I recently gave a speech to MPs, academics, journalists, and the general public on foreign interference in New Zealand, sharing some real and personal stories of mine.
The difficulties I have with the rhetoric around foreign interference are 1. We chose to recognize China Beijing in around 1973, and to develop our trade and economic links with them. We need to honour and look after that decision. It's quite obviously an annoyance to them for us to be continually agitating for Taipei independence. And Ms Ou is quite simply not ambassador in New Zealand, thus it's not appropriate for you to label her as such. As much as you do that, you are adding to the very problem that you decry....... And 2. We join ourselves with the US and others in creating provocations, such as sending naval vessels into or close to Chinese waters. If we are there to protect trade,...... well that's lunacy anyway because the Chinese are predominantly those doing the trading and shipping there, and they are quite capable of defending the area themselves - and the only ones glowering and threatening shipping there are the Americans. If the Chinese didn't invite our ships there, we should keep away. It's a matter of respect. But if we continually play along with and participate in the US provocations, then of course we are likely to suffer in various ways. And none of that is in NZ interests. At one time the US consulate in HK had something like 300 staff. Very obviously out of proportion to their regular consular duties, and intended only for interfering in China. Should NZ stop associating itself with this, then the primary motivation for the Chinese to do anything to push things in NZ will be taken away. Again it's very simply about respectful relations. If we stop continually inviting the interference, it will surely reduce.....
We remain quite capable of trading with both China and Taiwan, it's just the former has a habit of constantly interfering in our democracy here. As for freedom of navigation, we are allowed to sail ships in international waters even if China thinks they own them. China continue to act as bullies and as we all know, there's only one way to deal with bullies. As for NZ not doing anything, I think that is a complete failure to understand the CCP and its aims plus also means you are supporting New Zealand as being a vassal state. I for one prefer our democracy, our allies, national security, and sovereignty.
It's not a matter of habit. It's a response to the pressures being brought to bear upon them by others. Therefore, in this context, complaining about it is quite pointless, if at the same time we are also unwilling to examine ourselves, and how our own actions invite and encourage that very response of which we are complaining,
Perhaps the best two examples would be Venezuela and Iraq. Main export industry fully controlled by a foreign power, and the leadership knows very well that any move out of line will result in them being either abducted or assassinated by agents of that foreign power.
No chocolate fish for those who can tell us who is the controller in each instance.....😁
I would say that a vassal state mainly has autonomy over its own affairs but must defer to its larger patron state in international affairs. The patron must also supply protection to its vassal against all other states.
Belarus is a vassal of Russia, Canada is essentially a vassal of the USA but the Cook Islands are obviously vassals of New Zealand.
The more interesting question is, Is New Zealand a vassal state, or quasi-vassal state of some combination of the USA + Australia? Does Wellington have complete autonomy in international affairs (could it sign a treaty with Tehran or Pyongyang for example)?
The main problem with this is that standards aren't applied equally.
Foreign influence in New Zealand must surely be examined but lets do it honestly.
BeiDou over Antarctica must be measured by exactly the same yardstick as GPS over that exact same continent.
Political influence from Beijing measured by the same standards as that from Washington, and that does not mean measuring everything by whatever the current Washington consensus is.
Far too many people, worried about being a Chinese vassal state at sometime in the future, demand that we remain an American vassal state for all eternity
We are a liberal democracy and the other Five Eyes countries are, too. They are our natural allies and first-choice partners for the very good reason that we share values, histories, systems of government, and institutions. There are exceptions at the fringe, but on the whole these places seek to help us co-develop our society, whereas authoritarian regimes seek to weaken our systems and divide our people(s).
A pretty predictable response and a rather weak one too.
It just skips over what a liberal democracy is, where it is and why we should even care. Much like that other obscurantist name “International Rules Based Order” the details are not only never examined, looking at them too closely is positively discouraged.
Britain is a constitutional monarchy, and the USA is a republic, not a democracy, but that all gets fudged over because “Liberal Democracy” has better PR value.
But more substantially, the idea that Washington D.C. is dedicated to working for the people of New Zealand is absurd and a very bad idea even if it was true.
Further more, the idea that the World Bank, the IMF, the CIA, the FBI, the US State Department, the Pentagon etc. are liberal democracies is even more absurd.
