No, it doesn’t mean New Zealand is getting nuclear-powered submarines. But experts say the second pillar of AUKUS would still blur the country’s “no nukes” security brand.
Australia will soon be sending officials to New Zealand to brief the Government on the second pillar of the AUKUS agreement.
That announcement followed a trans-Tasman meeting between Australia and New Zealand’s Defence Ministers and Foreign Ministers yesterday.
What does that all mean?
Firstly, what even is AUKUS?
It’s time to breakdown the defence partnership that New Zealand’s not part of. (Source: 1News)
AUKUS is a strategic defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The pact centres on the Indo-Pacific region. Experts say it aims to combat China’s military expansion in the area.
Formed in 2021, the AUKUS deal has two pillars.
The first pillar focuses on acquiring and developing eight nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed) submarines for Australia’s defence forces.
Unlike their diesel-electric counterparts, nuclear-powered submarines can stay under water for weeks at a time, better avoiding detection.
New Zealand has not been involved in AUKUS because of its nuclear-free policy.
Last year, then-Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines would not be welcome in New Zealand waters.
What is the second pillar of AUKUS?
Pillar two is about sharing advanced technology, like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. The technology could also include drones or support systems for hypersonic weapons.
It is this part of the AUKUS pact that Australian officials will brief the New Zealand Government about.
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles said the three AUKUS countries were “open to the idea of pillar two being open to other countries who may be interested”.
But New Zealand needs to work out what it could add to the agreement, Defence Minister Judith Collins said in Melbourne yesterday.
"We have quite an active space industry and also technology sector which is involved with providing assistance to quite a few countries in terms of their defence areas but also in terms of telecommunications and other areas," she said.
The ministers at yesterday’s trans-Tasman meeting said their talks were taking place against a backdrop of "the most challenging strategic environment in decades".
What might this mean for New Zealand?
The second pillar of AUKUS would basically give New Zealand access to cutting-edge defence technology, international relations expert Robert Patman told 1News.
“[But] it would somewhat blur our commitment to non-nuclear security globally, which has been our brand.”
New Zealand joining the AUKUS pact could also lead to other issues.
Patman said it could impact the country’s relationship with China.
China did not welcome the AUKUS security pact when it was unveiled. At the time, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said: “We urge Britain, Australia and the United States to abandon the Cold War mentality and zero-sum game.”
Robert Patman from Otago University explains the significance of the foreign affairs talks in Melbourne. (Source: Breakfast)
Patman said China makes a big distinction between New Zealand and Australia.
"Being part of AUKUS might erode the perception that we're a country that's based on principle and values,” he said.
"There is a perception and at least China would take this view that if we joined AUKUS, then they would see that as an erosion of what New Zealand claims is an independent foreign policy."
Pacific leaders have also previously criticised Australia’s involvement in AUKUS, Patman said, which could translate to New Zealand if it began aligning more closely with traditional partners like the US.
Patman told Breakfast today the Government has a balancing act on its hands.
"Politics is often about choices between the disagreeable and the intolerable. There are very few painless options available,” he said.
“One of the benefits on offer there is access to cutting-edge defence technology, but the Government has to weigh that up carefully against some of the potential pitfalls. That's going to be an exercise in political judgement."
SHARE ME