No longer are we so tied to the UK for our very survival that there was no need to be thinking about alternative trading partners - she took everything we could produce and paid us handsomely for the privilege.
When the UK entered the European Common Market, everything changed and we were forced to grow up in a matter of months after Deputy Prime Minister, Sir Jack Marshall salvaged what he could from the markets we still had access to.
Almost immediately, we learned international trading skills that we previously had no use for.
For the next decade or two, the focus of our trade delegations was “laser-like” trying to make up for lost time.
Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade became the most important single Government agency. We all owe the trade ambassadors who established new markets for our produce a debt of gratitude for their excellent work on our behalf.
Fast forward to today and we find ourselves competing profitably on international markets keen to by our superior products. In some cases, we have become the beneficiary of supply shortages with two of our major trading partners - particularly beef in the US and virtually all animal products (those derived from red meat and dairy milk) in China. Currently farmers are receiving record prices on multiple markets for just about all of the products we grow or produce.
However access to markets is not solely dependent on the type of products we sell.
In the modern world, there is this little matter of being part of longstanding trading alliances built on shared ideology and defence partnerships that go way back to WW1 in 1914.
And despite the fact that numerous “left wing” NZ governments have attempted to build an independent foreign policy, sooner or later we are forced to accept our future prosperity will be closely aligned with power blocks led by either the US or China.
It has almost become the case where if one or the other says “Jump”, other less important members of each (West or East) block responds by asking “How High? “
While the humour associated with this apparent sycophantic response may amuse some, the reality of what it means for countries like us who survive on the scraps after the big boys have carved up the world to their own satisfaction should concern us all.
Because the new world order is not just based on military strength alone. There is a price to be paid even to be part of a defence umbrella that protects our trading routes against those who would like to control our exports.
Unfortunately, the price for our Sovereignty is something we no longer control, and given our geographic position way down at the bottom of the South Pacific, we are strategically of little importance to either of the big boys as well.
So it would seem common sense, for the sake of the nation that all those activist members of culturally sensitive or ideological pressure groups pull their heads in when demonstrating against the evils of Uncle Sam and the Trump administration.
We do have choices to make that will influence the direction and quality of our future. I suppose we can think ourselves lucky in that context because most of the world’s population have none at all. They are merely numbers on a chess board.
But the choices and decisions we do make need to be based on a realisation that a belligerent foreign policy which involves supporting every extremist group that happens to be flavour of the month is unaffordable. and could cost us what is left of our sovereignty.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
14 comments:
>"power blocks led by either the US or China"
This writer's geopolitical mindset seems to be mired in the days of a bipolar world, with China replacing the USSR/Russia.
China may be the economic powerhouse in BRICS but most second-wave industrialising nations, while closely tied to China economically, look to Russia for geopolitical guidance.
Moscow strategists think in terms of an emerging multipolar world order. I think they are correct and that is what is unravelling.
An interesting development is the weakening of Europe-US strategic ties. NATO is definitely past its use-by date and growing numbers of people in Europe, especially Eastern Europe, are clamouring for greater engagement with Moscow. The alliance between Moscow and Beijing is, after all, the most unnatural one could imagine. My own view (as a Western European) is that Russia belongs to Europe and we need to do some serious bridge-building. A strong, independent Europe with Russia as a member would create a tripolar global order in the first instance which would see the world's two main trouble-makers - the US and China - having at least some of their fangs drawn.
Neither Europe nor Russia qualify for the label 'third world'. Russia is a highly developed nation that lies outside the US-dominated 'Western' realm because of its former identity as the USSR. That was now a third of a century ago. The vision that many of us have in Europe is that of a European bloc that includes Russia (as a partner, not a 'leader' - certainly no upgrading of the Warsaw Pact!). They are after all ethnically and culturally Europeans and on the democratic track, certainly compared with the PRC and North Korea who are the most unnatural 'allies' one can imagine for Russia.
f Barend is right to think that Russia sees itself as a leader of a third Super Power made up of Post NATO European countries, it would appear to be going about it in a very strange way.
Given the significant Ukrainian battlefield successes using drones, that has introduced the real prospect of Ukraine not only winning the war but also recovering most, if not all of its lost territory, any suggestion that current European Nato members would want to join a replacement alliance led by a defeated Russia seems pretty dumb reasoning to me.
The only thing Russia currently has to offer Europe is energy in the form it doesn’t already have in the quantities it could use - ie, oil and gas.
Even that supply chain is likely to be replaced when the IPCC model of energy supply is seen to be the fraud it always was and fossil fuels once again become the more acceptable energy source it once was .
