AUKUS standoff: Australia, UK wait on Congress to approve pact

This is the first story of a three-part series. Click here to read the second, and click here to read the third.

WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers traveled to Britain this spring in an effort to get tough on China.

But House China committee Chairman Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., and his delegation quickly found their British counterparts had another matter top of mind: AUKUS, the trilateral nuclear-powered submarine agreement with Britain and Australia.

Officials from those countries made clear to Gallagher and other U.S. lawmakers that Congress must take steps to ensure the deal is a success. Specifically, they want lawmakers to approve a blanket exemption for the U.K. and Australia within Washington’s stringent export control regime . That policy, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, sets rigorous restrictions on sensitive defense exports. Without ITAR exemptions, they worry the pact won’t succeed.

“The thing we heard most consistently from our allies in Britain is that ITAR is a roadblock for cooperation with them,” Gallagher told reporters. He said a “a free-world approach” to AUKUS is critical.

The AUKUS agreement is intended to draw the three countries’ defense industries closer together by helping Australia develop its own nuclear-powered submarine fleet while sharing top secret technology among the allies. If it works, the program will develop cutting-edge capabilities that will influence the future of warfare.

While visiting Australia in August, Gallagher said “long-overdue ITAR reform” could lead to joint U.S.-Australian munitions production and hypersonic weapons development, “turbocharging AUKUS.”

Critics of existing U.S. export control laws, like Gallagher, argue reform is necessary to increase cooperation among the three countries’ defense-industrial bases, a goal the Biden administration is also eager to pursue. But the push to overhaul ITAR has faced resistance, with the State Department and Democrats arguing the export control policy is crucial to keeping defense industry secrets from falling into the hands of rivals such as China.

As the two-year anniversary of AUKUS approaches, the export control debate and a separate tussle over the health of the submarine-industrial base have raised questions about how and when Congress will pass several authorizations needed to make the program into the transformational initiative leaders promised.

Republicans and the defense industry say if Congress does not pass an ITAR exemption for the U.K. and Australia, it will stymie joint development of disruptive technology such as hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence and quantum computing. The Pentagon had also hoped Congress would approve the transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia this year in order to illustrate the country’s commitment to the pact and to pave the way for Canberra to prepare for its future fleet.

But those efforts have stalled while Senate Republicans push for additional funding for the submarine-industrial base beyond the $647 million the Biden administration requested for fiscal 2024.

“You cannot have an effective transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia without systemic change to U.S. export control, tech transfer and information sharing processes as they apply to Australia,” said Ashley Townshend, a senior fellow for Indo-Pacific security at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank.

“Australia has ripped up a deal with France to pursue a submarine agreement with Britain and the United States. It cannot begin to address — either independently or trilaterally — the gamut of industrial base, workforce, defense planning and nuclear stewardship requirements of the SSN project until it has assurances the deal is done,” he told Defense News, using an abbreviation for attack submarines.

‘Layers of red tape’

AUKUS has paved the way for Australia to acquire its own nuclear-powered submarine fleet, but it won’t be ready until the 2040s. In the meantime, all three AUKUS countries are eager to jump-start collaboration on emerging technologies that could prove key to future warfare.

This initiative has revived a two-decade-old export control dispute among the three allies.

“Our allies actually have technology which is as good, if not better, than us,” said Bill Greenwalt, a former U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial policy who is now a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think tank. “There are huge disincentives for our allied countries to share that with the United States or work with us in any manner because of the stickiness of U.S. export controls, the extraterritorial application of export controls.”

“Because of that, what we’re seeing is the creation of greater ally technologies that exempt U.S. content or even U.S. participation,” he added.

The Australian Defence Department in July announced a partnership with a startup technology firm specializing in quantum technology, Q-CTRL. The company, which also has offices in the U.S. and Britain, is developing a navigation capability for military platforms — including nuclear submarines — to serve as an alternative to GPS.

The head of Q-CTRL, Michael Biercuk, warned a failure to overhaul ITAR would “isolate the United States” within AUKUS. For example, he noted that ITAR hinders employees at Q-CTRL’s Los Angeles, California, office from collaborating on the technology it’s pioneering in Australia.

“The United States will not be able to partner with Australia and the U.K. in this,” Biercuk said. “If we really want cross-border participation among these very friendly nations in this area of critical technology, we just have to remove this one roadblock. Everybody wants to avoid engaging with the United States because ITAR is very difficult to comply with.”

