AUKUS tech sharing not as robust as advertized
The AUKUS partnership between Australia, the US and the UK isn’t just about nuclear-propelled submarines.
It also includes an information exchange agreement related to a number of new advanced technologies. These include cyber capabilities, electronic warfare, quantum technology, hypersonics, artificial intelligence and autonomous military capabilities.
Although the partners committed to sharing these technologies and information, there’s a problem. The US has strict trade control restrictions that impede certain technologies from being easily exported to Australia, or sold elsewhere by Australian companies after being incorporated into other items.
The restrictions on military items that would fall under the AUKUS agreement are spelled out in the United States’ International Traffic of Arms Regulations (ITAR).
The controls apply to military and dual-use technologies, as well as the information and skills needed to build them – and they are important. The US has international obligations to prevent the proliferation of weapons and military technology globally. It also has domestic concerns about which countries can access US military technology and information.
Australian companies wanting to import US technologies on the International Traffic of Arms Regulations list need to meet certain conditions to obtain a license. This can include vetting their staff, limiting access to the information or technology, and agreeing to onerous monitoring and reporting requirements.
They could be exposed to US criminal laws if they fail to meet these obligations after being granted a license.
Are changes to the US restrictions on the way?
Since the AUKUS agreement was announced, a number of American think tanks, export control experts and senators have spoken out about these onerous requirements.
They have expressed a need to make US and Australian defense trade easier so the AUKUS deal can work as intended.
In late May, US President Joe Biden responded to these calls. In a joint statement with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, he announced the US will take steps to amend its laws to streamline the sharing of technologies with Australia.
This change would deem Australia a “domestic source” in the Defense Production Act of 1950, alongside the US and Canada.
There is a separate proposal before Congress to give effect to this change. Named the TORPEDO Act, it would not only designate Australia a “domestic source”, but also ease restrictions for technology-sharing with Australia and the UK.
In addition, it would create a general license for the export, re-export or transfer of certain defense articles to Australia and the UK under the International Traffic of Arms Regulations.
Meanwhile, another bill, the AUKUS Undersea Defense Act, was introduced in June to facilitate the transfer of nuclear submarines from the US to Australia and the training of Australian personnel on the vessels, as well as proposing other exemptions.
Other experts have called for a US presidential executive order to give Australia an exemption under the regulations.
Whichever path the US takes, it could take years for any of these legislative changes to be accepted and implemented.
What would this mean for Australia?
The proposed change announced by Biden mirrors the exemption Canada currently enjoys with the US government. Canadian arms manufacturers and researchers can now access US technologies and information without going through the onerous licensing requirements under the International Traffic of Arms Regulations.
This would be a boon for the Australian defense industry, boosting our competitiveness in the global market. Trade to the US and Canada would also be simplified, with much greater opportunity to export goods back to those countries.
If passed, however, this change would not amount to an arms trade free-for-all.
US trade controls would still apply to any technologies not included in a pre-approved list, as well as to the trade of equipment or technologies beyond the AUKUS partners.
Other requirements, like security vetting and data protection requirements, would also still apply. Australia’s own export laws will also still be in effect.
Does Australia need to change its own laws?
Although Australia has not exactly followed the American model of defence export controls, our system is quite similar. Australia currently requires licenses to allow items or information on the Defense and Strategic Goods List to be supplied, published or brokered for sale to another country.
However, Australia doesn’t have the same ongoing monitoring obligations the US has. The US system requires that any sales to third countries of equipment containing US-controlled technology are still subject to the stringent International Traffic of Arms Regulations.
This is meant to prevent a country from buying military equipment from the US and then reselling it to a third country, like Russia. Russia has been circumventing international sanctions by buying military equipment like this from third-party states.
Australia’s end-use monitoring is much more limited than this often-criticized feature of the US controls.
Australia also doesn’t have country-specific bans for the trade of defense items. Rather, each export application is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Australia, for instance, has not replicated the US ban on selling semiconductors to China. This reflects Australia’s different trade policies and relationship with China, compared to the US relationship with China.
