Diplomacy or appeasement? New Zealand’s China policy risks undermining its commitments to human rights, democracy
- New Zealand has steered away from war games designed to demonstrate collective opposition to China, preferring instead to quietly grumble about democracy in Hong Kong, the law of the sea and Xinjiang
- There is merit in trying to be an honest broker, but there needs to be some evidence of success. New Zealand can either act as a genuine intermediary on what a new world order might look like – or it can make a stand
According to its joint statement, the Quad group is primarily committed to “promoting a free, open rules-based order, rooted in international law to advance security and prosperity and counter threats to both in the Indo-Pacific and beyond”. “We support the rule of law, freedom of navigation and overflight, peaceful resolution of disputes, democratic values, and territorial integrity,” it said.
Given New Zealand’s strategic and economic relationships with China, one might expect this to be more widely discussed and debated. In fact, New Zealand has largely been missing from the picture when it comes to this major geopolitical shift. At some point, this will have to change.
CONFRONTING CHINA
France, India and Australia step up Quad-style cooperation
Chinese sanctions now extend beyond nations to also cover parliamentarians, diplomats and even academics for actions or claims that “severely harm China’s sovereignty and interests and maliciously spread lies and disinformation”.
NEW ZEALAND ON THE FENCE
So far, the focus of the Quad alliance has been on military cooperation. And while New Zealand has taken part in wider exercises, it has steered away from war games designed to demonstrate collective opposition to China.
Why Australia, New Zealand issued their own statement on China sanctions
MORE THAN LIP SERVICE?
There is merit in trying to be an honest broker, and it is part of New Zealand’s independent foreign policy position. But eventually we need some evidence of success, beyond a self-interested trade upgrade, and so far that evidence is missing.
Without progress in the next six months, or if tensions escalate before then, sticking to the middle ground will look less like wise diplomacy and more like appeasement. The values New Zealand professes to stand for – human rights, democracy and the rule of international law – have to be more than lip service.
New Zealand can either act as a genuine intermediary in negotiations with China about what a new, stable global order might look like. Or it can make a stand, with both words and actions, next to like-minded countries.
Putting its hand up for the next Quad-plus exercise is perhaps not ideal, but it’s an option that needs to be debated.