of the US were gazing benignly upon them. It was his first to the country, and the public affairs unit of the US Indo-Pacific Command stated that it underscored “the importance of the US-Papua New Guinea relationship” and showed US resolve “toward building a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.”
In February, a rather obvious strategic point was made in the reopening of the US embassy in the Solomon Islands. Little interest had been shown towards the island state for some three decades (the embassy had been closed in 1993). But then came Beijing doing, at least from Washington’s perspective, the unpardonable thing of poking around and seeking influence.
Now, Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare finds himself at the centre of much interest, at least till he falls out of favour in the airconditioned corridors of Washington………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://theaimn.com/imperial-visits-us-emissaries-in-the-pacific/
Paris is looking towards “liberal” allies such as the Netherlands to revive its nuclear industry, French Green MP Julie Laernoes told EURACTIV, after the country’s National Assembly approved a bill seeking to build six new reactors.
France’s National Assembly approved the bill, which scraps a 50% limit on the share of nuclear in France’s electricity mix, on Tuesday (21 March) with 402 votes in favour and 130 against.
While the bill still needs a second vote of approval to go through, the numbers suggest parliament will most likely rubberstamp the new law.
“We are moving forward on the third pillar of our energy transition,” Energy Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher said after the vote, in reference to French efforts at reducing energy consumption and building more renewables.
Olivier Marleix, the president of the right-wing Les Républicains group in the National Assembly, which supported the bill, said the text represents a “long-awaited turnaround”.
Nuclear alliance
The approval of the bill comes at a time when France is trying to push the role that its low-carbon nuclear power mix can play in the EU’s energy transition.
France launched a “nuclear alliance” at the end of February, aiming to promote European cooperation along the entire nuclear supply chain and launch “common industrial projects” in new generation capacity as well as small modular reactors.
To broaden support, France is “looking for other partners in Europe” such as the Netherlands, said Laernoes, a French MP of dual French-Dutch nationality who sits with the opposition Green party.
Like other Green lawmakers in the National Assembly, Laernoes voted against the motion to revive nuclear power in France and opposes French-led moves to build more nuclear reactors across Europe………………………………………………
Net-Zero Industry Act
Last week, the European Commission presented its Net-Zero Industry Act, a legislative proposal that describes nuclear power as one of the key technologies needed to attain the EU’s carbon neutrality goal.
Although Paris welcomed the EU’s announcement, it also noted that France’s new generation of pressurised water reactors – known as EPRs – do not appear in a separate list of ‘Strategic Net-Zero technologies’ eligible to receive “particular support” from the EU
The status of nuclear power in the Net-Zero Industry Act will be debated in upcoming negotiations on the text in the European Parliament, said Christophe Grudler, a French MEP sitting with the centrist Renew group in Parliament which includes lawmakers from the French presidential majority.
However, for Laernoes, the French government is waving “an ideological mantra”, as for the time being, “we still don’t have the design of the EPR2s, nor have we validated the extension of existing plants”.
Although the lifetime extension of existing nuclear power plants to 60 years was approved by the text voted on Tuesday, the president of the French Nuclear Safety Authority indicated that a position should be taken by the end of 2026 at the earliest.
“The political text is very far from the industrial and financial reality,” said Laernoes. “France is simply trying to sell off its old nuclear power plants,” she told EURACTIV.
A group of seven EU countries led by Germany have rejected calls to incorporate nuclear-made hydrogen into the bloc’s green transport targets, reigniting a dispute with France that has held back an agreement on the bloc’s renewable energy directive.
In a letter to the European Commission, the seven countries reiterate their opposition to including nuclear power in calculating green transport fuel targets.
“We share the view that the production and use of low-carbon hydrogen and low-carbon fuels should not be incentivised through a directive on the promotion of renewable energy,” says the letter, dated 16 March and signed by Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain.
France and eight other EU countries have called for exempting nuclear-derived fuels from green transport targets in the renewables directive. In practice, this would be done by withdrawing those from the denominator used to calculate binding targets for green transport fuels….