The idea that the USA is always working for the best interests of New Zealand, and that China is always working against it is just stated as fact with no evidence provided or even asked for.
Sure there are differences between the liberal democracies, but they all have far more in common with each other than they do with illiberal, authoritarian regimes. If enough people don't like the government of the day, they can, peacefully, by the ballot box, throw the bums out. Most of the world doesn't do this - and it's both a strength of our system, and something that authoritarian regimes try to weaponise against us.
I didn't say the USA was working in our interest - just that we have more in common with them, and that ideas, policies, suggestions from there help us pretty often, whereas those from communist regimes do not. (Personally, I like China and the Chinese - but I am an anti-communist.)
Firstly I would dispute that the government of a liberal democracy can be removed by popular vote.
That’s the popular anthem sung, the label on the box, but not an accurate description of how the system actually works.
Starting from the trivial observation that the government is that which governs, consider how many of the social forces that actually govern our society are, even in theory, capable of being removed by a popular vote?
What influence does the $USD or Wall Street have on your life? Could it be voted out of power?
If liberal democracy is capable of voting out unpopular governments, then why are governments in liberal democracies consistently so unpopular? The leadership of liberal democracies right across the Western world has for years, in administration after administration, scored approval ratings in the 20 to 30 % range. That’s less popular than a dog with fleas.
A popular vote that can’t vote in popular candidates is a very weird sort of popular.
But that’s a relatively minor point. The topic at hand is international relations and foreign influence on New Zealand’s domestic policies. Here the other liberal democracies have much more influence than non-democracies.
For a series of illustrative examples, look carefully at the political career of Jacinda Ardern, both before and after her time as Prime Minister.
2006, she gained position in London in the Cabinet Office under Prime Minister Tony Blair.
2008, she became President of the International Union of Socialist Youth, serving until 2010.
2014, she was selected for the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program, founded by Klaus Schwab.
During her premiership in 2019 she co-founded the Christchurch Call with French President Emmanuel Macron.
After her premiership in mid-2023, she had fellowships at Harvard University, focusing on leadership, technology governance, and public service.
Late in 2023, she had position in Oxford University’s “World Leaders Circle” at The Blavatnik School of Government. The Blavatnik School of Government was established in 2010 with a £75 million donation from Russian billionaire oligarch Len Blavatnik.
The British Cabinet Office, The International Union of Socialist Youth, the World Economic Forum, The French President’s Office, Harvard University, Oxford University, The Blavatnik School of Government. All of them massively influential in New Zealand’s domestic politics and none of them answerable to a popular vote of New Zealand citizens, several of them are not answerable to any popular vote at all.
That is what is called Liberal Democracy, it’s powerful, it’s Liberal, but its power is not Democratic.
It’s funny that folk who bag our (admittedly & annoyingly flawed) system of democracy whilst trying to argue that ‘China ain’t the bad guys’ still choose to live here rather than there. You been to China & Taiwan? Both great to visit but chalk & cheese when it comes to freedom. The Taiwanese suffered under a horrible post WWII dictatorship for many years, I suspect they are keen not to do so again. If you’d ever been in a genuinely communist country, you would probably appreciate that.
Who I am, where I am, and how I choose to live my life is hardly relevant to the questions of, which foreign influences on the domestic politics of New Zealand get counted and which get ignored?
Or the question, what is a positive influence and what is negative?
Your post is mostly nonsense - I guess something is lost in the translation from Chinese or Russian or whatever.
The point that you can throw the bums out is basically political scientist Adam Przeworski's dictum: "democracy is a system in which parties lose elections." This is what happens in the Five Eyes countries, that doesn't happen in China, Russia, most of the Islamic world, etc.
The sensible bit in your post asks: "If liberal democracy is capable of voting out unpopular governments, then why are governments in liberal democracies consistently so unpopular? The leadership of liberal democracies right across the Western world has for years, in administration after administration, scored approval ratings in the 20 to 30 % range. That’s less popular than a dog with fleas."
The answer, in my view, is that more people are able to find fault with current settings than are able to agree about what to do next. I wouldn't expect *any* government to find roses thrown at their feet, because this simply isn't the nature of government. A better comparison is what happened in Eastern Europe when the wall came down - Communist parties were obliterated at the ballot box when people actually had a say in who governs them. Authoritarian governments often kid themselves that they're wildly popular with the people because they find it hard to accurately sample opinions when people live in fear of giving the "wrong" answer. (See also the Dictator's Dilemma.)
