The Aukus question: What could NZ really sign up for?
There are growing questions about our government possibly following Australia into another global conflict. Thomas Manch reports.
New Zealand’s only defence ally is gearing up for a potential war. Last week, Australian defence minister Richard Marles stood before a lunch event to announce a recasting of the Australian military in the face of China’s growing military might.
No longer would Australia have a “balanced force”, he said. Its military would now be focused on a single task: deterring a “potential adversary”.
“There is now one job at hand: transforming our future capability such that Australia can resist coercion and maintain our way of life in a much less certain region and world,” Marles said.
This means billions, 2.4% of Australia’s GDP, being spent on reshaping Australia’s military. More than $51b on new frigates, $28b for sea- and land-fired missiles, and $28b on aircraft, including fighter jets.
But, as Marles put it, the most important aspect that would “define projection”, will be the nuclear-powered but conventionally-armed submarines Australia is to receive under the contentious Aukus defence pact with the US and UK.
“More than any other capability, this platform will give an adversary pause for thought and hold their assets at risk further from our shores,” he said.
Australia’s military build-up is also giving its alliance partner across the Tasman pause for thought. As the Government prepares its own new defence strategy, due to be released in the coming months, there are growing questions about New Zealand possibly following Australia down the Aukus route.
This week, Foreign Minister Winston Peters will deliver a speech laying out the Government’s current position: should New Zealand join non-nuclear technology-sharing aspects of Aukus?
Peters has so far dismissed speculation a decision on this controversial question is near, insisting the Government continues to “explore” the prospect as the prior Labour government did.
But after meetings in Washington DC earlier this month with both Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Deputy Secretary Kurt Campbell - an architect of the pact - he may now have more to say.
There has been strident criticism of the Government for what former PM Helen Clark - who headlined a Labour Party event on Aukus this month - has called an undemocratic “lurch” on the country’s foreign policy.
But the Government isn’t the only side moving on the issue. Five months into opposition, the Labour Party has indicated it might seek a political fight over New Zealand involvement in the pact, and foreign affairs spokesperson David Parker said the party was now “not convinced” about Aukus.
But while Clark, Parker and other critics have focused on the pact’s prospect for drawing New Zealand closer to the US, and closer to conflict with China, less has been said about what New Zealand could gain.
“One of the things you often see is people describe this as an alliance. It’s not an alliance, it’s a defence technology-sharing arrangement,” said David Capie, director of the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University.
“When three of your closest security partners come together ... there are obviously risks as a small country being on the outside of that.”
New Zealand was among nations blindsided when the countries announced Aukus in 2021, and the prospect of Australia gaining nuclearpowered submarines rubbed up against New Zealand’s staunch nuclear-free stance.
The submarine aspect of the pact, pillar one, will not be joined by New Zealand. But the Government has, since US Deputy Secretary of State Campbell visited Wellington a year ago, expressed interest in joining the second pillar - the sharing of non-nuclear defence technology.
Early on, Aukus partners detailed eight areas of “advanced capabilities” that would be progressed under this second pillar: undersea capability, quantum computing technology, artificial intelligence and autonomous tech, advanced cyber, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic weapons, electronic warfare, as well as “innovation” and “information sharing”.
Yet much remains unknown. The actual shape of the defence technology-sharing agreement remains uncertain, including the criteria for other countries to join, and whether it will be a sign-the-dotted-line agreement or simply collaborations that fall underneath the Aukus branding.
Equally uncertain is what New Zealand could contribute, or whether the Aukus countries will really want New Zealand to join.
So far, the countries have agreed Japan will be the first considered for joining pillar two. However, Bonnie Jenkins, the US State Department’s under-secretary for international security and Aukus, confirmed last week there was no timeline for when Japan or any other country might join, and what might be required.
Capie said it was clear that pillar two would require a “meaningful and credible contribution”, however, “it's not clear just what that actually means”.
Already, Defence Minister Judith Collins has spoken of New Zealand’s space technology possibly being of interest to Aukus partners. Our space industry is more developed than Australia’s, and NZ-US company RocketLab already launches from both countries for clients including the US Department of Defence.
Underwater technology was another area that New Zealand could be involved in, Capie said. The Government in recent years has bought P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft from the US, a type of plane also used by Australia and the US air forces, allowing for “interoperability” between forces.
But, before all this, there’s a question of whether New Zealand and other partners will actually be considered.
“There's clearly a range of views amongst the three Aukus partners about whether or not to expand pillar two to other members,” Capie said.
Professor Alexander Gillespie, a Waikato University international affairs expert, said the “current” pulling New Zealand toward Aukus had become stronger in the past year.
“For me, the one thing that is important is that we need new kit. There is a revolution in military technology going on right now.
“Whether you want a country to have the use of those technologies for offensive purposes is one thing, which I don't think we need, but I do think we need [them for] defensive purposes.”
Gillespie said while there was a “fairly strong argument” to join Aukus to gain technology and interoperability with the country’s traditional, democratic partners, there were also counter-arguments.
“Does this mean that we lose our autonomy and our decision-making, and will we get pulled into a war?
“That question is critical, because Kiwis need to be thinking, ‘Would we be willing to fight? Or would we want to sit it out’?”
There was “huge murkiness” around New Zealand’s obligations to its defence ally Australia, and its alliance partner the US, Gillespie said. He argued that New Zealand’s independence was already limited by its defence alliance with Australia - an alliance he said New Zealand should have.
“It all depends what Australia does, and Australia will depend on what America does, and just to make the situation completely mental, you've got an election in November in America, where it could go completely one way or the other.
“Does New Zealand want to be tied at the hip to a country which is currently so volatile?”
Both Capie and Gillespie were concerned about any breakdown in a bipartisan political approach to New Zealand’s foreign policy, yet both disagreed with suggestion there had been a “lurch” in the Government’s position.
Capie said the National-led government had recalibrated New Zealand’s foreign policy as it was clearly “more willing to lean into traditional partnerships”.
Demonstrating this was Peters signing a statement with Blinken in Washington DC this month that said both countries saw “powerful reasons” for New Zealand to be involved in arrangements including Aukus, “as and when all parties deem it appropriate”.
Gillespie said any emerging rift wasn’t coming from the Government, but from Labour, which has broken away from the trajectory it took the country on while in power.
“The last [Labour] government did some excellent work on the changing landscape of international relations, and they did a lot of really good reports ... about the way the geopolitical world was changing. They prepared us for some big decisions.”
Regarding the big decision about whether to join Aukus, Gillespie said he thought it was a fait accompli that New Zealand would join, although there were several conditions he would like to see.
“If we do join, I want it to be much more bipartisan, and I want much more transparency and public debate about what the implications of it are, as we go into it with our eyes open.”
“Kiwis need to be thinking, ‘Would we be willing to fight? Or would we want to sit it out’?” Professor Alexander Gillespie