In last weekend's Press there was a feature article on New Zealand's relations with the US entitled "Pecking orders". The author of the article concludes that New Zealand has not suffered in trade terms with the US by our nuclear free policy or stance on Iraq.
However, the writer failed to discuss New Zealand's foreign policy towards Australia, and how trans-tasman tensions affect our relations with the US. Arguably New Zealand's foreign relations with Australia, our number one trading partner, are of greater strategic importance than our own relations with the US.
New Zealand is materially incapable of serious military action without Australian help and New Zealand's departure from ANZUS was a much greater inconvenience to Australia than the US, which has no immediate interests in the South Pacific.
In discussing NZ's failure to secure a free trade deal with the US, where Chile and Australia have succeeded, former Ambassador to the US John Wood argues :"We've been disadvantaged, ultimately not by American decisions, but by the Australian decision to negociate with the US alone. On are our won we're one-fifth of the Austraian market, so we're always going to be well down the queue". My intepretation of this is that if New Zealand isn't going to support Australia in regional defence, then why should Australia go into bat for New Zealand in its relations with the US.
Futhermore, if New Zealand does go it alone in negociations with the US, then it isn't likely that the US is going to pay us much attention.The fact is New Zealand is a small obscure country with little international influence and it needs Australian help to project its interests.
Similalry, Australia needs all the help it can get in establishing a credible military presence in the South Pacific. Therefore it makes sense for New Zealand to support Australia and stop arrogantly presenting itself as some kind of "Switzerland of the South Pacific" with delusions of grandeur.
In the world or realpolitik, nobody likes a smartarse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's hard for New Zealand though to not have an anti-Australian foreign policy given the overwhelming animosity towards Australia felt by New Zealanders.
I knew almost nothing about the country until I visited the place, and I was shocked and disturbed by the hostility directed at me for being an Australian. This was back in 2000.
I certainly will not be returning, and I wouldn't advocate Australian policymakers making any move to assist New Zealand on either economic or defence questions.
I visited NZ in 2003 with my Swedish-born wife. She was the one that pointed out how anti-Australian the media and average Kiwi was(eg the papers, talk back radio). Her words, "They're a pack of little bitches", referring to the snide remarks about almost everything to do with Australia. A lot of the stuff people were harping about was irrational and easy to dismiss. Very unbecoming in a genuinely nice people.
Scott and James,
The New Zeland attitude to Australia has similarities with the Canadian attitude to Americans. Many people (especially on the left)always perceive larger neighbouring countries to be arrogant and exploitative.
I think NZ's main problem is inexperience in international relations. Australia has had to take a realisitc view of international relations ever since Britain became over-stretched in WW2 and was unable to help Australia in the war against Japan.
Conversely, NZ has had a very tight (and successful)relationship with Britain until Britain entered the EEC in the early 1970s. Hence, it is only pretty recently that NZ has had to think for itself in international relations.
Unfortunately, this was at the same time that left-liberal thinking was sweeping through the western world's universities. Subsequently New Zeland has a more left liberal attitude to foreign policy than other English speaking countries.
Horefully it will improve, but I take the point things look pretty bleak given current public opinion in NZ.
Indeed your point about the large-country vs small-country relationship is well taken. The same sort of unthinking hostility that New Zealanders express towards Australians is shown by far too many Australians towards the United States.
I also would deny your view that Australia's foreign policy has been conducted with 'realism' since 1945. There have been long stretches of times where a distinct strain of foolish romanticism has guided Australian policy, whether or not it involves being too close to the US line as it was in the 1960s, or too close to the anti-US line as it was in the 1970s and early 1990's.
Nations have permanant interests, not permanant friends or enemies. Canberra often forgets this notion.
Politics aside, is the reason for your blog being titled "NZ Conservative" because you fail miserably at spelling the country's name? Seven times - more than a slip of the finger - you wrote "New Zeland". This might seem a bit harsh, but your critique of the domestic and foreign policies of a nation are somewhat dashed when you can't even spell the state's name.
Post a Comment