Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has published an open letter to Christopher Luxon, urging his Government to stop taking an “adversarial stance” against China.
The letter was signed by former politicians Geoffrey Palmer, David Carter and Don Brash, as well as Carl Worker, a former ambassador to China, and David Mahon, a prominent New Zealand businessman based in Beijing.
Former Prime Minister John Key did not sign the letter, though he has previously spoken in support of stronger ties with China.
The group paid for full-page adverts in five major newspapers across the country over the weekend, aiming to catch the attention of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon ahead of an expected trip to China.
The Prime Minister has yet to visit New Zealand’s largest trading partner, despite being more than halfway through his first term and having promised to double exports over 10 years.
In a press release, Helen Clark said it was important to maintain good relations with the United States, but New Zealand shouldn’t join any defence programmes “explicitly aimed at China” — such as AUKUS and the possible Pillar Two arrangements.
"For many years, New Zealand has maintained a balanced foreign policy, building strong relationships with both the United States and China. That has served our national interests well. Recent moves by the Government, however, suggest an increasing willingness to align New Zealand with the United States in a way that could harm our relationship with China.”
Drifting west
The shift towards the US reportedly began under Jacinda Ardern but has become more visible since the Coalition Government took office.
A Defence Capability Plan released earlier this year cited the risk of military confrontation between China and the United States as part of the rationale for a $12 billion investment in a more “lethal” defence force.
Clark and the other signatories criticised the Coalition for authorising New Zealand naval vessels to sail through the Taiwan Strait, which separates mainland China from self-governed Taiwan.
The move has been cited as a possible reason three Chinese warships sailed through the Tasman Sea, between Australia and New Zealand, earlier this year. Some have suggested it was a form of retaliation.
When Defence Minister Judith Collins spoke publicly about the Defence Capability Plan recently, she was asked whether New Zealand had provoked the sailing through its own naval actions near China and by being part of Five Eyes.
Collins replied that New Zealand had a “very close relationship” with China on economics and science, and a “respectful relationship” on maritime and security issues.
“When we pass through various areas and international waters, we are very careful to make sure we follow the rules, just as China did when it came down the Tasman,” she said.
Many in the audience believed that question—and another about “Trumpian America” instigating a future war in Asia—were likely to have been planted by the Chinese embassy in Wellington.
China’s ambassador has also openly criticised several government statements and actions, including a social media post implying Luxon’s visit to India had damaged the China–New Zealand relationship.
Trade without trust
Meanwhile, Kiwi businesses continue to sell more than $20 billion in goods and services to China — almost a quarter of all exports. It remains a key economic relationship at a time when free trade and market access can no longer be taken for granted.
Don Brash, former National Party leader and Reserve Bank Governor, now chairs the local subsidiary of the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.
In the press release, he said it was crucial to retain a “bipartisan commitment” to the relationship with New Zealand’s largest export market.
“Our economic and security interests are best served through continued dialogue and co-operation, not through alignment with geopolitical tensions that could have long-term consequences."
The letter’s signatories want Luxon to use his upcoming trip to Beijing to “reaffirm New Zealand’s commitment to its strategic partnership with China in the interests of a peaceful and prosperous region and world”.
The open letter said: “It would not be surprising if China were to come to the conclusion that the special relationship which New Zealand has had with it since becoming the first developed country to have a free trade agreement with it in 2008 is no longer so valued by New Zealand.”
“We see no upside and very considerable downside in the situation which has developed.”
23 Comments
I think we have a problem here. AUKUS is focused on Pacific security, and the only reason it is pointed at China is because China is an active threat to several countries security at the moment, starting with Taiwan, Philippines and Japan. The US involvement is to try to assist in stabilising the area.
So in effect they are calling for us to support China's call to effectively surrender Taiwan's right to self determination as a democratic nation, the Philippines and Japan's legally recognised national borders? That is to all intents arguing that Ukraine should surrender to Russia.
