On 26th September, the United Kingdom (UK) hosted a meeting of the AUKUS nations’ defence ministers, which followed an announcement that Britain and Australia would commence negotiations on a bilateral defence treaty, with both parties agreeing to create a strategic and operational framework to deliver the nuclear powered attack submarines (SSNs), which form Pillar I of the AUKUS agreement. However, the announcement failed to mention what else this treaty might cover. So, in this week’s Big Ask, we asked seven experts: What should the new UK-Australia defence treaty contain?
Researcher, Defence Studies Department, King’s College London
The anticipated UK-Australian defence treaty will elevate the bilateral relationship beyond a partnership, deepening defence ties considerably. Building upon AUKUS, Five Eyes, the Australia-UK ministerial consultations (AUKMIN) and the Five Powers Defence Arrangements (FPDA), this treaty would be the ultimate institutionalisation of shared bilateral strategic interests. Despite the significant geographical distance between the two, His Majesty’s (HM) Government should seize this opportunity to enhance Britain’s regional force posture.
Building on AUKUS’ Submarine Rotational Force-West, HM Government should seek similar provisions as those within the United States (US)-Australia Force Posture Agreement. Beyond signalling a serious commitment to Australian security, this would enable more frequent British participation in bilateral and multilateral training exercises.
At the operational level, one avenue worth exploring is long term basing rights for the Royal Navy’s Littoral Response Group South (LRGS) in Western Australia. A more permanent presence would enable current Royal Australian Navy surface vessels to complement the LRGS, with potential for future integration of Hunter class frigates – thereby easing pressure on Britain’s already stretched fleet.
The success of this upcoming treaty will be critical in securing Britain’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. In seeking to demonstrate itself as a credible security partner, the UK should seize opportunities to act in support of the free and open international order. Despite its contention with the growing regional influence of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), this treaty will carry global implications.
Senior Advisor, Pacific Forum
From a US perspective, the prospect of a new UK-Australia defence treaty is to be welcomed. Once negotiated, it will hopefully contribute to regional security and stability by formalising Britain’s defence commitments to Australia and vice versa. Ideally, there would be a formal commitment as found in the language of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to come to each other’s defence. There are few geopolitical messages stronger than such a commitment and it sends a power signal across the Indo-Pacific region.
The treaty should fortify Pillar I of AUKUS and the Defence and Security Cooperation Agreement – signed in March – by creating structures and frameworks for both countries to develop greater integration across the defence enterprise, particularly in defence industry and defence technology development. The defence industry base is a whole-of-society effort, relying on universities and research centres for innovation, private equity for capital, the tech and defence companies for production and sustainment, the governments for regulation, contracting, and strategic direction. Interweaving so many disparate elements requires a state-level framework, harmonising regulation, dispelling red tape and allowing increased information-sharing.
Finally, the treaty should lay the groundwork for greater operational and policy cooperation, particularly in the maritime space. As Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy submarines and surface vessels will likely deploy together in contested waters across the region, clear guidelines for mutual defence and rules-of-engagement should be developed. This type of close military-to-military understanding cannot be built in a crisis. Trust and ‘mateship’ will take time to build, and a successful treaty will provide such an impetus.
Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University
Despite the extensive history between Australia and the UK, the nature of the defence relationship between the two countries since the Second World War has lacked clarity. The decision to negotiate a defence treaty between Australia and Britain is historic. While generated by the AUKUS relationship and Australia’s acquisition of SSNs, the opportunity for forging the future defence relationship between the two countries is much greater.
The bilateral negotiations between the two countries should consider the fundamental tenets of the relationship. What are the obligations to consult in the event of a crisis which impacts both respective nations? While this may be assumed given the nature of the long-standing relationship, the relationship would benefit from clarity on these issues. Following on from this, what are the obligations for collective defence? As technology shrinks the influence of the geographic distance between Australia and the UK, there may be a benefit in strengthening the partnership into a formal alliance.
While the main focus of the new treaty will surely be on the capability and workforce benefits of AUKUS, there is considerable potential to go beyond these elements. How might the countries collaborate on shipbuilding, or areas of defence industrial collaboration beyond the themes of AUKUS?
The bilateral treaty between Australia and Britain presents an important opportunity – to define the modern defence relationship between the two countries well beyond AUKUS. This is an opportunity that should be seized – with a detailed treaty which serves as a strategic anchor in the relationship moving forward.
Research Fellow on Sea Power, Council on Geostrategy
These discussions offer a valuable opportunity for a robust UK-Australia defence treaty which could strengthen both nations’ maritime capabilities and enhance stability in the Indo-Pacific region.
Firstly, the treaty should enhance the scope for joint maritime operations, including regular exercises and training programs aimed at improving interoperability between the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy.
It should also establish improved protocols for information sharing, particularly regarding intelligence on maritime threats and security challenges in the Indo-Pacific. This collaboration would enhance situational awareness and response times to potential crises, and could form the basis for a framework for coordinated patrols and enforcement actions in vulnerable waters.
Furthermore, the treaty should address logistical cooperation, ensuring that both navies can support each other effectively during operations. This could include detailed provisions for shared access to ports and bases, facilitating rapid deployment and resupply.
The AUKUS agreement also offers a model for future cooperation on technology sharing and joint research and development. Working together more closely on advancements in technologies such as uncrewed systems and surveillance capabilities would enhance both nations' maritime strengths.
