Can Trump immerse Australian submarine plans?

The Australian Defense Minister woke up to nightmare earlier this week – and this is the one that has been emerged since the US has been re -elected by Donald Trump as president in November.

A landmark trilateral arrangement between the US, UK and Australia – which will give the latest advanced nuclear submarine technology in exchange for additional assistance in China in the Asia -Tzikhajan region – was in consideration.

White House said Thursday that wants to make sure The so -called Aukus Pact was “agreed with the first program of the President of America”.

This is the last step from Washington, which challenges his long -standing friendship with a lining, causing fears under this, because the conflict is heated around the world, Australia can remain without its highest ally.

“I don’t think any Australian should feel that at this point our ally is completely committed to our security,” says Sam Roggevin, who heads the security program at the Australian Institute’s analytical center.

Australia’s paper is a clear beneficiary of Aukus Agreement worth $ 176 billion ($ 239 billion; $ 368 billion).

The technology underlying the pact belongs to the United States, and there is already in the UK, as well as its own nuclear eyeliner. But those who are jointly developed and built in three countries will be an improvement.

For Australia, this is the main modernization of military capabilities. The new submarine model will be able to work further and faster than the existing diesel-shot park, and allow it to take blows for the first time.

For the US, it is a great deal to share what was described as the “value of the crown” of its defense technology, and for the UK it is impossible to convey the engine drawings.

But Australian armament has historically viewed Washington and Downing Street as an important peace in the Asia-Pacific region, which is far from its own.

It is about place their technology and equipment in the right place, experts say.

But when the Aukus agreement was signed in 2021, there were very different leaders in all three countries – Joe Biden in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK and Scott Morrison in Australia.

Today, when viewed through more isolationist lens that Trump uses to study his country’s global ties, some claim that the US can get much less from the pact.

In accordance with the secretary of the defense policy of Elbridge Kolby, the previous critic of Aukus, to lead the White House review in the agreement, and the Pentagon official told the BBC that the process was to comply with “common sense, the first criteria of America.”

The two criteria they quote tell. One of them is a requirement for the allies to “fully rise to make their role for collective defense.” The second is the need to make sure that the American weapons industry properly meets the country’s own needs.

The Trump administration has invariably expressed disappointment with ALEIM, including Australia, which they think they do not gain weight with the cost of defense.

They also say that America is trying to produce enough submarines running on nuclear, for their own strength.

“Why do we distribute this value to the crown when we need it most?” Kolbi himself said last year.

The Australian government, however, represents a calm front.

The new administration naturally reconsider the decisions of its predecessor, the officials say, noting that last year the new government government also conducted Aukus.

“I am very sure that this will happen,” said Defense Minister Richard Marles about the pact in an interview with the Australian broadcasting corporation (ABC).

But there is little doubt that the review can cause some early panic in the Canberra.

“I think Angst has been inseparable from the aucus from its beginning … the review itself is not anxious. It’s just everything else,” says BBC Euan Graham of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Australia is growing concern that America cannot hope.

“(President Donald Trump’s behavior) During the first months of this term, I do not think that there should be any observer with confidence in America’s commitment to his allies,” says Mr. Ragevin.

“Trump said, for example, that Ukraine is mostly a problem in Europe because they are separated by a large, beautiful ocean.

Washington’s decision to grease large tariffs on Australian goods earlier this year also inspired confidence when Prime Minister Anthony Albonez said it was clearly “not an act of a friend”.

Until now, Albanese remained silent on the Aukus review, most likely hiding his face to face with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit next week. This is the chat, which he still desperately tries to force the US president to agree.

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

Scott Morrison, leader of the Conservatives, who agreed on the Aukus pact in 2021, said the review should not be “rethinking” and make fun of a proposal that another country could meet the needs of Australia.

“The concept … honestly strengthen,” he said Radio ABC.

Malcolm Ternbul, who was behind the French submarine, which Morrison sharply broke up in favor of the acoule, said Australia needed to “wake up”, realize that it is a “bad deal” that the US could take at any moment and make other plans before too late.

Meanwhile, Paul Kiting, famously speaking a fans of closer ties with China, said that “it may be when Washington saves Australia from itself.”

“Aukus will be shown to have always been: the transaction is hastily written on the back of Scott Morrison’s envelope, as well as the vocal British Likh Boris Johnson and the bewildered President Joe Biden.”

In some quarters in some quarters, which in some quarters that become hesitation in the US feed on long -term criticism.

Calling on Australia’s own investigation, the greenery, the third largest political party of the country, said: “We need an independent protection and foreign policy that does not require us to flex our will and shovel wealth to an increasingly characteristic and ill -advised Trump.”

There is every chance that the US is turning in a few weeks and again sent to the pact.

After all, Australia buys up to five submarines that work at high costs, helping to support Americans. And the US has a lot of time – just under ten years – to deal with the problems of delivery and provide them.

“(US) will also use the broader aspects of Aukus – all three parties can raise their boat together, having more interacting defense technologies and ecosystem,” Mr. Graham adds.

However, the anxiety that has introduced into the relationship will be difficult to completely erase – and in Australia in Australia only the passion of differences.

But there is also an opportunity for Trump wants to rewrite the deal.

“I can easily see the future in which we do not receive the Virginia class,” says Mr. Ragevin, citing temporary submarines.

This will potentially leave Australia to its increasingly outdated fleet for two more decades, vulnerable until new models are designed and built.

What happens when the US completely left the Aukus alliance?

At this stage, few will sound this anxiety.

The broad opinion is that for the United States, opposition to China and the Pacific in the sphere of influence, it is still decisive.

Mr. Roggevin, however, says that when it comes to the potential conflict in the Pacific, the US does not invest its money where his mouth has been.

“China has been engaged in the biggest extension of the military power of any country since the end of the Cold War and the US position in Asia has not changed mostly,” he says.

When the US is gone, the aucus may well become an awkward AUK – but can the UK realistically offer Australia to keep the agreement?

And when the whole thing is falling apart, and Australia remains without submarines, who else can you refer to?

France feels unlikely rescuers, given the previous line there, but in Australia there are options, Mr. Ragevin says: “It will not end the world to defend Australia.”

He says Australia is “geographically blessed”, and “a reasonable defense budget and a good strategy” can hold China, even without submarines.

“There is this phrase you hear from time to time that the danger is on our doorstep. Well, it’s a big threshold when it is true … Beijing is closer to Berlin than to Sydney.”

“Australia has this mental block, as well as this emotional block – the fear of refusal, this idea that we cannot protect ourselves alone. But we can absolutely if necessary.”