As the Government considers signing up to the Aukus security deal, both those for and against are speaking out more loudly. Could public debate reach similar levels to that seen over the Iraq War and TPP trade deal?
Analysis: For the inhabitants of a small country particularly susceptible to being buffeted by global currents, New Zealanders can sometimes appear curiously incurious about the world beyond our borders.
There is little public discussion about Aotearoa’s foreign policy decisions, while our politicians are similarly disinclined to extend themselves beyond a focus on exports and cliches about our role as a plucky underdog on the international stage.
Our geographical isolation acts as a buffer against some of the issues being hotly debated by like-minded nations, but others still make their way to our door – and there are nascent signs that the Aukus security deal could become one of those rare exceptions.
READ MORE: * Defence Minister: 'Independence is not isolationism' * Anti-Aukus feeling growing at home * Aukus engagement has more benefits than risks
News that the Government is weighing up a potential membership in the non-nuclear elements of Aukus, a trilateral security deal between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, has already stirred up strong arguments both for and against the idea.
Some foreign policy watchers have likened the debate to that seen over the Iraq war in 2003 or the Trans-Pacific trade deal in 2015 and 2016 – both of which saw thousands of Kiwis take to the streets in protest.
The anti-Aukus alliance is some way from that level of mass appeal, with a handful of protesters outside Parliament earlier this month as sizeable as any public rally has been so far.
But it is still early days, and there are interesting signs in the varying coalition of interests that is building up to express their common concerns about any move to sign up.
The anti-imperialist left sees New Zealand being dragged into another US-led war against its interests, free trade advocates worry about the impact to exporters of any unnecessary conflict with China, and peace advocates fear the potential compromise of our nuclear-free stance at home and in the wider Pacific.
Most striking has been former Labour prime minister Helen Clark’s decision to speak out more loudly against any moves to sign up to Aukus.
Defence technology arrangements are not particularly “bread and butter”, while there is little upside but plenty of risk for Hipkins in making any hasty decisions.
Clark was in office at the time of the Iraq war, speaking out against the American invasion, so her concern about Kiwi “entanglement” with the security deal perhaps should not be seen as a surprise. But her public intervention is nonetheless noteworthy given it is her former party that currently holds the reins of power and has begun the exploratory talks.
There are not yet any similarly high-profile voices advocating for New Zealand to join the agreement. However, a number of foreign policy academics have pointed out that the deal should not be seen in a vacuum, but with the context of China’s own military build-up and its overt projection of power beyond its borders.
It seems telling that Defence Minister Andrew Little effectively “broke” the news of the Aukus discussions. Since taking on the portfolio earlier this year, Little has been candid about the need to discuss the security landscape – including China’s military capabilities – more openly, while his long-standing intelligence roles will have given him insight into the sharper edges of Beijing’s influence efforts.
What remains unclear is the extent to which Little’s view represents the Government’s overall inclinations. Asked about Aukus during his weekend visit to Queensland, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins gave little away, saying only that the Government “will continue to be open to exploring those conversations when the opportunity to do that arises”.
Given that level of uncertainty, any decision before the October 14 election seems unlikely to say the least. After all, defence technology arrangements are not particularly “bread and butter”, while there is little upside but plenty of risk for Hipkins in making any hasty decisions.
National's stance unclear
Among the other unknowns is exactly how the National Party would approach Aukus should it come to hold power by the end of the year.
National’s foreign affairs spokesman Gerry Brownlee in 2021 expressed concerns about New Zealand being left out of the talks, but has since become markedly more sceptical about an agreement that he told AAP “seemed to be dividing the world”.
It’s far from clear though that the party would drive the case against Aukus, as the Labour opposition did with TPP. Labour subsequently held its nose to sign an amended version of the trade deal in 2017 and now trumpets it among its foreign policy achievements, a useful reminder of how quickly policy positions can change after taking office.
Angst over Aukus arguably lacks the domestic impact of the TPP trade deal, which would have required legal concessions in a range of sensitive issues. Comparisons with the Iraq war are also imperfect, given it is harder to paint China as the David to America’s Goliath and a military conflict remains entirely hypothetical for the time being.
But with the deal’s advocates and opponents seemingly agreed on the need for a more thorough debate about New Zealand’s place in the world, they may yet get their wish.
