NZDF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

Parliament has finally passed the Russian Sanctions Bill. Parliament unanimously passes Russia Sanctions Bill | RNZ News It is supposed to take effect next week and surprisingly it passed unanimously. Parliament As One On Russia Sanctions | Newsroom . I think that this opens a wider discussion of NZ's place in the world and that the NZ predilection for reliance upon UNSC sanctions has to change because of the veto powers held by the five permanent members on the UNSC. It also starts to show the fallacy of the much vaunted NZ independent foreign policy which has a negative impact upon our view of the world and the way we see and assess our defence and security. It is well past the time that we truly decide to stand with our friends and stand for what is right. We are doing that with Russia because we have too, and we will need to do so with the CCP / PRC at some stage.

 

[Stuart M]

Parliament has finally passed the Russian Sanctions Bill. Parliament unanimously passes Russia Sanctions Bill | RNZ News It is supposed to take effect next week and surprisingly it passed unanimously. Parliament As One On Russia Sanctions | Newsroom . I think that this opens a wider discussion of NZ's place in the world and that the NZ predilection for reliance upon UNSC sanctions has to change because of the veto powers held by the five permanent members on the UNSC. It also starts to show the fallacy of the much vaunted NZ independent foreign policy which has a negative impact upon our view of the world and the way we see and assess our defence and security. It is well past the time that we truly decide to stand with our friends and stand for what is right. We are doing that with Russia because we have too, and we will need to do so with the CCP / PRC at some stage.

The "independent foreign policy" stance is nothing of the kind, its a convenient label affixed to a calculated policy of amoral indifference with a view to commercial opportunities beyond NZs traditional markets.

This is partly driven by the old labour isolationist "peacnik" traditions that came out of the 70s and 80s and the need to expand beyond the UK market after their entry to the EEC when most western markets were (and still are to a large degree) closed due to protectionist tendencies. This problem was somewhat summed up by the Nats last leader, Judith Collins, when she commented that

“If any criticism comes to New Zealand, as it often does about this close relationship with China and trade, my answer to everybody – whether they’re the US or UK – is: ‘So where’s our free trade agreement?’,”

Combine this with what seems to be a defacto agreement between the Nats and Labour in the late 90s that the latter essentially adopt the formers trade policies in return for the Nats essentially running down the armed forces that Labour has always disliked, and we are where we are.
However, circumstances are again changing and so must NZ

 

[Gracie1234]

Now that we have a free trade agreement with the UK, this stance is a little harder to hold onto. I see Australia has indicated a large increase in force numbers, i would imagine the pressure to support our only Ally would be increasing. You can not say that Australia has not been very supportive to NZ economically with so many of us living there.
There is likely to be mounting pressure on our position.
You can not have an independent position in such a connected world, especially for such a small country.

 

[Stuart M]

Now that we have a free trade agreement with the UK, this stance is a little harder to hold onto. I see Australia has indicated a large increase in force numbers, i would imagine the pressure to support our only Ally would be increasing. You can not say that Australia has not been very supportive to NZ economically with so many of us living there.
There is likely to be mounting pressure on our position.
You can not have an independent position in such a connected world, especially for such a small country.

From an economic stand point I would disagree. It remains to be seen how the NZ-UK FTA will play out in practice, as NZs core interests in that FTA do not reach full liberalisation for 15 years after it enters into force, and whilst it has been agreed, it has not yet been placed into law by either nation.

So the question should be asked, does the UK agreement at any point in time replace for NZ the economic activity it has with China? Its not in force yet and the China market dwarfs the UK, and its closer. Moreover we do not have FTAs with either the US or the EU, and neither are in CPTPP, can one make assessments on the effects of non operable agreements?

Given this, why should NZ bow to pressure to change its position under these circumstances when it has to rely on China to keep the lights on *right now*? One cannot make decisions to U-turn of this magnitude based on promises and appeals to nostalgia.

Now where I can perhaps agree with your sentiment, is how NZ *can* react to the changing global situation.
I would suggest that what NZ can do is retain the current policy of strategic ambiguity whilst simultaneously rearming, as opposed to the current policy of being strategically ambiguous whilst simultaneously disarming whenever possible. With this change it would be quite obvious where NZ sits in relation to other western nations as far its actual beliefs are, but hopefully avoids the economic pitfalls experienced by Australia and others.

