2024-04-30
AUKUS is touted as making us more secure but it unleashes ever more threats to our peaceful existence
By Chris Johansen, Green Issue Co-editor
The existential threat of climate change to humanity was elaborated in the last century (e.g. James Hansen, 1988). With this unprecedented long, hot, dry summer in southern WA, now extending into late April, and increasing reports of coral bleaching, shrinking glaciers and polar ice sheets, record wildfires and floods, and weather aberrations in general, there does at last appear to be increasing public acceptance of the reality of climate change. However, not enough to stop WA continuing to be a globally significant contributor to climate change through its ongoing, and intended increased, LNG exports.
Another existential threat which has been hanging over humanity for the last almost 80 years is nuclear war. However, this has not hitherto bothered residents of WA to any extent as the likely protagonists of nuclear war were far away in the northern hemisphere and because of the strong and, so far, successful anti-nuclear movement in WA – in opposing uranium mining and visits by nuclear warships. Further, with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, the threat of nuclear war receded for the remainder of the 20th century.
However, since the turn of this century the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock has crept ever closer to midnight – now just 90 seconds away – due primarily to the rising threats emanating from nuclear armed states. One such confrontation is getting uncomfortably close to home – in WA – with the advent of AUKUS.
AUKUS is a trilateral defence agreement between Australia, the USA and UK built around increasing rotational presence of US and UK nuclear-powered submarines at Australian ports and eventual procurement of nuclear-powered submarines by Australia. AUKUS was given birth in Australia by former Prime Minister Morrison in 2021, for the main purpose getting re-elected – using the age-old political ploy of invoking an enemy and claiming to be the best candidate to protect the populace. In this case the invoked enemy was China and the method of protecting the public was further cosying up to the US via a nuclear submarine deal. To avoid being wedged as being weak on defence Labor went along with the deal.
Where all of this comes home to WA is that HMAS Stirling Naval Base on Garden Island, a few kilometres off Rockingham across Cockburn Sound, will become a layover port for visiting US and UK nuclear submarines and a home port for the intended Australian nuclear-powered submarines. This intended nuclear militarization in the vicinity of Perth no doubt encouraged renowned peace and anti-nuclear activist Dr Sue Wareham to visit WA to speak at a symposium on “Resisting militarism in the AUKUS Era”, at Fremantle on 12th April. The event was sponsored by Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW), Doctors for the Environment Australia , Stop AUKUS WA and Nuclear Free WA.
But firstly, a bit about Dr Sue Wareham. She is currently president of MAPW and one of the founders of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). Starting from kitchen table talks around the then outlandish theme of “the best way to prevent nuclear war is to ban nuclear weapons”, the Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2017. This achievement resulted in a Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN. Seventy nations have now ratified this treaty, but unsurprisingly no nuclear armed ones, and there are 652 partner organizations.
Dr Wareham gave the keynote address, supplemented by comments from Dr Peter Underwood, Coordinator WA MAPW and MC of this symposium, Dr Raewyn Mutch, Doctors for the Environment, and Dr Mick Broderick, researcher of nuclear culture. Those of us in the audience who were aghast about AUKUS from the get-go were aware of many of the points being made but summarized below are the main points suggesting an existential threat to WA and specifically to Perth south metro region.
Security or target?
The main justification given for AUKUS is the security it provides against possible attack by China at some future date. Although official documentation rarely names China as the AUKUS enemy, it is overtly implied. However, no evidence is available that China has any imperial ambitions directed at Australia, just increased trade ambitions. If war did break out between China and the US, with Australia inevitably involved via AUKUS, Stirling Naval Base, along with Pine Gap, would pop up first on the radar for long range Chinese ballistic missiles. Hardly makes this corner of the world more secure!
Accidents
Dr Wareham admitted that the risk of nuclear reactor accidents is low, but not zero. It is reported that nine nuclear powered submarines have sunk, with their reactor casings slowly corroding. Some 27 accidents involving nuclear submarines are known. The UK Ministry of Defence has confirmed that nearly 800 nuclear safety events have been recorded at Scotland's naval bases since 2006. These are likely to be underestimates as military authorities everywhere are reluctant to publicly report such mishaps for reasons of “national security”.
