Mixed messages about self-determination

Over at the Oz Conservative blog Mark Richardson points out the left liberal double standard over support for the Tibetan independence movement.

In a particularly poignant passage, he highlights how left liberals should view the riots in Tibet, if they are going to be logically consistent:

"Our imaginary liberal Professor: "Xenophobic Tibetans have erupted in a violent display of bigotry and racism, motivated by fear and hatred of the other. They claim to be defending their culture, but what is Tibetan culture anyway? The Tibetans want to turn the clock back to the grey past, before diversity first brought colour to their country."

If left-liberals really want to be consisitent in supporting self-determination for different ethnic groups, then logically, they should extent scuh support to European groups such as White Britons. However, you obviously don't see many left-liberals voicing support for the British National Party, for example.

Here in New Zealand, PM Helen Clarke has taken a softly softly approach over the issue. When the Dalai Lama visited NZ, she was only willing to meet him in an airport waiting longue, and so far has kept quiet about the recent suppression of Tibetan protesters by the Chinese military.

The general consensus in the media is that the government is being diplomatic about the issue so as not to endanger its recently signed free trade deal with the People's Republic. On talk radio, Radio Live commentator Willie Jackson made a good argument that it's reasonable for the government to put national economic issues first, but that it's double standards in foreign affairs can be seen in its softly softly approach with China and its unnecessarily heavy-handed dealings with the government of Fiji.

What I didn't hear mentioned on the radio was any reference to Labour diplomatic relations with the US and the issue of trade. Since 1984, successive Labour government's have been perfectly willing to jeopardise a potential trade deal with the US to satisfy the party's anti-nuclear stance, yet Helen Clarke now appears to be quite willing to grease up to China in the name of economic pragmatism.

Another case of western cultural self-loathing?

New Zealand's Anti-Australian Foreign Policy

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.