Welcome to the age of uncertainty
Has the Donald Trump administration thrown out the rule book and where does that leave New Zealand? Philip Matthews reports.
More doom, more gloom? Eminent Australian philosopher Raimond Gaita outlined a grim scenario in October 2016. He warned of racism, dehumanisation, ‘‘corrupt forms of nationalism’’, political instability, national and international crises.
In short, everything is getting worse after several unusually peaceful decades: ‘‘It is almost certain that my grandchildren’s generation will not be protected as we have been from the terrors suffered by most of the peoples of the earth.’’
That pessimistic talk full of terrors was given before the Donald Trump presidential victory that few seriously expected and the new age of instability that has followed. What does that instability mean for New Zealand, in its quiet and sheltered corner of the world?
The Defence White Paper in June 2016 was the last time New Zealand officially outlined its vision of the world and our role in it. It predates Trump, Brexit and the recent fears of a confrontation between the United States and an unpredictable North Korea.
It describes positive developments and relative stability, but it also noticed that tensions in Asia are greater than five years earlier. Defence spending is up in the region and ‘‘Asia is the focus of a complex interplay of global interests’’.
Terrorism is a greater threat and the rules-based international order is under stress, it said. The South Pacific is relatively stable but ‘‘economic, governance and environmental challenges’’ mean the New Zealand Defence Force might have to deploy there over the next decade ‘‘for a response beyond humanitarian assistance and disaster relief’’.
The White Paper attempted to do the impossible and project forward to 2040. The ‘‘ongoing provocative actions’’ of North Korea were among the concerns in Asia and it noted our long-standing relationship with South Korea, including providing Defence Force officers to monitor the armistice.
Bottom line, though? While New Zealand is ‘‘unlikely to face a direct military threat over the next 25 years’’, our ability to protect and advance our security interests will face ‘‘increasing pressure’’.
Again, this was all pre-Trump. The White Paper saw a close and deepening relationship with a United States that shares our values. It was a picture of sweetness and light compared to the uncertainty that has followed.
Victoria University Strategic Studies Professor Robert Ayson was one of the first out of the gate with an analysis of Trump’s foreign policy and its implications for New Zealand.
‘‘What we see so far is not pretty,’’ he wrote. He observed an ‘‘America First’’ populism that turned its back on the world. Trump’s scrapping of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was part of that. Ayson expected to see times when New Zealand would have to distance itself from the Trump administration – and publicly, not just in private.
Does Ayson think US isolationism meant New Zealand will be called upon to be an ally less often? ‘‘Ironically no,’’ he says from Wellington. ‘‘If the US in overall terms is going to be less active, then allies and partners will be expected to do more. That will mean New Zealand and Australia having to work a bit more. That will mean New Zealand thinking about its relations with countries like Singapore. We’ve increased our defence interactions with them.’’
Like many, Ayson has been looking nervously at North Korea. If a North Korean missile hit Japan or South Korea, ‘‘it would be hard for the US not to respond’’.
‘‘What sort of support does New Zealand give to the US and Australia and other US allies?’’ he asks. ‘‘And if China is taking quite a different view, what does New Zealand do about that?’’ How have things changed for New Zealand in a time of Trump? The official answer is not at all.
‘‘The US election has not altered New Zealand’s stance on security issues in the Asia-Pacific region or globally,’’ former Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee explained, before his recent elevation to Foreign Affairs Minister. ‘‘New Zealand was one of the first countries contacted by the Secretary of Defence James Mattis when he began in his new role and our conversation reinforced the mutual respect and strength of the New Zealand-US relationship. We remain
committed to the vision outlined in the Defence White Paper.’’
Another vision was outlined by Brownlee a year earlier than the Defence White Paper. He delivered a speech at the National Defense University in Beijing, China in September 2015 on ‘‘New Zealand and Security in the Asia-Pacific century’’. He began by ‘‘thanking the People’s Liberation Army for giving me the opportunity to speak’’ and mentioned the collaboration with Chinese military engineers in Exercise Tropic Twilight, which was then taking place in the Cook Islands.
China also collaborated on other disaster relief and humanitarian exercises and the ‘‘Five Year Engagement Plan with the People’s Liberation Army is the first agreed between China and a Western military, demonstrating the unique nature of our relationship,’’ Brownlee said.
‘‘In peacekeeping, New Zealand is very grateful for the force protection provided by People’s Liberation Army soldiers working under the United Nations banner in South Sudan, sideby-side with our troops.’’
These military links with China are not well known in New Zealand, says Robert Patman, Professor of Politics and Director of International Studies at the University of Otago.
Noticing that Brownlee slipped mild criticisms of China’s role in ‘‘undermining peace’’ in the South China Sea within the diplomatic niceties, Patman says ‘‘it is a distinctive New Zealand approach that we don’t necessarily agree with the Chinese but we try to set up mechanisms to speak to them’’.
He points out that New Zealand established diplomatic relations in 1972, when it was not exactly fashionable to do so.
‘‘China didn’t forget that. It’s no coincidence that we became the first country to have a free trade agreement. And again we are the first country to have a quite interesting military-to-military relationship. Yes, China is an authoritarian state but it is changing and it’s worthwhile having a dialogue there because you may be able to influence, even in a modest way, the direction of the country.’’