The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 (the Bill) now before the Senate makes provision for an internal regulator for radioactive materials in nuclear submarines, responsible only to the Minister for Defence. This does not bode well for a transparent and accountable nuclear safety regime. The International Atomic Energy Agency, and indeed basic common sense, requires independent regulation of radiation safety.
A further factor increasing the possibility of accidents would be the relative inexperience of local personnel in the maintenance and servicing of naval nuclear reactors, that would be required with increasing layovers of US and UK nuclear submarines from 2027.
Although it is claimed that Australian nuclear submarines, scheduled to arrive in the 2030s, would be conventionally armed, Australia has a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about whether US military assets visiting Australia are carrying nuclear weapons or not. In a world of heightened tensions it is difficult to imagine that US or UK nuclear subs would offload their nuclear weapons somewhere before docking at an Australian port.
Further, although the Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill repeatedly specifies Australia’s AUKUS submarines would be “conventionally armed, nuclear powered” the Bill does not unambiguously rule out the future possibility of them being nuclear armed. The possibility of nuclear armed submarines increases the probability of nuclear accidents – not just the reactor to worry about but the weapons also.
Radioactive waste
Even in the absence of any accident the AUKUS deal would open the door for an eternal nuclear waste problem in Australia. Maintenance of nuclear submarines requires the generation of low and intermediate level radioactive waste requiring centuries long storage due to the long half life of some of the isotopes involved.
The Australian Government initially denied that it would be taking low and intermediate level radioactive waste from US or UK nuclear submarines rotating at HMAS Stirling (now designated as SRF-West) but a recent response by the Department of Defence in a Senate hearing on the Bill indicated they would, as part of a phased approach to build Australia’s nuclear stewardship capability. The relevant Defence statement is: “The rotational presence of UK and US submarines in Western Australia as part of SRF-West provides a core opportunity for Australia to learn how these vessels operate, which involves the management of low-level radioactive waste from routine sustainment operations.”
It must be realized that Australia has not been able to establish a permanent storage facility for mainly low level radioactive waste from medical and research facilities for more than 50 years (when I first did a “safe handling of radioisotopes” course in 1968 I was informed that such a facility was “just a few years” away!).
At a recent AUKUS information hub (which was actually a failed attempt at community consultation), I was informed that a storage facility for low and intermediate level radioactive waste from nuclear submarines is planned for the southern end of HMAS Stirling Naval Base (that is where the lady’s finger pointed). Should that base be bombed, on the outbreak of a war we are supposedly preparing for via AUKUS, there would inevitably be spillage of radioactive waste into Cockburn Sound, a few meters away, contaminating that water body for eternity.
The Naval Nuclear Powered Safety Bill specifies that Australia is responsible for the disposal of high level radioactive waste from the reactors of nuclear powered submarines at the end of their service life. This high level waste is weapons grade uranium (U-235) with a half-life of 700 million years. It can be used directly to make nuclear weapons or just left around until it decays! Australia’s proposed purchase of second-hand US Virginia class nuclear submarines in the 2030s would have a use-by date probably expiring some time in the 2040s.
The Naval Nuclear Powered Safety Bill doesn’t categorically rule out Australia taking high level radioactive waste from retired US or UK submarines. Persons responsible for such high level waste in those countries would certainly be looking at the wide open spaces of Australia as an answer to their prayers. The UK has around 20 nuclear submarines decommissioned since 1980 rusting away in harbours in Devenport, England and Rosyth, Scotland. Their keepers don’t seem to know what to do with them.
Dr Wareham pointed out that there are only two precautionary measures for potential excessive exposure to radioactivity. One is to take iodine tablets, but this will only protect the thyroid gland from radioactive iodine. Exposure to radioactivity even at doses within commonly accepted safe limits have been found to have adverse human health effects, in a comprehensive study soon to be published. And these effects can be genetically passed on. Just ask the descendants of First Nations people exposed to British atomic weapons testing in South Australia in the 1950s, with their above average array of medical ailments.