U.S. President Joe Biden looks at a quantum computer as he tours the IBM facility in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., on Oct. 6, 2022. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

For years, Canada has been the only U.S. ally to enjoy the special ITAR exemption Britain and Australia now seek.

The U.S. ratcheted up export control laws after China and Iran took advantage of Canada’s ITAR exemption in the 1990s to circumvent Washington’s arms transfer regulations. China used Canada to purchase infrared equipment from a U.S. firm, while Iranian front companies used the country to buy American weapons.

The incidents prompted the U.S. State Department to revoke Canada’s ITAR exemption in 1999, only to restore it in 2001 after the northern neighbor strengthened its laws, harmonizing its export control list with U.S. regulations.

Feeling impeded by the enhanced ITAR regulations, Britain and Australia persuaded the George W. Bush administration to lobby Congress to give both countries the same ITAR exemption as Canada. Bush’s fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill blocked this effort, insisting London and Canberra first bolster their own export control regimes. Neither country did so, and in 2010 the Senate ended up ratifying separate defense cooperation treaties with each country that fell short of the Canada exemption.

Defense firms in AUKUS countries argue these treaties have not significantly reduced the export control barriers that could slow progress on the pact.

Townshend said an export control overhaul is also needed to make the submarine portion of AUKUS work because specific, individual components for the vessels “would all trip up different kinds of export control regulations, tech transfer and information sharing regulations.”

Current export control laws also mean Britain and Australia need specific, individual licenses for most defense transfers, ranging from taking a weapon sold to an allied navy and repurposing it for use by the country’s air force, to sharing military tactics manuals for items like the Tomahawk missile system.

The U.S. Navy attack submarine Annapolis launches a Tomahawk cruise missile off the coast of California in 2018. (MC1 Ronald Gutridge/U.S. Navy)

The U.S. government approves almost all these licenses, though that process can take nearly a year in some cases. Britain estimated in 2017 it spends about $500 million annually on ITAR compliance.

“Export control reform within and between AUKUS nations is key to removing the layers of red tape, unnecessary delays, and compliance costs that currently face our government and our industries,” Claire Bates, a spokeswoman for the British Embassy in Washington, told Defense News.

The Australian Defence Department did not reply to Defense News’ requests for comment.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul, R-Texas, has been receptive to these concerns. Republicans on his panel advanced legislation in July to give both countries a Canada-style ITAR exemption , over Democratic objections.

“There’s too much bureaucracy within the ITAR system,” McCaul told Defense News.

This goes further than the State Department’s June legislative proposal, obtained by Defense News. That proposal asked Congress to give Australia and Britain the ITAR exemptions only if the two countries enhance their own export control regimes so that they “are at least comparable to those administered by the United States.”

Democrats have sided with the State Department, which oversees ITAR, arguing China could take advantage of loosened export control laws.

The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, noted in July that “the targeting of Australian defense industry insiders and experts has increased since AUKUS’ announcement” and that “the U.K. faces similar intelligence threats.”

Mike Burgess, the director general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, warned in February of an uptick in online espionage attempts aimed at the country’s defense industry since AUKUS was announced in September 2021.

“Third-party companies have offered Australians hundreds of thousands of dollars and other significant perks to help authoritarian regimes improve their combat skills,” Burgess said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez, D-N.J., attached a different approach to ITAR reform as an amendment to the FY24 defense policy bill, which passed 86-11 in July .

Menendez’s legislation gives the State Department more discretion as to whether, and how broadly, to implement an exemption for Britain and Australia under ITAR, setting up a possible showdown this year between the House and Senate on AUKUS export control.

For its part, the White House has helped lead the charge for some degree of export control reform.

“This is not a ‘whether to,’ it’s a ‘how to,’ ” Kurt Campbell, the National Security Council coordinator for the Indo-Pacific, said in June. “Sometimes that simple, crystallized fact helps quite a lot in complex bureaucratic situations. So we’re under clear instructions to move in that direction.”

In the meantime, the State Department has established an AUKUS Trade Authorization Mechanism as an interim capability to speed up the transfer of certain technologies.

A State Department fact sheet issued in July noted there are already more than 50 exemptions within ITAR that don’t require a license for close allies. It defended the export control regime as necessary because of “malign actors” seeking to acquire cutting-edge U.S. technology like “an AI algorithm capable of creating drone swarms.”

Despite misgivings about ITAR, U.S. defense companies have shown a keen interest in Australia.