I would argue that we should support China only on the basis that they withdraw any and all claims to territories not internationally and legally recognised as their territory and cease all operations against Taiwan, which is an internationally recognised independent nation, regardless of the commentary some put out.
Helen Clark is undeniably opinionated, but at the same time not exactly always completely wrong. For instance her remark that the world would have been a lot to the better if Al Gore and not George Bush junior had won the Presidency in 2000 resonated somewhat, but was politically, internationally speaking, misguided going on naive and in similar recent fashion to her almost cloned successor, Phil Goff’s utterance in London that got him sacked. Some politicians though just can’t seem to let it go and this is an example of the old mantra of Clark’s government - we know, we say, you do. Leave off the dabbling, you had your time, there’s another elected government now,
Leave off the dabbling, you had your time, there’s another elected government now,
A very high level of self importance and entitlement. Seemed to get worse after the UN gig.
When NZ recognised China more than 50 years ago, it was explicit that there was only 'One China'. The Taiwanese authorities had the same perspective except that they should be the Government thereof. The fact that New Zealand does not have an Ambassador in Taiwan is reflective of this situation. The USA also does not have an Ambassador in Taiwan. My own assessment is that China and Taiwan will eventually sort out things between themselves. The USA, New Zealand, and other countries need to step back and let this happen.
As Mao said to Kissinger, also now more than 50 years ago, reunification might take 200 years but it would happen.
Prior to 1949, Taiwan was never an independent nation to the best of my knowledge. It became a separate entity when the Kuomintang retreated there with there with a managed retreat from the Mainland assisted by the USA. since the early 1970s, the One China versus Two China situation has been managed with considerable skill by all of the interested parties. What Clark, Brash and others are now saying is don't mess that up.
KeithW
Paul Johnson in his excellent “History of the American People” explains that there is no better merger of differing peoples than that of time, but plenty of it. However for the view exchanged by Kissinger/Mao of 200 years, 75 have already passed since the Kuomintang took over Taiwan. There is much embedded history of hostility, suspicion and more, but even so, at the same time the trade and travel between the two are surprisingly significant. China though has demonstrated with Hong Kong, that any vision of being allowed to continue with an independent regime of its own freedom that is, one that is not under the severity of the CCP, would be a forlorn hope. Hard to imagine the Taiwanese people wanting to be dragged like that into the swamp so to speak.
Japan's influence on Taiwan is profound, multifaceted, and continues to shape the island's society, economy, and culture long after the end of colonial rule. While I've only ventured to Taipei, the first thing that stood out to me was how much the urban planning resembled Japan.
Many people don't realize that after the Qing dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895 under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, Taiwan became Japan's first overseas colony. Even when Taiwan was placed under the control of the Republic of China in 1945. However, the legacy of Japanese rule continued, particularly in manufacturing. Many Taiwanese industries and technical expertise benefitted from Japanese investment and training, contributing to the island's postwar economic "miracle".
Like you I have only been to Taipei, and that was 47 years ago. Back then there were flat decks driving around with anti aircraft guns mounted. The whole place was like more or less on guard but alongside that there was commercial and industrial ambitions simply brimming over. Three nights in the Hilton Taipei and have not stayed in a Hilton since. Rampaging, yahooing Americans every corridor every floor, every hour. Taipei then at least was I think the noisiest city on this planet
I was there in 2018 for a conference. Magical place. What I particularly liked about it was that it feels stuck in time. Not desperate to modernize like mainland China.
Excellent assessment Keith, I fully agree and I have a fairly good understanding of Taiwan's history and current situation.
I agree with your statement Murray "Ukraine should surrender to Russia". They are saying "Don't stand up to an aggressor". There is a big BUT in our case that I agree with in their summations. We are reliant on exports to the "big bogy" China. There is very little chance of USA taking that spot in the future. Look around, Asians are increasing everywhere. Not a concern to my mind, considering where we are situated geographically.
