In military intelligence circles, “Five Eyes” (Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and The United States) is a special club. In a business where people really don’t like sharing what they know, outside of war, the “Five Eyes” nations have an incredibly integrated intelligence sharing agreement.
Our nations share a common heritage and culture derived from and including the Mother Country. With the exception of a rather unpleasant family spat in the late 18th and early 20th Century, we have fought and died by each other’s side for over a century. Minus the USA, the other four have always fought together. The “Five Eyes” arrangement was born of the post-WWII experience and only solidified the connection a common language and foundation culture brings.
We are not always in full alignment. The USA was late to the party in WWI and WWII, but that was before we were really as close as we are now. We all fought together in Korea, Iraq (light New Zealand and Australian footprint) and Afghanistan (light New Zealand footprint). While Great Britain skipped Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand were in the fight.
Since the Vietnam War, if you were to pick the least militarily reliable of the “Five Eyes,” it would be New Zealand.
While much of their hesitancy can be best explained by budget politics and the comfort of being in an isolated part of the globe, there is more there that may be best explained by a political psychologist.
In college in the mid-80s I wrote a paper for one of my classes titled, “The Kiwi that Roared” about the impact of New Zealand effectively banning American warships from its ports. (We refused to confirm or deny if they were carrying nukes). In an early lesson for me, I only got a “B” on the paper because I did not write for my audience; my professor was an anti-nuke activist and I argued the other position. She basically told me, “Your paper is well researched and sound, but your conclusions are wrong.”
Back to New Zealand. Though there were all sorts of the usual anti-nuke 1980s gibberish, it was clear at the time that what New Zealand really wanted was to be off the targeting list. It is hard to appreciate in 2021, but in the mid-80s there was a palatable fear in many circles that we were always just a few days away from global nuclear war. I always saw their ban as a squishy hedge. The honor of being part of a solid front was not as important as decreasing the odds that some Echo II might wander their way the first week of the war and deliver a few warheads on the secondary target list.
As history has shown, they were just useful idiots of the Soviets;
I should find my old professor and ask for a re-grade, but perhaps best to hold on to my persecution complex instead.
And so we find ourselves in 2021 with another rising power to challenge the Anglosphere and her friends – of which “Five Eyes” is the core … and what do we have?
New Zealand expressed support for its Five Eyes alliance with Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States, calling it a “vital security and intelligence partnership”, a day after saying it didn’t support broadening the group’s role.
Following a speech on China on Monday, Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta said New Zealand was “uncomfortable” with expanding the remit of the Five Eyes, raising speculation that Wellington didn’t back recent Five Eyes statements critical of Beijing. read more
China, New Zealand’s largest trading partner, has accused the Five Eyes of ganging up on China by issuing statements on Hong Kong and the treatment of ethnic Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang.
Though on occasion nations simply do the right thing, often nations make decisions for a variety of reasons; emotion, pride, obligation, adventurism, economics, or simple self-interest.
Why is New Zealand making such a transparent effort to curry favor with the Communist Chinese government as opposed to standing with her long-standing friends over something very much in line with the very best Anglosphere core concern – human rights? Is this another example of their political ruling class weakly allowing themselves to be bent to a bully’s will?
Hard to say, but if past is prologue, I think this is more of New Zealand hedging. They know if things really get rough, that Great Britain, Australia, and The United States would unquestionably come to her aid. They have no real risk there … so why not hedge a bit to curry favor with what will unquestionably (in their mind) be the premier Pacific power of the rest of this century, and make a little more money in the process.
It doesn’t look good, but there it is.
What is next? Expect China to try to build on success with New Zealand by putting additional pressure on Australia. That is who New Zealand is really hurting here, Australia. The Australians have spent the last year standing strong against Chinese diplomatic and economic bullying. To have New Zealand give them such a cheap victory at this juncture is if not a stab in the back, the if nothing else, is negative help.
The rest of “Five Eyes” will just have to work harder … and give the stink-eye to the Kiwis.
