Gerald Hensley was David Lange’s chief of staff when New Zealand’s nuclear free policy was adopted. He opposed what happened then and opposes it still. He now argues we should prepare for war with China.
Writing in the Post’s full-page opinion piece titled: ‘How will a self-absorbed NZ face A RISING CHINA?’ Hensley states:
In the 1980s a long period of peace led to some resentment at what was seen as a dependence on our traditional friends. We abandoned our security arrangement with the United States and declared that henceforth we would pursue an independent foreign policy.
This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Hensley manages to fill a full page article urging New Zealand to prepare for war with China now, without once mentioning our determination then to become and remain proudly nuclear free. New Zealand did not abandon the ANZUS security alliance – it was forced out by the United States, as we did not allow access of nuclear-armed or propelled ship to our harbours.
Hensley’s basic thesis is that Xi Jinping wants to rule the world. He talks of China’s aggressive nationalism, speaking of:
”China’s aim to become paramount power in the Asia Pacific and perhaps beyond is repeatedly proclaimed by its leader and by its actions over a decade. As the differences deepen we have to keep in mind the risk that the urge to rest our hopes on diplomacy will confuse and distract us from the core of the difficulty.”
The reveal words there are “paramount” and “perhaps beyond.” China has never aimed to become a power beyond its borders, but because of its history does take its internal security very seriously. This is shown in it’s determination to counter terrorism in Xinjiang and violent protest in Hong Kong.
Hensley is like many outside commentators on China, mind-readers who presume to tell us how their leader thinks. In my opinion it is much more useful to pay attention to what China’s leader actually does. Peace and stability are important values for China, as is evidenced by Xi Jinping’s recent bringing together of Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi’ite Iran into a durable peace agreement. This is an extraordinary, stunning diplomatic achievement which will have important repercussions, shaping the development of that violence-ridden region for a long time to come.
Regarding Hong Kong some fact checking is in order. Hensley states that China ‘tore up the treaty guaranteeing Hong Kong’s freedoms” What China did in fact was to enact the clause 23 of the treaty guaranteeing peace and stability that the interim Government had failed to introduce. The uprising stopped and peace returned to Hong Kong.
Hensley’s solution is to abandon diplomacy and go for militarisation, on the Alice in Wonderland theory that more military expenditure will bring about peace. It never has before and it is unlikely to do so in the future. He says:
(Xi Jinping’s) policy is not to make or keep foreign friends, it is to place China at the top of the foreign policy ladder. Trying to do so imposes costs and he is willing to accept them up to a point. The point at which the costs may become too high is not when China is cold-shouldered abroad or when it is not invited to conferences but when an alliance begins to emerge that is capable of checking his dominant ambition, taking Taiwan.
He continues:
So to borrow a phrase from Lenin, what is to be done? The threat of war would galvanise the diplomats – that is what they are for – but a diplomatic solution does not seem possible unless China is willing to abandon its aim to annex Taiwan.
This is nothing short of lunacy. To treat the trivial first, it is not China that is being cold-shouldered at conferences. Chinese General Li’s speech at the Shangri-La conference this weekend was greeted with applause from around the room at its conclusion. The shift to a multi-polar world is proceeding apace at conference after conference where China is welcomed.
But calling on China to abandon its claim to Taiwan is something else altogether. Another remarkable elision from Hensley’s article is any mention of the one-China policy, that New Zealand along with nearly every other country around the world adheres to. Hensley is arguing that we should be ready to join a Civil War inside China!
Hensley compares China to Germany and Japan as nationalist powers that were expansionist, but the comparison is absurd. A better parallel for us would be to compare the 1840 treaty of Waitangi with the 1842 treaty of Nanjing, both transacted with Great Britain. In the 1842 treaty, Britain forced China to accept opium instead of silver to pay for coveted Chinese silks and ceramics, and also forced China to secede Hong Kong to Britain as a colony.
We can therefore possibly understand how this history has played out in China’s consciousness today. The Treaty of Waitangi was not forced upon the indigenous people of New Zealand, but it was followed with a Civil War fought over ownership of land. Just as as the history of grievance has remained over time in New Zealand’s consciousness following the Treaty of Waitangi, we may begin to understand how the Treaty of Nanjing is perceived inside China. That is why saying that New Zealand should join an alliance to force China to exclude Taiwan as part of its internal political structure is offensive in the extreme to all Chinese. Taiwan is already part of China – there is no question of annexation.
Hensley makes much of the failure of diplomacy in relation to China’s role in the Pacific hence his preference for reversion to force. He does acknowledge that the consequences of such of use of force with China would be horrendous but he has no faith in diplomacy. He does however pay it lip-service:
Of course we must “keep the channels open” and keep talking with China. Of course we must lose no opportunity to try to understand its outlook and show our goodwill and desire to meet it’s reasonable needs, but talking rarely eases nationalist resentments.
As the differences deepen we have to keep in mind the risk that the urge to rest our hopes on diplomacy will confuse and distract us from the core of the difficulty.
The core of the difficulty of course is that it is the United States not China that is the expansionist aggressor. That subject is for another time.
But the starting point with anyone for our diplomacy has to be putting ourselves in the other persons shoes and attempting to understand their point of view. And my opinion our diplomats do not make much effort to understand China’s point of view.
Hensley’s article could be dismissed as that of an old Cold War warrior crying in the beer for the days of the United States alliance under ANZUS. However I hear from multiple credible sources that revisionist laments are also found in some of our current professional diplomats.
We urgently need a wide-ranging debate about our .relations with China and our supposedly independent foreign policy. In my opinion, we also need to listen carefully to what Chinese voices actually. Wemay find much to our advantage. My Fabian Society interview with Chinese ambassador Wang Xiaolong on China’s values was one attempt to hear their point of view in their own words.
Now is not the time to be picking sides, we should be looking for every avenue that promotes peace and dialogue. There is too much at stake to get it wrong.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress