Resisting US pressure for NZ to sacrifice itself to defend US hegemony against China

Written By: - Date published: 3:07 pm, July 24th, 2024 - 16 comments
Categories: AUKUS, China, Diplomacy, Disarmament, International, Peace, trade, us politics, war - Tags:

Twenty years’ ago the then leader of the conservative New Zealand National Party, Don Brash, got into hot water when a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) official reported that he had assured a visiting delegation from the US Senate that if his party were elected to office NZ’s ‘nuclear-free policy’ would be ‘gone by lunchtime’.

Since this promise contravened the National Party’s official policy that it would only change NZ’s nuclear policy after a referendum this made him easy meat for the ruling Labour Party government led by Helen Clark. Brash tried to distance himself from the statement personally, though not denying that it was made- ‘I don’t know who said it. I’ve consistently said I don’t remember.’ Nevertheless the statement remained to haunt him.

Since then Don Brash has broken with most of his former comrades in the National Party, and the further-right ACT Party (which he led briefly in 2011), and is now publicly standing together with his former nemesis, Helen Clark, to protest against the subservience of recent New Zealand governments, under both Labour and now National, to America’s anti-China policy. Helen Clark has been the most independent-minded of NZ prime ministers, certainly in recent times – she refused to send combat troops to serve in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, though she did deploy ‘reconstruction personnel’ to support the American occupation and, it is claimed, army engineers to protect NZ dairy facilities. The strengthening of her stand against the subordination of NZ interests to American imperial strategy is certainly welcome, but not surprising.

The Damascene Conversion of Don Brash is freighted with more significance. He has published at least four personal articles over the last year condemning this self-destructive subordination –An Independent Foreign Policy? [13 February 2023], I love America, but … [26 July 2023]; Why on earth would we join Aukus in any form? [23 December2023]; Why not AUKUS? [17 April 2024]. He has also written at least four with Helen Clark –NZ must not abandon our independent foreign policy [13 February 2024], Aukus and NZ: We should have no part of any military-related arrangements against China [21 June 2024], We’re approaching a critical junction [22 June 2024], and on 16 July – Statement on NZ Government jeopardising NZ’s independent foreign policy and economic security.

The thrust of these articles can easily be gleaned from their titles, and it is not, in itself, particularly revolutionary. It is basically stating what is obvious to any informed person whose salary, to borrow from Upton Sinclair’s aphorism, does not depend on denying it.

Don Brash is not alone. He shares a website with Michael Basset, a historian who was a minister in David Lange’s Labour governments of the 1980s and 1990s, and Rodney Hyde, his predecessor as leader of the ACT Party. The website, entitled Bassett, Brash & Hide (sic), is currently publishing about 30 articles a month from a variety of writers, and viewpoints.

This reshuffling of the traditional left-to-right political spectrum is by no means confined to New Zealand. It is perhaps most evident in Europe where mainstream parties – Labour, Socialist, Conservative, and Green – have slithered into irrelevance and impotence in an environment churned by the struggle of America to retain its hegemony. The demands of Washington have unleashed and exacerbated social forces which were already lashing against the certainties of established political parties and ideas. These demands have been superimposed on top of the underlying challenges of climate change, immigration, gender issues and the destructive creativity of technology. This has all proved too much for the ruling political elites which have tended to neglect and even sacrifice the interests of their people in an attempt to satisfy America. Bereft of traditional policies they are left with little to offer beyond anodyne banality.

The recent article by Brash and Clark was triggered by an interview New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon gave to the Financial Times while answering his summons to the July NATO summit in Washington. The FT interview was titled New Zealand prime minister vows to name and shame China over spying. 

The allegations about spying appear to have little merit and seem to be based on claims by two former MPs who were members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). This is a grouping of malleable politicians organised by Republican hawk Senator Marco Rubio. Brash and Clark refused to get excited about the spying allegations:

“Does China spy on New Zealand? Almost certainly, just as the US, the UK, and countless others, including New Zealand, spy on other countries. Is China the only country spying on New Zealand, and is it only governments that engage in spying? Almost certainly not. The obsessive focus on spying by China suggests an agenda going beyond alerting and equipping New Zealanders to better manage all relevant risks.

The Luxon alarm over China’s supposedly egregious behaviour was really no more than a signalling of fealty to America. That fealty means abandoning any independence in NZ’s foreign policy and becoming an adjunct, and a minor one at that, to American power. Amongst other things, as adumbrated by Luxon, it entails NZ forces serving under America in The Philippines, in addition to those already under US command in South Korea and the South China Sea, and of course moving to participating in AUKUS.

Brash and Clark eloquently and succinctly demolish the arguments for this subservience to US policy and highlight the dangers this poses to New Zealand:

“New Zealand has a huge stake in maintaining a cordial relationship with China. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain such a relationship if the Government continues to align its positioning with that of the United States.

“New Zealand has for decades sought engagement with China and its inclusion in the international system. A policy of isolating China serves no one’s interests, and has major implications for New Zealand’s economic security.