Because Australia has less stringent rules (in some respects), the US may expect Canberra to strengthen its regulations when it comes to trading technologies or sharing information.
The AUKUS Undersea Defense Act before Congress, for instance, proposes Australia would first need to be assessed as having a “comparable” export control system to the US in order to qualify for the proposed exemptions. What that means, however, is not clearly defined.
Australia is still drafting updates to its Defense Trade Controls Act to address a host of deficiencies with its export control system, including how to accommodate new technologies like artificial intelligence.
While the US expectations for parity in defense control systems are important, they must be balanced carefully with our independence to manage our own trade partnerships and build a sovereign defense industry.
One can surmise the impending updates to the Australian Defense Trade Controls Act will reveal exactly how this balance will be established.
Lauren Sanders is Senior Research Fellow on Law and the Future of War, The University of Queensland
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
India dangles BrahMos missile sales for Russia
India is considering selling BrahMos missiles to Russia, a potential role reversal between the two long-time strategic allies who jointly developed the potent weapon.
Atul Dinkar Rane, BrahMos Aerospace CEO and managing director, said his company has been continuously looking at Russia as a potential market for the air-launched BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, claiming Russia has no equivalent currently in service, The Week quoted him as saying in a Q&A.
“If they had purchased it [before the Ukraine war], they would have had a lot of things to use in the current situation,” Rane said. “After the ongoing situation in Europe ends, we might get some orders from Russia, especially for the air-launched BrahMos,” he said.
Russia could potentially use the BrahMos like its P-800 Onyx missile, the BrahMos’ Soviet-era predecessor. While the P-800 Onyx is designed as an anti-ship missile, it has been used against ground targets in Syria and Ukraine.
While the Brahmos and Onyx have similar performance characteristics, institutional problems in Russia’s defense industry caused by underfunding, corruption and Western sanctions could eventually push Russia to acquire the BrahMos from India.
Should Russia choose to use BrahMos in Ukraine, the West would have no similar weapons to counter the missile. Western cruise missiles such as Storm Shadow are subsonic designs that capitalize on stealth, maneuverability and terrain-hugging flight to penetrate air defenses.
While the Brahmos might not have any strategic effect on the course of the Ukraine war, like many of Russia’s much-touted “superweapons”, it might push the West to supply Ukraine with even more advanced weapons. These could include additional air defense systems or short-range ballistic missiles (SRBM) such as the MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).
The possible poor performance of Russia’s much-hyped Kinzhal missile in Ukraine, witnessed in multiple interceptions, could cause Russia to buy the BrahMos from India.
In a May 2023 article for the Modern War Institute, Peter Mitchell critically likens the Kinzhal to a giant lawn dart loaded with explosives, as the missile uses a solid-fuel rocket motor that most likely cannot be throttled or slowed down in flight.
Mitchell notes that the Kinzhal glides in a ballistic arc to its target once the rocket motor has burned out, making sustained hypersonic flight to its target unlikely.
He says air resistance to the target, meager control surfaces and the missile’s sheer mass inhibit its ability to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid interception.
India and Russia’s strategic partnership would play a key role in any future BrahMos missile sales to the latter.
Asia Times noted in April 2022 that while India is a significant military power with the world’s second-largest army, fourth-largest air force and seventh-largest navy, it is also one of the largest arms importers. India currently imports 70% of its military equipment, with 60% coming from Russia.
Russia’s heavy material losses in Ukraine raise the possibility that Russia may redirect some of India’s weapons orders to replace its battle losses. Western sanctions on Russia’s defense industry have also raised doubts about the viability and reliability of Russia as India’s long-term arms supplier.
This month Moscow Times reported that Russian defense firms have been buying back equipment they produced and sold to certain Asian customers.
For instance, Russian tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod imported US$24 million of its products from Myanmar’s military since December 2022, including 6,000 sighting telescopes and 200 cameras for installation in tanks that could be used to modernize Russia’s old T-72s now in storage.
