A bridge too far.

Headline: A bridge too far. – 36th Parallel Assessments

Jiaozhou Bay/Qingdao-Haiwan Bridge, China. Photo: Feel the Planet (feel-planet.com).

The Labour-led government in New Zealand has settled on a new mantra when it comes to addressing the US-China rivalry. It claims that New Zealand is ideally situated to become a bridge between the two great powers and an honest broker when it comes to their interaction with the Southwest Pacific. This follows the long-held multi-party consensus that New Zealand’s foreign policy is independent and autonomous, and based on respect for international norms and multinational institutions.

The problem is that the new foreign policy line is a misleading illusion. It ignores historical precedent, the transitional nature of the current international context, the character and strategic objectives of the US and the PRC and the fact that New Zealand is neither independent or autonomous in its foreign affairs.

The historical precedent is that in times of conflict between great powers, small states find it hard to remain neutral and certainly do not serve as bridges between them. The dilemma is exemplified by the island of Melos during the Peloponnesian Wars, when Melos expressed neutrality between warring Athens and Sparta. Although Sparta accepted its position Athens did not and Melos was subjugated by the Athenians.

In stable world times small states may exercise disproportionate influence in global affairs because the geopolitical status quo is set and systemic changes are incremental and occur within the normative framework and around the margins of the system as given. When international systems are unstable and in transition, small states are relegated to the sidelines while great powers hash out the contours of the emerging world order—often via conflict. Such is the case now, which has seen the unipolar system dominated by the US that followed the bi-polar Cold War now being replaced by an emerging multi-polar system aggregating new and resurgent powers, some of which are hostile to the West.

In this transitional moment the US is in relative decline and has turned inward under a Trump administration that is polarizing at home and abroad. It is still a formidable economic and military power but it is showing signs of internal weakness and external exhaustion that have made it more reactive and defensive in its approach to global affairs. China is a rising great power with global ambition and long-term strategic plans, particularly when it comes to power projection in the Western Pacific Rim. It sees itself as the new regional power in Asia, replacing the US, and has extended its influence world-wide.That includes involvement in the domestic politics and economic matters of Pacific Island states, including Australia and New Zealand.

China’s rise and the US decline are most likely to first meet in the Western Pacific. When they do, the consequences will be far reaching. Already the US has started a trade war with the Chinese while reinforcing its armed presence in the region at a time when China cannot (as of yet) militarily challenge it. China has responded by deepening its dollar and debt diplomacy in Polynesia and Melanesia as part of the Belt and Road initiative, now paralleled by an increased naval and air presence extending from the South and East China Seas into the blue water shipping lanes of the Pacific.

There lies the rub. New Zealand is neither independent or autonomous when it confronts this emerging strategic landscape. Instead, it has dichotomized its foreign policy. On the security front, it is militarily tied to the US via the Wellington and Washington Declarations of 2010 and 2012. It is a founding member and integral component of the Anglophone 5 Eyes signal intelligence gathering network led by the US. It is deeply embedded in broader Western security networks, whose primary focus of concern, beyond terrorism, is the hostile activities of China and Russia against liberal democracies and their interests.

On trade, New Zealand has an addict-like dependency on agricultural commodity and primary good exports, particularly milk solids. Its largest trading partner and importer of those goods is China. Unlike Australia, which can leverage its export of strategic minerals that China needs for its continued economic growth and industrial ambitions under the China 2025 program, New Zealand’s exports are elastic, substitutable by those of competitors and inconsequential to China’s broader strategic planning. This makes New Zealand extremely vulnerable to Chinese economic retaliation for any perceived slight, something that the Chinese have been clear to point out when it comes to subjects such as the South China island-building dispute or Western concerns about the true nature of Chinese developmental aid to Pacific Island Forum countries.

As a general rule issue linkage is the best approach to trade and security: trading partners make for good security partners because their interests are complementary (security protects trade and trade brings with it the material prosperity upon which security is built). Absent that, separating and running trade and security relations in parallel is practicable because the former do not interfere with the latter and vice versa. But when trade and security relations are counterpoised, that is, when a country trades preferentially with one antagonist while maintaining security ties with another, then the makings of a foreign policy conundrum are made. This is exactly the situation New Zealand finds itself in, or what can be called a self-made “Melian dilemma.”

