Terence O'Brien on Five Eyes; Trumpian Convulsions, & Tit for Tat

What lessons for New Zealand with the latest Trumpian exchanges with Europe? Engage but Draw Lines says Helen Clark.

Some excerpts from works by Terence O’Brien on current topics:

From his memoir Consolations of Insignificance on Five Eyes:

• Reconfiguration of American national security policy after the shock of 9/11 produced even greater concentration of security and intelligence policymaking around the executive in the White House. Diplomacy was, to most intents and purposes, pigeonholed, and Washington encouraged friends and allies to reconfigure accordingly. Although not a formal American ally, New Zealand officials were clearly influenced by the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence-sharing arrangement with the US, UK, Canada and Australia, and New Zealand political and security policymaking gravitated towards the Prime Minister’s Office. As the only Five Eyes partner with no hard power, however, any pigeonholing of New Zealand’s diplomacy would clearly be self defeating. It is not sufficient after all that New Zealand relies internationally upon the limiting strictures of ‘balance of power’ thinking, which traditionally influences security/intelligence specialists, but which narrows the foundations for well rounded appreciation of external change.

• If New Zealand opts to remain in Five Eyes it should do so only on the basis that, at the bottom line, intelligence does not make foreign policy, it serves foreign policy; although in the case of the US, and of Australia, intelligence plainly carries the greater weight and has even (as witnessed in the 2004 attack on Iraq) been expediently concocted in ways to justify war. Five Eyes is not a formal alliance treaty; it is an expedient arrangement between intelligence agencies to exchange information. At times of intense rivalry between the great powers it should be no surprise that information shared by the US, given its robust rivalry with China, should reflect its compulsive priority. In those circumstances New Zealand should commit formally as well to widen exchanges of intelligence with Asia-Pacific partners.

From various speeches, mentions of Five Eyes:

• The vehicle chosen by Washington and London to anchor and coordinate the enhanced intelligence system internationally directly involves NZ - through the so-called ‘Five Eyes” intelligence sharing arrangement between the Five Anglo Saxon democracies. NZ is by far the junior participant and, uniquely, the only one effectively with no hard power

• NZ’s place as a small partner in a long established intelligence sharing arrangement (Five Eyes) with a select band of powerful English speaking countries, led by the US, links this country to this all pervasive surveillance system confined as it is to an exclusive few. The relevance of such exclusiveness to this country’s 21st century needs merits ongoing reassessment in the face of truly pervasive change in global affairs. NZ’s interests are emphatically multidirectional when compared to the context when Five Eyes exclusiveness was first conceived in the mid 20th century.

Terence O’Brien at Diplosphere on New Zealand, Australia, and China: A False Choice? | Diplosphere | Terence O'Brien (2021)

• International circumstances today are quite different but overtones of 20th century Cold War demonisation are clearly evident. Historians now agree that Cold War tensions were driven by exaggerated rhetoric about capabilities and intent, so as to justify stupendous military budgets and forward deployments. Absolute US military superiority as a result endures. The South China Sea (SCS) is a source of special tension involving too competing regional sovereignty claims. China retains interest in freedom of commercial navigation given its vital reliance on seaborne trade, but opposes free military navigation in its maritime approaches. The US strongly asserts that right. The choice here for NZ and for others, is a delicate one. Like NZ, China has ratified the UN Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ; the US has not

You can see his speech here (his last):

---

Extraordinary Scenes in the Whitehouse Oval Office, Europeans Gloomily React

• Last week saw quite extraordinary scenes in the US Oval Office as an argument between Zelensky, Trump and JD Vance - Ukrainian President, US President, and US VP respectively - aired in full view. Whatever one may think of rights and wrongs: whether Zelensky was bullied or that Zelensky should have , etc. etc. the moment, unscripted, transparent, was extraordinary television drama. The reaction worldwide was disbelief especially in Europe where leaders lit up Twitter/X with messages of solidarity and support for Ukraine. Zelensky was soon warmly embraced at 10 Downing Street by UK PM Keir Starmer. Illusions that European leaders may have held of being adept at steering the US president via “Tump whispering” may fast be dispelled. Was this a line being drawn in the sand? It certainly looks like US materiel support for Ukraine will dramatically decrease, even NATO itself is being questioned. Certainly Europeans leaders are planning for such eventualities, but is there much they can do? The US provides the majority of funding.

• International Relations professor John J. Mearsheimer reacted soon afterwards. Mearsheimer has been remarkably consistent for over a decade about mistakes made by the US, NATO, and Europe which provoked led up to Russias invasion of Ukraine. We are certainly in a new era. Mearsheimer describes Biden as fundamentally a warmonger in his drive to continue the war. For background, the Nyet means Nyet diplomatic cable memo (2008) by US Ambassador Burns is useful.

---

Tit-for-Tat with China, Europe and Ukraine react to Trump, Four Eyes & a Wink

Helen Clark was on TVNZ’s Q&A this week:

• The US security blanket for Europe has been withdrawn, a new security architecture for Europe is required, and after the JD Vance Munich Security Conference speech which caused a European uproar, first steps towards an alternative to NATO or parallel body are underway. The net net is defense budgets are set to rise in response to the uncertainty, and (3% of GDP mooted in the UK) but this will come at a cost, not only of aid budgets, but also domestic budget. There must be a better way than a new arms race. During the Cold War steps were taken to deescalate tensions and set rules of engagement between the two superpowers. Now there are three.

  • (ed) What is NATO’s purpose post-Cold War and do security bloc aggravate or lessen tensions? On the one hand collective defense provides collective defense, on the other it may in fact escalate matters by being perceived as offensive.

• Aid cuts are happening across the board and will cause more starvation and despair and may sow the seeds of future conflict.

• Ships Tit-for-Tat: The Chinese ships in the Tasman Sea can be seen as a tit-for-tat response to Australia and New Zealand sending ships through the Taiwan Strait in the name of freedom of navigation. Though China was within its rights, the live fire exercises were a snub and FM Winston Peters rightly raised the issue on his recent visit, alongside the Cook Island agreement signed with China.

• On Five Eyes: a rethink is necessary, it should be dialled back to its original purpose of a discrete information sharing agreement rather than a coordination mechanism for foreign policy. Intelligence is the servant of foreign policy, not its master (Dulles).

---

Diplosphere’s interview with Helen Clark in Oct 2024 -