This pro-nuclear coalition [led by France] includes Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
But the seven EU countries disagree, saying low-carbon fuels should be left out of the renewable energy directive, “especially by accounting them towards the overall 2030 or any sectoral renewable energy targets or deducting them from the denominator”.
They also express their “clear opposition to the link between low-carbon fuels and [renewable energy] targets under Article 8a of the Gas Directive,” supported by France and the other pro-nuclear countries.
Counting low-carbon energy towards renewable targets would rather reduce our climate efforts and slow down investment in the much needed additional renewable capacity,” they argue, adding that the renewable energy directive “does not prevent or prohibit Member States from using other low-carbon hydrogen and low-carbon fuels.”
The seven countries acknowledge that nuclear-derived hydrogen “may play a role in some member states” and that “a clear regulatory framework for them is needed”. But according to them, this should be addressed in the ongoing revision of EU gas legislation.
France has pushed for the European Union to recognise nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source alongside renewables.
China has strongly condemned the submarine deal, accusing AUKUS of displaying a ‘Cold War mentality.
The AUKUS trilateral alliance, which includes Australia, the UK and the US, has signed a landmark deal under which it will create a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to counter China in the Indo-Pacific region. The deal provides a significant shot in the arm to Australia’s military capability. Canberra will buy three nuclear submarines, with the option to purchase two more. The submarines will use the US’s elite nuclear propulsion technology and be built in Britain and Australia. In addition, American and British nuclear-powered submarines will rotate into Australian waters as early as 2027. The deal marks a significant milestone; Australia has now become the second country after the UK to be provided with this elite American technology. While the supply of nuclear submarines to Australia will beef up Western capacity to contain China in the Indo-Pacific, this is a brazen violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, under which nuclear weapons states are forbidden from sharing nuclear technology with non-nuclear weapon states. However, this is not the first time that such nuclear sharing is taking place. China has shared its nuclear and missile technology with Pakistan and North Korea, while the US stationed its tactical nuclear weapons in several Western European countries during the Cold War. China has strongly condemned the submarine deal, accusing AUKUS of displaying a “Cold War mentality,” embarking on a “path of error and danger,” damaging the NPT regime, and triggering a nuclear arms race. Its allegations are valid……………………
It is hard to ignore the fact that the hostility between China and the West is increasingly looking like that between the latter and the Soviets during the Cold War years. The Cold War resulted in both sides pouring billions of dollars into their conventional and nuclear arsenals. It is still possible for the two sides to back off. Importantly, they must continue to engage diplomatically and ensure that their competition does not escalate into armed conflict. Weapons and alliances may give countries a sense of security but this is at best hollow. Misperceptions can trigger a war. AUKUS must follow up its nuclear deal by calling for talks with China. https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/first-edit/changing-dynamics-of-us-nuclear-alliances-1200527.html—
The Aukus scheme announced on Monday in San Diego represents the first time a loophole in the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been used to transfer fissile material and nuclear technology from a nuclear weapons state to a non-weapons state.
The loophole is paragraph 14, and it allows fissile material utilised for non-explosive military use, like naval propulsion, to be exempt from inspections and monitoring by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It makes arms controls experts nervous because it sets a precedent that could be used by others to hide highly enriched uranium, or plutonium, the core of a nuclear weapon, from international oversight.
European commissioners are at odds with each other over including nuclear power in new funding rules aimed at boosting green industries in the EU just 48 hours before the legislation is due to be announced. Nuclear fission was included as a “strategic net zero industry” in an early draft of the law, meaning atomic power plants could be in line for fast-tracked permitting, preference in public procurement contracts and fiscal incentives to boost investment.
But the technology has since been eliminated from the text amid heated discussions that have exposed ideological divides along national lines within the 27-strong college of commissioners.
Promoters of nuclear included the European Commission’s president, Germany’s Ursula von der Leyen, and France’s Thierry Breton, the internal market commissioner, along with eight others largely from central and eastern Europe, according to people familiar with the talks.
In the opposite camp were Frans Timmermans, the EU’s climate commissioner and former Dutch foreign minister, and Denmark’s Margrethe Vestager, the bloc’s competition chief, as well as four other commissioners from southern and central Europe. Among the other opponents of the inclusion of nuclear in the proposals are Austria’s Johannes Hahn, the EU budget commissioner, and Portugal’s Elisa Ferreira, commissioner for cohesion and reforms, according to two people with knowledge of their views.