Under such circumstances it is delusional to think that New Zealand can serve as a bridge between the US and China, or as an honest broker when it comes to great power projection in the Southwest Pacific. Instead, it is diplomatically caught between a rock and a hard place even though in practice it leans more West than East.

The latter is an important point. Although a Pacific island nation, New Zealand is, by virtue of its colonial and post-colonial history, a citizen of the West. The blending of Maori and Pacifika culture gave special flavor to the Kiwi social mix but it never strayed from its Western orientation during its modern history. That, however, began to change with the separation of trade from security relations as of the 1980s (where New Zealand began to seek out non-Western trade partners after its loss of preferred trade status with UK markets), followed by increasingly large waves of non-European immigration during the next three decades. Kiwi culture has begun to change significantly in recent years and so with it its international orientation. Western perspectives now compete with Asian and Middle Eastern orientations in the cultural milieu, something that has crept into foreign policy debates and planning. The question is whether the new cultural mix will eventuate in a turn away from Western values and towards those of Eurasia.

The government’s spin may just be short term diplomatic nicety posing as a cover for its dichotomous foreign policy strategy. Given its soft-peddling of the extent of Chinese influence operations in the country, it appears reluctant to confront the PRC on any contentious issue because it wants to keep trade and diplomatic lines open. Likewise, its silence on Trump’s regressions on climate change, Trans-Pacific trade and support for international institutions may signal that the New Zealand government is waiting for his departure before publicly engaging the US on matters of difference. Both approaches may be prudent but are certainly not examples of bridging or brokering.

While New Zealand audiences may like it, China and the US are not fooled by the bridge and broker rhetoric. They know that should push come to shove New Zealand will have to make a choice. One involves losing trade revenues, the other involves losing security guarantees. One involves backing a traditional ally, the other breaking with tradition in order to align with a rising power. Neither choice will be pleasant and it behooves foreign policy planners to be doing cost/benefits analysis on each because the moment of decision may be closer than expected.

Analysis syndicated by 36th Parallel Assessments

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

PNG governor may block Australian naval base bid on Manus

Manus Governor Charlie Benjamin … critical of Port Moresby government’s lack of consultation. Image: RNZ Pacific

By RNZ Pacific

The governor of Papua New Guinea’s Manus Province has hinted that he could obstruct Australia’s bid to build a naval port on Manus Island.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced on November 1 that his country would fund the development of a deepwater base at the old Lombrum Naval Base used during the Second World War.

The move is seen as a counter to China’s aspirations to develop the site.

READ MORE: Scott Waide: How China is several moves ahead in Port Moresby

Manus Governor Charlie Benjamin told Reuters news agency that he had not been consulted on the development and that it would have to benefit the local residents.

“I have my people living on the island and we are the ones affected,” Benjamin said.


“The government might have the right but if we decide to put our foot down, there will be problems.”

The Manus governor has previously been critical of central government’s lack of consultation over the Australian-run refugee detention centres based on the island.

Military outpost
Manus is PNG’s northernmost and smallest province with 50,000 people and an Australian-funded navy base there could provide a military outpost for Canberra in the Pacific.

Prime Minister Morrison has said Australian vessels would be regular visitors.

RNZ Pacific’s Johnny Blades reports from APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) that the United States will join Australia in expanding the Lombrum Naval Base on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island.

US vice-president Mike Pence made the announcement at the APEC leader’s summit in Port Moresby yesterday.

Pence, who is representing his country at APEC in the absence of President Donald Trump, used his speech to assert US partnership with Pacific Islands and other allies in the wider region.

Without elaborating on details, he confirmed the US would partner with PNG and Australia on a joint naval base on Manus, reported Blades.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

The newly built APEC Haus in Papua New Guinea’s capital Port Moresby which is hosting the 2018 APEC leaders summit this weekend. Image: Johnny Blades/RNZ Pacific

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

Chinese officials kick out EMTV, foreign media from APEC events – allow Beijing state media

Some critics say that China’s latest behaviour toward foreign journalists casts doubt over its vow to treat neighbours with “respect”. Image: Natalie Whiting/ABC News/My Land, My Country

By Scott Waide

Papua New Guinea’s freedoms of speech, expression and access to information were challenged yesterday when Chinese officials barred both local and non-Chinese media from attending meetings at three Asia-Pacific Economy Cooperation (APEC) venues.

