More than a century after the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps landed at Gallipoli, defense strategists are reviving calls for a modern integrated ANZAC military force—and this time it's not about history or sentiment. It's about survival in a region where American security commitments are increasingly uncertain.
The proposal, reported by Defence Connect, comes as both Australia and New Zealand face rising Pacific tensions, Chinese military expansion, and growing questions about whether Washington will actually deliver on defense partnerships like AUKUS. The idea: pool resources, integrate command structures, and create a genuinely unified trans-Tasman military capability.
Mate, there's a whole continent and a thousand islands down here. And right now, Canberra and Wellington are realizing they might need to rely on each other more than they've had to since 1945.
The concept isn't entirely new. Australia and New Zealand have maintained close defense ties since World War I, conduct joint exercises regularly, and coordinate on Pacific security. But an integrated force would go much further—unified command structures, interoperable equipment, shared logistics, and potentially combined units operating under a single flag.
Proponents argue the strategic case is compelling. Australia has greater resources and industrial capacity; New Zealand has specialized capabilities and deep Pacific relationships that Canberra sometimes lacks. Combined, the two nations could field a more credible regional deterrent than either can alone.
Retired Australian Major General Jim Molan, a longtime advocate for closer trans-Tasman defense integration, has argued that "neither country can afford to go it alone" in the current strategic environment. With China expanding its naval presence, signing security agreements across the Pacific, and building military infrastructure from Solomon Islands to Kiribati, the region's traditional security order is fracturing.
Timing matters here. The proposal is gaining traction precisely because AUKUS—Australia's flagship defense partnership—is showing cracks. A recent US congressional report explored the possibility of not delivering promised nuclear submarines to Australia, a development that has shaken confidence in Canberra. If Washington can't or won't deliver, Australia needs backup plans.
New Zealand has its own reasons for interest. Wellington has historically maintained a more independent foreign policy than Australia, particularly regarding China and nuclear weapons. But that independence comes with vulnerability—New Zealand's military is small, its defense budget modest, and its ability to respond to regional security crises limited. Closer integration with Australia would provide capabilities Wellington can't develop alone.
The Pacific Islands dimension is crucial. Both Australia and New Zealand position themselves as security partners for island nations, but increasingly those nations are hedging by engaging with China. Solomon Islands signed a controversial security pact with Beijing in 2022; Kiribati has allowed Chinese police advisors; Vanuatu accepts Chinese infrastructure funding with opaque terms.
An integrated ANZAC force could present a more coherent, capable alternative. Instead of duplicative diplomatic efforts and separate, limited military deployments, Australia and New Zealand could offer unified disaster response, maritime surveillance, and security assistance. That might make the difference in whether Pacific nations choose Canberra and Wellington over Beijing.
But there are obstacles. New Zealand remains committed to its nuclear-free policy, which has kept US nuclear vessels out of New Zealand waters since 1985. An integrated force would need to navigate that carefully—possibly by maintaining separate naval commands or agreeing that nuclear-capable vessels remain under Australian flag only.
Politically, both countries would face domestic resistance. Australian nationalists would question ceding any military sovereignty; New Zealand progressives would worry about being drawn into Australian and US military adventures. Any agreement would require delicate political management on both sides of the Tasman Sea.
The practical challenges are significant too. Australia and New Zealand use different equipment in many areas, operate under different legal frameworks, and have distinct military cultures. Integration would require years of investment in interoperability, joint training, and possibly standardizing equipment—all expensive propositions when both nations already face tight defense budgets.
But the strategic logic keeps coming back to one reality: Australia and New Zealand are small powers in a region increasingly dominated by great power competition. Alone, neither has the weight to shape outcomes. Together, they might—barely.
Mate, ANZAC isn't just history. In a Pacific where America is unreliable and China is assertive, the trans-Tasman partnership might be the most important security relationship either country has. Whether that leads to full integration or just closer cooperation, expect to hear a lot more about reviving ANZAC in the years ahead.
