Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, flanked by former Prime Minister Helen Clark and Labour MP David Parker. Photo / Mark Mitchell
A former Australian Foreign Minister has blasted pillar 2 of the Aukus pact as “pure bull****”.
Bob Carr, a former Premier of New South Wales and Foreign Minister in the Labor Government led by Julia Gillard, was visiting Wellington as part of a conference on Aukus organised by the New Zealand Labour Party.
Aukus is primarily about the United States and the United Kingdom delivering nuclear-powered submarines to Australia. However, the second pillar of the deal would involve sharing non-nuclear advanced technology like quantum computing, artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles and cyber warfare.
US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell has made encouraging noises about New Zealand joining up to that part of the deal and last week the Aukus partners said they were open to letting Japan join. South Korea and Canada have also been floated as potential members.
Carr told today’s conference that pillar 2 of the deal was “fragrant, methane-wrapped bull**** ...”.
“Why do I call it bull****? Because it’s been cobbled together to make it look like there’s more to Aukus than subs – there isn’t,” Carr said.
Carr was joined by former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, and former Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga, and Otago University Professor Robert Patman.
He was critical of pillar 1 of the deal too, noting that it was one of the largest offshore transfers of Australian wealth in history, as much as AU$368 billion (NZ$400b) at this stage, far more than the AU$90b (NZ$97b) cost of the French-built submarines which were cancelled to make room for Aukus.
American submarines will be leant to Australia while it waits for British-built Aukus submarines to be built and delivered.
He was concerned the deal was an erosion of Australian sovereignty because the United States, which is itself worried about not having enough submarines, would not allow its own to be loaned to Australia unless it was confident Australia would use them in line with its interests.
If Australia and the United States parted ways during the decades-long wait for Aukus to come to fruition, Australia might be left without any submarine capacity at all, the first time since the early 1960s that Australia has not had submarine capacity.
“You should be aware that Aukus is shaping up to leave Australia less well defended – quite possibly for the first time since the 1960s without a sovereign sub capacity,” he said.
The sovereignty argument was given a boost recently with Campbell saying the submarines would further American ambitions in the Taiwan Strait, where the self-governing Island of Taiwan faces the threat of a Chinese invasion.
Campbell said the deal would “have enormous implications in a variety of scenarios, including in cross-strait circumstances”.
“I would argue that working closely with other nations, not just diplomatically but in defence avenues, has the consequence of strengthening peace and stability more generally,” he added.
Clark, who has become one of Aukus’ most strident domestic critics, said the Government’s decision to explore signing up to pillar 2 of the scheme was the latest in a “slippage” from New Zealand’s truly independent foreign policy.
She noted that when she was Prime Minister the existence of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network went unacknowledged. Now it is the basis for joint statements on foreign affairs and co-operation between anglophone countries on things like finance. She said heading further down that road risked aligning the country with one power against another.
“The slippage in the independent foreign policy is not something that happened in a statement out of Washington DC last week it has been something that has eroded for some time,” she said, referencing a warm joint statement from NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters and US State Secretary Antony Blinken.
She said New Zealand had always balanced interests and values and noted that countries and blocs that shared New Zealand’s democratic values, like the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and India, had very rarely opened themselves up to trading with New Zealand.
“We seem to focus a lot on shared values, but we have shared interests,” Clark said, warning there was a “risk of dividing into values camps”.
“In my opinion, every effort must be made to stop history repeating itself. I think New Zealand should be a voice for deescalating tensions,” she said.
Peters will next month deliver a major foreign policy speech outlining how he sees Aukus and the Government’s position on it. So far, the Government has been keen to emphasise that officially, there is no change in position between this Government and the last on Aukus, both are open to exploring it.
It is clear that while officially, the positions have been the same, behind the scenes Labour was quite sceptical and the new Government more forward-leaning, a fact acknowledged by some observers and some in the Government.
Former Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta sounded very sceptical in a recent episode of RNZ’s Mata.
“We can join small and medium-sized nations to explore the potential of quantum technology of AI of tech-enhanced equipment for security purposes,” she said.
“We need to explore our regional interests in Southeast Asia and recognise that there is a significant shift of global south states to align themselves in other areas other than security and defence, and we need to understand that landscape because it will have a consequent influence on what happens within our part of the world,” she said.
There appears to be little room between National and NZ First on the issue. Despite some public angst that Peters is dragging Luxon towards Washington, Peters’ major foreign affairs statements, speeches, and statements have been made with Cabinet approval and the input of MFAT.
Peters is himself of the view that the Government must listen more to the neighbourhood and is feted in the Pacific. Peters was the architect of the Pacific Reset in Labour’s first term, he is much more forward-leaning when it comes to listening to traditional partners and large powers too.
His recent joint statement with Blinken echoed language Peters used in Australia that state Aukus is a good thing for peace – something strongly disputed by China. The statement argued that Aukus contributes to “peace, security, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific”.
The foreign policy, defence, and business establishments in Wellington are keenly debating pros and cons.
Pillar 2 will not be free. While the cost is unlikely to be anything like the $400b required to buy nuclear submarines, the debate in Japan at the moment is around the cost of participation.
Clark also hinted that participation might also see New Zealand being dragged into spending more on defence against its wishes.
Carr said the deal is being viewed as a massive win for the American and British defence industries at the expense of the Australian taxpayer.
But there are benefits for New Zealand too. Labour in New Zealand has argued there is nothing to be gained from Aukus Pillar 2 that cannot be acquired through Five Eyes or other co-operative arrangements New Zealand has with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia.
But this appears not to be the case, with a key plank of Aukus being the lifting of barriers on the sharing of sensitive technology and allowing the partners to acquire sensitive technology from one another. That could be significant for New Zealand’s growing high tech and space industry – it could also be a big problem if those industries are left out of anything approximating a trade bloc.
That frustrates some New Zealand policymakers, who are at the end of their tether with the United States on trade, after its decades of isolation and last-minute reneging on the TPP.
One thing New Zealand has little clarity on is whether the three Aukus partners actually want New Zealand to join in the first place. So far, there is no official process for signing up. There has been some speculation that the three partners are not all equally enthusiastic when it comes to welcoming other countries to the club.
The United States appears keen to use the deal to make friends, while the Australians want to ensure their easily distracted partners remain focused on delivering the promised submarines.
Thomas Coughlan is Deputy Political Editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the press gallery since 2018.
Labour wants the Govt to denounce the US attack as a breach of international law.