“When you can find ways to collaborate with your closest allies, to knock down barriers to cooperation, technology, development, interoperability, getting these defense-industrial bases kind of knitted together, you’re going to incentivize a whole bunch of interesting things,” Mara Karlin, the U.S. assistant secretary of defense for strategies, plans and capabilities, told a Defense Writers Group roundtable in August.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken in July met with their Australian counterparts in Canberra and announced the U.S. would help Australia make guided-missile rockets for both countries by 2025. Lockheed Martin and RTX, formerly called Raytheon Technologies, will produce the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems in Australia for both countries.

The White House and the Pentagon have also asked Congress to make British and Australian companies eligible for U.S. federal grants under the Defense Production Act — another advantage only enjoyed by Canada — arguing it will help advance AUKUS. U.S. President Joe Biden promised Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during a May meeting that the U.S. would do this, but Congress has not acted on this legislative request from the Pentagon since then.

Anthony Di Stasio, who oversees Defense Production Act grants at the Pentagon, said adding Canberra would help bolster U.S. supply chains for critical minerals like cobalt — abundant in Australia — and explosive materials like TNT.

Prior to Russia’s invasion, Ukraine was one of the Pentagon’s only three qualified TNT suppliers, with the other two in Poland and Australia. Di Stasio noted the U.S. military is using less TNT every year, so it would be cheaper to use Defense Production Act grants to expand Australian facilities than to build a U.S. plant from scratch.

Oris TinStix of the Dynamite aerobatic team featuring American Skip Stewart and Triple world aerobatics champion Jurgus Kairys fly past pyrotechnics as they perform at a 2017 air show in Avalon, Australia. (Scott Barbour/Getty Images)

Similarly, the proposal would allow U.S. grants to fund cobalt mining activities in Australia. China dominates most of the world’s market for cobalt, needed to make batteries as well as hard-target penetrators for the military.

Di Stasio hopes putting Britain and Australia under his office’s purview will allow them to participate in a pilot program he envisions to create U.S. campuses for businesses to collaborate on different parts of the defense supply chain.

“I want their [intellectual property] protected, but [for] them to be able to combine technology,” Di Stasio told Defense News in June. “If you have someone doing 3D-printed rocket cases and someone else has a new whiz-bang rocket propellant, they can be on the same campus testing it.”

Other countries could benefit as well.

On a trip to New Zealand, Blinken told reporters “the door is open” for the Five Eyes ally to join AUKUS. That intelligence sharing alliance is made up of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S.

Additionally, the U.S. and India have launched their Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology. The White House pledged to work with Congress “to lower barriers to U.S. exports to India” for artificial intelligence and quantum computing when Biden hosted Prime Minister Narendra Modi in June.

The National Security Council’s Campbell said the U.S. is looking for non-AUKUS countries to offer “niche areas” when collaborating with the three allies on disruptive technology.

“We’re not just looking for theoretical applications and partnerships, but practical, real efforts that will enhance defense capabilities,” he said. “We are in conversation with a variety of countries who are interested.”

Congress’ path to authorizing submarine transfers to Australia appeared more straightforward than the export control effort, until it became embroiled in a broader fight over U.S. defense spending levels.

Australia plans to buy at least three and as many as five Virginia-class submarines in the 2030s. But AUKUS proponents had hoped to start authorizing those sales this year to demonstrate allegiance to the pact, particularly as Australia has agreed to invest $3 billion in the U.S. submarine-industrial base.

Australia is waiting on Congress to pass authorizations for the nuclear submarine transfer before work begins on the infrastructure necessary to sustain the vessels.

“This is already a hugely ambitious undertaking for both countries, and for Australia it will require us to move at an extremely fast pace toward building out the domestic nuclear stewardship, infrastructure, submarine production facilities and so forth,” Townshend said.

Republicans and Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee rallied together in July to unanimously advance an authorization to transfer up to two Virginia-class submarines to Australia.

“The transfer language really shows a real commitment by Congress,” Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee’s sea power panel, told Defense News. “Australia is prepared to make investments we want to make in terms of building up Virginia production tied to this AUKUS goal post.”

Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., visits an Electric Boat facility in 2018. (Courtesy of Rep. Joe Courtney)

The Senate was set to attach the same authorization to the defense bill in July, until the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi , blocked it. He also held up a separate authorization that would allow the Pentagon to accept Australia’s contributions to the U.S. submarine-industrial base.

However, he didn’t hold up a third authorization allowing the U.S. to begin training Australian private sector personnel in nuclear submarines, which the Senate passed as part of its defense policy bill.

