Republished with Permission
Bryce Edwards
I am Political Analyst in Residence at Victoria University of Wellington, where I run the Democracy Project, and am a full-time researcher in the School of Government.
Former Defence Minister Andrew Little has relaunched himself back into political debate, speaking out this week in favour of joining the new Aukus military alliance. This pact between the US, Australia, and the UK is increasingly seen as an attempt to combat China’s place in the Asia-Pacific region.
Little’s provocative intervention into the public debate on the issue aligns him with the current Government rather than his former party. While the coalition are positive towards joining Aukus, Labour have shifted towards promoting a more independent foreign policy. More generally Little’s speech puts him more in line with defence hawks who want the country to return to the fold of traditional security alliances involving nuclear and other advanced technologies.
The former defence minister, now working for Wellington law firm Gibson Sheat, chose to distance himself from Labour’s new direction in foreign policy by giving a speech on Monday at an “Indo-Pacific Security” conference hosted at Canterbury University. The conference was focused on New Zealand’s geopolitical role in the Asia-Pacific region, and in particularly how it deals with the role and interests of China and the United States in the area.
Significantly, the foreign policy conference was funded by the US and Taiwanese governments and also sponsored by a Taiwanese think tank and the Asia New Zealand Foundation.
Andrew Little vs Helen Clark
Andrew Little has always been hawkish towards China. In the Labour-led government of 2017 to 2023, he was viewed by insiders as being aligned in his geopolitical view with Winston Peters, who as Minister of Foreign Affairs, pushed the government to reorientate back towards a closer relationship with Washington, and thus less friendly with Beijing. Hence, in his speech to the conference, he reiterated his view that China is a threat to New Zealand.
Little said that New Zealand must be “realistic about the threats that face us, including the way China conducts itself”. He called for the nation to update its defence technology, alongside Western allies, against these threats. In a pointed jibe at former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark, who has recently been advocating for New Zealand to resume a more independent foreign policy, Little said: “The world is very different now from 10 and 20 years ago” and “I strongly disagree with those who argue that China is a benign presence and poses no threat.”
The speech, in general, has been reported as something of an attack on Helen Clark and a way of distancing himself from the direction of the current Labour Party, which now says Aukus is designed to “contain” China.
Unsurprisingly, then, Clark posted her response on X, declaring her disappointment in Little’s stance, suggesting he had adopted the Washington intelligence community’s agenda: “Naivety is to swallow hook, line & sinker every breathless report generated out of 5 Eyes ‘intelligence’. If that had been NZ’s approach in 2003, NZ would have been in disastrous war in Iraq, just as decades earlier it swallowed domino theory on Vietnam.” Commenting on Little’s contribution to the conference, Clark posted that “The whole speech is somewhat confused.”
Others have endorsed Clark’s critique. For example, Victoria University of Wellington’s leading geopolitics scholar, Van Jackson, posted about the conference, agreeing that it was a mistake for New Zealand to be taking foreign policy positions informed by Washington or Taipei: “There’s nothing but peril in a small nation importing its analysis of the world situation totally from outside powers. That’s the path to Vietnam, Iraq, Gallipoli”.
Otago University Professor of International Relations Robert Patman also responded to Clark’s critique, saying on X: “I share your assessment of Andrew Little’s comments. I think it is ‘naïve’ to believe that China is the only major threat to the rules-based order internationally.”
Others defended the conference. For example, Australian journalist Ben McKay, who now covers the Pacific region for Australia Associated Press, drew attention to Clark’s critics “calling her out of line”, which he said was “fair enough” since the security conference at Canterbury had “some serious people on the itinerary & thoughtful contributions”.
The conference funders skewing the debate
Helen Clark was especially critical that the security conference was part-funded by foreign governments (the US and Taiwan) and that it adopted the anti-Chinese terminology for the region of “Indo-Pacific”. This is the term that the US State Department has asked countries like New Zealand to start using instead of “Asia-Pacific” because it de-emphasises China and Asia, instead drawing attention to US allies like India in the region.
One of the conference organisers, Nicholas Ross Smith, explained online that the terminology related to the fact that the conference was hosted by the Christchurch-based “Institute for Indo-Pacific Affairs”. The name of this new think-tank clearly positions where it stands on the Washington-Beijing rivalry.
Another funder of the conference was the “Crossboundary Management Education Foundation”, based in Taiwan. Very little is known about this group, and the conference gave no apparent explanation. It lists its aim as to “promote public-private partnerships”.
The fourth funder of the conference is the New Zealand Government’s Asia New Zealand Foundation. This organisation has an annual budget of $5.5m, which is supposed to promote New Zealand’s relationship with the Asian region. However, in recent years, it too has become increasingly hawkish, downplaying China’s role in the Asian region and taking on a more Washington-influenced outlook.
Helen Clark drew attention to these four funders of the conference, concluding online: “No surprises at the lines emanating from there.”
China’s perspective left out of a conference about the Asia Pacific
The main focus of the conference over Monday and Tuesday this week has been the debate on how smaller countries like New Zealand should orientate to the Asia-Pacific region, and especially in terms of the US-led alliance vs China. Yet despite this focus, there was a giant gap in the line-up of speakers – no scholar qualified to speak with any authority on the Chinese perspective was on the programme.
The conference appeared to have a significant budget, importing speakers from the US, Taiwan, Philippines, Japan, the US, and Malaysia. The organisers wouldn’t explain why no one from China, or with a Chinese perspective, had been invited.
This was another issue for Clark. She posted: “It’s a question of balance – Taiwanese speakers and none from China in a conference which purports to be on security in the region. I guess the ‘Indo-Pacific’ rather than Asia Pacific framing says it all.” She complained that it lacked “diverse viewpoints”.
The conference, which finished [on Tuesday], did also include other politicians. But these, too, were those who have identified themselves as highly critical of China – current Labour MP Ingrid Leary and former National MP Simon O’Connor. Both have been part of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China – a group of MPs hostile to that country’s involvement or interference in other nations.
Problems of NZ’s foreign policy debates and foreign vested interests
New Zealand needs to have public debate about its foreign policy direction. There are massive choices to be made – especially on whether New Zealand joins “Pillar II” of Aukus. This would align the country with the Washington-led alliance against China.
The problem is that this public debate is barely happening at the moment. And where it is occurring, its being led by academics, public officials, journalists, and politicians who seem to orientate firmly towards the traditional Western centres of power. The ‘Washington orthodoxy’ is now dominant in institutions like universities, MFAT, the Asia New Zealand Foundation, and many media newsrooms.
Possible explanations for the dominance of pro-US narratives are varied, but inevitably include questions about the deployment of ‘soft power’ by foreign interests. That’s why we should be very wary of foreign policy conferences funded by other governments and hawkish think tanks.
While it might not seem like the typical ‘foreign interference’ that New Zealanders are increasingly being warned about, soft power should not be underestimated. It can be effective in shaping foreign policy, and New Zealand is approaching what may be a foreign policy watershed moment. We should not assume that we are immune from soft-power manoeuvres, and transparency and balance are integral to robust public debate.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.
