Now is the wrong time to pause in shaping Australia’s intelligence agencies

The Five Eyes Alliance: A Cornerstone of Global Intelligence Sharing

The Five Eyes (FVEY) alliance, comprising the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, stands as the most successful intelligence-sharing partnership in history. Born out of cooperation during World War II, this alliance has evolved into a vital framework for ensuring the security and stability of its member nations. Intelligence sharing is not just a strategic convenience; it is a lifeline for smaller nations that rely on the collective strength of the alliance to safeguard their sovereignty and security. The alliance’s success is rooted in trust, mutual interests, and the recognition that a threat to one is a threat to all. However, recent developments have raised concerns about the reliability of the United States as a partner in this alliance, particularly under the current administration.

The Erosion of Trust in the US as a Reliable Partner

One of the most significant blows to America’s reputation as a reliable intelligence partner has been its decision to suspend the sharing of battlefield intelligence with Ukraine. This move is widely seen as a coercive tactic to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to accept a resolution to the war with Russia on terms dictated by former President Donald Trump. This action not only undermines Ukraine’s ability to resist Russian aggression but also sends a disturbing signal to other allies about the unpredictability of US foreign policy. Furthermore, Washington’s directive to Maxar, a private company, to restrict Ukraine’s access to high-grade commercial satellite imagery, raises questions about the integrity of the intelligence-sharing process. These decisions have left intelligence partners questioning whether sensitive information about Russia should be shared with an administration whose senior officials, such as Tulsi Gabbard, have expressed views aligning more closely with Kremlin propaganda than with the assessments of the US intelligence community.

Australia’s Delicate Balancing Act

For Australia, the challenges posed by the shifting dynamics of the Five Eyes alliance are particularly acute. While Canberra has maintained a diplomatic stance, avoiding public speculation about the future of its alliance with Washington, the reality is that the partnership is at a crossroads. The alliance is rooted in convergent interests, as outlined in the 1951 ANZUS Treaty, which commits both nations to consult and act collectively in the face of armed aggression in the Pacific. Australia has long benefited from US military technology, a relationship that has been strengthened by the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal. The US has also increasingly relied on Australian territory as a strategic staging point for its forces in the Asia-Pacific region, aiming to deter China from initiating conflict. Despite these strengths, the economic and security relationship between the two nations is not immune to the fallout from Trump’s erratic policies, including his tariff threats.

The Privileged Bond of Intelligence Sharing

At the heart of the US-Australia alliance is the privileged sharing of intelligence, a cornerstone of the Five Eyes partnership. This mutual trust in sharing sensitive information has been a defining feature of the alliance, enabling both nations to enhance their national security and decision-making capabilities. However, the current administration’s “America First” approach has raised concerns about whether this tap of intelligence will continue to flow freely. For Australia, jeopardizing this relationship is not a prudent option, given the critical role intelligence plays in maintaining national security. Nevertheless, it would be irresponsible to ignore the possibility that future US administrations may continue to prioritize their own interests over the collective good of the alliance.

The Challenges Ahead for Australia’s Intelligence Community

The challenges facing Australia’s intelligence community are multifaceted and far-reaching. From the radical transformation brought about by technological advancements to the growing threat of disinformation, and from the impact of climate change to the erosion of social cohesion, the landscape of national security is becoming increasingly complex. Furthermore, the strategic rift between the US and Europe, coupled with China’s increasing assertiveness in the Asia-Pacific region, adds another layer of uncertainty. Intelligence capabilities are a nation’s decision advantage, and investing in them is a long-term bargain. Australia’s intelligence agencies operate under high standards of governance and accountability, with rigorous oversight from statutory bodies, and there is good reason to believe they are performing well. However, questions remain about whether they are adequately positioned to meet the dangers and disruptions of the future.

Charting the Path Forward

To address these challenges, Australia must ask tough questions about the future of its intelligence community. Is the current funding sufficient to meet the demands of emerging threats? Does the nation have the next-generation talent required to navigate the complexities of modern intelligence gathering? Is the balance between sovereign capabilities and reliance on the US struck correctly? How can Australia strengthen partnerships beyond the Five Eyes, such as with Japan and Europe? What opportunities exist for trusted collaboration with the private sector, which is increasingly at the forefront of intelligence technologies? Should Australia establish an agency dedicated to analyzing open-source information, following the model of ASIO chief Mike Burgess’s threat assessments? And how effective is traditional human spying in the age of digital footprints and biometric identification? Australians deserve answers to these questions, and it is not too late for the government to demonstrate leadership by addressing them head-on. The future of Australia’s intelligence community, and by extension its national security, depends on it.