NZ poorly placed to weather unstable global environment
In the current global context it’s a good idea for New Zealand to remain close to the nations with which we have a common history and values, Reuben Steff writes.
Meanwhile, the US is ... forging new agreements throughout the broader Pacific region. As I write, US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida are announcing the most significant upgrade to their alliance in decades.
In recent months Helen Clark has issued several critiques of the foreign policy direction of the coalition Government, going so far to claim that a “profoundly undemocratic” “lurch” is taking place. Chris Hipkins also said he was concerned New Zealand was potentially “picking one side” – the side of New Zealand’s liberal democratic allies and partners – over China.
This is indicated by the Government’s decision to explore opportunities around things like Aukus Pillar 2 – an agreement between Canberra, Washington, and Great Britain to share the most advanced emerging technologies.
Japan is likely to join Pillar 2 soon, and South Korea and Canada are showing interest.
Clark believes New Zealand’s openness to this strikes at our so-called “independent foreign policy”. Our politicians should “keep their nerve and [ensure they] are not drawn into geopolitical games driven from elsewhere".
As I’ve detailed elsewhere – what we are seeing out of the Luxon Government is actually a continuation of a trend going back to the John Key government in 2010 to improve New Zealand’s relationships with traditional partners.
Jacinda Ardern did this, as did the Hipkins government last year – indeed, Hipkins and his then-Minister of Defence Andrew Little signalled interest more than once in exploring Aukus Pillar 2. The Luxon Government is doing the same.
So, what is happening? As the Hipkins government said just last year through the Defence Policy and Strategy Statement, “Our region is now a strategic theatre”. Our inaugural National Security Strategy, released at the same time, expressed similar concerns.
Collectively, they read like an urgent
call to New Zealanders to realise that things are far from stable internationally, and that we are not in a great position to weather it. This relates to the fact that the global security environment is seeing a deepening strategic competition between the US, its allies, and partners on one side, and China, Russia, Iran. and North Korea on the other. Indeed, just days ago it was revealed that China was providing material support for Russia’s industrial base to assist Moscow’s war in Ukraine.
Meanwhile the US is deepening its security alliances and forging new agreements throughout the broader Pacific region. As I write, US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida are announcing the most significant upgrade to their alliance in decades.
This is in response to the emerging Russia-China alliance, China’s massive naval and nuclear build-up, Beijing’s militarisation of the South China Sea, (placing it at odds with the territorial claims there of the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia), repeated threats towards Taiwan, and daily intimidation of the Philippines.
But wait – there’s more! New Zealand has been subjected to foreign interference by China in recent years. Bernard Hickey has detailed this, showing that it reached into senior levels of our government; Anne-Marie Brady has written extensively about it – and has been harassed and threatened for it – and just the other day New Zealand’s intelligence services said a group backed by the Chinese state targeted New Zealand government services in a cyber-attack in 2021.
Yet still more: New Zealand’s Secretary of Defence, Andrew Bridgman, said last year “the ‘strategic’ environment has deteriorated more quickly than we imagined” and that our recent defence policy was “appropriate for a more benign world” that no longer existed.
Here we turn to the South Pacific – our immediate region. Both the Ardern and
Hipkins governments expressed concern over China’s efforts to expand its security influence in the region and warned that Beijing could establish a military base.
The above is just a little bit of the geopolitical game Clark is referring to. It’s not one New Zealand welcomes – far from it – but it’s one we now confront. In short – Ardern, Hipkins and now Luxon were – and are – all responding to a deteriorating global and regional strategic environment.
In this context it’s probably good to remain close – perhaps even closer – with those nations with which we have a common history, values and share similar security concerns. The states we can most rely on.
It’s also prudent to at least consider joining an expanding Aukus Pillar 2 arrangement, given the immense potential benefit those technologies could provide to our economy, society and military.
As to our “independence” – an idea that means different things to different people – I think Emeritus Professor Roberto Rabel, of Wellington’s Centre for Strategic Studies, put it well last week: “If independence for New Zealand means being able to disagree with ‘traditional partners’ but does not also mean freely choosing to align with them at times to pursue mutual interests, then it means little.”