New Zealand’s split from Five Eyes shows geostrategic nous

Reports of New Zealand’s break with Five Eyes have been greatly exaggerated. The intelligence gathering alliance will survive the country’s recent refusal to sign a joint statement condemning China’s treatment of its Uyghur population. It may even serve as a reminder for the network to focus on intelligence and not assume that all five countries will announce co-ordinated foreign policy positions.

Five Eyes was born out of the 1946 UK/USA Agreement to share intelligence and grew to include Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It was a vital tool for the Western world during the Cold War, then refocussed on international terrorism after 9/11, and in recent years has turned again to monitoring Russia and China.

Last year the five agreed they would expand the network’s role to “advance their shared values of democracy, freedom and respect for human rights”. A statement was issued criticising China for its crackdown in Hong Kong. Beijing was unhappy and in a direct swipe at Five Eyes said that “they should be careful lest their eyes be poked blind.” Already furious with Australia for daring to call for an international inquiry into the origins of Covid-19, China continued to punish Canberra with a series of punitive trade sanctions, but trade with NZ increased. Then, this spring, when a nervous NZ was asked to sign the statement on the Uyghurs, it demurred.

Chinese state media was not subtle in its delight at “driving a wedge” in the alliance and the payback it had dished out. Articles made it clear that NZ’s decision would help it secure a “stronger economic recovery” and that “maintaining a healthy cooperative relationship with China, which has a massive market…will yield concrete benefits to New Zealand.” 

Economics may indeed have played a role in the decision, but there was more to it which is why earlier this week former NZ prime minister  Helen Clark hit out at what she described as “uninformed and highly slanted commentary aired in sections of the United Kingdom and Australian press” that NZ was turning its back on allies – it was “a slur and should be denounced as such”.

Speculation that the alliance is in trouble was wide of the mark. The NZ decision was rooted in three connected factors.

The first is basic economics and trade, the second is the luxury of being less strategically important than the other four countries in the network and so less subject to overt pressure from the Americans. By far the senior partner in Five Eyes is the US, but for decades NZ has shown a greater degree of independence from Washington than has Australia. For example, in the 1980s it announced it would not allow US warships with nuclear weapons to enter NZ ports. Not signing the Five Eyes statement was another way to demonstrate it has the self-confidence not to follow the other four on every issue, and that it can forge its own economic relationship with its largest trading partner.  

But that confidence is built on a geographic factor. Both Australia and NZ need the Americans to safeguard the Pacific sea lanes which are vital to their survival. The price for that is being an American ally – this is partially why Australia and NZ troops have been alongside the US in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. However, NZ has more wiggle room than Australia as a look at the map tells you – between New Zealand and China lies Australia and Australia’s best friend is America. So, while Australia has clearly bet on the Americans in their growing competition with China in the Indo-Pacific, NZ can wait a few more years before having to commit and show a completely united front on policy. Of course, it may eventually try to choose the path of non-alignment, and that would possibly break the alliance, but that is not the direction of travel.

Evidence for that was seen this week at the China Business Summit held in Auckland. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern acknowledged that differences with China are becoming “harder to reconcile”. There were issues “on which China and New Zealand do not, cannot, and will not agree” and then came the most interesting line: “Managing the relationship is not always going to be easy and there can be no guarantees.”

She didn’t spell it out but that seems like a recognition of the probability of having to make hard choices in the years ahead. If history and geography are guides, and the choice has to be made, it will likely be to remain a strong ally within the family of democratic nations.

And that brings us to the D10. The, still somewhat nebulous, idea of a group of 10 robust, industrialised democracies binding together is gaining traction in a world which has seen the rise of populist demagogues. Ten is an arbitrary figure – it could be 12, or even 20. They include the G7, India, South Korea and Australia. If the idea becomes real, the Five Eyes alliance will be a keystone in its structure.

If it fails to become reality, Five Eyes will not have lost its role. The traditional challenges of spotting troop movements, tracking ships, and infiltrating groups are still vital, and the intelligence services now must deal with internet disinformation campaigns and cyber warfare. They must train to meet the demands of big data, and decide on the budgetary priorities – drones, people, languages, tech.

Five Eyes – the most successful intelligence community in the world – will continue to share what it learns with its members, including New Zealand.