While blocking the other two authorizations, Wicker cited concerns about the industrial base’s current struggle to keep up with submarine production requirements. He wants Congress to add money for the submarine-industrial base as part of a supplemental defense spending package before passing the authorizations.

The senator argues more submarine spending will strengthen AUKUS, given production capacity isn’t keeping pace with the U.S. Navy’s goal of building two Virginia-class attack submarines and one Columbia-class ballistic submarine per year. Right now, the country is producing approximately 1.2 Virginia-class vessels per year.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in June promised to pass a Pentagon supplemental spending bill to circumvent the $886 billion defense funding top line agreed to as part of the debt ceiling deal . But House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has expressed opposition to additional defense spending beyond the debt ceiling cap.

Half of the Senate GOP caucus, including McConnell, raised the submarine issue in a letter to Biden led by Wicker and top Republican appropriator Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

“The administration’s current plan requires the transfer of three U.S. Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia from the existing U.S. submarine fleet without a clear plan for replacing these submarines,” the senators wrote. “This plan, if implemented without change, would unacceptably weaken the U.S. fleet even as China seeks to expand its military power and influence.”

From left, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, U.S. President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak hold a news conference during the AUKUS summit on March 13, 2023, at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego Calif. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

They added that sending three attack submarines to Australia would require the U.S. to produce 2.3 to 2.5 Virginia-class vessels per year to “avoid further shrinking our fleet’s operational capacity.”

Courtney — whose district encompasses the Electric Boat shipyard building the Virginia-class submarines — argues the production setbacks were in large part due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the massive investments Congress has already made in the industrial base is bringing the program up to speed. He noted the U.S. is on track to meet its annual submarine production requirements by 2028 “with continued support from Congress and improved performance in the industrial base.”

“We put in money and capital expenditures to help these companies, as well as the workforce hiring,” Courtney said. “I am very bullish about the fact that the pace is really picking up.”

Lawmakers allocated nearly $750 million for the submarine-industrial base in FY23. The House’s FY24 defense policy bill, which passed in July , would inject another $735 million into that industrial base.

Despite the legislative complications, Townshend remains optimistic Congress will pass all its necessary AUKUS legislation this year — export control exemptions and submarine transfer authorities included.

Still, there’s little room to dally.

“The timeline for the optimal pathway is extremely tight,” he said. “If the language that allows both sides to move ahead with ship transfer and funds does not proceed this year, then that will inevitably delay the ability of both countries to meet their obligations.”

Bryant Harris is the Congress reporter for Defense News. He has covered U.S. foreign policy, national security, international affairs and politics in Washington since 2014. He has also written for Foreign Policy, Al-Monitor, Al Jazeera English and IPS News.

这是三篇系列故事的第一篇。点击此处阅读第二篇，点击此处阅读第三篇。

华盛顿——今年春天，一个由美国两党议员组成的小组前往英国，试图对中国采取强硬立场。

但众议院中国委员会主席、威斯康星州共和党众议员迈克·加拉格尔和他的代表团很快发现，他们的英国同行最关心的是另一件事：AUKUS，即英国和澳大利亚之间的三边核动力潜艇协议。

这些国家的官员向加拉格尔和其他美国议员明确表示，国会必须采取措施确保协议成功。具体而言，他们希望议员们批准对英国和澳大利亚给予全面豁免，使其免受华盛顿严格的出口管制制度的约束。这项名为《国际武器贸易条例》（ITAR）的政策对敏感的国防出口设定了严格的限制。他们担心，如果没有ITAR豁免，该协议将无法成功。

加拉格尔告诉记者：“我们从英国盟友那里听到最多的反馈是，《国际武器贸易条例》（ITAR）是与他们合作的障碍。” 他表示，对AUKUS采取“自由世界的方式”至关重要。

AUKUS协议旨在通过帮助澳大利亚发展其核动力潜艇舰队，同时在盟国间共享绝密技术，从而加强三国国防工业的合作。如果该计划成功，将发展出影响未来战争的尖端能力。

加拉格尔在 8 月份访问澳大利亚时表示，“姗姗来迟的 ITAR 改革”可能会促成美澳联合生产弹药和高超音速武器，“加速 AUKUS 项目的发展”。

像加拉格尔这样的美国现行出口管制法批评者认为，改革对于加强中美三国国防工业基地之间的合作至关重要，而拜登政府也热衷于实现这一目标。但改革《国际武器贸易条例》（ITAR）的努力遭遇阻力，美国国务院和民主党人辩称，出口管制政策对于防止国防工业机密落入中国等竞争对手手中至关重要。