So, in that new European economic and defence environment, Russia will have to see what it can salvage out of the old relationship with China and what’s left of Iran.
My guess is that a third world superpower Is more likely to be built on the back of the old British Commonwealth countries like India and mineral wealthy states from Black Africa.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, Putin has bitten off more than he can chew and as a result, Russia will remain an international pariah long after his death or removal.
Defence and economic alliances have always been built between countries of common interest and idealogical beliefs.
I don’t see Russia ever fitting into that mix with the above democracies.
Clive's first comment was incomplete owing to a technical glitch. The comment immediately above was in response to Barend's first submission.
India is an interesting one to watch. It has very close strategic relations with Russia and is a rival of China with the population and technology (the latter with a helping hand from Moscow) to take Beijing on militarily - a very useful counterweight to China.
I find the comments by B.V interesting with respect to the statement [quote] -
"My own view (as a Western European) is that Russia belongs to Europe and we need to do some serious bridge-building". [end quote].
Why I focus on this singular point, is that during WW2, America & England went to great lengths to "embrace" Russia, as it was seen as a "second front" to counter German aggression. It is interesting to read, post war commentary on the meetings of Stalin, Churchill & Roosevelt - the latter going to lengths to 'go behind the backs of England' to undermine post war agreements, Churchill 'publicly' lauding Stalin, whilst knowing full well that he "could be trusted", this coming to fruition over Berlin.
From 1945 Russia 'displayed' its intent toward the West, and went to great lengths to undermine Western Governments & Policies - by using the KGB, either via Embassies or via "in place" agents - which many found their way into Western Universities as Academics, or undermining specific individuals, who held positions of power.
This "undermining" Western Govt/Policies can be seen today - Germany is a very good example - of how not "to elect a Govt" and during the tenure of Angela Merkel just how many policies/actions she herself "made redundant" - gas & coal mining, buying instead from Russia (this of course has come back to bite them - since Ukraine).
The questions at the time was - "who was aiding & abetting her in this matter".
The reason for such questions - was her relationship with Putin (KGB Agent Berlin) during Merkel being a resident in East Germany, whilst holding pertinent positions in Communist Organizations.
Oh and B.V - Ukraine has "longevity" in not wanting Russia back 'being the administrator' as they had been from 1945.
So yes Clive, NZ has struggled over the years with Trade, your Industry - Farming - being held as 'the pinnacle' for Primary Industry, but sadly let down by Govts across time facing trade bans - The Common Market/EU - leading us to China, now India.
The US is still a major player, they will need what we can produce, because they do not have the capability of producing similar products - NZ Wine being the leading example.
Clive Bibby’s analysis in his column is fair enough, but only as far as his “pull their heads in” instruction to any critic of Donald Trump, and the America he is diminishing before the eyes of the world. Clive has never been one to pull his head in, as no doubt his response to this will demonstrate.
Barend V is right that Russia belongs to Europe, notwithstanding that it extends to the Pacific (and once included Alaska!), But it will never be embraced by democratic Europe until Putin is gone, along with his coveting of a greater Russia extending westward, represented by this disastrous invasion of Ukraine, and further, that Russia becomes a more liberal democracy. This would end generations of suffering and hardship by the mass of the Russian people. There seems little hope of that any time soon. In the meantime, NATO still definitely has a relevance, and Trump’s undermining of it, and with Zelensky and Ukraine with it, is incomprehensible.
But the great geopolitical development of the last half century is, of course, the rise of industrial China, and its opening of doors to the world. This had its origins in the historic trip by Nixon to Beijing in 1972, which was a real game-changer. Ironically, only Nixon could have got away with this, given his anti-communist credentials. (As one wit recently commented, ‘only Nixon could have done this without Richard Nixon taunting him’.)
Yes, great power geopolitics is in a state of flux, as it always has been, but today it has hastened, and, inevitably, causing considerable discomfort and uncertainty. What is emerging is not just the global influence of China and the diminishing of respect and influence of the United States, though still great, but the rise of India and the prospect, commented above, of a more united European block of Western and Central European nations. Yes, uncertain times; where will little New Zealand fit into this?
I direct my comment to Ewen MacGregor.
Sir -
1. - you need to read the History of Russia from 1917 thru to today.
Lenin was not one for "democracy" nor was any of those who supported him then and this was also seen through every leader of Russia that followed.
From 1917 - the demonizing of, the deaths of, the sending of many to penal servitude in the Gulags of Russian Citizens at that time, was only surpassed by Stalin pre WW2 and after, which at that time also included those Countries over run by the Russian Army (that later become part of the USSR) as it "raced to Berlin".
