As the United States undertakes a review of the AUKUS agreement under the renewed “America First” agenda, indications are that Australia will be pressured to deepen its military commitments. This may include paying more for second hand nuclear powered submarines, expanded joint force basing, and a firm commitment to deploy the submarines to serve US interests. Before we take irreversible steps down this path, we must publicly discuss how it would imperil the essence of Australian democracy.
At the heart of the debate over AUKUS lies a question of democratic integrity. Who decides when Australia goes to war? Who ensures that the nation’s security choices reflect the values and consent of its citizens? Decisions about war, peace, and alliances are made solely by the executive, shielded from scrutiny and parliamentary debate. If Australia deepens its strategic dependency on a global military power without transparent democratic processes, we risk hollowing out the very values we claim to defend.
Parliament is not legally required to vote, or even be consulted, before troops are committed overseas. This constitutional arrangement might have been tolerable in an era of limited foreign entanglement. But today, as AUKUS expands in scope and ambition, this democratic gap has become a chasm.
The public has never voted on AUKUS. It was announced with no electoral mandate and no national debate. Its terms were settled in secrecy, its implications revealed only in fragments. As the United States now pushes for faster implementation and greater Australian involvement in U.S. military operations, the people of Australia remain bystanders in decisions that will define their nation’s future security posture for decades to come.
Ethical Complicity and the Bypassing of Consent
A democracy’s legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed—not just in domestic affairs, but especially in matters of war and peace. When a government commits the nation to military alliances or potential conflicts without the knowledge or approval of its citizens, it undermines the very foundation of representative democracy.
Deepening Australia’s commitments under AUKUS risks drawing us into future wars, (maybe with China, we all remember Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. where might it end?)—without a vote, a debate, or a clear mandate. Under such conditions, our participation becomes not just strategically risky, but ethically compromised. We are not choosing our path; we are being pulled along it. Philosophical traditions—from Kantian ethics to just war theory—insist that moral action requires conscious deliberation and universal principles. A nation that aligns itself with a foreign power known for unilateral aggression and extrajudicial force projection cannot plausibly claim to stand for democracy and rule of law. By enabling another nation’s military ambitions through silence or compliance, we become complicit without consent.
The Threat of Strategic Dependency
Defence policy, especially in a democracy, must preserve freedom of choice. Yet AUKUS, in its current trajectory, creates conditions of strategic dependency. As Australia prepares to host U.S. military assets, share sensitive intelligence, and acquire nuclear submarines reliant on American technology, we reduce our capacity to make independent decisions about conflict and diplomacy. The deeper the entanglement, the harder it becomes to say no when it matters most.
This loss of autonomy is not just a strategic concern—it is a democratic one. A sovereign democracy must retain the power to determine its own fate. That means being able to withhold participation in wars that do not serve our national interest or violate our ethical standards. It means subjecting alliance commitments to public scrutiny, parliamentary debate, and transparent accountability.
The Future We Owe to the People—and Their Children
AAUKUS is not a short-term agreement. It locks Australia into decades-long procurement, basing, and strategic obligations. Basing infrastructure, once agreed, is politically and diplomatically difficult to undo. In effect, we are binding future generations to decisions made behind closed doors today.
Philosopher Hans Jonas argued that true responsibility lies in preserving the future conditions of freedom and safety for those who will inherit our world. That responsibility begins with maintaining the democratic integrity of our national decision-making. If we mortgage that integrity to meet the demands of an anxious ally or an ambitious defence contractor, we forfeit the right to claim we are acting in the people’s name.
Reclaiming Democratic Control
Australia must not slide passively into a deeper AUKUS entanglement. If the agreement is to be pursued at all, it must be brought fully into the light of democratic oversight. That means:
- Enacting a War Powers Act requiring parliamentary approval before any future overseas deployments.
- Opening all AUKUS arrangements—including basing, procurement, the sharing of risks and command structures—to full parliamentary debate.
- Holding a national conversation about the long-term consequences of these decisions for sovereignty, peace, and Australia’s place in the world.
Strategic alliances are not inherently undemocratic. But when they are formed and deepened without consent, they undermine the very values they claim to protect. Australia must resist further commitments to AUKUS unless they can pass the highest test—not of military utility, but of democratic legitimacy.
To act otherwise is not to strengthen our security. It is to weaken our democracy.
Form
Dora Colnet 
Leave a comment