Aukus a political weapon, what’s Labour’s position?
Freshly in opposition and scratching around for a line of attack, Labour appears to have found it, accusing the Government of a “headlong rush” into a potential Aukus pillar 2 deal.
But pressure will only fall on Labour leader Chris Hipkins in the coming weeks as he will be expected to clarify his own party’s position on whether it, in principle, supports or rejects pillar 2. Foreign affairs spokesperson David Parker will only so far say the party is working out its position.
A Labour-organised panel yesterday largely accused the Government of being too quick to cosy up to the United States, one part of the trilateral security partnership with Australia and the UK. The panel was joined by outspoken Aukus critic, Australia’s former foreign affairs minister Bob Carr, a China dove who flew in specifically for the event and stole headlines with his assertion that Aukus was “fragrant, methane-wrapped bullshit”.
The security agreement revolves around Australia acquiring a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines from Aukus partners – the antithesis to New Zealand’s nuclear-free position.
But Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters have both confirmed the Government is exploring pillar 2, which ostensibly revolves around sharing defence technology.
The Government’s apparent enthusiasm for pillar 2, and what observers say is noticeable, changing language around New Zealand’s foreign policy, saw a Labour faction sounding alarm bells at the hours-long panel at Parliament, one which Labour hosts pitched as examining the implications of Aukus, but saw former prime minister Helen Clark effectively foreshadowing political and economic fallout, with the support of Carr.
Clark accused the National-led Government of not being transparent with voters about its intentions, with the full ramifications and opportunities of any agreement yet to be fully publicly articulated or scrutinised.
Carr went a step further, saying pillar 2 had been “cobbled together to make Aukus look like something more than submarines” – an allusion to a smokescreen.
Their observations were endorsed by international relations expert Robert Patman, who said the Government’s self-described exploration had “taken on a new dimension” with Government overtures that Aukus was integral to “ever closer relations with the United States ... that is a qualitative shift”.
But after the robust panel discussion, consisting of Clark, Carr, Patman, and former Tuvalu PM Enele Sopoaga, Labour foreign affairs spokesperson David Parker conceded that Labour was not ready to confirm its own policy. It would come, “in the future”.
“We feel very strongly that before any decision is taken by the Government, they need to have an open discussion with New Zealanders as to the pluses and minuses and we’re not yet convinced.”
And so when, last year, US secretary of state Antony Blinken opened the door to NZ engaging in the possibility of the partnership the response from the Labour government at the time was muted – both thenForeign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta and PM Chris Hipkins reiterated New Zealand’s nuclear-free position, reaffirming New Zealand would not be part of a nuclear submarines deal.
But Hipkins did not say that New Zealand would not join the alliance in some other more limited manner, in time. “We will not be part of the Aukus nuclear submarine arrangement, and the partners in the Aukus arrangement understand and respect that,” he said in July. More recently he has reiterated his concern that pillar 2 would serve as a “wedge” or a divide aimed at China.
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters was uncharacteristically quiet on the leveraging of the Aukus talks by Labour, with a spokesperson only reiterating the minister’s previous position that, “New Zealand is continuing the process commenced under the previous government in exploring involvement in Aukus pillar 2. There is no shift in New Zealand’s approach”.