North Korea was on the menu in 2015 as well. Brownlee delivered his speech only a month after two South Korean soldiers were seriously injured by a North Korean landmine in the Demilitarised Zone. South Korea called it ‘‘a clear provocation’’.
Provocations have been growing ever clearer and are a real concern to New Zealand, Patman agrees.
‘‘We have close relations with South Korea and Japan. Our economic future is tied to the Asia-Pacific region. This is a key economic engine of the world economy.’’
Trump has warned that conflict is possible with North Korea. Patman believes that Trump ‘‘wants to present himself as unpredictable’’, which might be useful in the commercial world but ‘‘when you are the head of a superpower, the world’s most powerful country, I think that people are looking for clarity’’.
The simple fact is that neither the US nor China want to see a nucleararmed North Korea. The difference now, according to Reuben Steff, who lectures in Foreign Policy, International Relations and International Security at Waikato University, is that Trump is explicitly
‘‘From New Zealand’s point of view, Trump, on the face of it, is bad news. It doesn’t mean it’s a disaster. We’ve worked with presidents before that were perhaps not our first choice.’’
Robert Patman - Professor of Politics and Director of International Studies at the University of Otago
reframing the problem as ‘‘one that directly involves China as an obstacle and a potential solution’’.
By threatening to use military force, Trump tests China’s ability to maintain stability on the Korean peninsula while North Korea defiantly tests missiles.
‘‘Trump hopes to encourage China to use its leverage to restrain North Korea’s nuclear programme,’’ Steff says. ‘‘If China does nothing, it will look weak and not like the responsible player it wishes to be seen as on the world stage.’’
And what if everything goes pearshaped? Or worse, mushroom-cloud shaped? What will New Zealand do about its careful balancing act between the US and China?
Steff thinks it’s unlikely that tensions between the US and China over North Korea could escalate to a point where our ability to maintain positive relations with both is threatened. He expects that we could ‘‘largely stay out of the fray were a full-scale crisis or conflict to erupt on the peninsula’’.
We can see that China is applying pressure on North Korea. Patman cites three things. China banned coal imports, which hurts as more than 80 per cent of North Korean exports go to China. China suspended flights to the North Korean capital, Pyongyang. And it moved more than 100,000 troops to the North Korean border, possibly in anticipation of a North Korean exodus into China.
‘‘I think the Chinese now feel a certain indirect pressure from the Americans not to be aiding and abetting this regime, which it probably didn’t feel before.’’
Is Trump settling down?
In the early weeks of the Trump administration, experts watched and waited. They had observed him as the anti-globalist who said the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) was a bad deal and who did not respect the United Nations. Neither of those lines sounded good to New Zealand. We like rules and cooperation, as Patman says.
They wondered if Trump might sober up in office, or if a sudden crisis might cause him to rethink his attitudes towards traditional arrangements.
‘‘The flashpoint is likely to come from something like the equivalent of a September 11, an unanticipated crisis,’’ Patman says. ‘‘That’s what makes many people nervous because they think that Trump does not have the staying power and the ability to listen carefully to a variety of views when framing a response. A lot of people think he’s very thin-skinned and vain and impetuous.’’
The appointment of far-Right ideologue Steve Bannon to the National Security Council was a worrying sign. But Bannon has more recently been pulled off the council, which implies a waning influence. Patman praises other Trump appointees, such as Mattis and National Security Adviser HR McMaster. But could these figures penetrate the ‘‘praetorian guard’’ Trump surrounds himself with?
‘‘From New Zealand’s point of view, Trump, on the face of it, is bad news,’’ Patman says. ‘‘It doesn’t mean it’s a disaster. We’ve worked with presidents before that were perhaps not our first choice.’’
There is even a culture clash of sorts. New Zealand has benefited from globalisation but Trump’s worldview depends on populist nostalgia for Cold War certainties and economic nationalism. He presents the US as a victim, a diminished superpower. That is a simplification, Patman argues.
‘‘It’s not that great powers are weaker now. They are in an environment in which all players, big and small, are more vulnerable and interconnected.’’
Steff calls Trump a chameleon who is learning on the job. He is ‘‘a tactical opportunist who pivots to policies that he believes will support his political fortunes’’. That explains April’s sudden attack on a Syrian airfield. Similarly, he seems to have changed his mind about Nato, has started praising China and is expressing less enthusiasm about Russia.
Of course there have been changes at this end too. With Brownlee moving into Foreign Affairs, Mark Mitchell has taken over as Minister of Defence. Mitchell has described the US as ‘‘a natural ally’’ but has also expressed the need for stability and independence. The Iraq invasion in 2003 is a warning from history about the need to be ‘‘realistic about what can be achieved,’’ as Mitchell told the NZ Herald.
Further up the chain, Patman sees Prime Minister Bill English as someone who is relatively measured and grounded in his relations with the US. While John Key and Barack Obama established a rapport, or even something resembling a bromance, English will still want a strong relationship ‘‘but will not be caught up in a gush of enthusiasm’’. This gives him some comfort as we head further into the new unpredictability.