Former Defence Minister Andrew Little has relaunched himself back into political debate, speaking out this week in favour of joining the new Aukus military alliance.
Bryce it seems very unlikely that a Chinese government representative including a China based scholar would appear in a conference co-sponsored by Taiwanese interests, even unofficial ones. Of course your concern at NZ's foreign policy direction is germane. How we are placed is going to affect us for a long time to come.
This is a great article Bryce. We do need to have an objective debate about the future direction of New Zealand's foreign policy. We need to ask ourselves whether our so called independent foreign policy is still relevant?
New Zealand foriegn policy in reality never has been independent, but more flexible, and adaptable to the global situation. New Zealand has never been non-aligned but maintained good relations with friends, while opposing those that challenge our values or world peace. I am not sure whether New Zealand would be better off inside or outside of formal alliances such as ANZUS. I suspect it would make very little difference. Even within an alliance like ANZUS New Zealand still had a credible voice to speak it's mind on issues.
I do find any debate to be heavily skewd by ideological view points rather than pragmatism. For Helen Clark AUKUS represents a clear threat to her political legacy, the "Independent foreign policy". As such she is motivated to oppose it. While Clark maybe influential she is still a former politician who won't let go. Don Brash appears to be opposed purely on the basis of economics.
Lets get a couple of facts straight about AUKUS. It is not a military alliance in the sense that it binds members to come to the aid of others when attacked. Pilar two of AUKUS, which New Zealand may sign up to is about sharing, and developing advanced technology for military use. Some of these technologies will likely have civilian application. It is also about geopolitics, specifically about countering the rise of China, and of Chinese ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. The PRC's ambitions are not always peaceful.
Whether the formation of AUKUS will lead to military conflict remains to be seen. I would suggest not. It's more about geopolitical Sabre rattling. The 21st-century poses new challenges for New Zealand, and it maybe time to let our foriegn policy adapt to meet those challenges.
I would like to see New Zealand join AUKUS pilar two, because it may provide economic opportunities to develop the technology sector. I do not think it will pull New Zealand into directly conflict with China, but we may see the Chinese weaponise trade in order push it's geopolitical agenda. It would be foolish of New Zealand not to seriously consider joining AUKUS pilar two.
One does not have to be naive about China’s committment to ‘ rules based world order’ to have serious concerns about AUKUS 11. Trump clearly is at best highly ambivalent to a ‘rules based world order’ too. Given the even odds of another Trump presidency, why would NZ cosy up to US foreign policy at this point in time? Duh.
But putting that aside for the moment, Australia’s cross party ‘Deputy Sheriff’ posturing means that if China and Australia came to blows (Taiwan etc?) little old NZ would be automatically dragged into it to protect our only formal ally, regardless. Why isn’t this part of our korero?
I am not well versed on this topic so thank you for parsing it here. One of the things I have wondered in the past is why some in NZ were so keen to take us into AUKUS back when a Trump presidency was almost a certainty. i.e. when he was running against Biden.
Notwithstanding all the other salient points you put forth, none of us know what the outcome of the US election will ultimately be, or how it will transpire. I had thought how that plays out would also influence our choices, especially as a Trump presidency suggests elements of a very changed USA, and so I've been a little skeptical of those that have fervently pushed for its adoption.
Between China and Washington......I wouldn't choose either if I had a choice as neither has our interests at heart. China is using the same economic system to gain control of raw materials worldwide that the USA and others have used around the world for decades.
I imagine the authoritarian nature of Chinese leadership over the last 70 years may have had something to do with the general thrust of the conference and the guest list of speakers. China's extensive constructions in the S China Sea and actions against the Philippines may also have counted, as would the recent RNZ documentary on their interference in our domestic affairs.
It is certainly an interesting ''question of balance' that two NZ Prime Ministers and a major party leader of the last 20 years appear to see no harm in Chinese ambitions. For a small country of 5 million in an increasingly uncertain world, divided from its neighbour by a thousand miles of ocean, some might see an independant foreign policy as little short of vanity.
You can’t have much faith in the intelligence of the participants if you think they’re influenced by speakers at a conference. So if a Chinese academic had offered a contrary view it would have been balanced and our precious attendees could cope?
The media - even the Lessener – have not given even minimal sketches of major China actions e.g 'Belt & plus you get your Road'. A general article like this, at best, leaves the ordiary ignorant reader wondering what actioins are opposed by the USA to which Little wishes us to be more strongly allied. If instead we align as desired by Clark, what are we thereby endorsing?
We remain ignorant of the implications of this pair of code-words _ trigger words, perhaps – Asia-Pacific v. Indo-Pacific. (have I learned them accurately? not so easy to do when one knows little of their meanings)
Bryce, great to write this up and point out the Washington consensus's hold on the NZ "national security" establishment but would humbly suggest there is debate on AUKUS & independent foreign policy happening - at some universities, in parliament, and we are doing our bit at Diplosphere. Diplosphere has had over 10 people through its door and millions online in over 80 events on NZ foreign policy mainly - including taking on AUKUS and independent FPseveral times.
would a Chinese aligned speaker have agreed to participate given the participation of a representative of the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office?