Which/when upon entering Berlin applied a savagery upon the Citizens, females particularly that had the American's upon arrival, in Berlin, face an appalling scene that defied their beliefs.
Ukraine - from 1917 thru till the Russian backed Leader was deposed (who then ran to Moscow) - which saw Zelensky come to power, on a "popular citizen vote" - not welcomed in Moscow.
Moscow also saw to the 'end' of a female trying to become President (Ukraine) she ended up in a prison, on obvious trumped up charges -Russian Authorities do not want a female in any office - just check the Russian Duma for that.
Strange France has also made sure that a female will not become President.
Ukraine 'sentiment' toward Russian goes back to 1917 + and also following the 'invasion' of Russian forces in 1943/44.
All this is documented - even the in depth studies of Putin - not that such books will ever be sold by Whitcoulls.
Ewan - when Russia invaded Ukraine why did the Baltic States, Finland, Sweden -
1. - become members of NATO
2. - increase their spending on Military factors (their per capita cost exceeds what NZ has ever [or will do] done)
3.- welcome the placement of both American & British Military units in their respective Countries - Finland & Baltic States predominate.
These Countries have been very open as to reason/rational - lack of trust - Finland can explain very clearly reasons why - not that you would see the TV footage on the Socialist TV - TVNZ, or TV3.
Then focus on those Countries that Border Ukraine to the South who have also increased their respective military functions, who have also been under former Russian Control (as former USSR Nations)
& Turkey (also a member of NATO - the one Nation that denied Ukraine's request to join NATO) -
Why, their reasons, given by all -
"They did not trust, nor will they trust'.
As to the people of Russia, they are now only finding out what has happened and continues to happen in Ukraine - but you will not see -"on the street protests" NYET - verboten - the Russian police do not/NOT tolerate that sought of activity (John Minto would have difficulty in Russia) - just go ask those young ladies who were the Pussy Cat Dolls (a Russian version of a Punk Rock band, very noted amid the citizens) till they took on Putin.
Democracy in Russia - yup - a "pipe dream" as to becoming a formative part of Europe -
"dream on".
Moderator
Have been trying to contact you.
Is there a reason for the lack of response?
Yes, Clive, there is. Look upwards from this message and you will see your response to Ewan MacGregor. It has been there since yesterday.
No, that isn’t my comment. It is written by someone else.
I did write a response to Ewan’s 9.18 am comment but it appears to have gone astray.
The following is roughly what l said.
I hope it is acceptable.
Ewan appears equally fixated with my writings as he is with Donald Trump’s Presidency.
While l worry little about his criticisms as they are so repetitive as to have become meaningless, l do object to any comment about me personally which simply isn’t true - particularly his oft reference to me as a Trump admirer.
Yes, l do support Trump’s policies because they, unlike his immediate predecessors’, are making the world a much safer place, but l can’t remember ever having commented favourably about Trump the man. In my humble opinion, he is, like all the rest of us, a failed human being but we can’t ignore and be greatful that he is at present the person in charge of our future freedoms.
My guess is that most of his supporters feel exactly the same way. He just happens to be the most powerful human being in the world and our survival as a democracy totally depends on what he does next.
In the modern world where we are forced to take sides when it comes to personal security, it is laughable to believe the United States administration is diminished under the Trump administration.
I would go so far as to suggest that any settlement of the current Ukraine and Iranian wars will be due mainly to his personal involvement .
Likewise, his personal relationships during negotiations with China’s Xi is probably the one thing preventing WW 3.
Love him or hate him, there is no question that the World is a safer place while he is at the helm of the Number One Super Power.
Any suggestion that things would be different if he were not is simply a denial of the facts.
Gee Clive, what an extraordinary response. My only comments regarding yourself were a favourable reference to you piece and to call you an admirer of Trump. Sorry if that offends, but you did say immediately upon his reelection that he was destined to be the greatest world leader since Churchill, which, sorry if it offends, is just absurd. Then you now call him a ‘failed human being’. (Surely you mean a ‘flawed’ one.) The rest of my comments were to express my views on the current geopolitical dynamic. Sorry if you take offence, but isn’t breaking a view the object of this newsletter?
Otherwise, I think your comments here on the greatness of the Trump presidency making the world a safer place is just nonsense.
The only thing absurd about this conversation is your continued promotion of anti Trump propaganda which is based entirely on your personal hatred of the man.
As my final comment , may l remind you of the facts regarding Trump’s recent positive achievements aimed at brokering world peace on many fronts.
These are factual achievements that may well cement his place in history not far behind Winston Churchill who ironically built his justified reputation more as a “warmonger” than the “peacemaker”status Trump aspires to.
Back to the “blockbuster”
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.