Comment: Recently, I’ve taken note of the heated discussion over whether New Zealand should join AUKUS Pillar II.
Like many other peace-loving countries in the region, China has grave concerns over any attempt to enlarge and upgrade the AUKUS defence cooperation.
Here are the reasons behind our position and some of my observations:
First, the nuclear-related cooperation under AUKUS entails high risks of nuclear proliferation in the region. Here is a simple comparison for you to capture and calculate the risks. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) capped Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium at 300 kilograms of uranium gas enriched to 3.67% purity. However, the AUKUS deal involves the transfer of tonnes of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium of over 90% purity from the US and the UK to Australia. The nuclear proliferation risk is only too obvious and may bring unimaginable derivative risks to regional countries.
Second, such nuclear-related cooperation runs counter to the letter and spirit of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and undermines the international legal system. According to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), non-nuclear states are only entitled to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes under mandatory supervision and safeguards. Transfer of nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS is the first time in history that two nuclear weapon states are trying to transfer tonnes of nuclear weapon materials to a non-nuclear state overtly and directly, which clearly contravenes the object and purpose of the NPT. It will set an egregious precedent and will have a negative impact on the resolution of regional nuclear hotspot issues and may eventually lead to the collapse of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, to which New Zealand is a lead promoter, firm protector and major contributor.
Third, it will sabotage the efforts of regional countries to build a nuclear-free zone and undermine regional prosperity and stability. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga) and the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Treaty of Bangkok) reflect the common aspiration of the people in the region, which ought to be valued and observed by other countries. As a major member of the region, Australia’s participation in AUKUS makes the Treaty of Rarotonga it has signed up to a mere scrap of paper, which has aroused concern or even opposition in the region. The US and UK have failed to contribute to the building of a nuclear-free region in South East Asia and the Pacific. Instead, they have been trying to transfer military nuclear technology and provide highly enriched uranium materials to the region under various pretexts.
Fourth, voices claiming that Pillar II is not violating the NPT requirements neglected the interlinks between the two Pillars. The sole purpose for Pillar II is to support and serve Pillar I, either financially or technologically. And if you read carefully the latest announcement by the AUKUS members, you’ll easily find that one critical reason to invite more participants is to consolidate the dominance of a certain country in the “Indo-Pacific” and shift and spread the exorbitant cost.
Last but not least, this move, driven by the Cold War mentality, might induce a new round of the arms race and lead to increased tension in the region and beyond. It will upset the strategic balance in the region and constitute a new material threat to its countries. With this, we cannot rule out the possibility that other countries may follow suit to wage a new round of the arms race or even try to cross the nuclear threshold.
Besides, AUKUS has been slated as a setup targeted at China, as evidenced by the blatant remarks by the US State Department’s No.2 diplomat suggesting AUKUS submarines could be used in situations in relation to Taiwan, which may increase regional tensions, provoke rivalry and usher in geopolitical zero-sum games in the region, casting a long shadow over the region’s peace, stability, and development.
I have taken note of some objective and rational observations in the discussion of AUKUS here in New Zealand, deeming that participation in Pillar II would compromise New Zealand’s ability to maintain a principled, independent voice. For both China and New Zealand and other countries, an independent foreign policy with a peaceful vision serves best its interest. Joining a small circle established upon Cold War mentality and imaginary enemies will never make one country or the region safer; neither will making dependent choices under the excuse of “independence”.
Last month, during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to New Zealand, he said that both China and New Zealand are participants and builders of the existing international system and order, and have a broad consensus on promoting equality among all countries, big or small, multilateralism, greater democracy in international relations and free trade. China has always respected the traditional links of New Zealand in the region and looks forward to working with New Zealand to build up peace and prosperity in the Pacific. We might take different approaches to achieve the common vision, but obviously AUKUS fits into neither.
For our part, China will continue to join hands with all peace-loving countries to build an equal and orderly multipolar world and promote a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalisation so as to build a community with a shared future for mankind. In this process, we look forward to working with New Zealand in the same direction, to ensure that the healthy development of China-New Zealand relations continue to be a factor of certainty and stability in the region and the wider world.
I used to be responsible for a CEO of a subsidiary within the public company I was in charge of. He was an Australian named Bob, and he had brought this company back from the edge of disaster over a number of years of sheer hard work. Bob wasn’t always politically correct. One of his colleagues, a high performing Māori CEO of a much smaller sister company, once told me “ when Bob speaks, I listen hard “.
Thank you, Wang Xiaolong
It would be easier to trust in China’s peaceful intentions and commitment to regional stability if it were not building new islands to extend its territorial reach, attacking Philippine supply vessels with water cannons, seemingly preparing to invade Taiwan, and supplying Russia with ammunition to pursue its war against Ukraine.
The bigger worry is that half of America think Trump is wonderful. That alone should give us considerable pause for thought. Do we really need to tie ourselves to a nation that swoons over such an obviously corrupt narcissist.
On the other hand it would be nice to see China practice what it preaches – it is openly belligerent to its neighbours, repressive to its own people, and is building nuclear weapons and expanding its military at an unprecedented rate. Meanwhile backing Russia’s unjustifiable invasion of its neighbour, Ukraine. That also should be giving us pause for thought.
China is very much echoing Germany’s rise before WW2 and I wonder if the recent friendliness between Xi and Putin is not an echo the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact prior to WW2 – China needs Russia’s energy resources (and land and minerals) – it doesn’t need Russia. For all that China’s leadership appears to have a better idea of, and a better plan for where the 21st Century is heading than the leaders of the democratic west. That may work out to be to our detriment.
The world is very complex and it is easy to pick holes in all nations, especially from afar. As Winston says, we need to work with the world as it is, and we can only do that if we know countries intimately. Such knowledge comes best from close, constructive relationships, cooperating with as many countries as we can. That needs to be the basis of our foreign policy.