随着 AUKUS 项目两周年纪念日的临近，出口管制辩论以及围绕潜艇工业基础健康状况的另一场争论，引发了人们对国会何时以及如何通过几项授权的疑问，这些授权对于将该项目变成领导人承诺的变革性举措至关重要。

共和党人和国防工业界表示，如果国会不通过对英国和澳大利亚的《国际武器贸易条例》（ITAR）豁免，将会阻碍高超音速武器、人工智能和量子计算等颠覆性技术的联合研发。五角大楼此前也希望国会今年批准向澳大利亚移交弗吉尼亚级潜艇，以表明澳大利亚对该条约的承诺，并为堪培拉未来舰队的建设铺平道路。

但这些努力已经停滞不前，因为参议院共和党人正在推动为潜艇工业基地提供额外资金，而拜登政府为 2024 财年要求的资金仅为 6.47 亿美元。

“如果不系统性地改变美国对澳大利亚的出口管制、技术转让和信息共享流程，就无法有效地向澳大利亚转让弗吉尼亚级潜艇，”卡内基国际和平基金会印太安全高级研究员阿什利·汤森德说。

“澳大利亚撕毁了与法国的协议，转而寻求与英国和美国达成潜艇协议。在得到协议达成的保证之前，它无法着手解决攻击型核潜艇（SSN）项目涉及的工业基础、劳动力、国防规划和核管理等一系列问题——无论是独立解决还是通过三方合作解决，”他告诉《防务新闻》，他使用了SSN的缩写。

“层层繁文缛节”

AUKUS 为澳大利亚拥有自己的核动力潜艇舰队铺平了道路，但这项计划要到 2040 年代才能实现。与此同时，AUKUS 三国都渴望加快在新兴技术领域的合作，这些技术可能对未来的战争至关重要。

这项倡议重新引发了三个盟国之间长达二十年的出口管制争端。

“我们的盟友实际上拥有与我们一样好，甚至更好的技术，”美国前国防部负责工业政策的副部长、现任美国企业研究所非常驻高级研究员比尔·格林沃尔特表示，“但由于美国出口管制措施的顽固性和域外效力，我们的盟友几乎没有动力与美国分享这些技术或以任何方式与我们合作。”

“正因如此，我们看到的是更多盟友技术的出现，这些技术可以豁免美国的内容，甚至豁免美国的参与，”他补充道。

澳大利亚国防部于7月宣布与一家专注于量子技术的初创科技公司Q-CTRL建立合作关系。该公司在美国和英国也设有办事处，正在为包括核潜艇在内的军事平台开发导航能力，以替代GPS。

Q-CTRL公司负责人迈克尔·比尔丘克警告说，如果不对《国际武器贸易条例》（ITAR）进行改革，将会使美国在澳美联盟（AUKUS）内部“陷入孤立”。例如，他指出，ITAR阻碍了Q-CTRL位于加利福尼亚州洛杉矶办事处的员工在澳大利亚开展技术合作，而这项技术正是该公司在澳大利亚的先驱项目。

“美国无法在这方面与澳大利亚和英国合作，”比尔丘克说。“如果我们真的希望这些友好国家在这一关键技术领域开展跨境合作，我们就必须扫清这个障碍。每个人都想避免与美国合作，因为遵守《国际武器贸易条例》（ITAR）非常困难。”

2022年10月6日，美国总统乔·拜登参观位于纽约州波基普西的IBM工厂时，正在观看一台量子计算机。（Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images）

多年来，加拿大一直是美国唯一享有特殊 ITAR 豁免权的盟友，而英国和澳大利亚现在也正在寻求这种豁免权。

上世纪90年代，中国和伊朗利用加拿大对《国际武器贸易条例》（ITAR）的豁免权规避华盛顿的武器转让法规，此后美国加强了出口管制法律。中国通过加拿大从一家美国公司购买红外设备，而伊朗的幌子公司则利用加拿大购买美国武器。

这些事件促使美国国务院在 1999 年撤销了加拿大的 ITAR 豁免，但在 2001 年，由于这个北方邻国加强了其法律，使其出口管制清单与美国法规相协调，美国国务院又恢复了该豁免。

