AUKUS is probably dead
A recent release: Prominent New Zealand leaders Helen Clark, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Sir David Carter, Dr Don Brash, Mr Carl Worker, and Mr David Mahon have placed a full-page open letter in Stuff and NZME newspapers expressing grave concern about New Zealand's foreign policy direction.The open letter, co-signed by the group of influential New Zealand figures, cautions Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, and his Government, against taking an adversarial stance against China as part of an alignment with the United States.'While good relations with the United States must be maintained, we see considerable disadvantage to New Zealand in becoming part of defence arrangements, including the associated prospective AUKUS Pillar Two, which are explicitly aimed at China,' said former Prime Minister Helen Clark.'
For many years, New Zealand has maintained a balanced foreign policy, building strong relationships with both the United States and China. That has served our national interests well. Recent moves by the Government, however, suggest an increasing willingness to align New Zealand with the United States in a way that could harm our relationship with China.'
First of all AUKUS is probably dead as far as NZ is concerned. Trump doesn't see allies, just cost centres. He will not see any benefit in the US sharing military technology with New Zealand. Hell, he may even renege on the deal with Australia. The chance of NZ being invited in, is minuscule now I would say.
The characterisation of recent foreign policy changes as being aligning with the US against China is misleading, in my opinion. First of all the changes started under the Ardern Government (which they deserve credit for). They started because Russia launched a war of aggression against Ukraine, and China has been a cheerleader for them. The decade long project of believing trading with authoritarian states would make them more benign has (sadly) failed. China has itself become much more aggressive.
The change in NZ's stance has zero to do with the US. It is to do with how Russia and China have behaved. In fact the US is itself becoming very unreliable, and hence NZ's future is probably not with AUKUS, but a looser collection of alliances with Australia, UK, the EU, Canada, Japan, South Korea etc. The letter specifically addresses recent actions, including the authorisation of New Zealand naval vessels through the Taiwan Strait, the strengthening of defence ties with the Philippines amid tensions in the South China Sea, and visits to Taiwan led by Government parliamentarians.
Why would we not have MPs visit Taiwan, and not have better defence ties with the Philippines? We're not a vassal state of China.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
19 hours ago
- 1News
AUKUS defence pact 'being reviewed' by US government
The US government is reportedly reviewing the AUKUS trilateral defence agreement between Australia, the UK and the US. The decision to conduct a review has been reported by multiple news outlets including Reuters, which cited US defence officials without giving further details. The review will reportedly examine whether the pact is in line with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, according to the ABC which also cited a Pentagon source. AUKUS is a three-nation security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US agreed in 2021 under the prime ministership of ex-Liberal leader Scott Morrison. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds including passengers stuck on ferry overnight, new flights to Sydney coming, and the weirdest things we leave in Ubers. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT It was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats. The deal is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, although the first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. Australia, which in February made the first of six $US500 million (about $830 million) payments to the US for the boats, is expected to initially buy between three and five off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats. At the time, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Trump was supportive of the AUKUS deal. President Donald Trump gestures after speaking at Fort Bragg. (Source: Associated Press) "The president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS," Hegseth said after a meeting with Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles. "(He) recognises the importance of the defence industrial base." ADVERTISEMENT Marles responded that the pair had discussed how the US and Australia could advance their longstanding diplomatic relationship in terms of national security, including AUKUS. Australia's military budget is expected to rise to 2.3% of gross domestic product, or output, by 2034. The US regime has already called for Australia to increase that spending to around 3.5%. Australia tore up its $97 billion diesel-powered submarine deal with France to sign on to AUKUS and is contracted to buy several off-the-shelf submarines costing about $US4 billion each, before making its own. The first Australian-made boats are not due to be operational until the 2040s.
