Ochus Summit (Photo = Yonhap News)

"Australia acquires nuclear submarines in the early 2030s"

On 13 March, the leaders of the three countries, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, held a joint press conference in San Diego, California, United States, and announced that they would accelerate Australia's acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, which was originally discussed as 2040. That means by the early 2030s, the U.S. will sell up to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, as well as build new submarines from Australia and Britain and deliver them to Australia. It is being promoted at the level of AUKUS, a security consultative body formed by the three countries in 5, and the three countries have previously agreed to have eight nuclear submarines by 2021. Moving this forward by 2040 years may be evidence of the heightened threat posed by the PRC in the Indo-Pacific region.

When I visited Australia earlier this month on the Korea Women Journalists Association's Indo-Pacific Security Cooperation field coverage program, the topic that interested me the most was Australia's acquisition of nuclear submarines. I wondered why Australia had pledged to have several nuclear submarines worth trillions of dollars per ship, and how it managed to get the cooperation of the United States, which has not shared nuclear propulsion technology with anyone but the UK for the past 8 years. These days, when the North Korean missile threat has become the norm, I envied Australia's nuclear submarine FLEX.



Enlarge the image


On Jan. 6, Australian Deputy Defence Minister Matt Thistlethwaite met with reporters in Canberra and explained the background to Australia's purchase of nuclear submarines. "The decision to purchase the Ocus nuclear submarine was driven by the fact that the United States and the United Kingdom are longtime allies. The decision on nuclear submarines was made by the previous Morrison government, but the new government (which was inaugurated in May last year) is also strongly supportive, as is public opinion. Australia is an island nation and has a very long coastline, so it's important to have open shipping routes in the Asia-Pacific region, and we need to have the best defence to protect them."
He emphasized that the nuclear-powered submarines Australia buys are never submarines with nuclear weapons.
"Australia is committed to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and there is absolutely no risk of diverting [nuclear submarine fuel and components] into nuclear weapons. Australia remains committed to abiding by international law and will work with its neighbours to promote stability and prosperity in the region."

US President Biden also reiterated at the first face-to-face summit in Ochus on 5 March that it is a nuclear-powered submarine carrying conventional weapons, not nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, China and Russia immediately issued statements against the NPT, saying it violated the intent of the NPT. The delivery and deployment of nuclear submarines to Australia will continue to push back between the two countries, and tensions in the Indo-Pacific region could rise. However, Australia's counter-argument is that this situation originated in China.


China has the world's largest naval power... Aiming for the Pacific Ocean

China is estimated to have tripled its naval power over the past 20 years, and in terms of size, it has 3 warships, including 2020 nuclear submarines, as of 12, significantly outpacing the United States' 360 (U.S. Naval Intelligence Agency report). In particular, China signed a security agreement with the Solomon Islands last year, allowing it to send Chinese warships and troops to Australia's forecourt. Australia's concern is that the PRC is using loans and fake news to increase its influence not only in the Solomon Islands but also in other Pacific island countries. Thus, Australia argues that Australia's acquisition of nuclear submarines is an effort to balance its military capabilities rather than undermine stability in the region.



Enlarge the image

Enlarge the image


Australian Deputy Foreign Minister Tim Watts, who met in Canberra on Jan. 7, also responded to criticism of Australia's military buildup.
"It is important to make diplomatic efforts with allies within the framework of multilateralism, but at the same time, it may be possible to strengthen Australia's influence by building military capabilities. We must use all available tools in the national interest."


After Australia, can South Korea have nuclear submarines?

Then, if the Republic of Korea decides to acquire nuclear submarines, what will be the reaction of the international community?



Enlarge the image


I asked this question at the University of Sydney, Australia, on March 3 with Michael Green, director of the Center for American Studies (USSC). Major General Michael Green, a former director of Asia affairs at the White House National Security Council and one of the leading experts on Asia, was the first to point out the cost-performance ratio. "In Australia's case, we are geographically far from many threats. Nuclear-powered submarines are needed because of the need to quietly respond to threats from 1-2 thousand kilometers away. By the way, South Korea is right next to North Korea and China. Unlike Australia, you don't have to spend a lot of money on a nuclear submarine. It's not cost-effective." Australia's ambitious plan to have up to 2060 nuclear submarines by 13 is expected to cost up to 321 trillion won.



Enlarge the image


However, the same question came up at a meeting of the Foreign Correspondents' Club of the US State Department on 16 March. When asked if South Korea could be allowed nuclear submarines like Australia, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Anthony Wire replied, "We have no intention of sharing additional nuclear-powered technology from the U.S. Navy." The U.S.-Korea Nuclear Energy Agreement prohibits the use of nuclear materials for military purposes, so U.S. approval is required to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.

Maj. Gen. Michael Green also commented on the recent rise in public opinion in South Korea toward nuclear weapons.
"In South Korea, NATO-style nuclear sharing is seen as a model of dreams, and I doubt that the NATO model is an appropriate model for the Korean Peninsula. It is inconceivable that South Korea would join the nuclear program group with Japan and Australia. Korea and Japan do not share war plans, so this is not feasible. I think the United States will expand discussions with South Korea on extended deterrence at a strategic level, but we will not include South Korea 100 percent in our nuclear war plans."



Enlarge the image


So, can't we also create a consultative body like Ochus to strengthen deterrence against North Korea? Can't we join the Quad (a four-nation security summit between the United States, Australia, Japan and India) in which Australia is a participatory and strengthen military cooperation?
Dr Alex Bristow (acting director) of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) said the Quad currently represents a non-military diplomatic and security consultative body, but he personally thinks it will be of a military nature. However, he said it was unlikely that the Quad would expand beyond the four countries. "Even if the Quad isn't expanding, I think we can work together in different forms. In fact, there is a Quad Working Group on COVID vaccines and new technologies, and I think Korea can cooperate."

Earlier, when President Yoon Seok-yeol was president-elect, he met with Australian Ambassador to the Republic of Korea Catherine Raper and asked for South Korea's support for joining the Quad Working Group, which requires the support of not only Australia but also the United States, Japan, India, and other participating countries. After the recent announcement of the ROK Government's proposal to compensate victims of forced mobilization and the all-out ROK-Japan summit talks, there have been reports about the possibility of our country's participation in the Quad Working Group.



Enlarge the image

Enlarge the image


In the Australian capital, Canberra, the War Memorial faces the Parliament House. It is said that when lawmakers are legislating, they should always think of those who gave their lives for the country. Australia has never fought a war within its own country, but since World War II it has deployed troops to wars and conflict zones around the world. More than 2,6 people participated in the June 25 war, and 1 lost their lives. The Hall of Fame has the names of more than 7,340 fallen engraved on bronze panels by region and battle, especially at a memorial service called "Last Post" at 10:3 p.m., where one person is mourned each day with their stories. The tip of my nose twitched at the thought that my brothers, sisters, and neighbors, who had been living ordinary lives, had been called to the nation to go to battle, and finally perform the "Last Post" ceremony of being placed in heaven for the last time. Wouldn't it have been on their sacrifices that Australia is able to pursue stability in the Indo-Pacific region, participate in various forms of diplomatic cooperation such as multilateralism and soda independence, and strengthen its military capabilities, such as acquiring nuclear submarines?



Enlarge the image

Enlarge the image


Before leaving the War Memorial of Korea, red flowers swayed in the wind as if greeting the plaques of Korean War veterans. The red poppy, the flower word for red poppy, is 'sacrifice', a flower that has been a symbol of national service in Australia and the Commonwealth countries since the First World War.