Changing winds of strategy
In explaining New Zealand’s continuing attachment to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Prime Minister Bill English has expressed concern about a ‘‘strategic vacuum’’ in Asia Pacific emerging because of America’s disavowal of the agreement.
Whether that is right, or whether it is more accurate to depict what we are seeing in the region as an indomitable swing of the pendulum as China’s resurgence gathers momentum, is an open question.
But the prime minister is right to set trade policy in a strategic context given its inextricable connexions to political, economic,environmental and migration dimensions of an interdependent world.
In the Middle East NZ’s goal of a free trade agreement with the Gulf states sits within an exceedingly difficult strategic context. Official NZ policy, stated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is that political unrest in the Middle East will not be allowed to disrupt trade negotiations. How realistic is that?
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in disarray over a dispute led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with Qatar over its ties with Iran and for funding terrorism.
Given evidence of Saudi Arabia’s own record, this last charge against Qatar is a bit rich. A collateral target shared with Egypt is suppression of the al Jazeera broadcaster based in Qatar – the only independent media voice in the Arab region.
The broader point is that a Sunni Muslim coalition fashioned around the GCC is shaping to confront Shia Islam Iran. US President Donald Trump’s recent visit to the region helped to energise the process. The new American administration’s hostility to Iran, and in particular to the nuclear deal (secured by the Obama government ) to constrain Tehran’s nuclear weapon capability, is unequivocal. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is eloquent about a need to halt Iran’s hegemony – whatever that actually means.
It is most unwise for outsiders ever to take sides in other people’s internal religious enmity. Moreover, NZ has longestablished diplomatic relations with Iran (the US broke off ties in 1979). It is our oldest embassy in the Middle East. During its recent UN Security Council tenure, NZ, as council president, piloted the Iranian nuclear deal through the council for its approval.
NZ numbers that as one of its accomplishments on the council. There are strong reasons therefore in Wellington to be wary of intensification of the Sunni-Shia rift.
The NZ defence role in Iraq is intended to strengthen Iraqi military capability to defeat jihadist forces that seek to establish a new caliphate in the region. To the extent, however, that that role assists, directly or indirectly, Sunni confrontation with Shia Iran (by freeing up contingents from Iraqi forces or coalition partners to support the Sunni cause), NZ should seriously consider ending the commitment at least when the mandate expires.
The strategic context for our trade policy in the Middle East is one of unremitting regional conflict that has lasted more than 20 years with no peaceful outcome in prospect. NZ has extended professional support (including in Afghanistan) to efforts by Nato and others to secure peace in an area that is not a sphere of NZ priority interest.
Closer to home, however, insurgency and upheaval in the Philippines is in that sphere. Conflict in the south involving an Islamist minority (the Moros) seeking regional autonomy (from predominantly catholic Philippines) dates back to well before American intrusion in the 1890s.
It represents an enduring feature of the Philippines political landscape; but right now instability has intensified. Different Moros groups have splintered, and Islamic jihadists (Abu Sayyaf) with Isis connexions are active. The flareup creates mounting concern beyond the Philippines. Senior American defence officials have publicly suggested that Australia might need to ready itself for intervention. There could be some temptation to rush fences.
NZ needs to keep closely abreast while it sharpens its understanding of events through its embassies. Consultations with South East Asian (Asean) governments, including, of course, in Manila, must be a priority. There has been a recent spate of terrorist incidents in more than one Asean country; and their governments will certainly have opinions about outside intervention in the Philippines.
Likewise, if push ever comes to shove, the UN Security Council will have to be implicated and that will involve consultation in powerful capitals. Some of this may already be occurring behind the scenes.
The broader point here is the situation with the Philippines, with North Korean nuclear brinkmanship, with assertions from several quarters about sovereignty in the South China Sea, shine light upon Asia/Pacific security, and the need now for NZ defence policy makers to focus away from the Middle East; and upon deepening interaction and interoperability with Asian militaries to better reflect NZ strategic interests – including trade.
Terence O’Brien is a Centre for Strategic Studies NZ Senior Fellow.