But there is arguably a degree of cognitive dissonance involved, given the government’s increasing strategic entanglement with the United States – specifically, the administration of President Donald Trump.
It was this perceived pivot towards the US that earlier this month saw a group of former senior politicians, including former prime ministers Helen Clark and Geoffrey Palmer, warn against “positioning New Zealand alongside the United States as an adversary of China”.
Luxon has brushed off any implied criticism, and says the National-led coalition remains committed to maintaining a bipartisan, independent foreign policy. But the current government has certainly emphasised a more active role on the international stage in closer alignment with the US.
After coming to power in late 2023, it hailed shared values and interests with the Biden administration. It then confidently predicted New Zealand-US relations would go “from strength to strength” during Trump’s second presidency.
To date, nothing seems to have shaken this conviction. Even after the explosive White House meeting in February, when Trump claimed Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was a warmonger, Luxon confirmed he trusted Trump and the US remained a “reliable” partner.
While Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters apparently disagreed in early April over whether the Trump administration had unleashed a “trade war”, the prime minister depicted the story as a “real media beat-up”. Later the same month, Luxon agreed with Peters that New Zealand and Trump’s America had “common strategic interests”.
Luxon has brushed off any implied criticism, and says the National-led coalition remains committed to maintaining a bipartisan, independent foreign policy. But the current government has certainly emphasised a more active role on the international stage in closer alignment with the US.
After coming to power in late 2023, it hailed shared values and interests with the Biden administration. It then confidently predicted New Zealand-US relations would go “from strength to strength” during Trump’s second presidency.
To date, nothing seems to have shaken this conviction. Even after the explosive White House meeting in February, when Trump claimed Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was a warmonger, Luxon confirmed he trusted Trump and the US remained a “reliable” partner.
While Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters apparently disagreed in early April over whether the Trump administration had unleashed a “trade war”, the prime minister depicted the story as a “real media beat-up”. Later the same month, Luxon agreed with Peters that New Zealand and Trump’s America had “common strategic interests”.
Closer US ties
We can trace the National-led government’s closer security alignment with the US back to late January 2024.
New Zealand backed two United Nations General Assembly resolutions calling for immediate humanitarian ceasefires in Gaza. But Luxon then agreed to send a small Defence Force team to the Red Sea to counter attacks on shipping by Yemeni Houthi rebels protesting the lack of a Gaza ceasefire.
The government has also enthusiastically explored participation in “pillar two” of the AUKUS security pact, with officials saying it has “the potential to be supportive of our national security, defence, and foreign policy settings”.
In the first half of 2025, New Zealand joined a network of US-led strategic groupings, including:
- the Partnership for Indo-Pacific Industrial Resilience, to coordinate defence supply chains
- Operation Olympic Defender for war fighting in space, a significant development for a relatively new space operator such as New Zealand
- Project Overmatch, which seeks to revolutionise naval warfare through allied cooperation in advanced digital technology
- and a Status of Visiting Forces Agreement with US ally the Philippines, which is locked in a dispute with China over territorial claims in the South China Sea.
The Labour-led government of Jacinda Ardern issued a defence policy statement in 2018 explicitly identifying China as a threat to the international rules-based order, and condemned the 2022 Solomon Islands-China security pact.
Ardern’s successor, Chris Hipkins, released a raft of national security material confirming a growing perception of China’s threat.
And the current government has condemned China’s comprehensive strategic partnership with the Cook Islands – a self-governing entity within the New Zealand’s realm – and expressed consternation about China’s recent military exercises in the Tasman Sea.
But US fears about the rise of China are not identical to New Zealand’s. Since the Obama presidency, all US administrations, including the current Trump team, have identified China as the biggest threat to America’s status as the dominant global power.
But while the Obama and Biden administrations couched their concerns (however imperfectly) in terms of China’s threat to multilateral alliances and an international rules-based order, the second Trump administration represents a radical break from the past.
Not in NZ interests
Trump’s proposed takeovers of Gaza, Canada and Greenland, his administration’s disestablishment of USAID, sanctions against the International Criminal Court, and withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the UN Council for Human Rights are all contrary to New Zealand’s national interests.
Similarly, his sidelining of the UN’s humanitarian role in Gaza, his demand for a Ukraine peace deal on Russian terms, and his assault on free trade through the imposition of tariffs, all conflict with New Zealand’s stated foreign policy positions.
And right now, Trump’s refusal to condemn Israel’s pre-emptive unilateral attack on Iran shows again his administration’s indifference to international law and the rules-based order New Zealand subscribes to.
It is becoming much harder for the Luxon government to argue it shares common values and interests with the Trump administration, or that closer strategic alignment with Washington balances Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific.
On the contrary, there is a real risk Trump’s apparent support for Vladimir Putin is viewed as weakness by China, Russia’s most important backer. It may embolden Beijing to be forward-leaning in the Indo-Pacific, including the Pacific Islands region where New Zealand has core interests.
A better strategy would be for New Zealand to reaffirm its friendship with the US but publicly indicate this cannot be maintained at the expense of Wellington’s longstanding commitment to free trade and a rules-based global order.
In the meantime, a friendly reminder to Luxon’s hosts in Beijing might be in order: that New Zealand is an independent country that will not compromise its commitments to democratic values and human rights.
Professor Robert G. Patman teaches International Relations at the University of Otago. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
1 comment:
Professor Patman is well known as a sycophantic supporter of left wing politics and so it is no surprise that he has a higher profile than he deserves under the woke leadership recently adopted by Otago University.
However, he is entitled to his own views just like the rest of us and, as such , shouldn’t be worried if his statements are fact checked for accuracy.
In that context, l take issue with his criticism of the current Government who were elected on a policy of dealing with the two world superpowers (who just happen to be our main trading partners) in a manner which is in the best interests of all New Zealanders.
Consequently, it is unfair to suggest we should ignore the fact that our future survival as a free democracy at the bottom of the South Pacific should depend almost exclusively on our relationship with the United States.
It is fanciful to expect our trade negotiators to curry favour with China, who rate as the number one threat to our trade routes with the rest of the world, at the expense of the traditional close ties with the United States.
I have no doubt that China will continue to source its commodities based on what it needs irrespective of our allegiance to defence partnerships that have existed since the beginning of time.
History has shown that our trading relationship with both China and the rest of the world remains in good shape based on being seen as an independent negotiator that offers high quality products at prices that are show to be value for money. That is the hallmark we present to the rest of the world and our relative independence is the reason why our negotiators are able to do deals that other more closely aligned members of existing defence treaties can only dream about.
Professor Patman should wake up to to the real world that is changing by the day. He has allowed his political leanings to influence his judgement - a not unfamiliar trait in modern society but much more common amongst commentators of his ilk
Time to get a life.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.