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
US-Australia defence alliance alive and well, insists expert
From left to right, Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles, Britain's Defence Secretary John Healey and US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin sit down for talks at the Old Royal Naval College, during the AUKUS Defense Ministerial Meeting in London on 26 September, 2024. Photo: AFP An expert on US-Australia alliances says AUKUS is not dead and, in fact, will never die. Australia says it is "very confident" in the future of the pact to equip it with nuclear-powered submarines, despite the Pentagon putting it under review. It said it had been aware for a while about the review, which media only revealed publicly on Thursday . Professor Alan Tidwell, who directs the Centre for Australian, New Zealand and Pacific Studies in Washington, said he was a firm believer the pact was "perpetual". "I'm a firm believer that AUKUS is one of those things that will probably never die," said the researcher, who will be in Wellington on Tuesday for the Institute of International Affairs national conference. "No-one will ever issue a press release that says AUKUS is dead, it certainly won't come out of Washington. "They may change the shape of AUKUS, they may change the delivery schedule, but I think it's kind of built in." Ever since the US, Australia and UK signed the pact in 2021, critics have expressed doubt that the Americans would actually deliver any subs in the 2030s. Their contention that the US needed all the subs it could build for itself was echoed by top Pentagon official Elbridge Colby - now leading the review - after President Donald Trump began his second term. "In principle, [AUKUS is] a great idea, but I've been very sceptical in practice," Colby said last year. However, Tidwell believes the outcome of the review won't be to stop AUKUS, nor would it be to carry on as it is. "I think that the outcome will be something in between," he said. "You know, I think that this is a great opportunity for the United States to push harder on the question of its own shipbuilding. "It's also an opportunity to keep AUKUS in place." The second part of AUKUS - Pillar Two - which New Zealand is still looking at joining, was another consideration. "If you go back in time, Pillar Two always looked like it was an add-on, you know, to the submarine deal... and it's taken on a life of its own. "In many respects, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom have already been sharing high-level technology, have already been involved in joint ventures." For instance, Australia and the US just signed a memorandum of understanding for the former to take part in making new long-range precision strike missiles. Professor Alan Tidwell will attend the Institute of International Affairs national conference. Photo: Supplied Defence Minister Judith Collins said she was not aware of any invitation to participate in this programme, but that the defence capability plan envisaged investment in enhanced strike capabilities, which could include land-based missiles, "in the near term". Tidwell said: "In one respect, you could simply say that the Pillar Two creation was really just taking things that were already happening and repackaging them". "Whether New Zealand joins Pillar Two formally or not, I really don't think is particularly important on the technology side. It might be important on the political side." Tidwell said the timing of the US announcement of the review was interesting, just before Trump meets Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and just after Albanese pushed back on a US request for Canberra to hurry and raise defence spending still more - by a lot. However, in the world of AUKUS, reviews happened, he said, noting the UK recently did its own that gave the thumbs-up. Meantime, the Trump administration was "pretty chaotic, and for them to organise this in that kind of orchestration, it surprises me... it doesn't seem to be in keeping with the nature of this administration". As for China, it would be pleased, he said. "Any time there's disquiet in a bilateral relationship like that, one's opponent would be happy, regardless of its origin." This added to the strains on the US-Europe relationship, so that, although the administration was getting some of what it wanted - like more defence spending by allies - it had also unleashed negative things. "I think the idea that the Poles are talking about, about nuclear weapons is terrifying." In March, Poland - a bulwark of Western help for Ukraine in the war waged by Russia - [ called on the US to transfer nuclear weapons to its territory. Tidwell did not think the Ukrainians' innovation with drones to fight Russia could translate wholesale into swapping out subs under AUKUS to undersea drones instead. "I wouldn't want to simply say, 'OK, we no longer need submarines'. "I don't think that we're quite at the point of a universal revolution that sees manned undersea boats vanish from use. "I just would not want to put my all my eggs in one basket and I think having both would be better than just having one. "You know, the innovation cycle that's so interesting in Ukraine is perhaps more the point than what the technology actually was." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
NZ Has A Vast Sea Territory But Lags Behind Other Nations In Protecting The Ocean
