This title begs the question as to whether being a Member of The Commonwealth “Makes it all Right” in terms of your Geopolitical Orientation? It would even help if you are WASP in blood, breeding and family history, as former and current British subjects are too close in too many ways—and not for their own best interests.
Have the Commonwealth Countries near China found themselves caught between a rock and a hard place- NZ is part of the Commonwealth! To make a complicated issue the simpler, the Australians are joined to the hip with the Yanks, the do no evil Americans, on foreign policy, but they are economically reliant on China while is reliant on Australia for defence, but even more in hoc to China economically.
In a 2017 Australian Foreign Policy White Paper, the country claims that “over the coming decade, Australia will need to pursue its interests in a more competitive and contested world.”
The section about values is very reflective, everything to everyone, and anything goes, however, in terms of vaccine policy, no compromise—our way or the highway. It makes you wonder who is really deciding the values, and from where?
“DIVERSITY” rather than the actual “Absolute State Control”
It seems, at least for now, that Hamas is the enemy of “peace-loving” Australian PM Anthony Albanese amid the Gaza war—so I suspect that means that Israel is the friend! But speaking of Australian values, the PM is quick to defend Israel but fails to look at the conflict from all sides, especially the vast majority of innocent Palestinians. This is very similar to the attitude of the Australian PM to the war in Ukraine, where he has hemorrhaged away Australian military equipment in support of another rotten cause.
Much to the dismay of the authorities, many Australians have been joining pro-Palestinian rallies, calling for Palestine to be Free, despite police threats to curb them. So the values of the people are coming into conflict with the stated policies of the government. This is now a normal the situation anywhere, however now it is more a concern as the Western allies, while some who claim to represent the government of Israel are actually the existential threat to its continued existence.
What is going on in New Zealand? Is it too walking the fine line, and just read my lips, to what is the opposite to the set of values and claimed foreign policy?
So NZ is in the same boat, and walks a fine line with China, or perhaps a leash, while beneath the diplomatic niceties there is a growing fault line. When Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta visited China earlier this year and expressed New Zealand’s “deep concerns” over human rights, Hong Kong and Taiwan, some media suggested she’d been “harangued” by her Chinese counterpart.
But where are those concerns now, only for China? And what about Ukraine, and Palestine? Where are the deep concerns about blatant human rights violations and the application of double standards by Jerusalem and Kyiv?
In simple terms, “pragmatic” is the key word as NZ places its economic interests first and foremost, and has been less vocal in terms of its response to human rights issues with China, its largest export market. I guess there will be no blowback with fellow travellers, as NZ is too far removed and too down under to be anything more than a footnote.
New Zealand vocally supports the right of Israel to defend itself against Hamas’s terrorist attacks. But the way it does so “matters”, at least according to its Ministry of Foreign Affairs public statements, where His Majesty’s New Zealand government advises that Israel must abide by international law, exercise restraint, and prioritise the protection of civilians.
But that seems a hard position to maintain, hard to maintain, especially when Hamas is dug in deep and the body count is adding up among the civilian population, and Israel considers even newborn babies to be “terrorists”.
However, one thing is certain, once you claim values, and go on to claim you base your foreign policy on high principles, be prepared to be called on them when your actions give lie to your pretty words. Trying to serve your values and foreign masters is a bit too difficult a task for the two governments mentioned,
Thus, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the “beautiful principles” of freedom and diversity propounded by the New Zealand and Australian governments are little more than makeup over a face that is being revealed to be increasingly ugly, as their totalitarian bent under Covid has revealed.
Now we can see the same trend in their support of ruthless military actions that deliberately target civilians. But they are all joined with shared values and histories, especially under the boot of the former British Empire.
It boils down to the justification for Shooting the Elephant as in one of Orwell’s earlier works, as the Empire must show what it stands in terms of foreign policy, even if this is at the expense of sub humans—in the good vs. evil clash (excuse).
Remember that the Elephant is a valuable asset, even if it got a bit crazy and went on a rampage, destroying some property and taking a human life. It too was collateral damaged in the BIGGER scheme of things, in preserving the imagine of the Empire.
It is all about catering to the captive audience, ‘Shooting an Elephant’ was about how those in power act when they are aware that they have an audience. It is about how so much of our behaviour is shaped, not by what we want to do, nor even by what we think is the right thing to do, but by what others will think of us and what they expect of us, in closing ranks, and toeing the proverbial line in maintaining that special relationship…
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.