“Nothing like a trip abroad to put a spring in the PM’s step” – or so said the sub-heading on a report in the NZ Herald on Saturday of Jacinda Ardern’s visit to the United States, a visit which by most accounts was successful in its primary aim of reviving contacts with both political and business leaders.
Political editor Claire Trevett put it aptly:
“NZ was looking for new growth in its relationship with the US after the pause of the Trump era”.
New Zealanders, too, were chuffed at the success of the PM’s mission, her popularity with the Americans she met, and especially her chat with President Joe Biden. The applause she won for her address at Harvard University in itself was remarkable, and probably stimulated Trevett to note that:
“The Ardern in the US was a stark contrast to the Ardern we have seen in New Zealand in recent months”.
So, will we see Ardern back at the top of her form, now she is home again?
The Labour Party, which has seen its support on a steady slide in polling, will certainly hope so.
The cost-of- living “crisis” which Ardern as late as March could not discern is persisting, interest rates are rising, housing costs are soaring, child poverty is worsening, and nurses heading abroad in search of higher wages are leaving behind already attenuated health services.
What turned the Ardern mission to the US into something of a personal triumph was the rapport she established with President Biden. They had many issues to traverse, clearly, with the conversation running well over schedule.
The main focus, though, as many foreign policy experts saw it, was on security and defence issues now dominant, not only in Europe with Russia’s war against Ukraine, but (more ominously) in the Pacific where China is pressing to secure deals with Pacific Island states.
NZ likes to think it pursues an “independent” foreign policy, but the hard truth is that successive governments have spent as little as possible on defence equipment. The upshot is that both the Navy and the Air Force have to operate ageing warships and planes.
Even though the Lange government forsook ANZUS membership in pursuit of its anti-nuclear policy, NZ still liked to think it could shelter under the US protective umbrella.
Under President Biden, as one foreign policy expert put it, the US has done much to resurrect a leadership position in world politics.
The Biden administration’s marshalling of diplomatic, economic and military support for Ukraine is impressive. But the US sees China as a greater threat to the international order.
In her report in the NZ Herald, Trevett said Ardern has gone closer and closer to the US over the past months as China’s counter attempts to secure deals with Pacific Island countries ratchet up.
“She has not said New Zealand sides with the US in such terms, but she has come pretty close to it, with her statement that our allegiances are with ‘like-minded countries’ who share NZ values. NZ may well have been like-minded with the US on aspects of China’s actions – but it has not been like-voiced, until now. The joint statement issued after the Ardern and Biden meeting may well prove to be the tipping point”.
Point of Order notes that statements such as those issued in the wake of the Biden-Ardern meeting are prepared well before the actual event by officials from both sides.
China’s foreign ministry fired up immediately to remind NZ of its long-standing practice of following an “independent” foreign policy rather than falling in behind the US.
Was it this statement which sent a shiver down the spine of whoever writes editorials for the NZ Herald? For on Monday morning, the newspaper greeted its readers with an opinion under the heading:
“Why NZ and China must remain allies”.
Good grief. Which of our governments signed us up to become an ally, a word which implies a military or defence arrangement rather than a trading relationship?
The editorial said debate over China’s role in the Asia-Pacific region and how New Zealand and Australia should respond to it continued to bubble after the Prime Minister’s visit to the United States.
“During a White House appearance, Jacinda Ardern signed up to a statement that nailed New Zealand’s colours squarely to the US mast on security and strategic concerns.”
The editorial continued:
“Since then, has come news that a Chinese fighter jet buzzed an Australian surveillance plane over the South China Sea just days after the country’s election. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi also said during his tour of Pacific islands that a reset in the two countries’ interactions required ‘concrete actions’ and that a ‘political force’ in Australia that views Beijing as a rival and threat has caused a deterioration in that relationship.
“On Sunday new Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese jetted off to Indonesia, having described it as ’about to be a superpower’ and saying Canberra needed ‘to really strengthen the relationship’ with Indonesia because ‘we live in a region whereby in the future we will have China, India and Indonesia as giants’. Recent reports have also raised questions over how well the US would handle a conflict with China in the Pacific and over
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, on top of the fallout between China and Australia over the pandemic, the introduction of Aukus, and Beijing’s security pact with the Solomons, have changed the geopolitical outlook in the past two years. While that has resulted in New Zealand noticeably working closer with traditional allies, particularly over Ukraine, there is still value in the country treading a more careful, independent path on China than Australia does.
“New Zealand has been able to maintain a good relationship with Beijing and it is best to keep up a constructive dialogue, even with the ongoing need to diversify trade options.
“Competition and rivalry can harden into an entrenched position that’s hard to step back from and can encourage further escalation. China is not where Russia under President Vladimir Putin is in its dealings with other countries and has maintained a political distance during the Ukraine war.
“Beijing works on its own interests and development internationally but mostly in a pragmatic and trade-focused way. It is used to co-operation and deal-making. It is in part responding to increased security interests by the US in the Asia Pacific.
“In the now 100-plus days of the Ukraine war, the Kremlin has shown itself capable of aggression without provocation, displacing millions of people, slaughtering civilians and trying to cover up evidence, threatening use of nuclear weapons, cutting off badly needed food supplies to poor countries, allegedly kidnapping thousands of Ukrainians, and reducing towns to rubble.
“The Russian Army is fighting hard in the Donbas as Putin hopes to wear down Ukraine and its Western backers. Both the long-term dangers of allowing Russia to get out of this war with extra territory and the strategic benefits to the West of having Ukraine in the EU camp should it push its neighbour out have now become clear. The outside world will have to manage the danger as long as Putin is in power, but better relations with Russia will now have to wait for new leadership.
“That isn’t the situation with China. Long-term scenarios can be prepared for but regular trade contact and political engagement are the best ways to keep the peace.”
Point of Order can’t help thinking that this didn’t work for Ukraine. Nor do we think President Xi Jinping’s treatment of the Uighurs or of Hong Kong is the kind of action NZ would favour coming from an “ally”.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
No comments:
Post a Comment