The second precautionary measure on offer by the medicos is … evacuation (enjoy Cockburn Sound while you can).
Promoting militarism
Australia has a history of international militarism essentially from federation. It has participated in many wars at the behest of the UK or US, and mostly remote from the actual defence of Australia. The “ANZAC spirit” promotes this ongoing militaristic tendency, even though the original ANZAC battle in Turkey ended in comprehensive defeat. And most of Australia’s military deployments since World War 2, at the behest of the US, have also ended in defeat. Yet there seems to be an overwhelming community feeling that we are destined to keep on fighting other people’s (mainly the USA’s) wars. This is assumed as a necessary down payment on the insurance that UK and US would forever spring to our aid if we are militarily threatened. It would be wise to read the fine print of that insurance policy, if indeed such a document exists.
There are ongoing attempts to foster and expand militarism in Australia. A most insidious one is that of global weapons corporations, including BAE Systems, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, who rely on continued wars for their business model, sponsoring STEM programs in schools. Similarly, many Australian universities are forming partnerships with global weapons companies, providing those companies with the opportunity to further embed militarism into the Australian way of life. Also, the Australian Government is actively encouraging the expansion of an already booming defence industry in the country.
This ongoing promotion of militarism makes it easier for any government, and the public, to again unthinkingly join any war at the behest of the US. WA would be much safer into the future if these efforts in promotion of militarism in schools, university and industry are called out and resisted.
Loss of sovereignty
Since 2014, Australia has had a Force Posture Agreement with the US which essentially allows the US to establish military bases in Australia that remain for all intents and purposes under US jurisdiction. Currently this Force Posture Agreement accommodates rotations of US Marines in northern Australia and US air force assets at Tindall Air Base near Darwin. The Naval Nuclear Powered Safety Bill allows for establishment of “designated zones” for nuclear submarines, restricted to public entry and scrutiny and overriding local and state government jurisdiction. HMAS Stirling and Osbourne shipyard in South Australia have already been so declared, but the Bill allows for “any other location” to be so classified. The question remains as to whether such designated zones will fall within the Force Posture Agreement, and thus be essentially under US jurisdiction. If so, the public are unlikely to learn about any accidents involving radioactivity in a timely, comprehensive, or even truthful, manner.
The AUKUS agreement itself further diminishes the ability of any Australian government to resist a call to arms by the US. The US Government seems to take for granted that Virginia class nuclear submarines sold to Australia would still be available for deployment with US forces, particularly should a conflict with China arise. Indeed, these submarines are designed for rapid deployment to distant parts of the world and are not suitable for protection of Australia's coastal waters.
Trashing international treaties
It can be argued that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has reduced the possibility of nuclear war since 1970. AUKUS opens the way for Australia to breach its obligations under that treaty, as it opens the door for deployment of weapons grade uranium and nuclear weapons in Australia. That would also give licence to other nations to break with the NPT. Further, AUKUS would cause Australia to breach the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to which it is a signatory. Although Labor has promised to sign the Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons when in government, it has so far refused to do so. The Government probably realizes that this would not be consistent with AUKUS and/or is under pressure from the US and UK not to sign.
The best hope for a militarily secure WA is for these international treaties to be actually adhered to.
Existential threat, or not?
The narrative above suggests that we are entering into an existential threat that is avoidable. To avoid it the first thing to do is to oppose AUKUS, as well as Australia’s further march into militarism. We need to get out from under the imagined protective wing of the Anglosphere, realizing that it is indeed only a figment of imagination. Further, we need to boost our diplomatic efforts in the Indo-Pacific region, where we live. If we spend only one tenth of what we intend to spend on AUKUS (i.e. $36.8 billion instead of $368 billion) on upgraded diplomatic efforts in Asia, we will all be much safer into the future – apart from climate change of course.
Header photo: Artist rendering of possible design for SSN-AUKUS submarine. Credit: BAE Systems. UK Open Government Licence v3.0
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]