It began in Parliament when Chinese President Xi Jinping was giving an address after a guard of honour. 

EMTV journalist Theckla Gunga, who was assigned to cover the Chinese President’s visit, reported that just after 11am, Chinese officials accompanying their president ordered the microphones to be removed from the speaker where they had been placed to record the speeches.

READ MORE Chinese President Xi’s early PNG arrival upstages APEC rivals

“Chinese officials who are organising the official opening of the Chinese-funded six lane road have refused to give audio feeds to media personnel,” she said in a WhatsApp message.

“Microphones belonging to both local and international media have been removed,” said Gunga.


The officials, however, allowed Chinese state-owned broadcaster CCTV to record President’s Xi speech.

Gunga and other journalists spent about 10 minutes arguing with the Chinese officials but were still refused.

‘No media, no media’
One hour later, EMTV Online reporter Merylyn Diau-Katam faced another group of Chinese officials at the gate of a Chinese government-funded school.

“Before the President arrived a bus full of Chinese media personnel were driven into the gate on a bus,” she said.

“And when we wanted to go in, we were told our names were not on the list even though we had APEC accreditation passes,” Diau-Katam.

“No media. No media, a Chinese official said,” she said.

Diau-Katam was not the only one refused entry. In the group was a photographer from Japanese public broadcaster, NHK and other media. A PNG government official also spent several minutes arguing with the Chinese security to let him in.

At 5pm yesterday, Chinese officials again booted out local and international media from a meeting between the Chinese President and Pacific Island country leaders.

EMTV anchor and senior journalist, Meriba Tulo, was among others told to “get out” of the meeting while Chinese media were allowed into the room.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was also told to leave. They spoke to Post-Courier’s senior journalist, Gorethy Kenneth. She said Chinese officials from Beijing were initially angry with the presence of international media.

“I said: ‘We are here to cover the meeting, our names have been submitted.’ And they said: ‘No, all of you get out,’” Kenneth said.

Scott Waide’s blog columns are frequently published by Asia Pacific Report with permission. He is also EMTV deputy news editor based in Lae.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

Scott Waide: How China is several moves ahead in Port Moresby

Chinese President Xi Jinping (left) and Prime Minister of PNG Peter O’Neill shaking hands. Image: Solomon Kantha/My Land My Country

COMMENTARY: By Scott Waide

In November every year, the Papua New Guinean National budget usually takes centre stage. But not this year.

This week, the 2019 budget came two days before the start of the biggest meetings of APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation).  People were interested in it for a day, then it faded into the background.

Then BOOM… Enter China-US geopolitics…

On Thursday, Chinese President Xi Jinping, the most influential world leader in the Asia-Pacific arrived in Port Moresby with the largest delegation of officials.

They came on two large planes and the festivities for his delegation demonstrated just how important China’s money is to the Papua New Guinea ( government.

World politics is being played out on PNG soil. It already is, by the way.


From the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting in Singapore, US Vice President, Mike Pence indicated he would be revealing how “dangerous” the Chinese One Belt One Road Initiative is to the rest of the world including the Pacific.

Infrastructure projects
This announcement comes on the back of US$60 billion funding (about NZ$87 billion) aimed at the Asia-Pacific region. Also note that China has allocated the same amount to African countries for various projects including infrastructure.

Australia has announced its own funding initiatives for the Pacific of 7 billion Kina (NZ$3 billion).

In the foreign ministers’ meeting, the US-China tension is already being felt as the US and China tussle over free trade and other issues.

On the ground in Port Moresby, there is a strong US and Australian military presence.

From China, a strong trade presence and message about building relationships. From the outset, China appears to have all its moves planned out and is ticking off each item on its list of things to do.

At least for the government, the attention from world leaders is important. Maybe APEC is an opportunity.  Maybe it is a double edged sword – with opportunity on the one side and debt on the other as has been the case in other countries like Sri Lanka.

What stands out is China’s willingness to engage. President Xi is here for four days. America’s Trump and Russia’s Putin both sent their number twos.

As US Vice-President Pence, tweeted and jetted into Cairns, President Jinping met with Pacific Island Forum leaders and representatives in Port Moresby in the afternoon.

Scott Waide’s blog columns are frequently published by Asia Pacific Report with permission. He is also EMTV deputy news editor based in Lae.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

Op-Ed: Turkey: 95 Years of Humanitarian Foreign Policy

Op-Ed: Turkey: 95 Years of Humanitarian Foreign Policy

By Republic of Turkey’s ambassador to New Zealand, Ahmet Ergin.

Turkey’s Ambassador to New Zealand, H.E. Ahmet Ergin, and New Zealand Governor General Dame Patsy Reddy.

On 29 October 2018, we celebrated 95th anniversary of the proclamation of the Republic of Turkey. In these 95 years of the Republic, Turkey has managed to shape a humanitarian foreign policy in a much volatile region.

The changing political and economic environment in its neighbourhood has made Turkey more vulnerable to an increasing number of challenges; being located close to the volatile regions where intensive transformations are still taking place.

Despite the uncertainty in the parameters and dynamics of the international system in a changing world, Turkey, powered by its growing means and capabilities, strives to effectively respond to today’s challenges in a determined and principled manner, as a reliable and responsible actor guided by the principles of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, in his dictum: “Peace at Home, Peace in the World.”

With a view to adapt itself in a changing regional and international environment, Turkey adopted an enterprising and humanitarian foreign policy, aimed at promoting stability and prosperity regionally and globally.

New Zealand shares the same approach as a prominent contributor to the Pacific region and supporter of other countries that are currently experiencing humanitarian crises like Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia, and Papua New Guinea.

Humanitarian aid, as one of the fundamental aspects of Turkey’s foreign policy, has been implemented with determination and success in all the countries where people face massive challenges. Turkey is a leading actor in the global responsibility of fighting extreme poverty, providing education for all, improving the lives of women and youth, as well as alleviating the challenges in conflict and disaster affected areas. The key element of Turkey’s humanitarian policy is the combination of humanitarian and development assistance, without discrimination.

Conflicts and natural disasters are the leading causes of human suffering. Today, more than 60 million people have been displaced from their homes due to conflicts. Since the World War II, this is the biggest number of people displaced. More than 200 million people have been affected by natural disasters and need aid. The gap between the needs of the people and aid provided to the people in response to humanitarian emergencies is widening. In order to find solutions to this problem, the first-ever World Humanitarian Summit was organised jointly by the United Nations and Turkey in Istanbul on 23-24 May 2016. Nine-thousand participants from 180 Member States, including 55 Heads of State and Government came together in Istanbul.

According to the OECD Development Assistance Committee, Turkey’s official development assistance (ODA) amounted to USD 8 billion in 2017. Humanitarian assistance has the biggest share in our ODA with an amount of USD 7.2 billion. Turkey was the biggest humanitarian aid donor worldwide in 2017 and the most generous donor when the ratio of official humanitarian assistance to national income (0.85%) is taken into consideration.

Turkey’s humanitarian aid is delivered mainly through the Turkish Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) and the Turkish Red Crescent with development oriented humanitarian aid from Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TİKA).

Another aspect of our humanitarian approach is Turkey’s open door policy for Syrians fleeing their country due to ongoing violence over the past seven years. Over 3.5 million Syrians are currently hosted in Turkey. Around 230,000 of them live in one of 21 temporary protection centres. Turkey has spent USD 31 billion on these refugees (including contributions of municipalities and Turkish NGOs).

According to the UN Refugee Agency, Turkey maintains its position as the biggest host country with 4.3 million refugees. More than 600 thousand Syrian children continue their education in Turkey. The schooling rate among Syrian children in the age of primary education is 97 percent. Furthermore, the number of Syrian school leavers studying in Turkish universities is over 20,000.

