Why links with sister cities matter
There’s change in the air at this year’s local body elections. Usually about as exciting as watching paint dry, this term there seems to be increased attention being paid to who will take up the mayoral chains and council seats.
The fact that there’s a little more heat in the race may be to do with growing concern on environmental issues, or just a richer than usual pool of slightly unhinged candidates to report on. Either way, it’ll be interesting to see who comes out on top this weekend.
Whatever the result, new councillors and mayors will be inheriting some important work. The rarely-canvassed international sister city relationships.
Every now and again, spending on sister city relationships is splashed across the front page of local papers. There’s something about politicians’ overseas jaunts that gets under ratepayers’ skin. The roads, rates and rubbish brigade are in full voice. But while putting a dollar value on the relationships can be helpful, and accountability for public money is vital, the criticism can often miss the point.
For anyone who doesn’t know, sister cities and friendly cities are formal relationships that towns and cities enter into with counterparts in different countries. New Zealand has some 160 sister city relationships from Istanbul to Nuku’alofa, with more than half of those in Asia.
They’re the reason that iconic signpost in Bluff features wellknown metropoles alongside Suqian (China) and Kumagaya (Japan).
They’re the reason a group of farmers in Selwyn know a little about the business of coffee growing in Indonesia; and why a group of Marlborough students travel to a cherry-growing town in Japan every year and vice versa.
They’re the reason that every now and again you spot a Beijing Bicycle creaking around Wellington.
We know from our own research at the Asia New Zealand Foundation that peopleto-people links are key to building cross-cultural understanding.
Sister city relationships, which sit somewhere between diplomatic relations and business deals, are a way of doing that. They can also lay a foundation of goodwill, trust and understanding that can then smooth the way for work together.
But for the links to move beyond the signing of MOUs and swapping of gifts, councils need to be very thoughtful and strategic in their approach.
First of all, because the permission space for local government to spend public money on building those relationships is very limited. When challenged on the value of it, it’s important that mayors and councillors can point to a clear, coherent and strategic international relations plan.
Too often sister city relationships are driven by the personal interests or even language abilities of those in office. But if sister cities are to bring benefits to the whole community, not just those sitting around a council table, there needs to be some hard-headed thinking.
Many of the relationships seem to me as nice-to-haves at the moment, and not an arrangement that brings any tangible benefits to either party.
From my perspective, we should be looking for cities we can learn from. Which cities are ‘best in class’ in areas we could learn from? We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. There are cities in Asia that tackle the same issues we do with a level of excellence and efficiency that New Zealand ratepayers could only dream of.
Take Wellington’s friendly city relationship with Tianjin (China) as an example. This partnership isn’t just about swapping gifts, it’s about sharing scientific, technical and policy expertise on earthquakes. A well-thought out link in an earthquake prone city.
I daresay we could benefit from a relationship with an Asian city that knows how to manage its public transport sector about now.
There is also an opportunity to use sister city relationships as a foot in the door of some incredibly large markets.
India is a great example – we have no sister relationships there. Why not? As the saying goes, eat the elephant one bite at a time. Some cities in New Zealand could do well to find a small city in India to start understanding what makes their markets tick and what makes their business culture different from ours.
It’s worth noting that many of Asia’s small cities are in fact very large. Look at Seoul, South Korea. Being mayor of Seoul means being the leader of a community of nearly 10 million people, with all the resources and control needed to run a city that size. It’s a common stepping stone to the presidency.
Owing to their size and necessity, a great number of cities in Asia hold significant money and control – we can’t think about them in New Zealand terms, where most power still sits with central government.
So we should stop thinking of sister cities as relationships with the quirky and quaint and see them for the opportunities for learning, connection and growth that they are.
But my message to incoming mayors and councillors is this: we need to be smarter about which cities we engage with, and clear on why we’re doing it. Managed well (which can be hard), they tangibly benefit cities and ratepayers; managed poorly, they waste money and effort.
Simon Draper is executive director of the Asia New Zealand Foundation, Te Whı¯itau Tu¯ hono.