While Nanaia Mahuta’s comments about the Five Eyes furore make waves at home and abroad, a lesser-known five-state grouping that includes NZ is marking its 50th anniversary
With New Zealand’s lack of military firepower well-established, it is perhaps little surprise our role in regional defence alliances gets little public attention.
That goes doubly so for an arrangement dubbed the “quiet achiever” by Australian academic Carl Thayer for its role in contributing to the security of the Asia-Pacific region with little fanfare.
The Five Power Defence Arrangements, or FDPA for short, was set up in 1971 after British forces withdrew from major military bases in Southeast Asia, with the relatively new states of Singapore and Malaysia joined in the grouping by New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom.
Its foundations and future were the topic of discussion at a virtual event hosted by Victoria University of Wellington’s Centre for Strategic Studies.
Euan Graham, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the 50th anniversary of the pact was a good time for reflection, given its somewhat surprising longevity.
“I think many people would have been surprised in 1971 if posed that question, ‘Do you think the FDPA will still be around in 50 years?’, because at the time I think there was a sense it was a transitory set of arrangements - the word arrangements itself gives a bit of a clue.”
Graham said the agreement had been set up rapidly so Malaysia and Singapore were not left “to fend for themselves in what was at that time a pretty rough neighbourhood”, with recent war with Indonesia and ongoing conflict in Vietnam on many minds.
An additional, undeclared aim had been to ensure there were solid lines of communication between Malaysia and Singapore themselves, with a “very scratchy relationship” in the early days of their respective independence.
“Singapore started in 1971 with really very basic levels of military capability, New Zealand was still flying bombers at that time...and now the shoe’s entirely on the other foot.”
With the threat of communism a factor in the FDPA’s origins, Graham said the end of the Cold War had left a question about the nature of the arrangements, with a traditional focus on conventional warfare broadened to include anti-piracy and humanitarian work as a way of maintaining relevance.
Another outstanding question was around the respective military capabilities of the five nations, which had shifted dramatically over the past 50 years.
“It’s a five power defence arrangement, the question asked there is who is the power, where does the power lie over time?...
“Singapore started in 1971 with really very basic levels of military capability, New Zealand was still flying bombers at that time...and now the shoe’s entirely on the other foot.”
While not every nation had to “play the alpha role” in military exercises, the uneven distribution of capability added tension to what was meant to be an organisation of equal sovereign states.
“The value for New Zealand is it’s another network. and I think New Zealand punches above its weight because it maintains the networks that it does, but ultimately the price of joining a network is what you bring.”
Graham said questions had also been asked about the UK’s commitment in the past, as it allowed its defence assets to run down.
However, its status as a nuclear power added an unspoken edge to the grouping, while its recently announced “tilt” towards the Indo-Pacific could also see its engagement lift with one of the only ASEAN-based organisations in which it held membership.
South China Sea looms large
China’s role in the region, in particular its territorial disputes in the South China Sea with Malaysia and a number of other countries, had added some relevance to the FDPA but brought some diplomatic risks in return (as New Zealand has discovered in the past).
Malaysia was particularly sensitive about drawing attention to state-level threats, but the group’s focus on war fighting and growing concern about the South China Sea would “insinuate itself” into the conversation.
“Implicitly that asks the question, if we’re training for war fighting then where’s the threat going to come from, given the much improved relations between the Southeast Asian states themselves?”
While there had been sporadic talk about expanding beyond Five Powers to include countries like Brunei, or broadening its focus, Graham said Malaysia and Singapore had preferred a more conservative approach given its original focus on protecting the two countries’ territories.
“I hope it avoids the Zimmer frame analogy in the next 20 years, I think it’s still got a spring in its step - maybe 50 is the new 35 after all.”
“It is a bit of a living fossil, the FDPA, and I think if you tinker with it by adding new partners or changing its functions, I think it will react badly and possibly break down.”
But Graham said the grouping needed to shed its “quiet achiever” status if it was to endure, with greater conversation about its achievements and importance to the member countries.
“It’s insufficient to assume it can just be done on a nod and understanding at the professional level between militaries - ultimately you have to have governments and ministers buying into this.”
Despite that concern, he was optimistic about the pact’s ability to endure into the next decade and beyond.
“I hope it avoids the Zimmer frame analogy in the next 20 years, I think it’s still got a spring in its step - maybe 50 is the new 35 after all.”
