Australia and the UK are urging the Biden administration to relax restrictions on the sharing of technology and information that they say risk undercutting the trilateral Aukus security pact.
Several people familiar with the discussions said Canberra and London want to ensure the second pillar of Aukus — which includes co-operation in areas such as hypersonic weapons — does not fall behind the first, which is the landmark deal to help Australia procure nuclear-powered submarines.
President Joe Biden, Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese and UK prime minister Rishi Sunak are expected to reveal how and where the submarines will be built at a joint event in the US on March 13.
Officials are optimistic the US has found ways to share closely guarded nuclear-propulsion secrets with Australia. US national security adviser Jake Sullivan recently said he felt “very good” about the prospects. But there is concern that the second pillar, which includes undersea capabilities and electronic warfare, faces obstacles that have slowed its momentum.
These hurdles relate to technology transfer, licensing requirements under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (Itar), and a classification called “NoForn” that bars information sharing with non-US nationals.
“The UK and Australia are pushing the US to do what needs to be done to ensure that Aukus is a success and to resolve legacy issues, including on export controls, technology transfer and ‘NoForn’,” said one person familiar with the talks. The person said there was a willingness to share much more sensitive technology in terms of nuclear propulsion for the submarines.
“We need to make sure constraints don’t stop us getting all the wins we want in Pillar Two,” the person said. “If we cannot fix these issues for Aukus, then how are we ever going to be able to fix them?”
Stacie Pettyjohn and Becca Wasser of the Center for a New American Security recently wrote that “NoForn” as it applied to Five Eyes, an intelligence sharing network comprised of the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, meant even the closest allies were “marginalised and excluded from many discussions and events”.
The reform debate has existed for a long time. When he launched an effort to overhaul the system in 2010, then defence secretary Robert Gates cited Frederick the Great saying: “He who defends everything, defends nothing”.
But the issue has taken on more significance over the past two years as Washington presses allies to do more with the US in the Indo-Pacific, in an effort to counter China and prepare for a possible war over Taiwan.
The US has made progress in the past year, including by persuading the Philippines to grant access to four military bases. Allies argue that Washington must overhaul its regulations to keep pace with the growing co-operation and to enhance interoperability between their militaries.
Ely Ratner, the top Pentagon Asia official, said the administration was revising its “antiquated systems” and trying to change a culture whereby parts of the bureaucracy previously said: “No, we can’t share that.”
“The answer from the policy and strategy perspective being, ‘No, we’re going to have to share that’ . . . in terms of getting to the kind of more capable, integrated future we want in the Indo-Pacific,” Ratner told the Hudson Institute.
The state department said the US was “committed” to facilitating “secure transfer of technologies” that are necessary for Aukus. It pointed out that export licences for the Aukus partners already moved faster than for other countries. A pilot programme called “Open General Licence” eases some bureaucratic red tape, it added — although some experts note it is only for non-classified technologies.
One British official said London wanted the pilot programme “extended substantially” to demonstrate its potential. He added that compliance with Itar alone costs the UK hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
“NoForn” restrictions also cause operational headaches. In one example, UK pilots flying US helicopters are sometimes barred from getting security briefings. “They’re flying blind,” said one person familiar with the process.
Some US officials say they want to share more but stress the need to prevent any security lapses. Australian ambassador Arthur Sinodinos recently told the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think-tank that Canberra had shown the US its measures to prevent technology leaking. He also praised efforts by the US, saying an understanding about the need for action had “permeated” the government.
But critics say more needs to be done. “It beggars belief that Australia and the US can be rapidly moving towards undertaking combined strategic (nuclear) bomber operations from new bases in Australia and yet the US remains unable or unwilling to share with Australia what is most often the case legacy technology,” said Ashley Townshend, an Indo-Pacific security expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, referring to older, less-sensitive technology.
Many experts believe that ultimately Congress will have to legislate to overhaul Itar.
“They feel that they’ve already accomplished some reduction of barriers using existing administrative authorities, but at some point they’re going to have to come to Congress,” said Joe Courtney, a Connecticut lawmaker who is the top Democrat on the House Seapower and Projection Forces committee.
Courtney said nascent talks with the administration were “picking up speed” but called for more political support.
“There’s definitely a need for this to be much more of a spotlighted, high-visibility priority from the president to [defence secretary Lloyd] Austin,” he said, adding that a trilateral leader event would be “fabulous”.
Charles Edel, a CSIS Australia expert, said the March 13 announcement had to be “sufficiently ambitious and exciting” to create momentum to tackle the tougher regulatory issues. But he cautioned: “It’s also quite possible the announcement will be seen as the end of the story by many and that momentum will peter out”.
Follow Demetri Sevastopulo on Twitter
