NZ’s morality narrative on Ukraine war doesn’t work
It is tempting for any liberal democracy to paint the war in Ukraine as a morality narrative, a story of clashing values and clear choices. And this is exactly what has occurred in New Zealand.
Speaking this week, Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta noted that ‘‘our response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is a reflection of those values we uphold and how we seek to assert what we stand for’’.
Mahuta’s stance echoes the values and morality-based approach to foreign policy that has been a hallmark of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s administration.
Speaking at the Lowy Institute in Sydney in July, Ardern characterised Russia’s actions in vetoing sanctions in the United Nations Security Council as ‘‘a morally bankrupt position on their part, in the wake of a morally bankrupt and illegal war’’.
The morality narrative has a compelling plausibility to it. Russia has clearly violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and committed war crimes in Ukraine. And in the last month alone, the US has criticised North Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia for directly or indirectly assisting Russian aggression.
North Korea has been spotlighted for shipping artillery shells to Russia, while Iran has been in the hot seat for supplying drones to Russia.
And then there is Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has thrown in its lot with Moscow by cutting oil production in October. This increases oil prices, allowing Russia to reap maximum revenue from its oil exports, which can then fund its aggression in Ukraine.
If this narrative is correct, then there is a new ‘‘Axis of Evil’’ in the 21st century. It is made up of Russia, North Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Two points should give us cause to pause before we embrace the morality narrative.
First, contrary to perception in the West, most of the world is not on board with it. As Angela Stent argued in the May issue of the publication Foreign Policy, for a variety of reasons – economic and diplomatic – a number of countries representing a majority of the world’s population disagrees with the morality narrative.
As Stent notes: ‘‘The United Nations held three major votes after the war began: two to condemn Russia’s invasion and one to suspend it from the Human
Rights Council. These resolutions passed. But tally up the populations of the countries that abstained or voted against the resolutions, and it amounts to more than half of the world’s population.’’
M
any of the citizens in these countries are appalled by the moral callousness displayed by Moscow. But for various
reasons, their countries have either abstained from voting against Russia, or have sided with it.
These reasons include: historical alliance relationships and a subsequent reliance on Russia for oil and military equipment (India and Vietnam); a far from smooth relationship with Russia’s rival the US (Cuba, Venezuela, the 22-member Arab
League); or historical support from Russia’s predecessor the Soviet Union during their Cold War-era liberation struggles (Algeria, Angola and South Africa’s African National Congress).
The second reason for pausing before we embrace the morality narrative is the inconvenient fact that material interests rather than normative values are the core determinant of New Zealand’s foreign policy.
A review of Statistics NZ figures reveals that Russia isn’t even in our list of top 30 trading partners. We bear relatively little cost in signing on to sanctions against Russia, and in justifying our policy in terms of a morality narrative.
But when it comes to New Zealand’s China policy, our economic interests clearly clash with our liberal democratic political values.
It’s hardly a secret that that China runs industrial scale reeducation camps for Uyghurs in
Xinjiang; has increasingly consolidated its authoritarian political practices in Hong Kong; that, if given a choice, Tibetans would evict the Chinese Communist Party; that public opinion in Taiwan does not favour unification with the mainland; and that the Xi Jinping regime has concentrated, rather than diffused, political power in its decade of rule.
And until we substantially diversify our trade partners, which is a very difficult thing to do, there can be only one winner in the clash between New Zealand’s political values and its economic interests. It is the latter.
Suffice it to say that we live in a messy world where the morality narrative simply doesn’t reflect the reality for most countries, including for New Zealand in its foreign policy.