I think they are thinking ahead in time and what the World will look like. As a small trading nation, we will never call the shots. We can't take sides in any dramatic fashion. Whatever happens we should float along and hopefully the tides are favourable.
We are not in anyway comparable to a European nation as we are isolated and on our own.
Murray86, you said..."The US involvement is to try to assist in stabilising the area."
IMO Keith nailed the situation we face 100%.
I don't share your opinion so I will make a few more observations...
With the situation in Taiwan, the US is in the business of perpetual destabilisation, just as it is with Ukraine, Palestine, Iran, and Pakistan. Seemingly 4 dangerous situations are not enough, they want to stoke up yet another one.
For my entire 70 years of existence, the US has been involved in one or more wars in every single one of those years. Their economy has devolved into a financialised and largely military-based economy that in terms of PGDP (Productive GDP) is only a third the size of that of China - that's $5 trillion, compared to $15 trillion.
They live completely beyond their means and try to retain their military/financial hegemony by force and coercion running themselves into such a self-inflicted debt trap that their entire economy, currency, and reserve currency is on the brink of total collapse.
The central banks of the world became net sellers of US treasuries back in 2014, and now that Trump has declared a trade/tariff war on the entire planet they will be in no mood to buy this debt. That only leaves individuals and institutions as buyers - PROBLEM - they know that US treasuries carry a huge risk, not just in their loss in value when yields rise significantly, but in losses in capital value because of the US's explicit intention to significantly weaken its dollar. They risk taking major losses for both of these reasons.
Buyers of this debt will demand more and more risk-weighted yield or they simply won't buy show up. If the Fed buys this debt, that will be highly inflationary, and the country will dive further into its self-inflicted debt trap and enter a stagflationary phase.
With a deficit this year likely to be between $2.5 - $3 trillion, and over $10 trillion of bonds to try to sell just to extend their debt trap, they are on the brink of a collapse worse than the Great Depression and with no entity willing to bail them out.
It looks very much to me as though the U$ and global Deep State are deliberately trying to start a hot WW3 - the hybrid WW3 started quite some time ago on Obama's watch - as Gerald Cilente' says - "When all else fails they take us to war".
Have you ever stopped to think about why the US so-called 'defence' budget, when you add in all the alphabet, agencies, private mercenaries, NGOs, proxies, etc, comes to more than $1.5 trillion - more than the next 70 largest countries' military spends combined?
Why have they got more than 800 overseas military bases and Russia and China, between them, a grand total of 3.5?
American Prof. Jeffrey Sachs made the following observations almost a year ago. These are uncomfortable truths for the US and its vassals, but he makes them in the hope that he might just be able to wake up his country before it's all too late - before they cause an existential nuclear apocalypse.
...quoted...
"The US launched a policy around 2015 to “contain” China, including several components. These policies – spelled out in a 2015 article for the Council on Foreign Relations by Robert Blackwill and Ashley Tellis – included the attempt to create trade agreements, such as the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) designed to exclude China, increased export bans on hi-tech products such as advanced semiconductors, increased trade barriers to China’s exports to the US (and Europe), increased militarisation of the South China Sea, new military alignments such as Aukus, and opposition to Chinese initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative.
I believe that every one of these approaches is a failure. They do not “contain” China, but they raise tensions, lower economic well-being and global economic efficiency, divide the world economy, and bring us close to war.
The deep state is the set of US security institutions, including the White House (and the president’s National Security Council), the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies (centred on the CIA), the Armed Services Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee of Congress, and the major arms contractors (notably Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman).
They are the drivers of America’s wars, regime-change operations, and foreign policy more generally. This is a big business, involving more than US$1 trillion dollar per year in direct outlays, so there is heavy lobbying involved as well.
