Underwater: a question of sovereignty
On 3 December Andrew Fowler, investigative journalist and author of NUKED: the submarine fiasco that sank Australia’s sovereignty, delivered a compelling talk at AIIA NSW discussing the negotiation of the AUKUS agreement, the erosion of due process in governance, and journalism’s vital role in exposing executive overreach. He linked the abandonment of Australia’s commitment to buy French conventionally-powered submarines, in favour of US nuclear-powered ones, to US pressure, undermining Australia’s sovereignty and strategic independence.
Fowler emphasised that true journalism must hold institutions accountable, especially when executive decisions bypass public scrutiny. He described AUKUS as a governance failure, where Australia abandoned the cost-effective and timely French submarine deal for a poorly justified nuclear-powered alternative. The secrecy surrounding the announcement blindsided allies like France, demonstrating political opportunism rather than strategic necessity. Fowler pointed out that, while the Liberal Party appeared prepared for the shift, the public and even sections of the government were left in the dark.
A key concern raised by Fowler was the erosion of Australian sovereignty. By committing to US nuclear-powered submarines, Australia risks over-reliance on US technology and potentially ceding control of critical defence capabilities. He also warned that the deal’s reliance on highly-enriched uranium could breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, setting a dangerous international precedent.
Fowler criticised both major political parties for prioritising alignment with the US over national interest. He discussed the forceful role of US advisors in advocating the American case and, from the outset, undermining the French offer. He suggested that fear of alienating the US reflects a broader concern about its historical treatment of nations that fail to align with US strategic objectives. The decision to abandon the French deal, despite its advantages, illustrated this dynamic.
Ethical and procedural issues were also central to Fowler’s critique. He highlighted instances of conflicts of interest, such as defence officials transitioning to private roles linked to submarine production. These practices, he argued, undermine public trust and raise questions about the integrity of the procurement process. He lamented the lack of protections for whistle blowers, emphasising the importance of safeguarding public servants who expose procedural breaches to ensure accountability and transparency.
Fowler addressed a range of audience questions. One attendee questioned Adelaide’s role in the deal, pointing out that policy decisions often appear to be driven by electoral considerations rather than strategic needs. Another asked about US sanctions and their implications for Australia’s sovereignty. Fowler reiterated that AUKUS exemplifies Australia’s fear of US disapproval, citing its long history of imposing harsh measures on non-aligned nations. When asked whether submarines were really necessary, Fowler argued that no government has provided a clear explanation of their role. The decision was driven entirely by executive power without meaningful public debate or strategic justification.
Fowler’s talk offered a thorough critique of the AUKUS agreement, highlighting the erosion of due process, the risks to national sovereignty, and the urgent need for greater transparency in policy making. His call for robust investigative journalism and stronger whistleblower protections underscored the vital role of accountability in preserving democratic governance. The presentation served as a sobering reminder of the complex interplay between political ambition, international alignment, and the public interest in shaping Australia’s defence policies.
Report by Numan Mousa,
AIIA NSW intern
Andrew’s book is available through Melbourne University Press