由于感到国际武器贸易条例（ITAR）的加强阻碍，英国和澳大利亚说服乔治·W·布什政府游说国会，希望两国都能获得与加拿大相同的ITAR豁免。布什在国会的共和党同僚阻挠了这一努力，坚持要求伦敦和堪培拉首先加强各自的出口管制制度。两国均未这样做，最终，在2010年，参议院分别批准了与两国的防务合作条约，但这些条约的豁免范围均不及加拿大。

AUKUS 国家的国防企业认为，这些条约并没有大幅减少可能延缓该协议进展的出口管制壁垒。

汤森德表示，要使 AUKUS 潜艇部分正常工作，还需要对出口管制进行全面改革，因为这些舰艇的特定、单独的组件“都会违反各种出口管制条例、技术转让条例和信息共享条例”。

现行的出口管制法律还意味着，英国和澳大利亚在大多数国防转让方面都需要特定的、单独的许可证，从将出售给盟国海军的武器重新用于该国空军，到共享战斧导弹系统等物品的军事战术手册。

2018年，美国海军攻击型核潜艇“安纳波利斯”号在加利福尼亚州海岸附近发射了一枚“战斧”巡航导弹。（MC1 Ronald Gutridge/美国海军）

美国政府几乎批准了所有这些许可证，尽管在某些情况下，这一过程可能需要近一年时间。英国在2017年估计，其每年在ITAR合规方面的支出约为5亿美元。

“AUKUS 成员国之间以及成员国内部的出口管制改革，是消除目前我国政府和产业面临的繁文缛节、不必要的延误和合规成本的关键，”英国驻华盛顿大使馆发言人克莱尔·贝茨告诉《防务新闻》。

澳大利亚国防部没有回复《防务新闻》的置评请求。

众议院外交事务委员会主席、德克萨斯州共和党众议员迈克·麦考尔对这些担忧表示关注。今年7月，他领导的委员会中的共和党人不顾民主党的反对，推进了一项法案，旨在给予美加两国类似加拿大的《国际武器贸易条例》（ITAR）豁免权。

“ITAR体系内部官僚主义太严重了，”麦考尔告诉《防务新闻》。

这比《防务新闻》获得的国务院6月份提出的立法提案走得更远。该提案要求国会给予澳大利亚和英国《国际武器贸易条例》（ITAR）豁免，前提是两国必须加强自身的出口管制制度，使其“至少与美国的制度相当”。

民主党人站在负责监管《国际武器贸易条例》(ITAR) 的国务院一边，认为中国可能会利用放宽的出口管制法律。

众议院外交事务委员会首席民主党议员、纽约州众议员格雷戈里·米克斯在 7 月份指出，“自 AUKUS 宣布以来，针对澳大利亚国防工业内部人士和专家的攻击有所增加”，并且“英国也面临着类似的情报威胁”。

澳大利亚安全情报组织总干事迈克·伯吉斯在 2 月份警告说，自 2021 年 9 月宣布启动 AUKUS 计划以来，针对该国国防工业的网络间谍活动有所增加。

伯吉斯说：“第三方公司向澳大利亚人提供了数十万美元和其他丰厚的利益，以帮助专制政权提高其作战技能。”

参议院外交关系委员会主席鲍勃·梅嫩德斯（DN.J.）将一种不同的 ITAR 改革方法作为修正案附加到 2024 财年国防政策法案中，该法案于 7 月以 86 比 11 获得通过。

梅嫩德斯的立法赋予国务院更大的自由裁量权，使其可以决定是否以及在多大程度上根据《国际武器贸易条例》(ITAR)对英国和澳大利亚实施豁免，这可能导致今年众议院和参议院就 AUKUS 出口管制问题展开摊牌。

白宫方面也带头推动了一定程度的出口管制改革。

“这不是‘是否要做’的问题，而是‘如何做’的问题，”国家安全委员会印太事务协调员库尔特·坎贝尔在六月份表示。“有时候，这种简单明了的事实在复杂的官僚体系中能起到很大的帮助。因此，我们已接到明确指示，要朝着这个方向前进。”

与此同时，美国国务院已建立 AUKUS 贸易授权机制，作为加快某些技术转让的临时措施。

美国国务院7月发布的一份情况说明书指出，《国际武器贸易条例》（ITAR）中已有超过50项豁免条款，允许亲密盟友无需许可证即可购买相关产品。该说明书辩称，由于“恶意行为者”试图获取美国尖端技术，例如“能够创建无人机群的人工智能算法”，因此出口管制制度是必要的。

