In brief
- AUKUS is a strategic alliance between Australia, the UK, and the US focused on security in the Indo-Pacific.
- While Pillar 1 deals with nuclear submarines, Pillar 2 focuses on advanced technologies like AI, quantum computing, and cyber capabilities.
- Arguments for joining include strategic geopolitical positioning and economic and technological opportunities.
- Critics argue joining could compromise political non-alignment and could risk conflict with China.
What is AUKUS Pillar 2?
AUKUS is the strategic partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, which aims to strengthen security and defence ties in the Indo-Pacific region.
AUKUS Pillar 1 focuses mostly on the alliance’s nuclear submarine capabilities, but this is not in the cards for NZ partly due to its long standing non-nuclear policy.
AUKUS Pillar 2 focuses on the development and sharing of advanced technologies between the member nations. This includes areas such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, cyber capabilities, hypersonic technologies, and undersea technology.
Note that Centrist is not advocating either for or against, merely presenting some of the arguments.
Arguments for joining AUKUS Pillar 2
New Zealand’s strategic position in the Pacific plays a key role in regional stability. Advocates for joining Pillar 2 argue that strategic alliances are needed for maintaining this security.
Historically, AUKUS represents the post-World-War II international order, with which New Zealand has been traditionally aligned. NZ is already part of ‘Five Eyes’, for example.
If New Zealand stays out of AUKUS, some believe it risks isolating itself politically at a time when collective security may be a better option in the face of growing US-China tensions.
Joining AUKUS may boost the economy. Defence Minister Judith Collins has said that AUKUS could benefit New Zealand’s research community and industry alongside the tech and space sectors.
Sian Troath, a postdoctoral fellow in Political Science and International Relations, notes that AUKUS presents opportunities for collaboration on advanced technologies. Troath writes that research and development are essential for economic growth, but New Zealand under invests in these areas.
Arguments against joining AUKUS: Historical non-alignment and independent foreign policy
Critics argue that joining AUKUS would compromise New Zealand’s independent foreign policy.
Don Brash and Helen Clark have argued for more public discussion before making any decisions, which could align New Zealand against its largest trading partner, China.
New Zealand has a history of non-alignment and independent decision-making in its foreign policy. The nuclear-free policy and the decision to leave ANZUS are examples of New Zealand prioritising its principles over alliance pressures.
Chris Trotter points out, “New Zealand’s elites have historically resisted aligning too closely with major powers, maintaining a stance of relative independence.”
Joining AUKUS could drag New Zealand into military conflicts that are not in its national interest.
Hugh White, an Australian defence expert, cautions against joining AUKUS, noting, “I think the danger is that committing ourselves to AUKUS, even just as a Pillar Two, is seen by the United States as a clear statement of support for the American approach, which is basically to try and keep China in a box.”
Brash contends, “Any New Zealand involvement would presumably also be premised on the need to defend the country against purported Chinese aggression.”
Brash warns against the dangers of becoming involved in the US-China power struggle, which is more about dominance than shared values. He notes, “US military adventures have been disasters, both for the US and for the countries directly involved.”
Alternative models of engagement
Singapore maintains strong diplomatic and economic ties with both the US and China without formal military alliances. Brash asks, “Why wouldn’t that work for New Zealand?”