Of course this will require an attitudinal shift, but I think we will see that from the public very soon, and that will begin to drive a shift in political attitudes, just as the current political standpoints are the culmination of public attitudes that grew out of shifts in public attitudes in the 70's and 80's.
When this happens I think that defence policy will quickly become very specific on potential threats, how to meet those threats and purchasing decisions to follow soon after without serious rancour.

 

[Gracie1234]

Hi Stuart, thanks for the well thought out reply.
There will be a large economic benefit for NZ when the FTA kick-in, most modern agreements are phased in over time. This one will be particularly for our butter and lamb exports.
Agree the UK-NZ trade is not as large as China-NZ, but our trade with USA, Aus, Jap and the UK combined is significantly larger than with China and for higher value-added items.
The EU FTA is on the cards and will be progressed, it has been stated in the plan including greater engagement with the Pacific.
Our trade with China is primarily Dairy and other agricultural products, the rest is not as large. If China did dump NZ products then they would look to buy from other countries, there is only a finite global supply so we would then sell into these other markets. Fonterra already does a lot of this type of work with making sure they sell products made in one country only to certain countries to maximise profit. NZ is the largest dairy exporter in the world.
I am not too tied to the following statement. India is the largest dairy market in the world, and it could be said that NZ sitting on the fence is resulting in less market access for our products to be sold into India. Australia has received greater access into the Indian market due to its China position. If we took a stronger stance we might get better access into the Indian market as well.
A lot of NZ soft power is due to our principled positions, if we let that suffer then we weaken our soft power.
I do agree that NZ is in a position where it can gain favours by playing both sides but it will need to be careful, if things do go south then we will require support. Other countries will only support us if we support them.

 

[Stuart M]

Hi Stuart, thanks for the well thought out reply.
There will be a large economic benefit for NZ when the FTA kick-in, most modern agreements are phased in over time. This one will be particularly for our butter and lamb exports.
Agree the UK-NZ trade is not as large as China-NZ, but our trade with USA, Aus, Jap and the UK combined is significantly larger than with China and for higher value-added items.
The EU FTA is on the cards and will be progressed, it has been stated in the plan including greater engagement with the Pacific.
Our trade with China is primarily Dairy and other agricultural products, the rest is not as large. If China did dump NZ products then they would look to buy from other countries, there is only a finite global supply so we would then sell into these other markets. Fonterra already does a lot of this type of work with making sure they sell products made in one country only to certain countries to maximise profit. NZ is the largest dairy exporter in the world.
I am not too tied to the following statement. India is the largest dairy market in the world, and it could be said that NZ sitting on the fence is resulting in less market access for our products to be sold into India. Australia has received greater access into the Indian market due to its China position. If we took a stronger stance we might get better access into the Indian market as well.
A lot of NZ soft power is due to our principled positions, if we let that suffer then we weaken our soft power.
I do agree that NZ is in a position where it can gain favours by playing both sides but it will need to be careful, if things do go south then we will require support. Other countries will only support us if we support them.

I dont disagree, I only say that future promises and possibilities are not in the here and now, and we simply wont see fundamental change in defence policy until certain economic/attitudinal realities change. Once that change happens then I can foresee distinct changes happening, but its not yet (But I do think its close).

 

[ngatimozart]

The "independent foreign policy" stance is nothing of the kind, its a convenient label affixed to a calculated policy of amoral indifference with a view to commercial opportunities beyond NZs traditional markets.
This is partly driven by the old labour isolationist "peacnik" traditions that came out of the 70s and 80s and the need to expand beyond the UK market after their entry to the EEC when most western markets were (and still are to a large degree) closed due to protectionist tendencies. This problem was somewhat summed up by the Nats last leader, Judith Collins, when she commented that

“If any criticism comes to New Zealand, as it often does about this close relationship with China and trade, my answer to everybody – whether they’re the US or UK – is: ‘So where’s our free trade agreement?’,”

Combine this with what seems to be a defacto agreement between the Nats and Labour in the late 90s that the latter essentially adopt the formers trade policies in return for the Nats essentially running down the armed forces that Labour has always disliked, and we are where we are.
However, circumstances are again changing and so must NZ

I think that if NZ wants a FTA with the US it is going to have to swallow a large moa sized dead rat and that is the anti nuclear legislation. Until then I don't think that NZ has a hope in hell of obtaining an FTA with the US. That's realpolitik and NZ is just going to have to accept it because there are to many pollies on both sides in the US Congress who wouldn't vote for an FTA with NZ purely on that issue. There could be some room to move IF NZ changed its stance on defence and became far more proactive in that area. That could mollify the White House, State Department and some of those Congress critters enough to get a NZ-USA FTA on the front burner and hopefully across the line.