尽管对《国际武器贸易条例》(ITAR)有所顾虑，但美国国防公司对澳大利亚表现出了浓厚的兴趣。

“当你能够找到与最亲密的盟友合作的方法，消除合作、技术、发展、互操作性方面的障碍，并将这些国防工业基地连接起来时，你就会激励很多有趣的事情发生，”美国国防部负责战略、计划和能力的助理部长玛拉·卡林在 8 月份的一次国防作家小组圆桌会议上说道。

美国国防部长劳埃德·奥斯汀和国务卿安东尼·布林肯于7月在堪培拉会见了澳大利亚对口官员，并宣布美国将帮助澳大利亚在2025年前为两国制造制导导弹火箭。洛克希德·马丁公司和RTX公司（前身为雷神技术公司）将在澳大利亚为两国生产制导多管火箭系统。

白宫和五角大楼还要求国会允许英国和澳大利亚公司根据《国防生产法》获得美国联邦拨款——这是加拿大目前享有的另一项优势——理由是这将有助于推进AUKUS项目。美国总统乔·拜登在5月份与澳大利亚总理安东尼·阿尔巴尼斯会晤时承诺，美国将这样做，但自那以后，国会尚未就五角大楼的这项立法请求采取行动。

负责五角大楼国防生产法拨款的安东尼·迪·斯塔西奥表示，堪培拉的加入将有助于加强美国对钴（澳大利亚储量丰富）等关键矿物以及TNT等爆炸物的供应链。

在俄罗斯入侵之前，乌克兰是五角大楼仅有的三个合格TNT供应商之一，另外两个分别位于波兰和澳大利亚。迪斯塔西奥指出，美军每年使用的TNT数量都在减少，因此利用《国防生产法》的拨款扩建澳大利亚的工厂比从零开始在美国新建一家工厂更划算。

由美国飞行员斯基普·斯图尔特和三届世界特技飞行冠军尤尔格斯·凯里斯领衔的“炸药”特技飞行表演队成员奥里斯·廷斯蒂克斯驾驶的飞机在2017年澳大利亚阿瓦隆航展上表演时，掠过绚丽的烟火。（斯科特·巴伯/盖蒂图片社）

同样，该提案将允许美国拨款资助澳大利亚的钴矿开采活动。中国在全球钴市场占据主导地位，而钴是制造电池以及军用硬目标穿透弹所必需的材料。

迪斯塔西奥希望将英国和澳大利亚纳入他的办公室管辖范围，使它们能够参与他设想的试点项目，该项目旨在为企业创建美国园区，以便它们在国防供应链的不同环节进行合作。

“我希望他们的知识产权得到保护，但同时也希望他们能够整合技术，”迪·斯塔西奥在六月份接受《防务新闻》采访时表示。“如果有人在研究3D打印火箭弹壳，而另一个人研发出了一种新型的火箭推进剂，他们就可以在同一个园区进行测试。”

其他国家也可能从中受益。

布林肯在访问新西兰期间告诉记者，五眼联盟盟友加入AUKUS的大门“一直敞开着”。该情报共享联盟由澳大利亚、加拿大、新西兰、英国和美国组成。

此外，美国和印度还启动了关键和新兴技术合作倡议。今年6月，拜登在会见印度总理莫迪时承诺，将与国会合作，“降低美国对印度人工智能和量子计算出口的壁垒”。

美国国家安全委员会的坎贝尔表示，美国正在寻找非奥库斯国家，以便在与三个盟友合作开发颠覆性技术时提供“利基领域”。

他说：“我们不仅寻求理论应用和合作伙伴关系，更寻求能够提升国防能力的切实举措。我们正在与多个对此感兴趣的国家进行洽谈。”

国会授权向澳大利亚转让潜艇的途径似乎比出口管制工作更为直接，直到它卷入了一场关于美国国防开支水平的更广泛的斗争。

澳大利亚计划在2030年代购买至少三艘、至多五艘弗吉尼亚级潜艇。但澳美协议的支持者原本希望今年就开始批准这些军售，以表明澳大利亚对该协议的忠诚，尤其是在澳大利亚已同意向美国潜艇工业基地投资30亿美元的情况下。

澳大利亚正在等待国会通过核潜艇转让授权，之后才会开始建设维持这些潜艇运行所需的基础设施。

汤森德说：“这对两国来说都是一项雄心勃勃的计划，对澳大利亚而言，这将要求我们以极快的速度推进国内核能管理、基础设施、潜艇生产设施等方面的建设。”