“A better approach would be to follow the example of Singapore – friendly to both China and the US, but definitely not in a treaty relationship with either. The course which the New Zealand Government is now taking, with no electoral mandate for a radical change to foreign policy, carries huge risks to our country”, Helen Clark and Don Brash said.

Much more could be said about the foolish and dangerous abandonment of an independent foreign policy – the possibility of the US going to war against China (and Russia) as its struggle to retain hegemony – is very real. Hopefully the raising of the standard of critical thought by this unlikely pair – too prominent to be ignored even by the local media – will help shatter the complacent myopia of NZ’s foreign policy towards China grounded in unthinking obedience to the US.

Tim Beal Author, Researcher, Educator; Asia specialist. Tim is a retired NZ academic who has written extensively on Asia, with a focus on Northeast Asia. He also has an interest in imperialism, again mainly in respect of Asia but recently, also inevitably encompassing Europe

16 comments on “Resisting US pressure for NZ to sacrifice itself to defend US hegemony against China ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. SPC 1
    24 July 2024 at 4:25 pm

    What independent "foreign policy"? Independent from what?

    Our foreign policy is based on a UN centred multilateralism. Respect for international law, collective security (action with others in defence of nations such as Ukraine, international sea lanes from the Red Sea to the Pacific) and peacekeeping.

    Our security policy involves being in Five Eyes and NATO+. We have a defence alliance with Australia, which involves interoperability considerations.

    We tend to support free trade, but have restricted access to our domestic IT infrastructure to Chinese companies* and are willing to apply sanctions (North Korea, Iran and Russia).

    The idea that an independent foreign policy

    1.involves no support for ASEAN nations in their dispute with China in the South China sea can be seen as subordinating collective security and regional co-operation to kowtow to a regional hegemon.

    2.involves no research and development in IT infrastructure, cyber security and AI etc with "democratic nation" partners – in the light of* is absurd.

    That said, none of 2 has anything to do with AUKUS (UK and USA support for Oz having nuclear powered subs). Nor with the QUAD.

    We should work with *partners, such as South Korea, Japan, Oz, UK, Canada, USA and EU. Of course we need to propose an entirely separate organisational structure.

  2. Res Publica 2
    24 July 2024 at 6:14 pm

    Ye gods, am I getting sick of seeing all this morally bankrupt, intellectually lazy, "aMeRiCa BaD" bullshit dressed up and published as "analysis" by seemingly serious pseudo-intellectuals who tie themselves into knots trying to justify abandoning the international rules-based order that is fundamental to maintaining our foreign policy.

    [deleted]

    The chance of the US seeking conflict with China simply to maintain its so-called hegemony is next to zero. The chance of it (along with a constellation of allies) engaging in conflict with China to defend the de facto independence of Taiwan, or the territorial integrity of South Korea, Japan, or The Philippines is substantially higher.

    To simply walk away from collective security and regional co-operation would be the absolute height of stupidity. And for what? To appease a rising power that has very little respect for international law, human rights, or democracy?

    And, what's more, is ruled by a brutal authoritarian regime that regularly disappears its own citizens and is openly engaged in ethnic cleansing.

    Because if our foreign policy isn't "independent" enough when it's aligned with the US, I'd hate to see how it would look under Chinese hegemony.

    [I deleted the insulting line. Please mind your manners about authors – weka]

    • weka 2.1
      24 July 2024 at 6:42 pm

      mod note.

    • aj 2.2
      24 July 2024 at 7:19 pm

      Luxon recently told the Financial Times that he viewed China as a strategic competitor in the Indo-Pacific.

      Next minute he adds he says he wants New Zealand to continue to develop trade with China and double the country’s overall exports over the next 10 years. Good luck with that after joining an openly hostile alliance. Since when has New Zealand declared that China was a strategic competitor? or is that Luxon cravenly adopting the American position.

      In the same interview he said he was very concerned about the Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea. The two parties have been in negotiation and reached a deal.

      China and Philippines reach deal to stop clashes over fiercely disputed territory at sea

      https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/china-and-philippines-reach-deal-to-stop-clashes-over-fiercely-disputed-territory-at-sea/ar-BB1qmwVV

      • SPC 2.2.1
        24 July 2024 at 7:43 pm

        There was no resolution of the territorial dispute.

        The Chinese have simply allowed supplies to a Philippines outpost (a grounded ship)

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/07/23/china-philippines-south-china-sea-sierra-madre/

        • aj 2.2.1.1
          24 July 2024 at 8:52 pm

          Why criticise the outcome of diplomacy when it lowers the temperature? There is little enough diplomacy in the world at the moment and we should be thankful for what there is.

          Former President of the United Nations Security Council, Kishore Mahbubani offers a study in a more restrained and pragmatic approach. Words that could have come from a braver New Zealand.

