US (Washington Insider Magazine) – The United States and its allies are facing an intense strategic rivalry with China, highlighted by the exposure of U.S. defense-industrial base limitations due to the war in Ukraine and delays in weapon deliveries to Taiwan. The Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) security agreement, announced in September 2021, offers a pathway to address these industrial challenges and bolster allied defense in the Indo-Pacific.
For AUKUS to succeed, the U.S. must revise its defense trade regulations with allies and foster a more competitive mindset to mitigate technology transfer risks. AUKUS consists of two pillars: the first focuses on Australia’s acquisition of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines, while the second promotes enhanced integration and cooperation in developing advanced defense capabilities. Although the submarine program has attracted significant attention, establishing a functional submarine fleet will take a decade or more, emphasizing the need for urgent action on the second pillar.
The second pillar provides an opportunity to accelerate the research and deployment of advanced defense technologies, including hypersonic missiles and quantum technologies. Streamlined cooperation across defense-industrial bases is essential to counter China’s overwhelming manufacturing dominance.
To capitalize on this opportunity, fundamental reforms to U.S. export control laws and technology release processes are imperative. Modernizing the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and Foreign Military Sales processes is necessary to maintain an edge over China.
AUKUS serves as an optimal test of the U.S. ability to create a seamless defense trade partnership with its closest allies. Given the established intelligence-sharing relationships and frequent military coordination, this should be a straightforward process. However, two years post-AUKUS, progress has been limited, largely due to the Biden administration’s overly cautious approach to the second pillar. The current risk management strategies are outdated, reflecting a Cold War mindset that no longer suits the current geopolitical landscape dominated by China’s rapid military advancements.
To remain competitive, the U.S. must leverage its allies’ technological contributions and industrial capabilities. While protecting advanced technologies is crucial, overly restrictive regulations should not be applied to countries with robust legal and regulatory frameworks comparable to those of the United States.
Our risk management strategy must recognize the substantial benefits of collaboration under AUKUS, including access to advanced systems developed by allies. The greater risk to U.S. national security lies in treating its technology as too precious to share.
AUKUS is not the first initiative aimed at enhancing defense cooperation with the U.K. and Australia. Previous efforts, including defense trade treaties and the incorporation of these nations into the National Technology Industrial Base (NTIB), have yielded limited results. The Biden administration asserts that this is the “decisive decade” in strategic competition with China, and an incremental approach to AUKUS could jeopardize the opportunity to maximize alliance benefits.
Failure of AUKUS would undermine allies’ trust in U.S. reliability, while its success could motivate other key allies to improve their industrial practices. It is insufficient to merely acknowledge that allies are a comparative advantage against authoritarian regimes; enabling greater defense-industrial cooperation is essential for shared competition.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Torpedo Act (S 1471) to outline the necessary steps for successful implementation of AUKUS’s second pillar. Encouragingly, core regulatory changes proposed in the Torpedo Act recently passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with bipartisan support, reflecting Congress’s commitment to align AUKUS’s ambitious goals with essential reforms to export control and technology release policies. Failing to act would render U.S. rhetoric hollow and signal a lack of seriousness in competing with China.