7 月，众议院外交事务委员会的共和党人和民主党人团结一致，一致通过了一项授权，允许向澳大利亚转移至多两艘弗吉尼亚级潜艇。

“转让协议的措辞确实体现了国会的真正承诺，”众议院军事委员会海权小组首席民主党议员、康涅狄格州众议员乔·考特尼告诉《防务新闻》。“澳大利亚准备进行我们希望进行的投资，以提升弗吉尼亚级潜艇的生产能力，这与AUKUS项目的目标密切相关。”

2018年，康涅狄格州民主党众议员乔·考特尼参观了通用动力电船公司的一处设施。（图片由乔·考特尼众议员提供）

参议院原计划在7月份将同样的授权条款附加到国防法案中，但参议院军事委员会首席共和党议员、来自密西西比州的罗杰·威克参议员阻止了这一行动。他还搁置了另一项授权，该授权将允许五角大楼接受澳大利亚对美国潜艇工业基地的贡献。

然而，他并没有阻挠第三项授权，该授权允许美国开始培训澳大利亚私营部门人员从事核潜艇工作，参议院已将其作为国防政策法案的一部分予以通过。

在否决另外两项授权的同时，威克尔表示，他对目前工业基础难以满足潜艇生产需求感到担忧。他希望国会在通过这些授权之前，将为潜艇工业基础增加资金，作为补充国防开支方案的一部分。

这位参议员认为，鉴于目前的生产能力无法满足美国海军每年建造两艘弗吉尼亚级攻击型核潜艇和一艘哥伦比亚级弹道导弹核潜艇的目标，增加潜艇投入将有助于加强奥克斯计划。目前，美国每年大约只能建造1.2艘弗吉尼亚级潜艇。

参议院多数党领袖查克·舒默（纽约州民主党籍）和少数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔（肯塔基州共和党籍）在6月份承诺，将通过一项五角大楼补充支出法案，以绕过作为债务上限协议一部分而商定的8860亿美元国防预算上限。但众议院议长凯文·麦卡锡（加利福尼亚州共和党籍）已表示反对在债务上限之外增加国防开支。

包括麦康奈尔在内的半数参议院共和党议员在一封致拜登的信中提出了潜艇问题，这封信由威克和共和党最高拨款委员会成员、缅因州参议员苏珊·柯林斯牵头写成。

参议员们写道：“政府目前的计划要求将三艘美国弗吉尼亚级攻击型核潜艇从现有的美国潜艇舰队中移交给澳大利亚，但没有明确的替代方案。如果这项计划不作任何修改就实施，将会严重削弱美国舰队实力，而与此同时，中国正寻求扩大其军事力量和影响力。”

2023年3月13日，在加利福尼亚州圣地亚哥的洛马角海军基地举行的AUKUS峰会期间，澳大利亚总理安东尼·阿尔巴尼斯、美国总统乔·拜登和英国首相里希·苏纳克（从左至右）举行新闻发布会。（图片来源：Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images）

他们补充说，向澳大利亚派遣三艘攻击型潜艇将需要美国每年生产 2.3 至 2.5 艘弗吉尼亚级潜艇，以“避免进一步缩减我们舰队的作战能力”。

科特尼的选区涵盖了建造弗吉尼亚级潜艇的通用动力电船公司造船厂。他认为，生产延误很大程度上是由于新冠疫情造成的，而国会此前对工业基础的大规模投资正在使该项目步入正轨。他指出，在国会的持续支持和工业基础绩效的提升下，美国有望在2028年之前实现其年度潜艇生产目标。

“我们投入资金和资本支出来帮助这些公司，同时也在招聘员工，”考特尼说。“我非常乐观地认为，发展速度正在真正加快。”

2023财年，国会拨款近7.5亿美元用于潜艇工业基地。众议院7月份通过的2024财年国防政策法案将再向该工业基地注入7.35亿美元。

尽管立法方面存在诸多复杂情况，但汤森德仍然乐观地认为，国会今年将通过所有必要的 AUKUS 立法——包括出口管制豁免和潜艇转让授权。

然而，现在几乎没有耽搁的余地。

他说：“实现最佳方案的时间表非常紧迫。如果今年内双方无法就推进船舶移交和资金拨付达成一致，那么两国履行各自义务的能力必将受到影响。”

布莱恩特·哈里斯是《防务新闻》的国会记者。自2014年以来，他一直在华盛顿报道美国外交政策、国家安全、国际事务和政治。他还曾为《外交政策》、《Al-Monitor》、《半岛电视台英语频道》和IPS新闻撰稿。