Despite the uncertainties of the Trump administration, Five Eyes membership is of enduring value, writes Dr John Battersby, Senior Fellow in the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University.
In the mid-2020s the People’s Republic of China, the sleeping geographical and economic giant, has woken and seems intent on ‘taking its place’ in the world. Like previous empires, China’s is beginning with expeditionary economics – the promise of trade, aid and investment. The warships will follow once the new trading arrangements need securing and just as the 20th was America’s century, the 21st will most likely be China’s.
The US has long believed the Pacific Ocean is an American lake – if it ever was, it isn’t any more – now at least they will have to share it. Perhaps the US and China will settle on détente and spheres of influence. Most likely they will compete for dominance of it all.
“The fact that the Mickey Mouse Club appears to have taken over the White House and that Donald and Goofy are in charge has prompted a number of politicians and academics to question whether New Zealand should remain in the American-led Five Eyes arrangement.”
China’s warships have recently been in the Tasman Sea conducting live fire exercises – an occurrence we can expect to see repeated in the future. Australian and New Zealand naval vessels sailed through the Taiwan Straits in 2024 making a statement about the freedom of navigation. China has now replied.
New Zealand’s little navy of nine (no make that eight) vessels can do very little. Our ships are not capable enough to muscle up and contest the Tasman Sea, nor could we ask to join the exercises (after all China is not our enemy) – because we probably lack the live ammunition to do so.
We could wake up from our post ANZUS malaise, break with the cadger mentality we have about security, spend actual money on defence, assess what we actually need to secure our economic zone and make an active and innovative contribution alongside likeminded countries to regional security… or we could opt for our usual assumption of remoteness as our safeguard, and pretend that the implications of an economic or military power contest in the Central and South Pacific will not affect us. Only they will.
Read it in the magazine…
New Zealanders generally seem to be taking very little notice of the constant tenor of incidents between Chinese fishing boats, and Chinese coastguard vessels in near collisions in the South China Sea with those of other nations in the region. A Chinese naval station in the Cook Islands and a US militarisation of American Samoa – totally hypothetical at the moment – could fundamentally alter the entire political nature of the South Pacific.
Further north, it is likely a matter of when, not if, mainland China absorbs Taiwan – and most scenarios as to how that will happen involve violence. If that violence is prolonged, a significant number of New Zealand’s sea and air-lanes will be closed by the disruption such a conflict will entail. Live fire exercises had aircraft routes diverted – a war in the Pacific could eliminate them entirely.
The fact that the Mickey Mouse Club appears to have taken over the White House and that Donald and Goofy are in charge has prompted a number of politicians and academics to question whether New Zealand should remain in the American-led Five Eyes arrangement.
Five Eyes is an information sharing organisation involving intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Assessing its value on the facts is difficult because those who have them stay mum. This situation suits politicians and academics who present themselves as wise in their challenge of an institution that does not answer back.
But Five Eyes is not an alliance. It allows its members to share information of mutual interest and provides a framework for acting together in intelligence or law enforcement contexts when their interests coincide. Intelligence assessments we receive may well be through a US lens, but the facts they are based on can be locally reassessed by us and conclusions drawn that meet our needs.
Five Eyes does not bind any country to any policy, and it does not presume concerted action or even agreement on any issue. Moreover, despite its previous informal existence, Five Eyes was born within weeks of a major international falling-out between the US and Britain over the Suez invasion in 1956. Then there was the Vietnam War, which Britain stayed out of; then in mid 1970s Australia broke ranks for a time, and then in 1985 New Zealand did.
But Five Eyes survived, demonstrating its resilience to political tumult. Presidents and Prime Ministers have come and gone, and their nations have squabbled occasionally, but Five Eyes has carried on.
Given the potential for massive change in climate, in economic infrastructure and in geo-political tension in the Pacific, it would be unwise to forgo such a long-standing information source even if it has a pro-US bent.
One alternative would be to pay our own way and develop a fully-fledged external intelligence agency to replace the information we now get for little cost. How likely is that?
Or we go with the critics. We op to fly blind, with seas rising and shifting around us, with major powers probably only a few years from building naval and military bases in the South Pacific, and us taking comfort from the natural blindfold our presumed isolation provides us with.
New Zealand’s security conundrum is not that China is our enemy – China is not; nor is it that the American’s are our friends – because of course they are, just not so much that they did not quickly drop us from ANZUS and exclude us from AUKUS.
Our problem is that the South Pacific is no longer benign, the winds of change are gathering pace and what is beyond the horizon is unclear. The question is – should we look into an uncertain future with Five Eyes? Or no eyes?
Be the first to comment