Saudi Arabia’s de-facto ruler is seeking to pit major powers against each other, a report said.
Mohammed bin Salman reportedly believes it will help him secure US nuclear technology.
Saudi Arabia has snubbed the US and drawn closer to rivals including China.
Saudi Arabia’s de-facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, is trying to get better access to US nuclear technology by playing global powers against each other, Saudi officials told The Wall Street Journal.
In recent months, Saudi Arabia has provoked the ire of the US, traditionally its closest international ally, while drawing closer to US adversaries including China and Russia.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Crown Prince Mohammed may be using its relations with China and Russia to establish a closer US security relationship…………………………………………………………………………….
The balancing act appears to be based on the calculation by Saudi Arabia that the US will be forced to offer concessions to the Saudis in order to maintain the alliance and offset the growing influence of China.
A civilian nuclear program and better access to US weapons have long been core Saudi objectives, and Riyadh said last week that they would be the price for normalizing its relations with Israel.
the first in the decades-long span of nuclear non-proliferation accords to take advantage of a loophole that allows narrow use of nuclear material outside of set safeguards. Critics express concern that bad actors could use the loophole as cover, pointing to the U.S.-Australia deal as precedent, to divert nuclear material into a weapons program.
BY ELLEN KNICKMEYER, ASSOCIATED PRESS – 03/15/23
WASHINGTON (AP) — The head of the global nuclear regulatory agency pledged Wednesday to be “very demanding” in overseeing the United States’ planned transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, amid complaints that the U.S. move could clear the way for bad actors to escape nuclear oversight in the future.
Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to reporters during a Washington visit. Grossi was also meeting with senior National Security Council officials to discuss matters including the newly announced deal among the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom on nuclear-powered submarines.
President Joe Biden and the leaders of Australia and the United Kingdom announced Monday in San Diego that Australia would purchase nuclear-powered attack submarines from the U.S. to modernize its fleet amid growing concern about China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. It would be the first transfer by a nuclear-weapon state of nuclear-powered submarines to a non-nuclear state.
Nuclear-powered submarines move more quietly and for longer than conventionally powered ones. While strengthening the military position of the U.S. and its allies in that region, the deal has raised concern as the first in the decades-long span of nuclear non-proliferation accords to take advantage of a loophole that allows narrow use of nuclear material outside of set safeguards. Critics express concern that bad actors could use the loophole as cover, pointing to the U.S.-Australia deal as precedent, to divert nuclear material into a weapons program.
China renewed its objections to the deal on Wednesday, accusing the three countries of “coercing” the IAEA into endorsing the arrangement. All member states of the IAEA should work to find a solution to the “safeguards issues” and “maintain international peace and security,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at a daily briefing.
…………. The architects of nuclear nonproliferation accords left open a loophole for use of nuclear material for some non-explosive military purposes, with nuclear naval propulsion in mind. Prior to withdrawing nuclear material from safeguards for that loophole, states are required to strike a separate agreement with the IAEA. https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-international/former-australian-pm-says-subs-worst-deal-in-all-history/
Marles: Aukus program includes commitment to dispose of spent nuclear reactors
Marles: the sealed nuclear reactor is our friend, because by virtue of having a sealed reactor, we can provide assurance in respect of every piece of nuclear material through the life cycle of the nuclear material.
We are making a commitment that we will dispose of the nuclear reactor. That is a significant commitment to make. This is going to require a facility to be built in order to do a disposal that will be remote from populations. We are announcing that will be on defence land, current or future.
Now, to be clear, the first of the [nuclear material] we will dispose of will not happen until the 2050s, but within the year, we will announce a process by with this facility will be identified.
We are also a proud signatory to the treaty of Rarotonga. That commits us to not operate nuclear weapons from our territory.
Richard Marles says he is confident that the agreement will hold, even if America has a change in political direction……….
