Independence doesn't mean inaction

Some thoughts on recent comments about New Zealand's place in the Indo-Pacific and our 'independent foreign policy'.

Hello everyone.  I had hoped to write sooner but found myself happily distracted over the last few days doing further renovations around the house.  I am happy to report another bathroom modernised and the deck outside, all oiled and refreshed (almost 30 litres of oil later!!). With this glorious summer weather, I just have to remind myself to stop working and actually sit back and enjoy it!

There is much to discuss as always, but it is an article this morning from Radio New Zealand caught my eye where it cried out - ‘AUKUS a military pact designed to contain China, says Labour’.   Well duh!

The basic story is Labour walking back its earlier, and governmental, support of AUKUS Pillar II.  This pillar focused on sharing military technology.  Importantly, and without going into detail here, it does not involve submarines or nuclear technology. You can read the full article here for context.

Their foreign affairs spokesperson argues that there is nothing that AUKUS II could deliver New Zealand that we don’t already have.  This will come as quite a surprise to those in the defence space.  The major and ever-growing issues with our military have been somewhat well traversed in recent weeks, but one concern that has been an increasing problem is New Zealand’s interoperability with other allied nations.  Think simply our ability to work alongside other militaries be this via equipment or doctrine.  To suggest we don’t need further assistance around everything from AI to quantum technology is utter naivety.

Another Labour MP, Phil Twyford, asked in the Parliament – “if there's a war in the South China Sea ... is it this government's intention to be dragged into that conflict on the side of the US?"  What on earth does he think is going to happen?!? For the sake of argument, remove for a moment which – if any – side New Zealand might choose, and simply imagine the enormous and direct impact on New Zealand.  Any conflict will see an immediate disruption to our vital trade routes.  Many goods won’t be getting from New Zealand to Asia, nor Asia to New Zealand; there be near total blockades by all sides involved.  Other goods will have to travel more expensive routes both in terms of time and money.  Various technologies we rely on, notably those using microchips, will stall.  And yet, I have come across time again politicians and others who think all will be well.  Several even think that by keeping in China’s good books, that we would become exempt from any consequences of conflict.  This naivety is astounding from those who should know better.

If there is conflict of any sort, we will be impacted immediately, materially, and substantially.  Sure, we could arguably sit it out militarily (or not impose sanctions etc) but regardless, there will be major impact on our economy and society.  To me, it appears the likes of Labour and others in positions of influence think we could ‘sit this out’ without consequence.  Often, these same people will talk of New Zealand having ‘an independent foreign policy’ as if this means policy that keeps everyone happy all the time and comes with no consequences.  Put another way, there appears to be a belief that if New Zealand just does nothing - allies with no one; does not confront challenges to democracy, the rule of law, or the current international order; doesn’t invest sufficiently in defence and intelligence – then we just happily ride out any storm with little to no consequence.  It is a misplaced belief that ‘independence’ means siding with all, which is clearly impossible. 

Let’s be under no illusion, the troubles in the likes of the South China Sea are real and ongoing.  These are not some figment of alarmist imagination.  We have the seizure of disputed islands (between the likes of China, Vietnam, the Philippines etc) and then these being militarised by the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  There are almost daily threats and incursions into Taiwanese airspace and just last week, an arbitrary re-drawing of international flight routes by the PRC government through the Taiwan Straits.  Add to this the crushing of democracy in Hong Kong, the farce of a legal system now in play via the Jimmy Lai case, and much more – we are dealing with a real, substantial, and serious issue.  Blindly saying all is ok, we have an independent foreign policy, doesn’t cut it.

While this RNZ article focused on Labour, the current government also needs to get its messaging consistent.  The sentiments discussed above are not simply a left vs right, red vs blue, issue.  Strong statements alongside Australian Ministers recently are to be welcomed, including a clear-eyed perspective on many of the challenges in our region.  But attempts by some to walk these back are unhelpful including as they simply confuse the situation, again making no one happy or certain.

With best wishes for the rest of the week and my thanks to everyone for the comments and feedback.

Simon