Development-oriented humanitarian assistance constitutes the ultimate target of Turkey’s efforts. Turkey intervenes at the request of the host country with humanitarian aid for emergency humanitarian relief and continues with development projects, such as the construction of fundamental infrastructure, like hospitals and schools. This approach has been very successful particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Turkey’s policy to assist Somalia can be regarded as an exemplary case. All segments of Turkish society, from public institutions to NGOs and private sector, were mobilised to assist the people of Somalia following the severe famine in 2011. This approach has gradually evolved into a comprehensive policy, comprising humanitarian, developmental, as well as stabilisation efforts in an integrated strategy. Several projects were initiated, which consisted of human and institutional capacity building, construction of essential infrastructure, providing services such as education, sanitation and health. Humanitarian aid, such as delivering food and medicine is ongoing.

Whether it is an emergency resulting from a conflict or a natural disaster, Turkey extends its helping hand indiscriminately by responding to emergencies in its region, from the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar to Yemen; from Colombia to Vietnam; from Nepal to Libya and Sudan.

Turkey’s humanitarian contributions are not confined to bilateral assistance projects. Turkey aims to further increase its contributions to various international organisations. Turkey is working and cooperating closely with the UN and its related institutions.

In order to assist further and to offer guidance to the UN’s humanitarian efforts, Turkey became a member of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) donor support group, which brings together leading humanitarian donors.

Turkey also financially supports and continues to increase its financial contribution for humanitarian aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and has been actively working to raise awareness to solve the financial crisis of UNRWA in view of its recent budget constraints.

Through mediation, and in fostering mutual respect and common values, Turkey actively seeks prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts around the globe. These efforts transcend into the multilateral sphere. In 2010, Turkey spearheaded, jointly with Finland, the “Mediation for Peace” initiative within the UN in order to raise awareness for mediation. “Friends of Mediation” formed within this framework has reached 56 members (48 states and 8 international/regional organisations). A similar group is co-chaired by Turkey-Finland-Switzerland at the OSCE.

As part of its leading role in the field of mediation, Turkey also hosts “Istanbul Conference on Mediation”. The three conferences held in February 2012, April 2013 and June 2014 brought together representatives from various institutions, NGOs and experts. The 4th “Istanbul Conference on Mediation” was held on 30 June 2017 under the theme “Surge in Diplomacy, Action in Mediation”. On 21 November of that year, as a summit chair of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Turkey hosted the first ever OIC Member States Conference on Mediation in Istanbul, with the theme, “Surge in Mediation: The Role of OIC”.

The UN Alliance of Civilisations Initiative, co-sponsored by Turkey and Spain, (currently with 146 members) represents the strongest response to the scenarios of the so-called “Clash of Civilizations”. Thus, boosting this global initiative is essential for strengthening the world now more than ever. We believe that one is not born with prejudices and discrimination but rather these are learned. These negative attitudes turn into hate speeches and even violence. Respect for social diversity and inclusive societies are crucial in our challenging world. We need to unite against all forms of intolerance, xenophobia, and discriminatory policies, including animosities against different religions.

To sum up, based on actions on the ground and the content of the policies, we call Turkish foreign policy enterprising and humanitarian; basically because it is a peaceful, creative and effective – a foreign policy able to utilise various elements of sway in a rational way, a foreign policy not hesitant of taking initiative, a foreign policy that takes into account peace and development.

Turkey is committed to shoulder its share of the burden in a multilateral framework, motivates to pursue these and further avenues of action believing that the international community needs to make a serious and concerted effort to achieve sustainable development and social justice globally.

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

Confronting Sharp Power.

Headline: Confronting Sharp Power. – 36th Parallel Assessments

Source: http://akross.info/?k=List+of+magical+weapons++Wikipedia

International relations is about exercising power to achieve objectives on the global stage. The actors that do so are states, companies, non-governmental organizations or criminal and non-state political actors acting directly or as proxies. The tools they employ have traditionally included hard power, which is the threat and use of diplomatic, economic and military coercion; soft power, which involves the persuasive appeal of diplomatic, cultural and economic engagement; and smart power, which is a hybrid, carrot and stick approach where hard and soft power is combined into a package of positive and negative incentives for cooperation and dissuasion. International norms are designed to encourage soft and smart power solutions to contentious issues, with hard power used as the weapon of last resort.

Recently a new form of approach has emerged on the world scene, one that is wielded by authoritarian regimes that seek to alter or undermine the ideological consensus and institutional stability of liberal democracies. It is called sharp power.