Finally, Jacinda Ardern is actually a case study in the system working: she was a surprise Prime Minister after winning the negotiations but not the election in 2017, won a thumping mandate in 2020, fell dramatically from favour, and jumped before she was pushed. We (the people) gave her a mandate, didn't like what she did with it, and threw the bum out.
You directly quoted and agreed with a large part of it, you can't find anything wrong with the details of Jacinda Ardern, so where's the non - sense?
And what's with the snarky Russian and Chinese language jibes? Do you seriously believe that I wrote it in either of those languages? If you don't then it's just a slur, an ad hominem attack right at the start in lieu of a substantial counter - argument.
The career and the case of Jacinda Ardern are an example of the New Zealand system working. That’s why I mentioned it. Whether or not it’s a case of the system working well is another question. Ardern is merely the most prominent example; dozens of other New Zealand politicians have followed very similar paths, just to lesser effect. She’s not abnormal she’s just extreme.
Why do you choose to ignore the massive influence of foreign powers in her rise to power? Is it irrelevant? Or is it highly relevant and very obvious, yet it cannot be mentioned in polite company?
What was Jacinda Ardern doing in the British Cabinet Office in London (the capital of a foreign power)? The most obvious explanation is that she was both training and being trained in the science of politics. Can that be denied? What did Jacinda Ardern think she was doing? Did she think that by working for the British government, she was doing her best to advance the interests of the New Zealand people? Or did she think that she was doing her best to advance her own political career, and that the road to her ambition ran through London?
Perhaps more importantly, what did the British Cabinet Office think they were doing when they employed a New Zealander (a foreign national) to work right inside the beating heart of their own political process? Was she the only candidate available for that position? Or were there many candidates, and did the Cabinet Office select her on the very reasonable assumption that training a promising young New Zealand politician would likely give them political power in New Zealand in the future? And were they wrong?
Jacinda Ardern both owes and is owed favors in London.
But London is only one part of her career. There’s also the presidency of the International Union of Socialist Youth and the World Economic Forum's Forum of Young Global Leaders.
This is how the New Zealand political system works, not how it’s supposed to work, but how it actually does work. The idea of a New Zealand Prime Minister being trained in Beijing or Moscow is insane, because New Zealanders would reasonably assume they would become partial to the interests of Beijing or Moscow.
They would both owe and be owed favors there. Being trained in London, Washington, Brussels, or New York is perfectly acceptable, so any reciprocal debts that New Zealand leaders need to settle in those foreign capitals and with those foreign institutions are just quietly ignored.
This is why Simon O’Connor’s essay is so fundamentally dishonest. It’s framed as a defense of New Zealand interests against foreign interests, and yet only the Chinese interests are considered as foreign, and they are reflexively considered bad. Other foreign interests, even though they’re massively influential, are just ignored, and whenever they are considered, they are reflexively considered good.
Because he looks at a tiny speck of dust elsewhere but refuses to see the massive beam of wood right here, he’s fundamentally dishonest, classic Matthew 7:3-5.
And no, Jacinda Ardern was not voted out of power and cannot be voted out of power. She was voted out of a particular position of power in New Zealand and then cycled right back into another international position of power. She’s now teaching international political power structures within the World Leaders' Circle at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University.
The difference is that in China Simon would be arrested for his views along with many of us who make comments on his editorials, whilst the likes of Jack Dee won't be in NZ for his comments!
It is our common Judeo-Christian heritage that binds 'Western nations' together regardless of our differences, whereas we have nothing in common with Communist China; an atheistic, materialistic nation, who genocided millions of her own people for 'ideological & intellectually dishonest reasons', & to 'try out' their so called 'scientific materialistic dialectical theory', to see how well it works! It doesn't!
We trade with China, we are not their friends!
The point is, at the end of the day, it comes down to who we can trust!
China is a 100% surveillance police state where citizens are allocated a credit score based on their financial behaviour, social interactions, work performance, daily behaviour!
In other words, 'big brother' is watching their every move! Something that is being gradually introduced into NZ!
Historically, our worldview is NOT centred on Marxism, however, Cultural Marxism has been 'subtly' (Gen 3:1) introduced through our institutions, 'allowed in' as the false gods were introduced into Judah by Solomon himself through his 'foreign wives'!
