Time for a long hard look at the importance of the Five Eyes alliance

Among the various international groupings to which Australia belongs – an alphabet soup of acronyms and abbreviations like ANZUS, AUKUS, the Quad, the P4 and so on – one of the most important, yet difficult to categorise, is the Five Eyes. These are the five English-speaking countries – Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand – which began, after World War II, as an intelligence-sharing arrangement (which continues to be among its core functions) and has in the years since evolved into a multilayered forum for co-operation on a huge variety of activities.

It is neither a treaty nor an alliance in any formal sense. It has no single constituting document, overarching formal structure, or secretariat. Because intelligence and military secrets are the crown jewels of any nation’s security, it is a grouping which depends utterly upon mutual trust and confidence; in that regard, it has no equivalent in the global architecture.

Last week, representatives of the five countries met, at the joint invitation of the UK’s Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence, at a stately home discreetly tucked away in the rolling English countryside south of London, for a three-day conference to discuss the shape and future direction of the Five Eyes. Not all the participants were senior officials, although many were. This was what is known, in the jargon of diplomacy, as a “1.5 Track Dialogue”, at which officials meet on an equal footing with specialists, usually from think tanks, to take a “deep dive” into issues. I attended on behalf of the National Security College. The conference was not secret, though nor was it publicised. It operated on the Foreign Office’s rather stricter version of the Chatham House rule.

In the decades since its inception, the Five Eyes has expanded both horizontally and vertically. Its coverage has spread beyond intelligence and military co-operation to issues such as people smuggling, other forms of transnational crime, technical co-operation, and more quotidian issues such as social security and veterans’ affairs. There are now well over 100 different Five Eyes working groups, some permanent and others ad hoc. It has also grown vertically in the hierarchy of government. Originally, the co-operation was between operational personnel and officials. Although that is still the day-to-day nature of its work, in recent years, the nations have met at ministerial level, whether the annual “Five Country Ministerial” between ministers responsible for national security, or less regular meetings of other ministers. During the pandemic, for instance, Five Eyes Health Ministers began to meet virtually. At that time, there was at least one leaders’ level meeting.

The flexibility of the Five Eyes is generally regarded as an advantage, although there are some who would prefer to see its structure more formalised. In general, Australia has adopted an “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” approach. It would be unwise to rigidify an already successful arrangement whose informality is a key to its effectiveness. That said, we should always be mindful of further opportunities for co-operation.

Should, for instance, the five countries co-operate more deliberately in diplomatic fora? Although we usually align, often we do not. For instance, America often takes a different position from the other Five Eyes nations at the UN, as the weekend’s Gaza resolution demonstrates. The recently-defeated New Zealand government had significantly different messaging on China from the others. When Australia mounted its most successful international candidacy for many years – the election of Mathias Cormann as Secretary-General of the OECD – only one other Five Eyes nation (Britain) supported us. Some argue that the Five Eyes should attempt even closer diplomatic alignment. Mutual support for each other’s international candidacies is an obvious opportunity for closer co-operation.

However, there is a powerful contrary argument that diplomatic outcomes are usually best pursued bilaterally, and on a case-by-case basis. To adopt a general rule of presumptive co-operation could prejudice the very flexibility which is the Five Eyes’ strength. There would also be the perception issue: five wealthy English-speaking countries operating as a bloc. And each of the nations has its own bilateral and regional relationships outside the Five Eyes which are at least as important to it diplomatically (although not when it comes to intelligence). For instance, Australia has a closer relationship with India than the others.

There is also the question of power balances within the group. The United States, by its sheer size and military might, will always be the most influential of the five countries. The other four nations all depend on America’s co-operation in sharing intelligence (to which it contributes much more than the others).

The AUKUS pact has exposed potential differences among the partners. Some argue that AUKUS creates a “two tier” Five Eyes, with Australia, the UK and the US at the core and Canada and New Zealand in the outer circle. Given that neither of those nations is interested in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, that is an erroneous perception, but it does raise the intriguing possibility of potentially expanding the reach of AUKUS Pillar II.

There is never a complete identity of interests in international politics, even among the closest allies. Whatever differences occasionally emerge among the Five Eyes nations, it remains a bedrock of Australia’s national security. We benefit immensely from membership of an effective partnership based not just on shared values and common interests, but also on a level of mutual trust unique among the nations.

George Brandis is a former high commissioner to the UK, and a former Liberal senator and federal attorney-general. He is now a professor in the practice of national security at the ANU’s National Security College.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.