A new defence partnership between the US, UK and Australia may not be as revolutionary as some are suggesting – but the push to contain China could still have significant consequences for New Zealand, Sam Sachdeva reports
Into the alphabet soup of international groupings comes a new ingredient.
Hyped in advance as a major national security announcement, the leaders of Australia, the United Kingdom and United States appeared together on Thursday morning NZT to unveil Aukus (pronounced not dissimilarly to ‘awkward’, as the acronym itself is).
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison described the grouping as “a new enhanced trilateral security partnership” to develop a safer and more secure region, with the first major initiative the delivery of a nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Australia through close cooperation with both the US and UK.
While neither Morrison, nor Boris Johnson or Joe Biden, specifically cited China as the reason for the new grouping, a focus on containment seemed implicit in the Australian leader’s talk of “a partnership that seeks to engage, not to exclude; to contribute, not take; and to enable and power, not to control or coerce”.
The announcement attracted a predictable response from Beijing, with Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian accusing the countries of “gravely undermining regional stability” and aggravating a regional arms race.
But the news has caused discontent in other quarters – not least France, which has lost its $90 billion submarine deal with the Australian government.
The country’s foreign affairs and defence ministers issued a joint statement saying Australia’s decision was “contrary to the letter and the spirit of the cooperation which prevailed” between the countries, in turn claiming the American intervention had led “to the removal of an ally and a European partner ... from a structuring partnership with Australia, at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region”.
New Zealand is not as directly affected, either strategically or fiscally, but there are still questions facing the Government – most pointedly on the fact it was not invited to the table with three of its partners in the Five Eyes intelligence sharing alliance, National Party foreign affairs spokesman Gerry Brownlee saying the country could miss out on important intelligence and cybersecurity discussions as a result.
Jacinda Ardern argued New Zealand's nuclear-free stance meant it was never in the running to be part of AUKUS. Photo: Pool
While media both domestic and foreign have suggested New Zealand chose to opt out of the agreement, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was clear when asked by Newsroom whether the Government had been approached to take part.
“No, we weren’t approached, but nor would I expect us to be,” Ardern responded, noting the agreement’s centrepiece involved the type of vessel barred from entering New Zealand waters under the country’s nuclear-free zone legislation.
She argued the deal would not change New Zealand’s existing relationships with Australia and the wider Five Eyes network.
But while the submarine fleet was the most tangible takeaway from the AUKUS announcement, the three nations are set to work together on other areas where New Zealand would hold an interest; Biden cited collaboration on “military capabilities and critical technologies” including cyberspace, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and undersea domains.
Victoria University of Wellington strategic studies professor Robert Ayson told Newsroom it was almost certainly New Zealand’s limited strategic and military capabilities, rather than its principled opposition to nuclear-powered vessels, which had left it out of the running.
“I don’t think it was that ... they sat around a table thinking, ‘Now who else can be invited to this, and we’d love to invite the Kiwis but they have that nuclear-free policy’...
“I honestly don’t think they even contemplated it – we’re just not in the same league and it’s as simple as that.”
Thomas Nash, co-director of the NZ Alternative thinktank and a key figure in the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, told Newsroom he hoped New Zealand would “stay well away” from the AUKUS partnership.
“We don’t want our region to be ratcheting up that kind of tension ... this is just going to fuel an arms race in the Pacific.”
Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta had already pushed back against efforts to expand Five Eyes’ remit into security and defence issues, Nash said, and the new grouping would likewise be seen as an effort to confront China.
“We don’t want our region to be ratcheting up that kind of tension ... this is just going to fuel an arms race in the Pacific where we’re talking about nuclear-powered submarines on the one hand, and initial efforts on cyber, AI, and undersea capabilities [on the other].”
He was particularly concerned about whether the UK and US would look to establish permanent bases for their own nuclear submarines in Australia, as well as whether the enrichment of uranium necessary for the vessels was consistent with the countries’ non-proliferation obligations.
However, all three nations were at pains to claim the programme would be fully compliant with the commitments of each under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while academics have previously written about the so-called “naval nuclear loophole” in the treaty.
While news of the AUKUS partnership was significant, Ayson believed “some people are making it out to be bigger than it really is”, with no sign of a formal agreement (Ardern made a similar point, noting it was “not a treaty-level arrangement”).
“It doesn’t suddenly turn countries working together into something that they weren’t before,” Ayson said.
However, it was striking that the US and UK – among just a handful of countries to deploy some form of nuclear-powered submarine – had shed an historical reluctance to share their technology with other partners, a sign of the stakes the countries attached to containing China.
The CCP-owned Global Times has already quoted an unnamed “senior Chinese military expert” as saying Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered subs “which serve US strategic demands” would make it a potential target for a nuclear strike.
“Obviously China is going to be unhappy about this ... it does mean Australia will be fitting into US thinking about how to counter China in an even greater way than it has done before.”
Ayson didn’t believe Beijing was likely to use New Zealand’s omission from the AUKUS agreement as a wedge between it and Australia, as had been the case with differing views on the direction on Five Eyes.
Instead, the most pressing concerns for New Zealand would be any further deterioration in the Australia-China relationship as a result of the deal, given flow-on effects, along with the increased likelihood our neighbour would find itself at threat in any military conflict.
“The more forces Australia hosts, then the more secure Australia might feel ... but the more they become targets in the event of a war.”
Indeed, the CCP-owned Global Times has already quoted an unnamed “senior Chinese military expert” as saying Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered subs “which serve US strategic demands” would make it a potential target for a nuclear strike.
Of course, the outlet is well known for its hyperbole, and the contours of the AUKUS agreement and the nuclear submarine programme are still to be sketched out over the next 18 months.
But even if the deal is not the radical step-change being touted, it is still likely to ramp up regional tensions at least another notch.
Sam Sachdeva is Newsroom's national affairs editor, covering foreign affairs and trade, housing, and other issues of national significance.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/aukus-deals-awkwardness-for-new-zealand