I find myself unable to get as worked up about this as Winston Peters because, please correct me if I'm wrong, I can't see that China has actually broken any rules here. Before firing the missile, China alerted New Zealand, Australia and Japan, as required under international regulations governing tests of this nature.
And even though there's been a lot of noise about China firing a nuclear-capable missile into a nuclear-free zone, it was only nuclear-capable; it was not actually carrying a nuclear warhead. It was a dummy.
Sure, I'd admit they were pushing hard up against what people would be comfortable with. But then again, missiles are generally not things people are comfortable with.
As far as I can see, the New Zealand Government's angry response is largely posturing because we're required to posture. The reason I'm not quite as worked up is that this doesn't actually surprise me.
Anyone who's followed what China has been up to lately knows that it's building up its military and not just so it can put on impressive displays.
I do wonder, though, whether China has made a bit of a mistake here, just as it may have done last year when it conducted live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea. This kind of activity from China could freak people out a bit, or, if not freak them out, at least wake them up to the fact that China is not simply a benign trading partner. It is a military superpower with clear strategic ambitions, probably involving Taiwan.
So I wouldn't be surprised if this creates greater support in New Zealand for increased defence spending, which is actually something we need to do. Nor would I be surprised if it unsettles some of our Pacific neighbours and drives them closer to New Zealand and Australia, which is arguably what we want.
In a way, I don't actually mind that China did this, if only because it might help us collectively wake up a little to what is really happening in our region.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and radio broadcaster who hosts Newstalk ZB's weekday Drive-Time Show – where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
Excellent assessment HDA. There is no point countries like NZ in denial over China’s status as a military superpower.
There needs to be a deeper and better understanding of the Chinese mindset however as to how they are likely to assert that superpower capability.
I for one subscribe to the late Lee Kuan Yew’s view which is :
‘Lee Kuan Yew saw China's military as a tool to secure regional primacy and deter rivals, rather than as an instrument for widespread territorial conquest. He believed Beijing's leaders were pragmatic enough to recognize that sustained economic growth and political influence would yield greater long-term benefits than military expansion alone.’
Not so the U.S. which uses its military to intimidate, threaten, suppress, attack and yes, as we have seen with the Iranian school girl bombing, kill & murder to exact its economic influence.
NZ needs to bring some perspective and moral imperative to China’s rise as a military might.
Li Kuan Yu has not been around for quite some time, and made that judgement many years ago. Since then, Communist China has shown its true colours through the annexation (effectively) of the South China Sea in direct contravention of international law and even refused to turn up at the International Court of Arbitration when summoned to do so by the Philippines. Anyone who regards Beijing as an innocuous influence in geopolitics has some catching up to do. For more details on Beijing's dangerous games see my 'Breaking Views 'article "Reining in the blustering Beijing bully", 1 March 2019.
HDPSL Where was the Chinese trial held is the most important information for credibility of your article, but which you failed to disclose ?
If in open ocean then all vessels have the International right to be there .
If in territorial waters which covers vast amounts of the ocean then NZ has every right to respond.
To Barend Vlaardingerbroek:
Lee Kuan Yew's observations have not been invalidated by subsequent events—they have largely been borne out!
He never portrayed China as "innocuous." In fact, he consistently argued that a stronger China would inevitably seek greater strategic influence because that is what great powers do.
His point was that China was more likely to pursue its interests through economic leverage, diplomacy, and gradual expansion of influence than through outright military conquest.
The South China Sea disputes certainly demonstrate Beijing's willingness to press its territorial claims aggressively, and China's rejection of the 2016 arbitration ruling has rightly attracted international criticism. But those actions are still a long way from the kind of military expansionism seen in previous great-power eras.
It is also worth applying the same standard to all major powers. The United States has itself declined to recognise the jurisdiction of international courts when it considered doing so contrary to its interests, and other major powers have likewise ignored adverse rulings. That does not excuse China's conduct, but it does suggest this is a feature of great-power politics rather than uniquely Chinese behaviour.
Lee Kuan Yew understood this reality better than most. His advice was not to underestimate China, nor to demonise it, but to engage it from a position of strength while avoiding policies that turn strategic competition into an unnecessary confrontation. That remains a remarkably relevant assessment today.
Anon 714, we are pretty much on the same page. The US doesn't care a toss about international law either (except when it plays into their hands). But I am a bit more pessimistic than you are about the future. The Asian Tweedledee/Tweedledum duo - Communist China and North Korea - are up to no good and it's going to come to blows, methinks. All the more reason for us especially in Europe to start making serious overtures towards Moscow. I doubt whether the Russians trust the Chinese any more than I do.
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.