Intelligence sharing doesn’t necessarily mean policy alignment

This article was originally published by Pacific Forum. It is republished with permission.

In June 2024, Japan and New Zealand announced that they had reached a general consensus on an Information Security Agreement. While details on the exact nature of the agreement are yet to be published, it might be safe to assume that this is a step toward further bilateral security cooperation, given New Zealand’s increasingly proactive approach to the emerging regional security architecture.

However, it’s important to bear in mind that intelligence sharing does not necessarily equate to security policy alignment.

The New Zealand Intelligence Community consists of three agencies:

• the National Assessment Bureau in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for intelligence assessment;
• the New Zealand Intelligence Security Services (SIS) for domestic security intelligence; and
• the Government Communications and Security Bureau for signals intelligence.

New Zealand has increased its engagements in Asia, especially since the UK joined the European Union, as pointed out by both academics and practitioners. At the same time, New Zealand has never given up being a member of the Five Eyes community, although it retreated from the 1951 ANZUS Treaty with the US and Australia in the 1980s.

One of the institutional strengths of the Five Eyes framework is that the countries hold an annual summit as well as defense ministerial meetings, where they set their security agendas, coordinate their stances, and share mindsets.

Still, despite their shared views, the New Zealand government occasionally deviates from the discourse of the other member countries. A recent and stark example would be 2021, when New Zealand stepped back from