On another security point, I have been hanging around the Telegram channels of those "protesters" who were at Parliament. I noted a preponderance of Russian misinformation on their channels and people quite willing to believe it an pass it on. Lots of anti American and Ukraine stuff at the moment.

 

[Stuart M]

I think that if NZ wants a FTA with the US it is going to have to swallow a large moa sized dead rat and that is the anti nuclear legislation. Until then I don't think that NZ has a hope in hell of obtaining an FTA with the US. That's realpolitik and NZ is just going to have to accept it because there are to many pollies on both sides in the US Congress who wouldn't vote for an FTA with NZ purely on that issue. There could be some room to move IF NZ changed its stance on defence and became far more proactive in that area. That could mollify the White House, State Department and some of those Congress critters enough to get a NZ-USA FTA on the front burner and hopefully across the line.

On another security point, I have been hanging around the Telegram channels of those "protesters" who were at Parliament. I noted a preponderance of Russian misinformation on their channels and people quite willing to believe it an pass it on. Lots of anti American and Ukraine stuff at the moment.

I'm not sure that's entirely the case, re the Nuclear issue, I think they have worked out that that's a rat that will never be swallowed,certainly their ambassador does not seem to think an FTA is out of the question.

New US Ambassador to NZ Tom Udall has free trade agreement on his radar | Newshub


Having said that, and I agree with you on this, I do detect from the mood music from Washington there will need to be significant movement on NZs part on defence spending, capabilities/capacity and the how and why of NZs international engagement ( I think NZs politicians were forced into Russian sanctions, I don't think that was a willing move), and that will be the quid pro quo of an FTA of any sort other than them getting into CPTPP.
Those quid pro quos will involve air strike, the navys number and capabilities of frigates and the armies capacity for higher intensity warfare.

I ignore protests in NZ, they are simply not genuine... Ive known people who are into that sort of thing.. and from that Ive found the few protests that have any degree of honesty at the start, rapidly become something that's hijacked by professional protesters. More often than not a NZ protest is the creature of ideologically motivated fringe dwellers that are in noway representative of the population and, get a few into them, they will even admit to it.

 

[KiwiRob]

Now that we have a free trade agreement with the UK, this stance is a little harder to hold onto. I see Australia has indicated a large increase in force numbers, i would imagine the pressure to support our only Ally would be increasing. You can not say that Australia has not been very supportive to NZ economically with so many of us living there.
There is likely to be mounting pressure on our position.
You can not have an independent position in such a connected world, especially for such a small country.

Trade between NZ and the UK is tiny compared to trade between NZ and China, China is the more important trading partner, 29% of our exports go to China, the UK is a small market, they account for 2,6%, the US is 10,3%, Australia is 12,7%, trade with China is larger than those three nations combined.

 

[KiwiRob]

I think that if NZ wants a FTA with the US it is going to have to swallow a large moa sized dead rat and that is the anti nuclear legislation. Until then I don't think that NZ has a hope in hell of obtaining an FTA with the US. That's realpolitik and NZ is just going to have to accept it because there are to many pollies on both sides in the US Congress who wouldn't vote for an FTA with NZ purely on that issue. There could be some room to move IF NZ changed its stance on defence and became far more proactive in that area. That could mollify the White House, State Department and some of those Congress critters enough to get a NZ-USA FTA on the front burner and hopefully across the line.

On another security point, I have been hanging around the Telegram channels of those "protesters" who were at Parliament. I noted a preponderance of Russian misinformation on their channels and people quite willing to believe it an pass it on. Lots of anti American and Ukraine stuff at the moment.

The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act is a cornerstone policy which no political party will ever touch. FTA's with the US are always on their terms, I don't believe having one will benefit us at all, in fact I believe it would be detrimental to us.

 

[recce.k1]

Trade between NZ and the UK is tiny compared to trade between NZ and China, China is the more important trading partner, 29% of our exports go to China, the UK is a small market, they account for 2,6%, the US is 10,3%, Australia is 12,7%, trade with China is larger than those three nations combined.

On the flip side, some media, and agricultural leaders are asking whether NZ companies (such as Fonterra) should be pulling out of Russia completely (apparently they suspended shipments back in late February). The question also being raised is, if China invades Taiwan (or is at the stage where it is overtly threatening), then shouldn't NZ industries do the same in regards to China? In other words people are now thinking more about this large trading relationship with China and our investments there. Although nothing is likely to change overnight or fast, the fact is people are thinking about change in the medium to longer term.

