The NZ Navy, pictured here at Waitangi, welcomed the US Navy back to NZ in 2016. Photo / Michael Craig
There was a time when the Anzus alliance was mentioned by the New Zealand Government only in the past tense, and in the historical context of explaining NZ’s independent foreign policy.
But it seems to be undergoing a revival, with a recent official communique going so far as to suggest it forms the basis of NZ and Australia’s strategic relationship.
“Australia and NZ share close bonds of history and geography, liberal democratic values, regional and global interests and strategic outlook,” began the joint statement of Foreign Minister Winston Peters, Defence Minister Judith Collins and their respective Australian counterparts, Penny Wong and Richard Marles, in February. It continued ...
“Ministers noted the enduring nature of the Anzus Treaty, which continues to underpin the strategic relationship between the two countries, 72 years after it was signed, and formalises the commitments we have to each other as allies.”
That has raised a few eyebrows and former Prime Minister Helen Clark describes it as a “lurch” in foreign policy.
She says it is easy for such shifts to be pushed by officials, and thinks it is connected to building support for NZ’s involvement in pillar two of the 2021 Aukus deal.
“For [Anzus] suddenly to pop up in communiques is extremely odd and I think must be being used as a lever to say, ‘Well, it was always there and we are operating under this auspice’.”
Winston Peters disagrees and stands by the statement as reflecting the relationship.
But the latest official description of Anzus is quite a different construction to how it is has been described before or how it is described on the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) website, which emphasises a later agreement.
MFAT says: “Our two countries had an alliance with the US (ANZUS) that began after World War II and continued until the mid-1980s when our nuclear-free stance prompted the US to suspend its obligations to NZ under the treaty. The end of this alliance saw Australia and NZ embark on the Closer Defence Relations (CDR) in 1991. The CDR spans policy, intelligence and security, logistics, and science and technology agreements and arrangements. The 2011 Review of the Australian/NZ Defence Relationship aimed to further improve co-ordination and identify areas for greater cooperation”.
The Anzus security pact was signed in 1951 between the United States, Australia and NZ.
While the common parlance is that NZ was suspended from Anzus alliance by the United States in 1986 over NZ’s anti-nuclear policies, the official description is that “the United States suspended its obligations to NZ under the Anzus Treaty” - although it resumed naval visits in 2016.
For US Secretary of States George Schultz famously said on the sidelines of a SEATO meeting in Manila on June 27, 1986: “We part company as friends, but we part company as far as the alliance is concerned”.
It has operated as two separate treaties since then, between the United States and Australia, and technically, it remains in force between Australia and NZ. But after the Anzus bust-up, NZ and Australia negotiated a new defence arrangement in 1991, known as Closer Defence Relations.
The 70th anniversary of Anzus in 2021 was marked with great hoopla by Australia and the United States. It was not marked at all by the NZ Government.
Anzus and NZ have been mentioned occasionally by Australia in previous statements but it has been in the following pro forma style: “The formal expression of our alliance and security partnership is found in the 1944 Canberra Pact, Anzus Treaty and through Australia – NZ Closer Defence Relations instigated in 1991”.
The new construction, suggesting it underpins the strategic relationship, elevates its importance in the bilateral relationship.
Helen Clark said the latest description was odd and denied the reality that NZ had effectively been ejected from Anzus and that the Closer Defence Relations agreement had since been negotiated.
“The way they have expressed the Anzus position in that communique is as if the rift never happened,” she told the Herald.
“It’s like status quo ante 1984, 85 and so suddenly it’s back and this becomes a prop on which you can build this further architecture about Aukus pillar two.”
The Aukus deal and the possibility of NZ signing up to pillar two was on the agenda of the meeting between Peters and Collins and Wong and Marles.
Clark said the communique would have been drafted like that by officials who wanted NZ’s involvement but such communiques needed to be “pored over with a political lens”.
“When they represent a pretty public lurch in foreign policy and defence positioning, then one is surprised,” she said. “There are so many other things going on in NZ and the world today that these issues can go under the radar.”
A briefing paper prepared for the ministers ahead of the meeting by MFAT and the Ministry of Defence said Aukus was in NZ’s interests. It described the objective of Aukus as “upholding regional security and stability and buttressing the international rules-based system”
Clark has a different view.
“Aukus is a China containment strategy,” she said.
“This comes back to how does NZ want to engage with traditional friends and with the emerging power on the block in the broader neighbourhood which we, like the rest of the world, have a very substantial economic relationship.
“But if your country is substantially shifting its foreign policy and defence positioning, that needs to be a matter for public debate.”
Asked to comment on why the recent communique had upgraded the emphasis on Anzus, Winston Peters said NZ did not consider it did so.
Rather, it was an accurate representation of the agreed view of all four Ministers at the 2+2 meeting.
“NZ and Australia have a deep history of military co-operation, supporting peace and stability, both globally and in our Pacific region.
“Anzus is long-standing and remains in force between NZ and Australia and, as the communique makes clear, continues to underpin the strategic relationship between the two countries, 72 years after it was signed.
“The more granular dimensions of our defence and security relationship with Australia are seen in the Close Defence Relations agreements,” Peters said.
“We simply acknowledged in our joint communique that reality.”
Peters is travelling to Europe over Easter for a meeting in Brussels of Nato foreign ministers (NZ is a Nato partner) and then visits Sweden, Poland and Egypt.
He said in a separate statement: “Since taking office late last year, the Coalition Government has emphasised the importance we place on NZ’s traditional security partners.”
“NZ can only protect and advance our interests by working with traditional partners with whom we have a shared strategic assessment of the challenges the world faces. This visit, including through my attendance at the Nato foreign ministers meeting, will progress those traditional partnerships.”
The Anzus Treaty was signed in 1951 two years after the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) to which the United States also belongs, although the obligations were not of the same order.
Whereas members of Nato must treat an attack on one as an attack on all, under Anzus article four: “Each Party recognises that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes”.
Aukus is different again. It is primarily a deal to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines with help from the US and the UK as a response to China’s vast naval expansion. The second pillar of Aukus is about more broadly sharing advances in military technology with countries such as Canada and NZ.
Expectations tempered around return to surplus in 2027/28.