Minister of the Indo-Pacific (2022-2024) and Secretary of State for International Trade (2021-2022)
Two Five Eyes nations strengthening their defence relationship is hardly a shock. But what is its purpose beyond making it easier for both countries’ troops to train together, improve intel sharing, or accelerate defence industrial cooperation?
This new bilateral treaty must have the AUKUS agreement at its heart, with Pillar I helping Australia to become the third spoke in nuclear-powered submarine building, while Pillar II will increase innovation in key defence technology sectors across the three nations by cutting regulatory barriers.
If AUKUS Pillar I is to deliver at the pace the threat requires, both the UK and Australia should strive to make AUKUS a national endeavour. Requiring a change in behaviour across both governments to make delivery at pace a reality.
To implement this challenging vision, every part of government needs to think ‘AUKUS FIRST.’ How are schools and universities focusing on STEM teaching to maximise the future pool of talent? How are business departments focusing on supply chain investment? How is Britain ensuring its industrial base gets contracts with Australia so they can get cracking on the numerous capabilities they need to build? How are both ministries of defence changing their recruiting plans for their navies to build the new pipeline?
Critically, how are AUKUS proponents planning to convince their respective treasuries that investments made sooner bring security to Australian exports markets and UK global trade routes? If that is understood, and funded at pace, then all the other barriers still in place unlock too – from infrastructure changes at new or existing build sites, to training programmes for the nuclear prepared civil and military workforces across both nations.
If AUKUS is delivered on the usual year-on-year flexible investment basis, then the chance of success at pace is small. The British and Australian governments, who signed the AUKUS agreement, did so because they understood the threat picture and the truth that there is no safer world than one in which many submarines patrol Indo-Pacific trade routes, keeping them free and open.
If AUKUS is to succeed, this treaty must set out a commitment to make it a national endeavour in both nations. There must be a prime ministerial appointee in each country with the authority and framework to direct every department, including the treasury, to the advancement of the project. These prime ministerial-appointed AUKUS tsars need to be working hand-in-glove together to unlock all barriers as they appear. They must have the authority to drive changes in tempo and focus across departments, across industry, across every layer of government.
Either this is the most important national security project, or it’s not. No ifs, no buts – if the prime ministers of both countries do not wield their authority effectively, then AUKUS will remain as a complex defence project which won’t deliver the deterrent that Britain and Australia need.
Associate Fellow in AUKUS and Britain in the Indo-Pacific, Council on Geostrategy
There is no hiding from the fact that the AUKUS agreement’s ambition comes with several logistical hurdles and strategic considerations which are not easily surmountable. When it comes to the UK and Australia specifically, the joint-development and likely joint-crewing of ‘SSN-AUKUS’ submarines presents some of the most difficult challenges.
It is already clear that many aspects regarding the joint-development of the submarines will be ironed out in the new ‘bilateral AUKUS treaty’ between Britain and Australia. The treaty should also consider the responses of London and Canberra to an attack on a jointly crewed submarine. If a Royal Navy SSN-AUKUS boat was hit and sunk by a theoretical adversary with Australian crew on board, should the response of both countries be the same? An inverted scenario asks the same question.
The treaty should also seek to harmonise the logistical and diplomatic response of Australia and the UK to any accidents regarding nuclear material from a jointly crewed submarine. Although claims that AUKUS is spurring on a ‘nuclear arms race’ and ‘undermin[ing] the international nuclear non-proliferation regime’ are sensationalist – particularly when delivered by the PRC, due to its substantial recent naval build-up – Australia and Britain should be in-tune with, and ready to respond in a unified fashion to, concerns around the environmental risk of nuclear material.
These issues are frequently aired by smaller states in the Indo-Pacific who both Australia and the UK have expressed their desire to continue forming closer economic and defence ties with; being able to respond in a timely and appropriate manner to an accident and counter subversive narratives effectively will be of great importance in maintaining these relationships.
Peter Watkins
Former Director General for Security Policy, Ministry of Defence (2014-2018) and Visiting Professor, King’s College London
There are scores of defence-related agreements between the UK and Australia – whether formal treaties or, more commonly, memoranda of understanding. Another ‘new’ Defence and Security Cooperation Agreement was signed in March this year to, among other things, ‘make it easier for our Armed Forces to operate together in each other’s countries’, such as on the programme to train Ukrainian forces.
Likewise, the Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty signed in January 2013 was a comprehensive ‘umbrella’ arrangement with provisions for exchanges of information and personnel as well as cooperation on defence science and technology, capabilities and logistics. As a signal of intent, it was very successful – UK-Australia defence cooperation has burgeoned over the past decade, not least on Australia’s Hunter Class frigate programme, as well as other military activities.
The newly announced agreement will be a ‘bilateral AUKUS treaty’ to ‘establish the strategic and operational framework for bilateral cooperation under AUKUS with a focus on the core elements of the delivery of SSN-AUKUS.’ Given the plethora of existing agreements (and oceans of fine words), the focus on AUKUS is welcome. The two defence ministries should zero in on identifying the procedural and bureaucratic barriers to the smooth exchange of information, personnel, etc – and use the treaty to remove them.
They should also commit to building the common technological and industrial skills base – and wider strategic empathy between the partners – necessary to underpin a multi-decade programme. Finally, it should not be all about Pillar I (the SSNs). Despite the recent trilateral statement, Pillar II (Advanced Capabilities) appears to remain relatively insubstantial. Negotiation of this treaty is an opportunity to set clear goals and agree measures to enable deeper bilateral cooperation in these wider capabilities.
If you enjoyed this Big Ask, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about the perspectives put forward in this Big Ask? Why not leave a comment below?