One of the arguments about either strengthening or weakening our relationship with China is that China is significantly increasing its economic influence in the Pacific region - but also in Africa and elsewhere. Various “Western” nations such as the US, Australia, the UK and New Zealand seem to claim that the Pacific is “their” territory and that no other entity or power has any right to intrude into this area. Really? Is China not a Pacific nation too?
Pause for just a moment
and consider just how dependent we in New Zealand are, upon our two-way trade
with China. Most of what we import is “Made in China” - think about it!
Clothing, tools, electronics, almost everything we buy or use in New Zealand
today is “Made in China” including some foodstuffs. And in most cases, it is
good value and inexpensive.
Much of what we now
export goes directly to China-especially our dairy products. China is by far
our most important trading partner and export destination. Oh, and by the way,
the proportion of Asian (mainly Chinese) migrants to New Zealand is predicted
to grow to 25% of the population by 2030. Prior to Covid19, thousands of
Chinese students were attending our universities and polytechnics - and paying
tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, into the bargain. They were
invariably hardworking, respectful and very successful as well.
Why, then, would we
seek to antagonise or oppose our most important trading partner? Is it because
of their alleged treatment of the Muslim minority Uighurs? Or, could it
possibly be that our so-called allies-US, Australia, and the UK (though why on
earth the UK has ANY interests in this region is a real question these days?),
object to a socialist/communist regime colonising the Pacific region? Is the
West fearful of a Chinese military build up which needs to be countered with a
“Western” military build up? And why would China need to militarily dominate
the Pacific region when it is already highly prominent and successful economically,
as evidenced by its enormous two-way trading partnership with New Zealand?
This most recent “stand-off”
is rhetoric reminiscent of the Cold War, where the threat of world domination
by Communism espoused by China and the Soviet Union resulted in the “free”
world comprising the United States, Europe and the British Commonwealth nations
uniting to oppose any imminent military takeover. In other words, Communism
versus Democracy, there is no in-between middle ground.
In a recent
international forum, New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern was boasting about how
great the New Zealand system of government is and that “our model of democracy”
is under threat (From whom?). I thought this interesting, given that “our” (ie
New Zealand’s) political model is anything but democratic.
Note: I am not an
apologist for totalitarianism or authoritarianism in any way shape or form,
having spent some years directly opposing these systems.
It depends upon which
“model” of democracy Ardern was referring to. Most Kiwis were brought up
believing that democracy involves one person one vote; majority rule; freedom
of assembly and expression; equality; and fairness. Other principles include
civil and individual human rights; transparency; political honesty and
integrity; the right to elect a person of one’s choice; and cultural,
religious and other freedoms.
The problem is, there
are now many interpretations of the concept of democracy - majoritarian,
liberal, socialist, consociational, constitutional, and so on. Just Google
“types of democracy” and see the enormous range of types claimed under the
democracy umbrella. Of particular interest to New Zealand is the
“consociational” model of democracy which is based on political power sharing
between different ethnic groups with veto rights over other groups. (He Puapua,
Matike Mai Aotearoa?). It is characterised by division and separatism and
ethnic quotas. Was this the model of democracy which Ardern was referring to,
given certain phrases in her speech? I would bet it certainly is.
The post-Taliban
regime in Afghanistan used the consociational model, with disastrous consequences, resulting
in years of warfare and ethnic and religious persecution. Just look at it now.
What has all this got
to do with China and its interests in the Pacific? Well, as we know, China is
the “bad guy”, a totalitarian, monstrous, communist state where the people are
subjected to brutal military enforcement, where individual freedoms are
suppressed and where state control is rigid. China cannot by definition, claim
to be democratic under this framework, can it? Therefore any interest it shows
in investing in or assisting other countries and regions must be opposed,
right?
But other political
systems claiming to be “democratic” also blatantly contravene the principles of
democracy to the extent that some of them are far more representative of
authoritarian Communism than Communism itself!
One such political system is Mixed Member
Proportional (or MMP), designed in Germany as a means of preventing a political
recurrence of the authoritarian regime of Nazism. MMP gives a voter two votes -one
for the electorate representative and a second for a political party. Half the
seats in the legislature are elected representatives but the other half
are selected by their political party-obviously using selection
processes pertinent to that particular party. There are several outcomes of the
MMP system which are in direct contrast to the widely-held principles of
liberal democracy:
- the voting public has
no input whatsoever into the selection process of half the
representatives in parliament, and no opportunity to assess their suitability,
skills, experience and personal integrity prior to an election.
