After Obama’s presidency, international relations have increased. Since the trade war with China, which started under President Trump, US-China relations have been strained. China’s assertiveness in various arenas, such as the South China Sea, has fueled these tensions.
The growing rivalry between the two superpowers appears to be making it more difficult to adopt a neutral stance, and countries may be forced to choose sides. The new AUKUS pact adds complexity as New Zealand’s (NZ) most important political ally, Australia, appears to have aligned itself with the US.
Given the increasing competition and complexity, how can a small country like NZ navigate international diplomacy?
Do what is right?
Be careful about moral judgments related to diplomacy. Great power competition in the 21st century is not like World War II, where one side is “good” and the other “bad”. To illustrate, if NZ were to choose between the US and China, how would we judge the US foreign policy disaster of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, vs. Attempting to balance the sins of the Great Powers risks a futile “whataboutism” involving impossible value judgments.
Not to say that there is no place for value judgment, the nation needs to know what it is seeing. NZ’s commitment to being nuclear free is perhaps the best example of this. It would have been easier economically and politically not to adopt a nuclear-free stance, but in the end NZers’ commitment to nuclear disarmament and a nuclear-free Pacific won out.
Political wisdom
Political and cultural considerations are also relevant – which countries have made history, and can be relied on (mostly) to protect our interests in the global community of 195 countries? NZ’s political arrangements, as embodied in agreements like Five Eyes, APEC and the recently signed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, largely reflect our commitment to democracy, multilateralism, free trade and engagement with the Pacific. Nations that do not share these political values/goals may be less useful or more difficult to implement.
Commitment to multilateralism and free trade should be discussed. Global powers tend to be less dependent on other countries and have less need for, or interest in, cooperation. For example, “America First” under President Trump led to the US withdrawing from the TPP, scuppering the long collaborative international agreement in the creation and led in part by NZ. This example also shows how small countries can be left high and dry if domestic political considerations during global power shifts.
Economic self-interest
Although we discuss them separately here, we know that economic and political interests are not mutually exclusive.
Economics is often a trump card in the calibration of international relations. Economic interests tend to reflect a country’s geographic location. If we look at NZ’s top 10 export partners, nine are on the Pacific Rim, with only one (the UK) outside of NZ.
Pissing off a major trading partner is a recipe for job losses and falling GDP and the smaller you are, the higher the stakes. Take the US-Sino trade war, if the US economy was the size of NZ it is possible, even likely, that the war would not have started in the first place. As a function of globalization, the complexity of many products (especially technology), and its small size, NZ cannot produce many of the goods it imports from countries like China. Therefore, trying to cut off China economically will have more impact on NZ than China…Also, getting ourselves into a position where China decides to reduce trade with NZ for political reasons, may be more damaging to us than countries like the United States , or even Australia. For these reasons, NZ needs to be more careful than most of its larger traditional allies when it comes to stepping on other countries’ toes.
‘National interest’
So what is NZ’s national interest?
The logical answer is to keep doing what we are doing, walking in the middle whenever and wherever. Don’t frustrate the two superpowers into maintaining friendly, cordial relations while accepting that this means we will never be “best mates”. NZ should also avoid false dichotomies (eg side with the US or China). In practice, international relations are rarely a decision. The Sino-US rivalry may make it harder to walk the middle path, but there are many options in terms of relations that NZ can take.
Our history offers NZ a useful warning about aligning itself, politically and/or economically, with a single country. When the UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973, it didn’t matter that NZ had fought two wars on foreign soil in defense of the UK. The country’s trade was damaged as NZ dairy and meat products were replaced by their new European counterparts in the UK. As a small nation, there may be more room for NZ to benefit from, or be disturbed by, aligning itself closely, rather than maintaining a balance in its relationships.
However, we must be clear about our own red lines. Unprovoked military aggression by China (or any country), in the Asia-Pacific, could justify a change in NZ’s attitude. At the same time, unless a red line is crossed, NZ should be cautious about joining the US or other allies in efforts to limit China politically or economically (eg AUKUS-style agreements). For starters, NZ involvement won’t move the needle and in any case the stakes for NZ are higher.
▼▼ Thanks for reading. Share using the link below. ▼▼