Treason & traitors giving rise to tyrants! We see that spirit on the rise in NZ! Real democracy is on the way out, being subverted by a 'fifth column', namely the media & left wing influence!
For Christians, our first loyalty is to God, His Will & His Word! Jn 14:21-24, Deut 4, Mt 12:30
We have our book, our truth to study & practise! We are in an ideological war between God's Word & Satan's word as in Marxism et al!
I ultimately don't subscribe to democracy, I subscribe to God's Kingdom, Mt 6:33, Mt 6:10, Dan 7:27 = Is 9:6-7 which on one level is a 'dictatorship', a 'parental benevolent dictatorship' as found in the family, although Satan is trying to undermine that as well!
Note the anti-smacking Bill, the no conversion therapy Bill as in sharing the Gospel, & the worship of mammon, hedonism, & the confusion of the sexes! All designed to undermine the family! Gen 1:27-28, Gen 2:24
We are in a war, their 'gods' against our God!
We have to choose a side, Dan 11:32, or be spewed out for being lukewarm & cowards! Rev 3:15-17, Rev 21:8, Mt 10:38-39
Herein is the reason why we have all these problems in the West. We didn't know what we should be DOING to be DOING the Will of God! Mt 7:21-23, Lk 8:21, Mt 7:17
We have subscribed to a very shallow, & facile view of God's Will & Jesus' teachings! Mt 7:13-14, Mt 15:7-10, Mt 7:21-23, Rev 3:1-3
Kindergarten Christianity is over! Mt 10:38-39, Rom 8:17, Rom 2:13, Phil 2:12, Mt 5:43-48, Heb 5:8-14
Mt 10:38 "He who does not take his cross and follow me is NOT WORTHY of me".
Christians have a decision to make! We are either for Jesus & his kingdom/governance, or we are against him!
You missed out including Islam which is not a religion but a political cult. Comprehensive ideology based on the idea of world domination by violent and other means. I wouldn't blame China for fearing that group. Also I think you could have included your observations on why Don Brash is so rabid in his support of China.
The difficulties I have with the rhetoric around foreign interference are 1. We chose to recognize China Beijing in around 1973, and to develop our trade and economic links with them. We need to honour and look after that decision. It's quite obviously an annoyance to them for us to be continually agitating for Taipei independence. And Ms Ou is quite simply not ambassador in New Zealand, thus it's not appropriate for you to label her as such. As much as you do that, you are adding to the very problem that you decry....... And 2. We join ourselves with the US and others in creating provocations, such as sending naval vessels into or close to Chinese waters. If we are there to protect trade,...... well that's lunacy anyway because the Chinese are predominantly those doing the trading and shipping there, and they are quite capable of defending the area themselves - and the only ones glowering and threatening shipping there are the Americans. If the Chinese didn't invite our ships there, we should keep away. It's a matter of respect. But if we continually play along with and participate in the US provocations, then of course we are likely to suffer in various ways. And none of that is in NZ interests. At one time the US consulate in HK had something like 300 staff. Very obviously out of proportion to their regular consular duties, and intended only for interfering in China. Should NZ stop associating itself with this, then the primary motivation for the Chinese to do anything to push things in NZ will be taken away. Again it's very simply about respectful relations. If we stop continually inviting the interference, it will surely reduce.....
We remain quite capable of trading with both China and Taiwan, it's just the former has a habit of constantly interfering in our democracy here. As for freedom of navigation, we are allowed to sail ships in international waters even if China thinks they own them. China continue to act as bullies and as we all know, there's only one way to deal with bullies. As for NZ not doing anything, I think that is a complete failure to understand the CCP and its aims plus also means you are supporting New Zealand as being a vassal state. I for one prefer our democracy, our allies, national security, and sovereignty.
It's not a matter of habit. It's a response to the pressures being brought to bear upon them by others. Therefore, in this context, complaining about it is quite pointless, if at the same time we are also unwilling to examine ourselves, and how our own actions invite and encourage that very response of which we are complaining,
What's your definition of a vassal state, and where does it apply in the world today?
Perhaps the best two examples would be Venezuela and Iraq. Main export industry fully controlled by a foreign power, and the leadership knows very well that any move out of line will result in them being either abducted or assassinated by agents of that foreign power.