Article – The Conversation Two international ocean science and policy meetings this month have called on nations to be more ambitious in their efforts to protect and restore marine ecosystems. For the past fortnight, the city of Nice in France has been the global epicentre of ocean science and politics. Last week's One Ocean Science Congress ended with a unanimous call for action to turn around the degradation of the ocean. And this week, the United Nation's Ocean Conference agenda focused on better protection of marine biodiversity, sustainable fisheries and emissions cuts. The message is clear. With only five years to the UN's 2030 target for its sustainable development goal – to conserve the oceans, seas and marine resources – and the Global Biodiversity Framework requirement to protect 30% of the ocean, we need to make significant progress. We all attended last week's meeting, together with more than 2,000 marine scientists from 120 countries. Here, we reflect on New Zealand's role and obligations to contribute to these global goals. Legal imperatives Globally, the ocean is warming and acidifying at accelerating rates. New Zealand's waters are not immune to this, with more marine heatwaves which further stress our threatened marine biodiversity. We depend directly on these ocean ecosystems to provide the air we breathe, moderate the impacts of climate change and feed millions of people. New Zealand has significant influence on ocean policy – from Antarctica to the sub-tropical Pacific, and within its sea territory, which is 15 times the size of its landmass and spans 30 degrees of latitude. The government is required by law to take action to secure a healthy ocean. A recent advisory opinion from the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea unanimously found that states, including New Zealand, have obligations under international law to reduce the impacts of climate change on marine areas, to apply an ecosystem approach to marine law and policy, reduce pollution and support the restoration of the ocean. New Zealand courts have recognised the need to take a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to marine management, based on science, tikanga and mātauranga Māori. These legal cases are part of a global upswell of strategic environmental and climate litigation. If New Zealand does not comply with these marine legal obligations, it may well find itself before the courts, incurring significant legal and reputational costs. International agreements In 2022, New Zealand was one of 196 countries that committed to protecting at least 30% of the world's coastal and marine areas by 2030 under the Global Biodiversity Framework. New Zealand was an enthusiastic supporter, but only 0.4% of its marine territory is fully protected in no-take marine reserves. Former prime minister Helen Clark has criticised the current government for lagging behind on marine protection, especially in failing to ban bottom trawling. At this week's UN ocean summit, a further 18 countries have ratified an agreement known as the High Seas Treaty, bringing the total to 50, still short of the 60 nations needed for it to enter into force. New Zealand signed this treaty just before the last general election, but is yet to ratify it. Foreign Minister Winston Peters represented New Zealand at the UN ocean conference, but focused mainly on issues in the Pacific. Meanwhile, the government announced sweeping changes to the national direction on environmental policy, including reworking the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement to better enable the use and development of the coastal environment for 'priority activities' such as aquaculture, resource extraction, infrastructure and energy. Oceanic environmental change is real and accelerating Some countries showed that effective leadership can help navigate to a safe future for the oceans. For example, China's commitment to clean energy has seen carbon dioxide emissions begin to fall for the first time despite higher power consumption. At the UN ocean summit, French Polynesia's president announced his administration would establish one of the world's largest networks of marine protected areas. The cost of inaction far outweighs the economics of the status quo. Ongoing ocean warming is already affecting weather patterns, with more extreme storms. It is possible for marine ecosystems to recover quite rapidly if they are protected, at least temporarily. Yet this year, New Zealand's government found itself in hot water (once again) with both conservationists and Māori for its management of fisheries. We argue New Zealand has an opportunity and responsibility to demonstrate it can shift the downward spiral of oceanic degradation. The overwhelming message at the half-way point of the UN Ocean Decade is that for marine science to transform the state of our oceans it needs to include Indigenous peoples who have routinely been sidelined from ocean policy discussions despite their longstanding rights and relationships with the ocean. New Zealand already has a foundation of transdisciplinary and Indigenous ocean research to develop ocean policies that are fit for local purposes and to answer global calls to action. We have a unique window of opportunity to lead the changes needed. Conrad Pilditch, Professor of Marine Sciences, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Elizabeth Macpherson, Professor of Law and Rutherford Discovery Fellow, University of Canterbury; Joanne Ellis, Associate Professor of Marine Science, University of Waikato; Karen Fisher, Professor in Human Geography, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Karin Bryan, Professor of Coastal Oceanography, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Rachael Mortiaux, PhD Candidate in Law, University of Canterbury, and Simon Francis Thrush, Director of the Institute of Marine Science, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Disclosure statement Conrad Pilditch currently receives funding from the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. Elizabeth Macpherson receives funding from Te Apārangi The Royal Society. Karin Bryan receives funding from the Marsden Fund, the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, the George Mason Centre for the Natural Environment and Waikato Regional Council. Simon Francis Thrush receives funding from ERC, Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the Auckland Foundation Joanne Ellis, Karen Fisher, and Rachael Mortiaux do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