The Moscow Times report also says that a Russian missile manufacturer in August and November purchased $150,000 worth of night-vision sights on anti-aircraft missiles from the Indian Ministry of Defense (MOD). While customs data shows the parts were returned because they were defective, there are no reports of the items being sent back to India.
Bloomberg reported in April 2023 that Indian payments worth more than $2 billion for Russian weapons have been stuck for a year. Bloomberg says Russia has stopped supplying credit for $10 billion worth of S-400 missile defense system spare parts that have yet to be delivered.
It also mentions that India cannot make payments in US dollars due to concerns about secondary US sanctions, while Russia refuses to accept Indian rupee due to its exchange rate volatility.
However, Defense News reported in May 2023 that India and Russia have agreed to resolve delayed payments on defense contracts while formalizing a plan for local production in India of certain Russian equipment and spare parts.
Defense News mentions that India’s MOD will make payments using the Financial Messaging System of the Bank of Russia (SPFS), an alternative to the SWIFT system that several governments have barred Russia from using in punitive response to its Ukraine invasion.
The report also notes that Russian original equipment manufacturers will set up joint ventures with Indian private defense industries to produce spare parts, systems and subassembly material locally and perform maintenance, upgrades and overhauls to keep India’s Russia-sourced military equipment operational.
Russia has been burning through its surface-to-surface missile stocks in the ongoing Ukraine war, prompting substantial efforts to replenish its arsenal.
Asia Times reported in June 2023 that Russia has been firing cruise missiles mere weeks after their production, with recovered Kh-29 air-to-surface missile remains in March 2023 showing that the missile was manufactured in the fourth quarter of 2022. The remains of one Kh-101 retrieved in November 2022 indicate it was manufactured just a month before.
Despite that high expenditure, Ian Williams notes in a June 2023 article for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) that, despite Western sanctions, Russia can still manufacture 60 cruise missiles, five Iskander ballistic missiles and two Kinzhal missiles per month, with Western-made microchips in those missiles finding their way to Russia via friendly third parties such as China.
Although there have been reports that Iran, another of Russia’s strategic partners and comrade-in-sanctions, has made plans to supply short-range ballistic missiles (SRBM), it appears to be tarrying on the decision.
Asia Times noted in June 2023 that Iran may still be gauging the possible international reaction if it supplies Fateh-110 and Zolfaghar SRBMs to Russia, which could trigger international sanctions under UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2231, which is due to expire in October this year.
Iran is already heavily sanctioned and China may shy from overtly assisting Russia’s war effort to avoid possible Western sanctions.
Russia may thus see India as an ideal intermediary for manufacturing or acquiring sensitive components and weapons like the BrahMos to keep its war machine turning over during the Ukraine war.
Thai election winner Move Forward proposes Bill to cut off senators’ power in PM vote
BANGKOK: Electoral winner Move Forward Party submitted a draft Bill to cut off the Senate’s power in the selection of the prime minister, following its leader’s failure to secure enough votes from a joint sitting of parliament on Thursday (Jul 13).
Move Forward Party members submitted the draft Bill to Speaker of the House of Representatives Wan Muhamad Noor Matha on Friday afternoon, aiming to revoke Section 272 of the Thai constitution, which empowers the Senate to jointly select the prime minister together with the House of Representatives until May 2024.
“We would like to call it an amendment to the constitution in order to return the power of selecting the prime minister to the people,” said Move Forward Party secretary-general Chaithawat Tulathon.
Members of parliament (MPs) and senators convened on Thursday to vote on Thailand’s next prime minister – two months after the general election on May 14 which saw the Move Forward Party emerge as the winner.
Prime ministerial hopeful and Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat was the sole candidate but failed to garner the requisite approval of more than half of the combined assembly.
The assembly comprises 500 MPs from the House of Representatives – the Lower House – and 249 members of the Senate – the Upper House.
For Mr Pita to become the prime minister, he must secure at least 375 votes from the existing members of both Houses.
However, he only managed to garner 324 votes on Thursday, missing 51.
