Media Link: “A View from Afar” on NZ foreign policy independence reframed.

datePosted on 14:37, April 22nd, 2021 by Pablo

Nanaia Mahuta, NZ’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, gave a speech that was notable for two things. On the one hand she spoke of diversifying NZ’s trade relations away from the domination of one market (read: the PRC). On the other hand she expressed a desire to return the 5 Eyes signals intelligence collection and sharing network to its original charter rather than allow it to be used a diplomatic foil by the other partners in the network (which was brought about by a couple of critical 5 Eyes statements on events in the PRC). To be clear: the 5 Eyes is an intelligence network, not a diplomatic coalition or military-security alliance, so using it for diplomatic signalling and posturing is folly. Not only is NZ the most vulnerable of the 5 Eyes partners to Chinese retaliation, but the move to use 5 Eyes as a diplomatic tool was an initiative that came from a Trump administration that was uninterested in the complexities of the relations US partners maintained with China and very much interested in pressing the partners to bend a knee to Trump’s desire to squeeze China on all fronts.

In other words, it was an absurd and unnecessary initiative that complicated things for the spy agencies involved and undermined the positions of the diplomats who normally would conduct such types of public diplomacy. As it turns out, Winston Peters and Ron Mark of NZ First were the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence at the time of the first US request to use the 5 Eyes to issue joint condemnatory statements about Chinese behaviour in Hong Kong and vis a vis the Uyghers in Xinjiang Province. They wanted to keep in the US good graces and so acceded to the request, something that Mahuta agreed to with regards to a second statement very early on in her tenure as Foreign Minister. But after very blunt warnings from the Chinese about NZ’s meddling in its internal affairs, it is clear that a more calibrated, balanced approach was required. Her speech delivered on that score.

It did so because it counterpoised the need to return to the original 5 Eyes charter with a declaration of intent with regard to diversifying trade away from the PRC. There is irony in the move because it was under the 5th Labour government where NZ’s trade dependence on the PRC was deepened and consolidated via the signing of a bilateral Free Trade Agreement (in 2008). Thus, while former PM Helen Clark may have played a role in getting NZ to push to restore the 5 Eyes charter due to her statement in September 2020 that NZ was losing its independence within it, she also was being rebuked for ignoring the concerns of many that the asymmetric nature of the NZ-PRC FTA would come back to haunt NZ on both the economic and diplomatic fronts.

The speech went on to reaffirms NZ’s foreign policy independence and its commitment to multilateralism, democratic values and a South Pacific orientation. Coming just before a visit by the Australian foreign minister, it served as a framing device for bilateral discussions. More generally, it helped re-frame how NZ proposes to approach the world over the next few years. The key issue will be how it implements, much less achieves, what is essentially a new balance in the conduct of NZ foreign affairs.

In any case, here is the podcast with Selwyn Manning on the subject.

3 Responses to “Media Link: “A View from Afar” on NZ foreign policy independence reframed.”

  1. Di Trower on April 22nd, 2021 at 16:23

    I’ve been very pleased with Nanaia Mahuta’s latest statement in regards to Five Eyes and NZ’s position. I think she could well grow very nicely into the role and (hopefully) position NZ well in terms of how we relate to the PRC with a broad base of likeminded countries, rather than being constrained by the direction that the others within the alliance think we should go – and are clearly trying to assert pressure on us. Aligning in a broadbased way with Scandinavia, Germany, etc, will be a very good move in the long term but will not make us popular with the other four – hence the article in the Telegraph yesterday. I imagine we’ll have to expect a lot more of that.

  2. Sam on April 23rd, 2021 at 07:23

    I think Peeni and Robertson needs to axe NZDFs capital charges and double the recapitalisation fund from $20 to $40 billion. Just go with me on this.

  3. Kendrick on September 7th, 2021 at 20:52

    The response is really interesting regarding the matter. The FPI has been on the surface for a while.

Leave a Reply

Name: (required)
Email: (required) (will not be published)
Website:
Comment: