As the Government weighs up the pros and cons of joining the polarising Aukus defence pact, some foreign policy observers say the public deserves to have its say before talks go any further
Domestic opposition to the Aukus security deal is emerging within New Zealand, with groups calling for a pause to any further government discussions about signing up to the pact.
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has also weighed in, saying New Zealand does not need “entanglement” with Aukus in order to deal with geopolitical tensions.
Last month, Defence Minister Andrew Little confirmed the Government had been offered the opportunity to consider the non-nuclear elements of the trilateral security deal between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
READ MORE: * Aukus engagement has more benefits than risks * NZ's biggest policy headache with Aukus submarine plan * Aukus alliance 'won't shut out NZ' - US official
While most attention has focused on Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-propelled submarines, there is a second “pillar” focused on defence technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.
“We have been offered the opportunity to talk about whether we could or wish to participate in that pillar two aspect of it. I’ve indicated we would be willing to explore it,” Little said at the time.
Te Kuaka, a foreign policy think tank formerly known as New Zealand Alternative, has now called on the Government to engage in public debate before holding further discussions on joining the Aukus grouping.
Te Kuaka spokeswoman Dr Arama Rata told Newsroom a decision to sign up to Aukus would represent “a massive shift in our foreign policy direction”, and go against New Zealand’s commitments to Pacific-led decision making on foreign policy and diplomacy through the likes of the Boe and Biketawa declarations.
Pacific-led approach needed
Rata described Aukus as less a security agreement and more an “aggressive military pact”, and said there needed to be more thorough consideration of the ramifications of supporting the agreement, such as what would happen if one of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines fired upon an enemy vessel in the Pacific region.
“By signing up to Aukus…we would be signing up to protect US interests and follow a US strategy, whereas we should be Pacific-led: we should be thinking about the security of our region, and these nuclear submarines will not ensure our security.”
With Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta having recently attended a meeting of Nato foreign ministers and Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni leading a ministerial mission to the Pacific this week, the Government needed to pause any international discussions about Aukus until it gathered the views of the New Zealand public.
Rata said Māori should be involved in discussions, given both the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and the importance of trade to Māori businesses.
The Government also needed to clarify its involvement with Nato, she said, given its nuclear deterrence doctrine which was arguably at odds with New Zealand’s nuclear-free stance.
“The action shouldn't be ‘Let's jump in with the Americans or the Australians’ - there's a third way, which has to be about peace and diplomacy.” - John Richards, Anti-Aukus Coalition
Separately, a new anti-Aukus group last week held a vigil outside Parliament, with members brandishing placards calling for “diplomacy not destruction” and declaring: “We don’t want a war with China”.
Anti-Aukus Coalition spokesman John Richards told Newsroom the group had come together over a shared concern about rising tensions in the Pacific and the “demonisation” of China by the US and its allies.
“We're a group of worried people who want to have a real open and frank discussion about this publicly this year…this is something which New Zealanders do care about, no one wants nuclear war.”
Richards said there also needed to be “really frank conversations” with Australia about its foreign policy intentions, given New Zealand’s military obligations in the event of an attack on its trans-Tasman ally.
Asked whether he saw any validity in concerns about China’s own militarisation efforts in the Pacific and more broadly, he said the country’s increase in defence spending should be seen in the context of American defence budgets.
“The action shouldn't be ‘Let's jump in with the Americans or the Australians’ - there's a third way, which has to be about peace and diplomacy.”
The group intended to hold more vigils in future, and was also considering whether to hold public meetings to discuss the issue further.
Clark: Avoid Aukus 'entanglement'
The Aukus pact has attracted mixed responses across the Pacific. Last week, a group of former Pacific leaders known as the Pacific Elders alleged the deal was “triggering an arms race [and] bringing war much closer to home”.
However, Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr has shared his support for Australia’s involvement in Aukus, saying the country had “responsibility for the protection of the Pacific”, while Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has also offered his support.
Clark, a former Labour Prime Minister who has become more vocal in her concerns about New Zealand’s foreign policy direction, last week responded to a Newsroom piece from University of Otago professor Nicholas Khoo setting out the benefits of engaging with Aukus.
“We are all acutely aware of changes in the geopolitical environment, but entanglement with [Aukus] isn't [the] response NZ needs,” Clark said on Twitter.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins was noncommittal last week when asked when the Government expected to make a decision on whether or not it would sign up to Aukus, saying: “There’s a process that we’ll need to go through in the event that we need to do that, to have those conversations. We haven’t done that.”
Hipkins on Tuesday morning announced he had accepted an invitation to attend the Nato leaders’ summit in Vilnius, taking place in July.