A total of 705 parliamentarians took part in the prime ministerial selection. They included 182 people who voted against Mr Pita and 199 others who abstained.
Since the vote to elect a prime minister was unsuccessful, both Houses will reconvene on Jul 19 to revote.
In the event that none of the listed candidates can be appointed for any reason, at least half of the members of both Houses can request the National Assembly to start a process that could allow an “outsider prime minister’”.
Japan calls on China to approach Fukushima water release in ‘scientific manner’
TOKYO: Japan called on China to approach the release of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in a scientific manner at a meeting held between Japan’s Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi and Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi on Friday (Jul 14). China has criticised Japan’s plan to release overContinue Reading
How Thailand’s prime minister race can take a whole new turn
After failing to win over conservatives in his first attempt to become prime minister, things are looking increasingly difficult for pro-democracy leader Pita Limjaroenrat to secure a victory even if he were to try again.
The parties outside of Mr Pita’s Move Forward-led coalition and the majority of military-appointed senators are opposed to his key campaign promise of amending the so-called lese majeste law that punishes anyone for defaming or insulting the King or other royals.
Also, the Harvard-educated politician risks disqualification as a lawmaker after the poll body found him in breach of election rules — saying he held shares in a defunct media company while running for public office. While he may still go for a second chance at premiership when parliament meets next on July 19, analysts expect support for Pita to wear thin within his alliance should he lose again; although there’s no limit on the number of re-votes he can seek.
“I think they will run him again,” said Kevin Hewison, emeritus professor of Asian Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Another attempt by Pita will probably harden the stance of conservatives and only weaken support for the pro-democracy alliance, according to Hewison.
The longer it takes for Thailand to form a new government, the more investors will lose confidence in the $500 billion economy whose expansion has been lagging emerging-market peers in Southeast Asia through the pandemic and after. Political wrangling between pro-democracy and conservative groups have also hurt the country’s stocks, bonds and currency markets.
Here are some other scenarios that could play out:
– Pita supports Pheu Thai
Mr Pita could step aside and instead support his coalition partner Pheu Thai, which finished second-place in the May 14 general election and is linked to exiled former leader Thaksin Shinawatra.
Isra Sunthornvut, a former member of parliament for the Democrat Party, said he wouldn’t be surprised if next week Mr Pita throws his support behind Pheu Thai to lead the government “for the sake of the country and democracy”.
The only challenge to this scenario is that Pheu Thai may find it difficult to muster support from the conservatives while still being an ally of Move Forward, which has refused to back down on its push to amend the royal insult law.
– Pro-democracy group splits
That could leave Pheu Thai inclined to consider breaking away from Move Forward’s coalition and try forming a government led by one of its three candidates for the post, including real estate magnate Srettha Thavisin and Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the youngest daughter of Thaksin.
Thaksin, who has been considering returning home, had previously said Pheu Thai would not support any attempt to reform the lese majeste law. That makes it easier for Pheu Thai to win enough support from the 250-member military-appointed Senate, helping put a new government sooner than later.
The private sector wants the new government to be in place as soon as possible, so our economy can continue to grow as expected, Thai Chamber of Commerce Chairman Sanan Angubolkul said Friday.
– Military-backed minority government
A third scenario involves the Senate supporting a minority government led either by Bhumjaithai’s Anutin Charnvirakul or one of the military-backed parties. That outcome, however, risks sparking protests by supporters of pro-democracy groups.
Since the Senate’s ability to vote for the prime minister expires next year, any minority government is at risk of falling in a no-confidence vote. To guard against that, it’s possible that the establishment may petition the courts to disband Move Forward as what happened in the past to their predecessor, using the push to amend the royal insult law as a pretext, and even annul the election result.
“But that might take some time,” Hewison said referring to the process of disbanding Move Forward and annulling the result. “That said, going to an election quickly is unlikely to produce a different result. But conservatives in Thailand are a balmy lot.”
However, any move to ban the nation’s popular politicians may lead to massive demonstrations. And this time the risks are even higher for the royalist establishment, as protesters have recently been much bolder in directly targeting the monarchy than in previous years.
