AUKUS @ Five: Perspectives from the Conservative Party Fringe
David Landsman shares his reflections after chairing a fringe event at Conservative Party Conference on AUKUS.
Among the many interesting fringe events at this year’s Conservative Party Conference, I had the opportunity to chair a panel reflecting on the future of AUKUS after its first five years. I was joined by Dame Priti Patel, the Conservative Party’s International Secretary and former Shadow Foreign Secretary; David Reed MP, Shadow Minister for Defence; The Hon George Brandeis, former Australian High Commissioner; and Simon Blagden, an expert adviser to the MOD. In this blog, I have tried to give a flavour of the discussion.
Much has happened in the five years since the AUKUS deal was signed in 2021. While BFPG’s public opinion research suggests relatively low name recognition either for the deal or for the Indo-Pacific tilt more generally, there’s a general recognition that the arrangement is here to stay. AUKUS has withstood changes of Government in all three countries. President Trump came out strongly in support, despite initial fears that the review led by Deputy Secretary of War Elbridge Colby might be a prelude to a US withdrawal. In Australia and the UK, bipartisan support remains strong, again defying some fears that new governments might seek to deprioritise it. As far as the UK is concerned, since 2021, the demands on our defence have only increased - from the High North to Ukraine and Falklands and Middle East - so competition for attention is high.
This sustained commitment is particularly important for an agreement which is by its nature very long term. In a fast-changing geopolitical environment, we can’t know the precise nature of the threats we will face over its lifetime, but there was no dispute that it would remain a vital part of our defence for years to come. This is true as much of the new technology Pillar II as of the submarine programme. Indeed, in the longer term, Pillar II might even become the most important legacy of AUKUS.
The discussion on Pillar 1 focused on the practical steps necessary for effective delivery of the programme, from shipyard capacity in the US, UK and Australia to supply chain and skills and, of course, the funding for all of these. Unsurprisingly, the (UK) Conservative opposition’s is focused on holding the Government to account to make good on its funding commitments, with the warning that our international partners are are watching closely and could lose confidence in the UK (the same applies to GCAP).
Skills remain a real challenge. It should be possible to train welders in the UK in particular much more quickly, though the US approach - including accelerated university-led programmes - are considerably more expensive than the currently available budget. Can we do better?
While Pillar 1 is by its nature exclusively a project for the three original participants, there could be scope to extend participation in Pillar II selectively to other close allies for mutual benefit. It was possible to imagine a “modular” approach including others with significant technological innovation to share.
In the open discussion, we touched also on some other related questions. The panel considered whether it would be constructive to invite the UK to join the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, US), but concluded that this geopolitical grouping had its own specificities which were best preserved, nor was there a particular alignment with AUKUS as a defence arrangement. To the satisfaction of BFPG, the intersection between foreign and domestic policy came up in the sense that an effective Pillar II would depend on the broader enablers of advanced technology, notably data centres and energy, being provided for by participant nations. This would remain challenging in many countries and we would need to continue to make the case strongly.
An enlightening and largely very positive discussion; my thanks to all the panel and participants.