Anti-China narrative heavy on insinuation, light on facts

There’s an anti-China narrative starting to emerge in New Zealand. It reflects debate in Australia about the extent of “Chinese influence”, particularly on politicians, and follows moves by the Turnbull Government to crack down on activities of local Chinese organisations. But in New Zealand it’s a debate thick with insinuation and scant on evidence.

Voices here have raised concerns about China actively interfering in our domestic affairs and controlling local Chinese media, students and community groups. Canterbury University Professor Anne-Marie Brady argues that as a small country we are unable to protect ourselves from this interference, and our current trajectory with China will damage our traditional alliances, leaving us with little choice but to accede to China’s interests.

It’s the role of academics to question, challenge and think critically, and Brady does this very well. But just as the narrative in Australia is starting to be questioned, similar claims here deserve similar scrutiny.

We need to examine more closely whether claims about Chinese influence stack up. How well equipped is New Zealand to deal with campaigns of external interference? We have institutions and agencies to protect us from these. Moreover, we have close intelligence connections with traditional allies — itself an indication that New Zealand has multiple partnerships internationally. If credible evidence emerges of harmful activity on our soil, we have structures to deal with it.

Our Government is keeping a clear head on such issues. Jacinda Ardern has noted the need to be vigilant against overseas influence, but has been clear there is no evidence to justify the kinds of concerns that surfaced across the ditch.

Her views are echoed by former Australian prime ministers and other Australian academics who are calling out the tone of discourse in that country as unwarranted.

Brady uses an odd analogy of China’s relationship with Albania in the 1960s, which she attributes to an unnamed Chinese diplomat, to argue that New Zealand’s sovereignty and interests are at risk as we become more dependent on China economically. She is right that New Zealand needs to diversify its export partners, but this is what we are doing and have been doing since Britain entered the European Community.

Take, as evidence of New Zealand’s determination to pursue its own path, the CPTPP, for which it has been an active and leading advocate, even as larger states such as the US and Canada have walked away or prevaricated. This represents exactly the type of partnership with likeminded democracies that Brady urges.

It is also a clear demonstration of New Zealand’s willingness to take a different approach from China where we deem our interests to require this. New Zealand certainly wants to build deeper economic ties with China, but we can do this while building connections with other countries.

None of this has stopped the anti-China narrative gaining traction here. It may, however unintentionally, tap into a prejudice against Chinese which has raised its head several times in our history.

With such a history, care is needed, particularly when it comes to targeting individual Chinese. Robust debate is to be welcomed but we are a better nation when it is done in a respectful way.

Smaller countries always need to be alert when they enter into relationships with larger partners. On this, I agree with Brady. New Zealand has long experience of this. But we can maintain productive and respectful international relationships only if public debate is based on reason and evidence, not allegations and insinuation.

Stephen Jacobi

is the executive director of the New Zealand China Council.