Such a turn of events could end up hurting tourism, the only economic engine that’s firing on full cylinders and supporting Thailand’s growth amid a downturn in global demand for goods.
Lawyer M Ravi charged with slapping man near MRT station, shouting loudly in public
SINGAPORE: Suspended lawyer M Ravi is now accused of slapping a man near an MRT station and disorderly behaviour by shouting loudly in public.
Ravi Madasamy, 54, was charged in court on Friday (Jul 14) with one count of voluntarily causing hurt and one count of behaving in a disorderly manner.
Both charges arise from the same alleged incident, which occurred around 5.30pm on Jul 12 this year near Yio Chu Kang MRT.
Ravi is accused of causing hurt to a man named Sellvaraja T Muniyandi, by slapping him once on his left cheek. He also allegedly shouted loudly.
Ravi, who was previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder, was ordered to be remanded at the Institute of Mental Health for medical examination.
He is due back in court later this month.
If convicted of voluntarily causing hurt, he could be jailed for up to three years, fined up to S$5,000, or both.
The penalties for behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place are a jail term of up to six months, a fine of up to S$2,000 or both for a first-time offender.
Repeat offfenders face double the jail term and a fine of up to S$5,000, or both – Ravi was previously convicted of a similar offence in 2004, his charge sheet stated.
This is the latest of Ravi’s legal troubles. In March, he was suspended from practising as a lawyer for the maximum of five years.
This was for misconduct including making “grave and baseless accusations of improper conduct” against the Attorney-General, officers from the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Law Society.
Ravi, a lawyer of 20 years, frequently makes the headlines for his behaviour as well as for his representation of those on death row.
He was charged in December 2020 with criminal defamation of Law Minister K Shanmugam, but the Attorney-General’s Chambers later withdrew the charge and Ravi was given a conditional warning instead.
He has also been handed many sanctions for his conduct as a lawyer over the years. These include a 2007 suspension for being rude to a judge and a prohibition from applying for a practising certificate for two years for baseless allegations against a fellow lawyer and the president of the Law Society in 2016.
Thai lawmakers to hold new PM vote after reform candidate Pita stumbles
Thitinan said he expected Pheu Thai – a party that held office before the 2014 military coup but is now in an uneasy alliance with MFP – to field prime ministerial candidates of their own. If a Pheu Thai candidate won with the backing of conservative lawmakers, they may yetContinue Reading
Watch the video: K-pop supergroup BTS’ Jungkook releases solo single Seven
Jungkook, a member of K-Pop supergroup BTS, officially launched on Friday (Jul 14) his solo career with the release of single Seven, a track also featuring American rapper Latto.
BTS is on temporary break as a group with two of its seven members currently doing mandatory military service in South Korea, but other members are continuing to carry out solo projects and concerts.
The group have gained a huge international following after breaking ground for K-pop’s global success including in the US music charts and industry awards.
The video for Seven – described by his music label as an invigorating summer song – was also revealed on Friday and includes an appearance by South Korean actress Han So-hee.
His label BigHit is part of South Korean entertainment company HYBE and also manages BTS.
Ahead of his official solo debut, Jungkook previously released two free singles.
Fans have been camping out for days to get a chance to see the K-pop star perform his new song in New York’s Central Park on Friday.
Panama seizes six tonnes of illegally traded shark fins
CAPIRA, Panama: Police in Panama seized more than six tonnes of shark fins bound for Asia on Thursday (Jul 13), arresting five people in connection to the illegal trade, authorities said. The black-market shark fin trade is estimated to be worth US$500 million annually, and Panama last year spearheaded international effortsContinue Reading
Abolish senators’ right to vote on PM: Piyabutr
The Move Forward Party (MFP) should propose draft legislation seeking to abolish Section 272 of the constitution which gives junta-appointed senators the power to join MPs in selecting the prime minister, Piyabutr Saengkanokkul posted on his Facebook page on Thursday night.