Bryce it seems very unlikely that a Chinese government representative including a China based scholar would appear in a conference co-sponsored by Taiwanese interests, even unofficial ones. Of course your concern at NZ's foreign policy direction is germane. How we are placed is going to affect us for a long time to come.
This is a great article Bryce. We do need to have an objective debate about the future direction of New Zealand's foreign policy. We need to ask ourselves whether our so called independent foreign policy is still relevant?
New Zealand foriegn policy in reality never has been independent, but more flexible, and adaptable to the global situation. New Zealand has never been non-aligned but maintained good relations with friends, while opposing those that challenge our values or world peace. I am not sure whether New Zealand would be better off inside or outside of formal alliances such as ANZUS. I suspect it would make very little difference. Even within an alliance like ANZUS New Zealand still had a credible voice to speak it's mind on issues.
I do find any debate to be heavily skewd by ideological view points rather than pragmatism. For Helen Clark AUKUS represents a clear threat to her political legacy, the "Independent foreign policy". As such she is motivated to oppose it. While Clark maybe influential she is still a former politician who won't let go. Don Brash appears to be opposed purely on the basis of economics.
Lets get a couple of facts straight about AUKUS. It is not a military alliance in the sense that it binds members to come to the aid of others when attacked. Pilar two of AUKUS, which New Zealand may sign up to is about sharing, and developing advanced technology for military use. Some of these technologies will likely have civilian application. It is also about geopolitics, specifically about countering the rise of China, and of Chinese ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. The PRC's ambitions are not always peaceful.
Whether the formation of AUKUS will lead to military conflict remains to be seen. I would suggest not. It's more about geopolitical Sabre rattling. The 21st-century poses new challenges for New Zealand, and it maybe time to let our foriegn policy adapt to meet those challenges.
I would like to see New Zealand join AUKUS pilar two, because it may provide economic opportunities to develop the technology sector. I do not think it will pull New Zealand into directly conflict with China, but we may see the Chinese weaponise trade in order push it's geopolitical agenda. It would be foolish of New Zealand not to seriously consider joining AUKUS pilar two.
An interesting overview Bryce - quite thought-provoking! Thank you!
One does not have to be naive about China’s committment to ‘ rules based world order’ to have serious concerns about AUKUS 11. Trump clearly is at best highly ambivalent to a ‘rules based world order’ too. Given the even odds of another Trump presidency, why would NZ cosy up to US foreign policy at this point in time? Duh.
But putting that aside for the moment, Australia’s cross party ‘Deputy Sheriff’ posturing means that if China and Australia came to blows (Taiwan etc?) little old NZ would be automatically dragged into it to protect our only formal ally, regardless. Why isn’t this part of our korero?
I am not well versed on this topic so thank you for parsing it here. One of the things I have wondered in the past is why some in NZ were so keen to take us into AUKUS back when a Trump presidency was almost a certainty. i.e. when he was running against Biden.
Notwithstanding all the other salient points you put forth, none of us know what the outcome of the US election will ultimately be, or how it will transpire. I had thought how that plays out would also influence our choices, especially as a Trump presidency suggests elements of a very changed USA, and so I've been a little skeptical of those that have fervently pushed for its adoption.
Between China and Washington......I wouldn't choose either if I had a choice as neither has our interests at heart. China is using the same economic system to gain control of raw materials worldwide that the USA and others have used around the world for decades.
I imagine the authoritarian nature of Chinese leadership over the last 70 years may have had something to do with the general thrust of the conference and the guest list of speakers. China's extensive constructions in the S China Sea and actions against the Philippines may also have counted, as would the recent RNZ documentary on their interference in our domestic affairs.
It is certainly an interesting ''question of balance' that two NZ Prime Ministers and a major party leader of the last 20 years appear to see no harm in Chinese ambitions. For a small country of 5 million in an increasingly uncertain world, divided from its neighbour by a thousand miles of ocean, some might see an independant foreign policy as little short of vanity.
You can’t have much faith in the intelligence of the participants if you think they’re influenced by speakers at a conference. So if a Chinese academic had offered a contrary view it would have been balanced and our precious attendees could cope?
The media - even the Lessener – have not given even minimal sketches of major China actions e.g 'Belt & plus you get your Road'. A general article like this, at best, leaves the ordiary ignorant reader wondering what actioins are opposed by the USA to which Little wishes us to be more strongly allied. If instead we align as desired by Clark, what are we thereby endorsing?
We remain ignorant of the implications of this pair of code-words _ trigger words, perhaps – Asia-Pacific v. Indo-Pacific. (have I learned them accurately? not so easy to do when one knows little of their meanings)
Bryce, great to write this up and point out the Washington consensus's hold on the NZ "national security" establishment but would humbly suggest there is debate on AUKUS & independent foreign policy happening - at some universities, in parliament, and we are doing our bit at Diplosphere. Diplosphere has had over 10 people through its door and millions online in over 80 events on NZ foreign policy mainly - including taking on AUKUS and independent FPseveral times.