Sharp power is an extension of smart power but with a subversive, norm-violating twist. Its purpose is to condition the internal narrative of democratic states in ways that are favorable to the authoritarian state employing it. This includes influence operations like those used by the People’s Republic of China in New Zealand, where so-called United Front organizations (such as community organizations and business associations) are employed as “magical weapons” designed to influence the way in which New Zealand political and economic elites view the world system and more specifically, to align these elites with Chinese positions on international affairs. Taking advantage of opaque campaign finance laws, financial donations have been used by Chinese front organizations as a means of currying favor in the New Zealand political system, much in the way the PRC’s so-called cheque book diplomacy has shifted foreign policy perspectives throughout the community of Pacific island states.

Sharp power also includes undertaking disruption operations where, via cyber-hacking and disinformation campaigns on social media, popular faith in the institutions governing everyday life are undermined. These include the placement of so-called fake news stories in major social media outlets, malicious hacking of banking systems and government bureaucracies responsible for basic public good provision, and hidden control of targeted media outlets. These malevolent activities run in parallel and at times overlap with traditional espionage and influence operations in a multi-faceted strategy aimed at subverting the ideological and institutional foundations of democratic societies. A loss of faith and trust in liberal democracy is seen as a win by the sharp power-wielders.

Although the government has soft-peddled the issue, the GCSB has given three warnings this year about disruption activities undertaken by foreign states that have an impact on New Zealand.

More darkly, sharp power has been deployed with murderous or criminal intent. Be it recent Russian poisoning campaigns against dissidents and renegade intelligence agents in the UK, the murder of a Saudi journalist by state agents in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, the killing of Kim Jung-un’s half brother in the Kuala Lumpur airport or the physical intimidation of expat Chinese communities in Australia, authoritarians have grown bolder in flouting international norms on sovereignty and non-intervention. Even New Zealand may have been touched by such authoritarian interference: the burglaries of the home and office of an academic critic of the PRC’s foreign influence operations are believed to have likely been carried out at the behest or on behalf of the Chinese state since no valuables were taken while research tools and materials were. New Zealand security authorities have stated that the investigation has moved overseas and been transferred to INTERPOL, the international police agency. That means that the perpetrators are believed to have left New Zealand, something that would be unusual for local common criminals given the low level of the crime and the nature of what was taken.

But let there be no mistake: if the involve a foreign power, the burglaries of Ann Marie Brady’s home and office are crimes committed on sovereign New Zeaaland soil and therefore a step up from influence operations and into direct intimidation of a New Zealand citizen and her family.

All of this occurs against a backdrop where strong authoritarian states like the PRC and Russia have brazenly violated international norms by laying claim to, built islands on and militarily fortified reefs in international waters while ignoring international arbitration decisions against it (China in the South China Sea) or seized and annexed large swathes of a neighbors territory in the face of international condemnation (Russia is Georgia and the Ukraine). The Saudis are leading a vicious war in Yemen against Iranian-backed rebels in which war crimes are committed on industrial scale. Myanmar’s military is engaged in the ethnic cleansing of its Rohinga community, causing a multi-national humanitarian crisis. These and scores of authoritarian atrocities go unpunished because the liberal democratic world has neither the will or the capabilities to stop them. That is a weakness that authoritarians seek to exploit with their sharp power projection, and in this they may have been encouraged by the US abandonment of its support for the liberal institutional world order under the Trump administration.

The question is how to respond to the use of sharp power against New Zealand? As a small, economically vulnerable state that is dependent on trade in agricultural commodity exports, tourism and foreign student education from a number of authoritarian states, particularly the PRC, New Zealand has to tread delicately when confronting violations of its sovereignty and/or overt or covert meddling in its internal affairs. On the other hand, as a staunch supporter of the rule of law and norm adherence in international affairs as well as a long-term member of the community of mature liberal democracies, New Zealand cannot afford to cast a blind on on such offenses less it encourage more and from other actors as well. In fact, its response has to be both broad and specific, with it coupling repudiation for international norm violations as a matter of principle with specific targeted remedies taken against those who employ sharp power on New Zealand soil or against its interests.

It is a conundrum that will not be resolved easily.

Analysis syndicated by 36th Parallel Assessments

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media