If its attempt is not successful, Move Forward should then consider backing down from its bid to form a government with Pita Limjaroenrat as prime minister and instead take the opposition role – and patiently wait for a successful return “tomorrow”, he said.
Mr Piyabutr, secretary-general of the Progressive Movement behind the MFP, posted his message after Mr Pita’s bid to become prime minister failed to get sufficient votes from members of parliament, particularly senators, in a vote on Thursday.
The Move Forward leader received 324 votes in his favour, 182 votes against and 199 abstentions in the first prime ministerial vote. The result left him 51 votes short of his target. Of the 324 votes in support, only 13 were from senators.
Mr Piyabutr said that from the speeches made by members of parliament, it was clear that a large number of senators – the upper house members appointed by the previous miltary government that seized power in a coup – opposed Mr Pita’s nomination for a variety of reasons. Some of them openly disagreed with the nomination, while others opted to abstain from voting or did not attend the meeting.
He said it would be very difficult for these senators to change their minds and vote for Mr Pita in the next round.
In the speeches made by some MPs and senators prior to the voting, the constant thread was that they would not vote for Mr Pita because the Move Forward Party was persistent in its intention to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code, the lese majeste law.
Mr Piyabutr mentioned the speakers by name. They included Withaya Kaewparadai, a United Thai Nation party-list MP, Chada Thaiseth, a Bhumjaithai Party MP for Uthai Thani, Chaichana Dejdecho, a Democrat Party MP for Nakhon Si Thammarat, and senators Khamnoon Sithisamarn, Seri Suwanphanon and Somchai Sawaengkarn.
Mr Piyabutr said Mr Withaya and Mr Chada, in particular, questioned why the MFP, despite knowing this obstacle, did not back down from its aim to amend Section 112, but instead insisted it could not do so as it had made it a policy in its campaign for votes.
“Therefore, it was clear there was no way for these MPs and senators to change their minds unless there were “new information or new signals” forcing them to do so, or when hundreds of thousand of people came out to apply pressure on them.
Without these events occurring, no matter how many rounds of voting take place, these people will never endorse Mr Pita for prime minister,” he said.
The Prograssive Movement key member said Move Forward would not succeed in the vote until the senators’ power to vote for prime minister under Section 272 expires in May next year. He doubted whether the MFP would be able to overcome the resistance, not to mention several rulings to be made by the Constitutional Court on cases against Mr Pita.
If Move Forward opted to invite more parties to join the eight-party alliance to increase the number of votes in support, Mr Piyabutr said he doubted any parties would cooperate since the Bhumjaithai, Democrat and Chartthaipattana parties had clearly stated they would not work with any party seeking to amend Section 112.
Mr Piyabutr said it would also not be possible for the MFP to back down and allow the Pheu Thai Party to take the prime minister’s post while it is still in the eight-party alliance. He doubted whether the senators would change their mindes because they wanted to see Move Forward completely excluded.
The Progressive Movement secretary-general said he talked to Parit Wacharasindhu, a Move Forward party list MP, and agreed with the latter’s opinion.
In Mr Parit’s opinion, Move Forward, with its 151 MPs, should propose a draft bill seeking to abolish Section 272 of the constitution, to rid the senators of the power to vote for the prime minister.
The draft bill should be submitted for deliberation by parliament as soon as possible. By doing this, he believed the process to abolish Section 272 could be completed in four weeks, Mr Piyabutr said.
“If the bill is rejected by parliament, the Move Forward Party could tell the people that it had tried to the best of its ability but faced tough obstacles. It would then be time for the party to move out.
“We would then be able to stand with heads high and be proud of being a ‘black sheep’ in Thai politics. We would continue to fight more strongly amid conflicts. If the 14 million votes today are not enough, we must make it to 20 – 25 million votes tomorrow,” Mr Piyabutr said.
Mr Piyabutr, a law expert, was banned from politics when the Future Forward Party was dissolved by the Constitutional Court ruling on Feb 21, 2020 for violating the election law on donations to political parties. Future Forward was relaunched as Move Forward, with Mr Pita as the leader.