The generation gap of foreign policy

As the Boomers retire, we are moving to a more realistic world view.

We are seeing great forces at play. The old warhorses of 80s and 90s politics are returning to the opinion pages to defend the mythical “independent” foreign policy. Icons of the activist Baby Boomer generation – they don’t want us in alignment with the United States, and defend aggressive Chinese stances.

The Generation Game and global foreign policy seem an odd mix.

The “independent” orthodoxy says we endanger our vital economic and trade relationship with China by having formal ties with the US-led democracies as they confront repressive and belligerent nations. Cynics see their concept of independence as continuing the antiAmericanism of the generation who opposed the Vietnam war and sought social revolution.

Their parents, the Greatest Generation, favoured a strong alignment with the United States after confronting the evil of the totalitarian Nazis and Soviets.

Boomers heard a lot about “The War” – and wanted change. They sought independence from their parents’ generation, and from the United States when they took power. Our relationship with the United States fractured. The leadership wanted to assert New Zealand as an independent post-Empire nation, more confident in a national identity which went beyond post-colonial status and traditional allies.

In the 90s, globalisation and the power of capitalism saw the United States win the strategic confrontation with the Soviet Union, communism failed and democracy expanded. New Zealand slowly began moving back into closer alignment with our like-minded democratic countries and supported the rules for international conduct.

Australia had taken a more confident approach. Subjected to hundreds of attacks in World War II, they chose the United States over distant Great Britain, working with the Americans to ensure peace and stability in our Asia-Pacific neighbourhood since the war.

New Zealand is the closest major country to “Point Nemo”, the most remote part of the planet, used for junking old satellites. We are far from the front lines, but we still see the violent evil unfold on our screens. That distance makes New Zealand an unthreatening connector between countries.

But we don’t not have the power to solve major disputes. We need to team up to achieve peace.

Every sovereign country sets its own foreign policy. We are not unique. Most countries have a degree of alignment with others based on kinship, proximity and values. They also weigh up trade and security issues when evaluating the degree of friendship.

We confront cold hard reality as we watch brutal modern warfare in real time, through our digital world. We are more connected than ever. Our national interest is to stand up collectively for peace. We can’t live by past prejudices and a mistyeyed memory of protests past.

Younger generations are rather bemused. Proud of their cultural identity they don’t suffer the “cultural cringe” of past generations. When it comes to American politics and culture, we are the most informed ever. Our digital and global media environment goes far beyond the 80s’ choice of two TV channels. New Zealanders are deeply engaged in global affairs. Gen Z protests the Gaza conflict as though the Israeli prime minister would be watching.

The totalitarian countries – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – are coordinating their efforts. Cyber and digital warfare means we can’t hide. These are countries that suppress their people, speech, elections, and make war.

The best response to global threats is a strong coalition of nations who stand up for shared values. By working together, they don’t cower to the aggressor based on mercenary self-interest in trade.

We should choose to work with countries that share our desire for peace and are prepared to enforce a stable international order.

Sweden, which had maintained neutrality through two world wars and the Cold War, has joined the Nato alliance for collective security. It was the very country cited as an example that could maintain neutral relations during the 80s debates. Swedes recognised they couldn’t expect other countries to come to their aid, if attacked. As an independent global player, they could contribute to security and stand up to bullies.

Countries are free to take choices. The UK didn’t fight in Vietnam despite its tight alliance with the US. Alliances don’t prevent countries from making “independent” decisions or alternative approaches when required. But international partnerships will contribute to reducing aggression and supporting peace.

As the Boomers retire, we are moving to a more realistic world view. Last year, Gen X Labour Defence Minister Andrew Little brought out the National Security Policy and Defence Statement. He expressly moved on from the language of the “benign strategic environment” which led to isolationism and low defence spending under the Clark government.

Aotearoa New Zealand as a strong and independent nation has a positive place in the global dialogue. We can be a strong player for collective security and democratic values.

Tim Hurdle is a former National Party senior adviser and is a director of several companies, including Museum Street Strategies, a public affairs firm.