 

[recce.k1]

New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act is a cornerstone policy which no political party will ever touch. FTA's with the US are always on their terms, I don't believe having one will benefit us at all, in fact I believe it would be detrimental to us.

Except questions have been raised (eg in the media and talkback) on the appropriateness of having a Nuclear Free Zone in light of the AUKUS development. Events may force the politicians hands, particularly if the CCP makes inroads into our (NZ's) backyard (the South Pacific) in coming years.

But yes agree FTA's with the US will always be on their terms.

 

[KiwiRob]

Except questions have been raised (eg in the media and talkback) on the appropriateness of having a Nuclear Free Zone in light of the AUKUS development. Events may force the politicians hands, particularly if the CCP makes inroads into our (NZ's) backyard (the South Pacific) in coming years.

But yes agree FTA's with the US will always be on their terms.

AUKUS makes it even more important for us to keep the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act, we should be expanding it out to the 200nm zone not just the 12nm inshore zone. I'm no lefty but I don't believe anyone should have nuclear weapons, if we abandon this policy we will lose more than we gain.

 

[alexsa]

AUKUS makes it even more important for us to keep the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act, we should be expanding it out to the 200nm zone not just the 12nm inshore zone. I'm no lefty but I don't believe anyone should have nuclear weapons, if we abandon this policy we will lose more than we gain.

On what basis in international law do your propose to extend a nuclear free zone to the high seas (irrespective of the fact they are part of your EEZ). The application of domestic law is captured in UNCLOS. The extension of the zone you are proposing would only appear to be possible in the territorial sea and, even there, could not be applied to innocent passage.

 

[KrustyKoala]

FTA's with the US are always on their terms, I don't believe having one will benefit us at all, in fact I believe it would be detrimental to us.

Being the bigger party will give America leverage but is that any different to making deals with China or the EU? It's a game of give and take like any trade agreement. When New Zealand negotiated its FTA with China, it made concessions, just like Australia did when it was negotiating with China, and in turn China made concessions of their own until an agreement was reached.

Even so, I dont think "America's terms" are hard to swallow for NZ, you spent several years negotiating the now defunct TPP, which revolved around American rules and standards, and became one of only 2 parties to ratify it before it became the CPTPP which implements rules and standards the US was promoting in the TPP.

An FTA with America could be very benefical for NZ. Without an FTA your industries would be at disadvantage to competitors who have one. NZ beef and wine will be at a disadvantage to Australian beef and wine and NZ dairy will be at a disadvantage to Canadian dairy. There are other benefits besides trade. An FTA with America could increase bilateral investment with the US like it has for Australia:

"Two-way investment has almost tripled since the Agreement came into force".

Here is small, but recent article about KORUS and how Korea has benefitted from an FTA with America 10 years on:
"Trade volume of goods between South Korea and the United States grew nearly 70 percent, and bilateral investment more than doubled over the past decade since their free trade agreement, Seoul's industry ministry said Friday."

I dont think a NZ-US FTA would be detrimental to the NZ, I think it would be the opposite. NZ governments current and previous has been trying to get their hands on one and likely with good reason.

 

[John Fedup]

Being the bigger party will give America leverage but is that any different to making deals with China or the EU? It's a game of give and take like any trade agreement. When New Zealand negotiated its FTA with China, it made concessions, just like Australia did when it was negotiating with China, and in turn China made concessions of their own until an agreement was reached.

Even so, I dont think "America's terms" are hard to swallow for NZ, you spent several years negotiating the now defunct TPP, which revolved around American rules and standards, and became one of only 2 parties to ratify it before it became the CPTPP which implements rules and standards the US was promoting in the TPP.

An FTA with America could be very benefical for NZ. Without an FTA your industries would be at disadvantage to competitors who have one. NZ beef and wine will be at a disadvantage to Australian beef and wine and NZ dairy will be at a disadvantage to Canadian dairy. There are other benefits besides trade. An FTA with America could increase bilateral investment with the US like it has for Australia:

"Two-way investment has almost tripled since the Agreement came into force".

Here is small, but recent article about KORUS and how Korea has benefitted from an FTA with America 10 years on:
"Trade volume of goods between South Korea and the United States grew nearly 70 percent, and bilateral investment more than doubled over the past decade since their free trade agreement, Seoul's industry ministry said Friday."