No chocolate fish for those who can tell us who is the controller in each instance.....😁
Yes, but what are the rules?
What determines if a state is a vassal state?
I would say that a vassal state mainly has autonomy over its own affairs but must defer to its larger patron state in international affairs. The patron must also supply protection to its vassal against all other states.
Belarus is a vassal of Russia, Canada is essentially a vassal of the USA but the Cook Islands are obviously vassals of New Zealand.
The more interesting question is, Is New Zealand a vassal state, or quasi-vassal state of some combination of the USA + Australia? Does Wellington have complete autonomy in international affairs (could it sign a treaty with Tehran or Pyongyang for example)?
Can it provide for its own defense?
The main problem with this is that standards aren't applied equally.
Foreign influence in New Zealand must surely be examined but lets do it honestly.
BeiDou over Antarctica must be measured by exactly the same yardstick as GPS over that exact same continent.
Political influence from Beijing measured by the same standards as that from Washington, and that does not mean measuring everything by whatever the current Washington consensus is.
Far too many people, worried about being a Chinese vassal state at sometime in the future, demand that we remain an American vassal state for all eternity
We are a liberal democracy and the other Five Eyes countries are, too. They are our natural allies and first-choice partners for the very good reason that we share values, histories, systems of government, and institutions. There are exceptions at the fringe, but on the whole these places seek to help us co-develop our society, whereas authoritarian regimes seek to weaken our systems and divide our people(s).
A pretty predictable response and a rather weak one too.
It just skips over what a liberal democracy is, where it is and why we should even care. Much like that other obscurantist name “International Rules Based Order” the details are not only never examined, looking at them too closely is positively discouraged.
Britain is a constitutional monarchy, and the USA is a republic, not a democracy, but that all gets fudged over because “Liberal Democracy” has better PR value.
But more substantially, the idea that Washington D.C. is dedicated to working for the people of New Zealand is absurd and a very bad idea even if it was true.
Further more, the idea that the World Bank, the IMF, the CIA, the FBI, the US State Department, the Pentagon etc. are liberal democracies is even more absurd.
The idea that the USA is always working for the best interests of New Zealand, and that China is always working against it is just stated as fact with no evidence provided or even asked for.
Sure there are differences between the liberal democracies, but they all have far more in common with each other than they do with illiberal, authoritarian regimes. If enough people don't like the government of the day, they can, peacefully, by the ballot box, throw the bums out. Most of the world doesn't do this - and it's both a strength of our system, and something that authoritarian regimes try to weaponise against us.
I didn't say the USA was working in our interest - just that we have more in common with them, and that ideas, policies, suggestions from there help us pretty often, whereas those from communist regimes do not. (Personally, I like China and the Chinese - but I am an anti-communist.)
Firstly I would dispute that the government of a liberal democracy can be removed by popular vote.
That’s the popular anthem sung, the label on the box, but not an accurate description of how the system actually works.
Starting from the trivial observation that the government is that which governs, consider how many of the social forces that actually govern our society are, even in theory, capable of being removed by a popular vote?
What influence does the $USD or Wall Street have on your life? Could it be voted out of power?
If liberal democracy is capable of voting out unpopular governments, then why are governments in liberal democracies consistently so unpopular? The leadership of liberal democracies right across the Western world has for years, in administration after administration, scored approval ratings in the 20 to 30 % range. That’s less popular than a dog with fleas.
A popular vote that can’t vote in popular candidates is a very weird sort of popular.
But that’s a relatively minor point. The topic at hand is international relations and foreign influence on New Zealand’s domestic policies. Here the other liberal democracies have much more influence than non-democracies.
For a series of illustrative examples, look carefully at the political career of Jacinda Ardern, both before and after her time as Prime Minister.
2006, she gained position in London in the Cabinet Office under Prime Minister Tony Blair.
2008, she became President of the International Union of Socialist Youth, serving until 2010.
2014, she was selected for the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program, founded by Klaus Schwab.
During her premiership in 2019 she co-founded the Christchurch Call with French President Emmanuel Macron.
After her premiership in mid-2023, she had fellowships at Harvard University, focusing on leadership, technology governance, and public service.
Late in 2023, she had position in Oxford University’s “World Leaders Circle” at The Blavatnik School of Government. The Blavatnik School of Government was established in 2010 with a £75 million donation from Russian billionaire oligarch Len Blavatnik.