Q: Is it possible that we’ll be maintaining and operating three classes of submarines? That is the Virginia, the Collins and the Aukus submarines? And if so, is there any concern? And can I ask the admiral as well, is there any concern in defence about the prospect of operating three different submarines?
Marles:We obviously will be operating two as a result of this announcement. You know, the preference is to operate as few classes as possible.
Vice Admiral Mead: And once we work with the submarines coming to Western Australia and develop our own capabilities on the Virginias, then the move to SNN-AUKUS, which will have incredible commonality with propulsion systems, platforms, weapons, combat systems and sensors…………………. It remains the position of the Albanese government, that there won’t be foreign bases in Australia and this will not be a foreign base. It’s a forward rotation.…………..
Marles: ‘This is as good a value-for-money spend in defence as you will get’..……
Q: Is a high-level nuclear waste dump the price that South Australia will have to pay for the jobs that go to the state?
Marles:
Well, as I indicated earlier there will be a process that we will determine in the next 12 months … how the site will be identified. You’ve made a leap that we won’t make for some time. It will be a while before a site is identified but we will establish a process.
Q: The $9bn the government is spending over the forwards has a neutral impact on the budget, $6bn because of what was allocated to the attack class but $3bn is coming from the integrated investment program. Can you give more detail about … where that money is coming from? And if not today, when?
Marles: I won’t give you the detail today except you’re right to identify the integrated investment program and obviously the strategic review has had a good look at all of that. It will be plain in time of the budget.
Q: Why not now, though? You must have an idea where those cuts are going to be? In the interests of transparency, people want to judge what the opportunity cost of the nuclear submarines are. Unless you’re suggesting it’s cuts first and work it out later? Where are the cuts coming from?
Japan should stop perpetuating nuclear colonialism, and instead respect the sovereignty and self-determination of Pacific nations regarding the planned discharge of radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, a New Zealand sociologist has said.
The social aspects and major country relations around Japan’s decision to release the radioactive wastewater from the defunct plant must be questioned, Karly Burch from the University of Auckland told Xinhua in a recent interview.
the Australian order will be filled with a new and advanced SSN® model still in development. This is where the British come in. In a sense, Australia will be (a) serving as a test run and (b) will be creating extra economies of scale for the British Navy’s plans to develop and build SSN( R) models to replace its Astute class submarines by the early to mid 2040s.
China may well regard Taiwan as a renegade province. Yet the invasion of Taiwan – as the Australian economist and commentator John Quiggin points out – would pose massive challenges for the forces or Xi Jinping……………………………………………………What Quiggin is getting at here is that a concerted campaign is currently being waged by sections of the Aussie media with the aim of scaring the pants off the Australian public about the imminent threat from China in the Pacific, in the South China Sea and with regard to Taiwan.
The aim of this campaign is to justify a sky-high level of new defence spending by the Australian government. New Zealand is at risk of being carted along by the same momentum into authorising increases in our own defence spending that we don’t need, and can’t afford.
Acting the part
The campaign kicks into high gear today. As the Oscars get handed out in Los Angeles, another pantomime of power will be playing out on the docks just down the coast, in San Diego. Anthony Albanese, Rishi Sunak and Joe Biden will be standing shoulder to shoulder as they announce the first concrete manifestation of the AUKUS pact – a military alliance between Australia, Britain and the Americans that has China as its common target……………………………………
. As Reuters put it:
….[The] AUKUS pact, will have multiple stages with at least one U.S. submarine visiting Australian ports in the coming years and end in the late 2030’s with a new class of submarines being built with British designs and American technology, one of the officials said….after the annual port visits, the United States would forward deploy some submarines in Western Australia by around 2027.
In the early 2030’s, Australia would buy 3 Virginia class submarines and have the option to buy two more. AUKUS is expected to be Australia’s biggest-ever defence project and offers the prospect of jobs in all three countries.
That last bit is very important. Like his predecessors, Albanese will be treating Australia’s defence policy as a cutting edge ingredient of its manufacturing policy.
Australia’s defence policy as a cutting edge ingredient of its manufacturing policy. For Australian politicians, military policy and defence spending is as much about (a) creating jobs for Aussie workers, (b) gaining technology upgrades for Aussie industry and (c) scoring lucrative contracts for Aussie goods and services firms as it is about the actual defence of the nation.