This is not any kind of conspiracy theory, just a fact about the organisation of the US state. There is little role of public opinion involved in US security policy (including wars and regime-change operations). Much of it is indeed secretive, which is why whistle-blowing and leaks are considered such a high offence in the US. The deep state has been engaged in perhaps 90 covert and overt regime-change operations since 1947 (the date the CIA was created), and in pervasive warfare. The deep state manages a network of more than 750 overseas military bases in around 80 countries, and those bases of operation are key to US-led wars and regime-change operations.
Beijing and Western countries have been accusing each other of conducting covert operations to destabilise the other side. How much of this do you think is conspiracy theories, and how much is real?
US foreign policy is based on military alliances, economic pressures, and covert operations of destabilisation. This is all well documented, and applies to China, Russia and other regions of the world. US actions in East Asia (military bases, military alliances, trade measures, covert operations) are indeed designed to contain or weaken China. US actions vis-à-vis Taiwan, especially continuing to arm Taiwan contrary to the letter and spirit of the August 17, 1982 US-PRC Communique, are the most dangerous and destabilising of the US actions.
It is worth recalling key language of that communique: “The United States government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.”
That was 42 years ago."
Just repeating what Colin said.
".......With the situation in Taiwan, the US is in the business of perpetual destabilisation, just as it is with Ukraine, Palestine, Iran, and Pakistan. Seemingly 4 dangerous situations are not enough, they want to stoke up yet another one........"
We are already in defense alliances and resisting Chinas push into the pacific, que Raratonga.
Nvidia makes most of its chips in Taiwan, if the US keeps banning their import to China , they will invade to stop US getting any,
even if it kills all production, Yes AI is THAT IMPORTANT Here
unmanned drones and bots in military depend on AI Advantage.
Invading Taiwan was always gonna be difficult because of the hundreds of kilometres of tunnels in the mountains full of mobile missile launchers. Now imagine a 100,000 strong drone swarm taking out anything that floats in the Taiwan Strait. They're not gonna get a beachhead in Taiwan. Give up and move on.
I have sympathy for this view... and the fact that missiles launched at the three dams would kill millions.
But maybe the CCP do not care, Mao killed 60 mil in a famine
More likely success would be big time bribing of Taiwanese officials and politicians with a HK style 2 systems agreement for 25 years or so while the elite sort out themselves and their families. But still unlikely cause of the general distrust of the communists.
There's also loads of spies on both sides, so when added to satellite surveillance and the logistical problem of getting enough soldiers onto the island means I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it.
in all wargamed scenariois China only win if they take out japanese and Guam US Bases, hence starting a massive conflict
More likely a strategy of blockade. Sea and air and electronically. NZH reports an Australian navy vessel’s radar accidentally shut down wi fi etc around Taranaki so not hard to imagine a serious sophisticated attack on a relatively small island. Of course that would get very interesting if the USA & others decided to send a heavily escorted convoy through to Taiwan via accepted international waters. Bit of a different scenario to Malta 1943 or the Berlin airlift.
Blockade is possible but would need a very vulnerable flotilla of ships to enforce it. There would be a Gulf of Tonkin type incident and the flotilla would be sunk pretty quick. PRC needs to get a few divisions onto the island so they can hold an airfield. If they do that they have a chance. So near, but so far
Another scenario is they take Kinmen, Matsu and Penghu islands currently held by Taiwan and then fortify them over time for another push later. More achievable, but could also trigger a full blown war. And Kinmen is only 2km from coast of China but they still haven't taken it after all these years. Tells you something about their lack of power projection.
The US Marines will testify to the difficulty & casualty rate of taking rocky island fortresses. Read years ago, Jane’s I think all possible Taiwan beaches were piped well beyond the waterline, all ready to ignite and set the sea on fire. Likely that is still so. China has a massive army all dressed up with nowhere to go. But for understandable reasons it is geared to vast open space manoeuvres, not seaboard assaults. If China does in fact have any actual territorial ambitions then to the west with Russia, weakened militarily and more, and dependent on China, would appear to be logical, perhaps a reclamation of Mongolia as suck and see exercise.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.