Aotearoa New Zealand appears to be entering into a new elevated partnership with Nato.
It is worth considering what this means for our country and why there may be reason for concern, particularly when it comes to our anti-nuclear stance.
During his trip through Europe in early April, Foreign Minister Winston Peters travelled to Belgium to attend the Nato summit. While there, he declared that New Zealand would "do its part" in the conflict in Ukraine. He added that work was progressing towards a new deal with Nato called an "Individually Tailored Partnership Programme".
On the surface, a closer partnership with Nato seems a safe bet.
Siding with the states that comprise Nato and taking advantage of the security protection afforded through this partnership does benefit our small country.
Peters is also not wrong that the conflict in Ukraine has major implications for global security. And beyond Ukraine, there are undeniably threats in the world that we must face.
Many of these threats do not respect territory and can cross oceans, such as violent extremism and digital warfare. New Zealand would be wise to strategically position itself and offer what resources it can to secure useful alliances.
However, while we don’t offer much in return to an alliance like Nato, gratefulness for the opportunity to benefit from Nato’s security umbrella should not mean ignoring the makeup of that umbrella.
Nato was founded in 1949 by the United States, Canada and 10 European states in the wake of World War 2. It was an attempt to formalise North America’s support for the rebuilding of Europe both politically and with infrastructure.
Membership was historically restricted to states within the North Atlantic region. More recently, the alliance has expanded to pursue more international partnerships.
New Zealand is one such partner. We have been engaged with Nato since 2001, and in 2012 this was formalised through the "Individual Partnership and Co-operation Programme".
Our defence force was deployed to Afghanistan as part of the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which ended in December 2014. Then from 2015 to 2021, defence force personnel trained and advised Afghan security forces. New Zealand has also been involved in several other Nato-led missions worldwide.
In 2019, then-prime minister Jacinda Ardern and Nato Secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg met to discuss New Zealand’s engagement with Nato3. At the time Ardern commented that, despite the distance, New Zealand and Nato are connected by both a close partnership and shared values.
In the words of Ardern, these include "respect for democratic freedoms and human rights and a commitment to upholding the rules-based international order".
During the same conference, Ardern and Stoltenberg announced that New Zealand would engage with Nato in Afghanistan on a Women, Peace and Security project — concluded due to the Taliban takeover in 2021.
Separate from the current subject but telling in terms of how much confidence we put in the direction and strategy of Nato are the words of Stoltenberg seen in the light of the dramatic shifts in Afghanistan. At the time, he stated that "[Nato] now see a real chance for peace in Afghanistan" and that "a peace deal was closer than ever before".
Of course, few could have predicted the events in Afghanistan in 2021. But if we do not reflect on these events and what they may tell us about Nato strategy, we do ourselves a disservice.
Our country prides itself on international recognition for punching above our weight and standing up for what we believe in. We must ask ourselves if further entrenching ourselves with Nato, an alliance heavily influenced by US foreign policy, will not present moments that conflict with these values.
One value is particularly critical when it comes to partnership with Nato: nuclear-free.
Nato is a self-declared nuclear alliance. It justifies this position through an oppositional explanation — that Nato will be armed as long as antagonising states are. It is also very clear on its position against the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, saying, "we reiterate that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons [TPNW] stands in opposition to and is inconsistent and incompatible with the Alliance’s nuclear deterrence policy".
New Zealand, on the other hand, has a decades-long anti-nuclear history. We joined the TPNW in June 2017, ratifying it domestically the following year.
In fact, it was Peters who spoke in support of this Treaty in May 2018 as the then-Minister for Disarmament: "joining the Treaty [on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons] is a logical step ... New Zealand’s ratification of the Treaty expresses New Zealand’s abiding commitment to a nuclear weapon-free world".
Interestingly, this same treaty is not listed on the disarmament page of MFAT’s website at present, though it is covered in a case study.
Some would argue that our status as a non-member is symbolic of our anti-nuclear position — that we would never join Nato fully given this position.
But when considering the increasing prioritisation Nato has on partnerships, and that partners engage with Nato in a variety of ways, a partnership with Nato should be viewed as an expression of allyship — just with fewer rights or status than a member.
So if the question is whether we need to pay closer attention to New Zealand’s drawing closer to Nato and what implications this may have for our independence and nuclear-free leadership, the answer seems clear.
- Jess Timings is a University of Otago master’s of peace and conflict studies student.