…………………………………………………………………. In a worst case scenario, the Australians could well invite New Zealand to join AUKUS and assign us some “friend of AUKUS” status, as an observer. Our anti-nuclear legislation would complicate such a role. That aside, and given the ocean currents and prevailing winds, New Zealand has every good reason to feel nervous about the prospect of our near-neighbour learning on the job about how to build and maintain the nuclear reactors on its new submarine fleet.
Luckily, most of the new Aussie subs won’t be delivered until the early to mid 2030s. That means these massively expensive new purchases probably wouldn’t arrive in time to deter China from invading Taiwan, given that this is supposed to be imminent.
In the US, the building of Virginia-class subs are shared between two shipyards, one in Groton Connecticut and the other in Newport News, Virginia. Reportedly, the design variant that Australia has in mind will have been a three-headed upgrade project to the Virginia-class that will have been co-designed by Britain and the US, as amended to Australian specifications, with at least some of the subs being built by US-trained Australians who had no prior experience in this sort of construction. On top of these complications, all participants will be coming under pressure to deliver every stage of the project at the lowest cost possible. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with such a design and construction plan? And in this case, I don’t just mean the danger of cost blowouts.
Attack and defence
AUKUS is likely to make New Zealanders feel more unsafe in a number of other ways as well. For starters, AUKUS is not a “defend the homeland” pact. It is a forward projection alliance, to attack enemy targets and stifle the enemy’s ability to defend itself and respond. (Enemy = China.) Before we bow to the pressure coming from our traditional allies to join in with their chest-bumping rivalries with China, it is probably worth looking at the Aussie nuclear submarine deal in more detail.
The Albanese government has said the Aussie subs will not be nuclear-armed. (Not yet, anyway) However, the roughly 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles (the final design will limit the number) that each submarine will carry can all carry nuclear warheads. Only previous treaty commitments with Russia have prevented the cruise missiles carried on Virginia-class subs from being nuclear-armed.
Yet with the scrapping of nuclear proliferation treaties with Russia in the wake of the war in Ukraine, we could well be sailing in a few years time into “neither confirm nor deny” territory with our Australian neighbours. Regardless of their potential for carrying nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles alongside the usual torpedoes, mines, autonomous undersea drones, etc etc ….Would these nuclear-powered Australian subs be barred from docking at New Zealand ports under the terms of our anti-nuclear legislation? Yes, they would.
Therefore, it would be good to know if our current political leaders share a bi-partisan agreement to preserve our anti-nuclear stance in its current form and thereby ban those Aussie subs from our ports, now and forever more. Even if Labour and National did agree, the reality is that our new and expensive Poseidon anti-submarine surveillance aircraft will still be taking part in exercises which will increasingly have (a) a nuclear component and (b) an anti-submarine (ASW) component, courtesy of our ANZAC buddies. Lest we forget. (The growing ASW role for Virginia-class SSN category subs is mentioned on page 9 of the Congressional Review Service evaluation of the SSN programme. )
From what can be gleaned at this point i.e. prior to the formal announcement, the Australian order will be filled with a new and advanced SSN® model still in development. This is where the British come in. In a sense, Australia will be (a) serving as a test run and (b) will be creating extra economies of scale for the British Navy’s plans to develop and build SSN( R) models to replace its Astute class submarines by the early to mid 2040s.
To repeat: It would be unwise for New Zealand to be stampeded by the “defence” lobbyists both here and offshore into making significant increases to the allocations for Defence in the May Budget. If nothing else, the Aussie subs saga is a useful reminder that the regional tensions in the Pacific and the China bogey are both being driven and monetised by firms within the military-industrial complex, via the pork barrel politicking (lucrative jobs and contracts for our neighbourhood! ) that is so rife among our traditional military allies.
Footnote: While we spend billions on a fleet of new Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft, and the Aussies buy their fleet of mega-expensive nuclear submarines, the future of underwater warfare is seen by some observers to rest with unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs). Apparently, the Australian military has a programme to develop UUVs called Ghost Shark, cutely named after the US Ghost Bat programme.
