Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles, British Ambassador to the US, Dame Karen Pierce, and US Deputy Secretary of State, Kurt Campbell, signed the new treaty-level AUKUS agreement in Washington on Aug. 5. (Rodney Braithwaite/ADF)

SYDNEY — New details about the latest defense agreement between Australia, Britain and the United States have emerged, including the existence of an “out” clause for the US that would allow Washington to terminate the agreement.

The publication of those details are providing an avenue for critics of the Albanese government to target AUKUS, but the government and an outside expert say the language should be no reason for controversy.

The agreement, signed last week in Washington during the annual AUSMIN talks between the foreign and defense ministers of Australia and the US, says any of the parties can withdraw from the agreement with one year’s notice. It adds that Australia must pay the UK or US for any damages caused by “nuclear risks.”

In particular, Article 1 of the agreement underlines the high stakes tied to the AUKUS agreement, essentially saying it will only proceed from one step to the next “provided that the Originating Party determines that such cooperation will promote and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to its defense and security.”

Australian Sen. David Shoebridge, a Green Party legislator, said Monday this means “that if at any point the United States thinks supplying material under the AUKUS agreement to Australia prejudices their defense, they can effectively terminate the agreement and pull out.” Details about the agreement became public when an analysis and explanation of the document was tabled in Parliament earlier on Monday.

“What this agreement makes clear in black and white: If the United States at any point thinks they don’t have enough submarines for themselves, they can pull out of AUKUS 2.0,” Shoebridge said. “Why isn’t the Albanese government being honest about the size of the gamble?”

Today, he raised the ante, saying on X (formerly Twitter): “AUKUS 2.0 is one of the most irresponsible one-sided international agreements any Government has signed. The Albanese Government doesn’t seem to care about signing away our independence and billions in public $.”

AUKUS 2.0 is one of the most irresponsible one-sided international agreements any Government has signed.

The Albanese Government doesn’t seem to care about signing away our independence and billions in public $.

Just make sure you call him Deputy Prime Minister Marles 🫠 pic.twitter.com/1RqtteTEqZ

— David Shoebridge (@DavidShoebridge) August 13, 2024

However, one of Australia’s top naval analysts said the new agreement was essentially standard international practice, and Shoebridge’s view was “an odd interpretation.”

“It is standard procedure for international treaties to include termination provisions. Standard termination provisions provide for the notice period that must be given by a party, prior to the treaty being terminated. There is absolutely nothing surprising in the inclusion of a termination provision in the AUKUS Treaty,” Jennifer Parker, an expert at the Australian National University’s National Security College, said in an email. “In fact, it is standard treaty practice. The termination provision applies to all parties, not just the US. Equally it means that Australia can withdraw from the treaty should we wish to with 12 months notice.”

While the US has struggled to build enough Virginia nuclear-powered attack subs for its own needs, there seems little likelihood that the US would withdraw from AUKUS. Congress and the Biden Administration have demonstrated a deep and abiding commitment to the project to sell Australia two Virginia class boats and to help it build the SSN AUKUS fleet with the United Kingdom.

The Australian Submarine Agency said the indemnity provisions are consistent with Australia’s commitment to being a sovereign and responsible steward of naval nuclear propulsion technology that will ultimately
be owned and operated by Australia.

“The inclusion of indemnity provisions for activities undertaken on behalf of other parties is not uncommon in such arrangements,” a spokesman for the agency said.

In terms of the Virginia boats, no indemnification would occur until after the boats were transferred to Australia, the ASA noted.

The chances of an event that would trigger payment for a disaster are small.

“The UK and the US naval nuclear propulsion programs have unmatched safety records – including the UK and the US’s 60-year unblemished record of no submarine reactor accident or release of radioactivity that has harmed human health or the quality of the environment,” the ASA spokesperson said.

Taken altogether, Parker said the new agreement actually helps reduce risks to Australia and to AUKUS.

“Nothing in this treaty has changed the known level of risk for what is an ambitious project. In some respects, the agreement of the treaty-level document between the three countries can be interpreted as a risk reduction measure. It is no mean feat to get three countries to agree to a treaty to this level of detail, and provides reinforcement of what has been agreed.”