I dont think a NZ-US FTA would be detrimental to the NZ, I think it would be the opposite. NZ governments current and previous has been trying to get their hands on one and likely with good reason.

The key parameter for any FTA with the US is the dispute mechanism. Even with a good one in place, US lobbyists will pressure Congress to impose restrictions on behalf of their clients. When these restrictions are found to be in violation years later and are removed, the damage has been done.

 

[KrustyKoala]

The key parameter for any FTA with the US is the dispute mechanism. Even with a good one in place, US lobbyists will pressure Congress to impose restrictions on behalf of their clients. When these restrictions are found to be in violation years later and are removed, the damage has been done.

You raise an excellent point. IIRC the dispute mechanism was also point of contention with the Aus-US FTA. However, what US lobbyists do to pressure their politicans is no different no different to what lobbyists of any other trade partner of NZ does.

NZ isnt a stranger to trade shenanigans.They have had to deal with unfair restrictions before with trade partners. NZ and Australia have had their own trade shenanigans in the past. So have NZ and Canada or NZ and the EU. All are important markets for NZ. Despite these disputes NZ has and wants to benefit further from more trade with these countries. I think they'd feel the same with America

 

[John Fedup]

You raise an excellent point. IIRC the dispute mechanism was also point of contention with the Aus-US FTA. However, what US lobbyists do to pressure their politicans is no different no different to what lobbyists of any other trade partner of NZ does.

NZ isnt a stranger to trade shenanigans.They have had to deal with unfair restrictions before with trade partners. NZ and Australia have had their own trade shenanigans in the past. So have NZ and Canada or NZ and the EU. All are important markets for NZ. Despite these disputes NZ has and wants to benefit further from more trade with these countries. I think they'd feel the same with America

Huge difference confronting lobbyists in the US compared to the EU and certainly Australia, the EU because some members may differ affects unity and Australia because of size.

 

[KiwiRob]

Being the bigger party will give America leverage but is that any different to making deals with China or the EU? It's a game of give and take like any trade agreement. When New Zealand negotiated its FTA with China, it made concessions, just like Australia did when it was negotiating with China, and in turn China made concessions of their own until an agreement was reached.

Even so, I dont think "America's terms" are hard to swallow for NZ, you spent several years negotiating the now defunct TPP, which revolved around American rules and standards, and became one of only 2 parties to ratify it before it became the CPTPP which implements rules and standards the US was promoting in the TPP.

An FTA with America could be very benefical for NZ. Without an FTA your industries would be at disadvantage to competitors who have one. NZ beef and wine will be at a disadvantage to Australian beef and wine and NZ dairy will be at a disadvantage to Canadian dairy. There are other benefits besides trade. An FTA with America could increase bilateral investment with the US like it has for Australia:

"Two-way investment has almost tripled since the Agreement came into force".

Here is small, but recent article about KORUS and how Korea has benefitted from an FTA with America 10 years on:
"Trade volume of goods between South Korea and the United States grew nearly 70 percent, and bilateral investment more than doubled over the past decade since their free trade agreement, Seoul's industry ministry said Friday."

I dont think a NZ-US FTA would be detrimental to the NZ, I think it would be the opposite. NZ governments current and previous has been trying to get their hands on one and likely with good reason.

There were a lot of very unhappy people in NZ when the govt capitulated and signed TPP, and a lot more people breathed a huge sigh of relief when it was canned, it was a bad agreement. CPTPP suspended 20 provisions the US insisted on. NZ is also a member of RCEP which came into force on the 1st January, this FTA also excluded the US, it also happens to be the largest FTA in history. I think we are doing alright without aligning ourselves with the US.

 

[Shanesworld]

There were a lot of very unhappy people in NZ when the govt capitulated and signed TPP, and a lot more people breathed a huge sigh of relief when it was canned, it was a bad agreement. CPTPP suspended 20 provisions the US insisted on. NZ is also a member of RCEP which came into force on the 1st January, this FTA also excluded the US, it also happens to be the largest FTA in history. I think we are doing alright without aligning ourselves with the US.

I disagree. The US, Mexico and France are the only serious players in the coming next 5 decades due to more stable demographics. I.e. Age groups we can sell to. Everywhere else is aging into lower productivity, less discretionary spending.
We will see Russia and China do increasingly dangerous and aggressive things simply besause of the desparation due to a current and worsening lack of 20 to 45 year olds.
The US doesn't have that same problem.