- a minority party
with a mere 5% of the party vote, whose policies and goals may well be
abhorrent to the vast majority (95%) of voters - which is why they achieved
their mere 5% in the first place - can exercise the balance of power if and
when the popular vote is close between, say, two major parties.
- an aggregation of single-issue
minority interests can form a majority. This outcome is used to foster
separatism, social divisions and a focus on political identity, rather than the
needs and wants of most people. This is called the tyranny of the minorities.
In this regard, MMP is
extremely divisive and utterly contradicts claims such as ‘we are all in this
together” or “we are a team of 5 million”. Ha ha!
MMP therefore cannot
claim to be “democratic” if compared to liberal parliamentary democracy as it directly
contravenes and contradicts a number of basic principles upon which the general
interpretation of democracy is based.
And in other forms of
government besides communism, such as authoritarianism, military, tribal,
ethnic-focused, and dictatorships, the fundamental precepts of freedom of
expression and individual rights are suppressed using coercion or direct force.
Tyranny can be both by a majority and by minorities in union.
But whilst we can all
recognise (usually military) force to exercise political power, there are other
more subtle forms of coercion used by socialist and neo-Marxist countries like
China and Russia to implement controversial or unpopular policies. These forms
of political coercion include, but are definitely not limited, to:
- continuously
promulgating untruths (lies) or particular political constructs as if they were
fact, using the propaganda technique of “argumentum ad nauseam”. This technique
was ably conducted by Dr Josef Goebbels in 1930s Germany, in vilifying the
Jewish people. Today, presentism is the favourite technique of professional
historians used to completely re-write a nation’s history for socio-political
reasons.
- requiring state
agencies to use political identity as the primary consideration in their
functions-such as requiring language and protocols of minority cultures to
achieve the political goal of inverse acculturation of a majority.
- requiring state
employees to commit to and adopt cultural and political viewpoints as a
condition of employment, using various degrees of coercion.
- conditional funding
to ensure political compliance-especially in big ticket items like education,
health, justice and welfare systems.
- preventing or
denying public discussion on matters of substantial constitutional importance,
such as power sharing and constitutional revision.
- purposely withholding
information so that the people do not know what they do not know. A variation
of this approach is “omission” - simply leave out facts or information which
you would rather the people not know about.
- ignoring democratic
process by mandating the seizure of community assets and eroding community
self-governance in favour of state control
- teaching
ideological, untrue and dishonest histories to young persons as a form of
social conditioning
- removing from office
and destroying the reputations of academics who dare question or challenge the
current Marxist/socialist orthodoxy
- restrictions on
travel and participation, including “pass laws”, requiring people to produce
evidence of their identity or status on demand- by police and their “helpers”.
The above is a fair description
of China, Russia and other authoritarian regimes, of which we in the “West”
need to be on our guard here in the Pacific, eh?
Well no, actually.
The above examples of
political coercion comprise a brief list of just some of the activities of the
New Zealand government led by self-styled “social democrat” Jacinda Ardern in
2021.
To complete this circle
of utter hypocrisy, the Labour government under Ardern displayed an offensive
degree of racism and prejudice in attempting to identify property owners in the
Auckland area with “Chinese-sounding names” who ostensibly were contributing to
escalating house prices! And Asian migrants are favourite targets of other
ethnic groups in South Auckland on a regular basis.
No wonder then that
the Ardern government is equivocal in dealing with China. Any antipathy cannot
possibly be because China is a “communist” state and New Zealand is
“democratic”. Chinese migrants who have lived under yoke of communism will feel
very much at home in the New Zealand of the future.
Henry Armstrong is retired, follows politics,
and writes.
1 comment:
It seems to me that New Zealand had the best democratic system in the world up until a few years ago. Sure,the cost of housing had become a problem as it had in any other major city in the world. Poor life choices were made by some, which resulted in a lower standard of living for them. Personal responsibility has gone out the window. Politically, we don't need to copy any other country and their systems.
I believe this government has seized on Covid and a few internal issues to radically change our whole future lifestyle. To regain our democracy, the taxpayers must have more say in how and what money is spent on. People might have to accept renting instead of owning a property. We must realise we are a multi- cultural society. Referendums on important issues must be restored.
We need equal access to health, water and land.
Why on earth would you try and fix something that isn't broken? Well, the last few governments have done just that.Very strange! We need a new political party with a plan to restore our Kiwi values.
Post a Comment