Australia’s former prime minister Paul Keating has delivered one of his most forceful condemnations of the Aukus security pact, claiming the agreement is eroding his country’s independence and binding it to a military confrontation with China that Washington would almost certainly lose. In remarks that underscore the deepening domestic controversy surrounding the multibillion-dollar defence arrangement, Keating argued that Australia’s increasing entanglement with United States military operations was leaving the nation exposed rather than protected.
A Tense Washington Visit and Its Aftermath
The former Labor premier’s intervention follows a recent trip to Canberra by Republican congressman Michael McCaul, co-chair of the Congressional Friends of Australia caucus, whose statements in Washington have drawn sharp attention. McCaul declared that “Australia is a target” for adversaries of the United States — yet simultaneously contended that closer integration with American armed forces would enhance Canberra’s security rather than diminish it.
During his visit, McCaul held discussions with prime minister Anthony Albanese, defence minister Richard Marles, and foreign affairs minister Penny Wong. He asserted it was “absolutely critical” for Australia to support any American intervention aimed at safeguarding Taiwan, and suggested it was “logical to assume” that US nuclear-powered submarines rotating through Australian bases could carry nuclear warheads beyond 2032. He further indicated that the US military establishment regarded Australian participation in a conflict with China over Taiwan as a foregone conclusion. “I don’t think it was even questioned. It’s just obvious,” McCaul reportedly said.
Keating, however, took a sharply different view. He argued that the US would almost certainly suffer defeat in any such engagement. “But having lost, [the US would] scuttle itself back to San Diego, leaving Australia vulnerable to China for having participated in a military escapade against it and its military assets.”
An Erosion of National Autonomy
Keating’s most provocative charge centres on what he sees as a systematic diminishment of Australian self-governance. “Australia is now getting locked in and locked up to the military prerogatives of the United States,” he said, adding that the country’s sovereignty was “effectively being shredded” through its deepening military entanglement with Washington, particularly via Aukus.
The scale of American presence on Australian soil is considerable. Reporting last week revealed that the US military and its associated corporate interests either control, have access to, or maintain a presence at more than 100 installations across the Australian continent — meaning over half of all military facilities on the continent operate under some degree of American influence. Intelligence installations such as Pine Gap serve pivotal roles in US warfare capabilities, downlinking enormous volumes of satellite surveillance data and supplying targeting intelligence for American strikes.
More than half of Australia’s military installations now operate at least partially under US control or access. Photograph: Bianca de Marchi/AAP
The Economics and Ambitions of Pillar One
Pillar One of the Aukus agreement — a programme projected to cost Australia up to A$368 billion by the mid-2050s — envisions Australia acquiring three conventionally armed, nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines from the United States beginning in 2032. Before any vessel can be transferred, the sitting US president must certify that the sale will not impair the American navy’s undersea capacity, a stipulation that carries significant weight given that the US submarine fleet currently operates at roughly three-quarters of its required strength of 66 boats.
From the early 2040s, Australia expects to deploy a larger Aukus-class submarine, designed in Britain, with the first vessel built for the Royal Navy before Australia constructs up to five additional boats in South Australia. The programme foresees up to eight Aukus boats in total, with the final launches scheduled for the 2060s and each vessel boasting a working life of approximately three decades. Australia would also assume responsibility for securing and storing nuclear waste — including high-level waste and spent fuel — for thousands of years, a task that raises its own proliferation concerns.
America’s Virginia-class boats do not currently carry nuclear weapons, though the US navy plans to equip some of them with nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles from 2032 onward. The regular rotation of US nuclear submarines through HMAS Stirling forms part of the broader Aukus cooperation, even though the Treaty of Rarotonga prohibits Australia from stationing nuclear weapons on its territory. Washington maintains a policy of “strategic ambiguity” regarding the deployment of its nuclear arsenal.
The Beachhead Question
Greens senator David Shoebridge seized upon McCaul’s characterisation of Australia as a strategic beachhead for American efforts to deter China. “The US spruikers of Aukus have said they want to make Australia the beachhead for US military war against China,” Shoebridge told a press conference at Parliament House. He was blunt about the implications: “What happens at a beachhead: people get killed at a beachhead, destruction happens at a beachhead in someone else’s war.”
“How on Earth does Aukus make us safe, when a foreign military is bringing their nuclear-armed submarines into this country and consciously saying they want our country to be the beachhead in a war with China? It’s time we ended Aukus before we become the US’s beachhead.”
The debate around Aukus is no longer confined to defence circles; it has become a defining fault line in Australian politics. Photograph: Colin Murty/AFP
Why it Matters
The controversy surrounding Aukus extends well beyond the technicalities of submarine procurement. At its core, it poses fundamental questions about the kind of strategic identity Australia wishes to project in the Asia-Pacific — whether it aspires to an independent foreign policy or accepts a subordinate role within an American-led security architecture. With a cost exceeding A$368 billion spanning multiple decades, and with the nation’s physical sovereignty already subject to more than a century of foreign military presence, the stakes could scarcely be higher. The decisions made in Canberra over the coming years will shape not only Australia’s security posture but its standing as a sovereign nation in a rapidly shifting global order.