          He wrote an article in 2021 under this headline, and the last three years would have only sharpened his concerns I suspect:

          The Pacific has no need of the destructive militaristic culture of the Atlantic alliance

          Something very dangerous happened a few weeks ago when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) held its meeting in Brussels. In its communique after the meeting on June 14, it identified China as a “systemic challenge” to areas “relevant to Alliance security. The implicit message was clear: Nato would like to expand its tentacles beyond the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. All of us who live close to the Pacific Ocean, especially in East Asia, should be deeply concerned. If Nato comes to the Pacific, it only means trouble for us.

          East Asia has developed, with the assistance of Asean, a very cautious and pragmatic geopolitical culture. In the 30 years since the end of the Cold War, Nato has dropped several thousand bombs on many countries. By contrast, in the same period, no bombs have been dropped anywhere in East Asia.

          The biggest danger we face is NATO expanding its tentacles from the Atlantic to the Pacific: It could end up exporting its disastrous militaristic culture to the relatively peaceful environment we have developed in East Asia

          https://mahbubani.net/asia-say-no-to-nato-the-straits-times/

      • Res Publica 2.2.2
        25 July 2024 at 4:23 pm

        It's entirely possible to see a nation as a strategic competitor, but at the same time seek greater co-operation and trade links if it's in the national interest.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 2.3
      25 July 2024 at 11:17 am

      "international rules-based order that is fundamental to maintaining our foreign policy"

      Where have you been before 2020 when it was the US and nato that broke all the rules

      Nato member Turkiye which remains in occupation of almost half of its neighbour Cyrus for 50 years

      Nato/US which remains in occupation of the Serbian province Kosovo

      US Britain , Australia and others who invaed Iraq despite not getting Security Council approval- thus making it illegal.

      Saudi Arabia with western help along side Gulf States bombed the Yemini capital to interfere because the Zaydi overthrow of the former President – who fled to Riyadh but still claims to be the government [North Yemen was ruled by a Zaidiyyah emirate from the end of WW1 to before the union with former British protectorate of South Yemen]

      Lest hear it for the Xmas carol – Rules based international order

      • Res Publica 2.3.1
        25 July 2024 at 4:06 pm

        Nato/US which remains in occupation of the Serbian province Kosovo

        You mean the sovereign, independent nation of Kosovo that NATO intervened in to stop the Serbs re-invading and ethnically cleansing?

        Where have you been before 2020 when it was the US and nato that broke all the rules

        Georgia (2008), Syria (2015-), Chechnya (1994-96), and Afghanistan (1979-1989) would like to have a word with you. All of which were invaded by Russia which is very definitely not a NATO member.

        Saudi Arabia with western help along side Gulf States bombed the Yemini capital to interfere because the Zaydi overthrow of the former President – who fled to Riyadh but still claims to be the government [North Yemen was ruled by a Zaidiyyah emirate from the end of WW1 to before the union with former British protectorate of South Yemen]

        Last time I checked Saudi Arabia wasn't a member of NATO either and has been roundly condemned several times for its human rights abuses – including bombing civilian targets in Yemen.

        If you don't agree with maintaining the international status quo, what's your reaslitic alternative?

        • ghostwhowalksnz 2.3.1.1
          26 July 2024 at 9:36 am

          At least if you are going to regurgitate VOA talking points , try and get the background right

          "…Kosovo, then a province of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia…"

          https://www.voanews.com/a/years-after-nato-s-intervention-serbia-kosovo-and-the-war-in-ukraine-/7540043.html

          Theres no international rules based system- there is only might is right.

          US for instance has had military intervention in Yemen for around 15 years – but self defence only applies when its western countries or allies doing the bombing

          • Res Publica 2.3.1.1.2
            26 July 2024 at 5:40 pm

            Past ghostwhowalksnz:

            Where have you been before 2020 when it was the US and nato that broke all the rules

            vs current ghostwhowalksnz:

            Theres no international rules based system- there is only might is right.

            Pick a lane, dude!

            Either might makes right, in which case you shouldn't have any issues with any states violating the sovereignty of other states whether that be Russia (real) or NATO/The US (imagined).

            In that case, there are no "rules" to be broken so your complaints about US (or other western states') imperialism are invalid. In the immortal words of Michael Cullen: "We won. You lost. Eat that"

            Or, there is some kind of international order and an expectation that states respect the existence of other states, and that there's a general consensus around a corpus of human rights.

            In which case, Russia and China are two of the most egregious violators and your attempts at whataboutery are moot. America may not be perfect but at least guarantees the continuing existence of that order.

  3. Ad 3
    24 July 2024 at 6:46 pm

    The writer, and Brash, have international engagement views identical to Trump and Vance.

    We are functionally Australasian in defence and trade already.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1
      25 July 2024 at 11:08 am

      No such place as 'Australasia'

      Geologists have identified Zealandia as a separate mostly sunken continent.

      The distance from Sydney to Auckland is just under the distance from Jakarta to Darwin. Should Australia be in lockstep with Indonesia on defence Policy

      Does Ireland ( neutral) have its defence policy with neighbour Britain?

      Does Austria ( neutral, as they took up Stalins offer to re-unite all the 4 occupation zones, that West Germany under pressure declined) have the same policy as neighbour Germany or are they more like Switzerland