The British Cabinet Office, The International Union of Socialist Youth, the World Economic Forum, The French President’s Office, Harvard University, Oxford University, The Blavatnik School of Government. All of them massively influential in New Zealand’s domestic politics and none of them answerable to a popular vote of New Zealand citizens, several of them are not answerable to any popular vote at all.
That is what is called Liberal Democracy, it’s powerful, it’s Liberal, but its power is not Democratic.
It’s funny that folk who bag our (admittedly & annoyingly flawed) system of democracy whilst trying to argue that ‘China ain’t the bad guys’ still choose to live here rather than there. You been to China & Taiwan? Both great to visit but chalk & cheese when it comes to freedom. The Taiwanese suffered under a horrible post WWII dictatorship for many years, I suspect they are keen not to do so again. If you’d ever been in a genuinely communist country, you would probably appreciate that.
Who I am, where I am, and how I choose to live my life is hardly relevant to the questions of, which foreign influences on the domestic politics of New Zealand get counted and which get ignored?
Or the question, what is a positive influence and what is negative?
Your post is mostly nonsense - I guess something is lost in the translation from Chinese or Russian or whatever.
The point that you can throw the bums out is basically political scientist Adam Przeworski's dictum: "democracy is a system in which parties lose elections." This is what happens in the Five Eyes countries, that doesn't happen in China, Russia, most of the Islamic world, etc.
The sensible bit in your post asks: "If liberal democracy is capable of voting out unpopular governments, then why are governments in liberal democracies consistently so unpopular? The leadership of liberal democracies right across the Western world has for years, in administration after administration, scored approval ratings in the 20 to 30 % range. That’s less popular than a dog with fleas."
The answer, in my view, is that more people are able to find fault with current settings than are able to agree about what to do next. I wouldn't expect *any* government to find roses thrown at their feet, because this simply isn't the nature of government. A better comparison is what happened in Eastern Europe when the wall came down - Communist parties were obliterated at the ballot box when people actually had a say in who governs them. Authoritarian governments often kid themselves that they're wildly popular with the people because they find it hard to accurately sample opinions when people live in fear of giving the "wrong" answer. (See also the Dictator's Dilemma.)
Finally, Jacinda Ardern is actually a case study in the system working: she was a surprise Prime Minister after winning the negotiations but not the election in 2017, won a thumping mandate in 2020, fell dramatically from favour, and jumped before she was pushed. We (the people) gave her a mandate, didn't like what she did with it, and threw the bum out.
System works fine.
So where's the nonsense?
You directly quoted and agreed with a large part of it, you can't find anything wrong with the details of Jacinda Ardern, so where's the non - sense?
And what's with the snarky Russian and Chinese language jibes? Do you seriously believe that I wrote it in either of those languages? If you don't then it's just a slur, an ad hominem attack right at the start in lieu of a substantial counter - argument.
That's weak.
The career and the case of Jacinda Ardern are an example of the New Zealand system working. That’s why I mentioned it. Whether or not it’s a case of the system working well is another question. Ardern is merely the most prominent example; dozens of other New Zealand politicians have followed very similar paths, just to lesser effect. She’s not abnormal she’s just extreme.
Why do you choose to ignore the massive influence of foreign powers in her rise to power? Is it irrelevant? Or is it highly relevant and very obvious, yet it cannot be mentioned in polite company?
What was Jacinda Ardern doing in the British Cabinet Office in London (the capital of a foreign power)? The most obvious explanation is that she was both training and being trained in the science of politics. Can that be denied? What did Jacinda Ardern think she was doing? Did she think that by working for the British government, she was doing her best to advance the interests of the New Zealand people? Or did she think that she was doing her best to advance her own political career, and that the road to her ambition ran through London?
Perhaps more importantly, what did the British Cabinet Office think they were doing when they employed a New Zealander (a foreign national) to work right inside the beating heart of their own political process? Was she the only candidate available for that position? Or were there many candidates, and did the Cabinet Office select her on the very reasonable assumption that training a promising young New Zealand politician would likely give them political power in New Zealand in the future? And were they wrong?
Jacinda Ardern both owes and is owed favors in London.
But London is only one part of her career. There’s also the presidency of the International Union of Socialist Youth and the World Economic Forum's Forum of Young Global Leaders.
This is how the New Zealand political system works, not how it’s supposed to work, but how it actually does work. The idea of a New Zealand Prime Minister being trained in Beijing or Moscow is insane, because New Zealanders would reasonably assume they would become partial to the interests of Beijing or Moscow.
They would both owe and be owed favors there. Being trained in London, Washington, Brussels, or New York is perfectly acceptable, so any reciprocal debts that New Zealand leaders need to settle in those foreign capitals and with those foreign institutions are just quietly ignored.
This is why Simon O’Connor’s essay is so fundamentally dishonest. It’s framed as a defense of New Zealand interests against foreign interests, and yet only the Chinese interests are considered as foreign, and they are reflexively considered bad. Other foreign interests, even though they’re massively influential, are just ignored, and whenever they are considered, they are reflexively considered good.
Because he looks at a tiny speck of dust elsewhere but refuses to see the massive beam of wood right here, he’s fundamentally dishonest, classic Matthew 7:3-5.
And no, Jacinda Ardern was not voted out of power and cannot be voted out of power. She was voted out of a particular position of power in New Zealand and then cycled right back into another international position of power. She’s now teaching international political power structures within the World Leaders' Circle at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University.
She has returned to her home planet.
The difference is that in China Simon would be arrested for his views along with many of us who make comments on his editorials, whilst the likes of Jack Dee won't be in NZ for his comments!
It is our common Judeo-Christian heritage that binds 'Western nations' together regardless of our differences, whereas we have nothing in common with Communist China; an atheistic, materialistic nation, who genocided millions of her own people for 'ideological & intellectually dishonest reasons', & to 'try out' their so called 'scientific materialistic dialectical theory', to see how well it works! It doesn't!
We trade with China, we are not their friends!
The point is, at the end of the day, it comes down to who we can trust!
China is a 100% surveillance police state where citizens are allocated a credit score based on their financial behaviour, social interactions, work performance, daily behaviour!
In other words, 'big brother' is watching their every move! Something that is being gradually introduced into NZ!
Historically, our worldview is NOT centred on Marxism, however, Cultural Marxism has been 'subtly' (Gen 3:1) introduced through our institutions, 'allowed in' as the false gods were introduced into Judah by Solomon himself through his 'foreign wives'!
Treason & traitors giving rise to tyrants! We see that spirit on the rise in NZ! Real democracy is on the way out, being subverted by a 'fifth column', namely the media & left wing influence!
For Christians, our first loyalty is to God, His Will & His Word! Jn 14:21-24, Deut 4, Mt 12:30
We have our book, our truth to study & practise! We are in an ideological war between God's Word & Satan's word as in Marxism et al!
I ultimately don't subscribe to democracy, I subscribe to God's Kingdom, Mt 6:33, Mt 6:10, Dan 7:27 = Is 9:6-7 which on one level is a 'dictatorship', a 'parental benevolent dictatorship' as found in the family, although Satan is trying to undermine that as well!
Note the anti-smacking Bill, the no conversion therapy Bill as in sharing the Gospel, & the worship of mammon, hedonism, & the confusion of the sexes! All designed to undermine the family! Gen 1:27-28, Gen 2:24
We are in a war, their 'gods' against our God!
We have to choose a side, Dan 11:32, or be spewed out for being lukewarm & cowards! Rev 3:15-17, Rev 21:8, Mt 10:38-39
Herein is the reason why we have all these problems in the West. We didn't know what we should be DOING to be DOING the Will of God! Mt 7:21-23, Lk 8:21, Mt 7:17
We have subscribed to a very shallow, & facile view of God's Will & Jesus' teachings! Mt 7:13-14, Mt 15:7-10, Mt 7:21-23, Rev 3:1-3
Kindergarten Christianity is over! Mt 10:38-39, Rom 8:17, Rom 2:13, Phil 2:12, Mt 5:43-48, Heb 5:8-14
Mt 10:38 "He who does not take his cross and follow me is NOT WORTHY of me".
Christians have a decision to make! We are either for Jesus & his kingdom/governance, or we are against him!
Which is it?
You missed out including Islam which is not a religion but a political cult. Comprehensive ideology based on the idea of world domination by violent and other means. I wouldn't blame China for fearing that group. Also I think you could have included your observations on why Don Brash is so rabid in his support of China.
only so many themes you can touch on in a 10 minute speech :)