Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and his foreign affairs advisers have a catchphrase for the shifting geopolitical landscape:
“Rules are giving way to power; economics to security; and efficiency to resilience,” they say.
That shift is bad news for New Zealand, which has relied on global trade and security norms to level the playing field despite its small size.
It wants a world governed by clear international rules that promote economic efficiency through free trade. Instead, it sees powerful countries bullying weaker ones, and many economies turning inward in response.
In a speech at a security conference in India, the Prime Minister said “sadly” the world could no longer assume countries would respect the UN Charter or national sovereignty.
His comments were aimed at Russia and China, but have gained new relevance after the United States launched an unprovoked attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.
Few want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. But does the rules-based order permit military force to stop them?
The New Zealand government has declined to take a position. It noted the US claims the strike was consistent with the UN Charter and has called for dialogue over escalation.
Keep schtum
It’s a careful way to avoid openly criticising President Donald Trump for what international law experts say was likely an illegal strike on Iran.
Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said endorsing the attack set a troubling precedent. States could now justify preemptive strikes against anything vaguely threatening.
He pointed to Japan, which has been expanding its capacity to launch missile counter-strikes against China or North Korea in a future conflict.
But what if China believes those weapons might be used offensively, not defensively? Does the UN Charter permit a preemptive strike to eliminate them?
A recent real-world example is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. One of its many (dubious) justifications was that Ukraine was developing the capability to strike Russia in the future.
President Vladimir Putin framed the “special military operation” partly as a preemptive move to prevent a NATO-backed invasion someday in the far future.
Was that permissible under international law? Luxon says absolutely not.
“Russia's war in Ukraine is utterly illegal. It disrespects national sovereignty. It disrespects international law and democratic ideals, and that's why we're standing with Ukraine,” he told reporters on Monday.
But the Prime Minister couldn’t—or wouldn’t—explain how Russia’s invasion differed, legally, from the United States’ strike on Iran, beyond noting it was less targeted.
One possible answer is that the rules don’t apply to the US and its allies as clearly as they do to its adversaries. Which would make the rules-based order look like a joke.
From values to compliance
Perhaps New Zealand’s own foreign policy is shifting from rules to power. The current US administration does not take criticism well, and New Zealand’s strategy appears to be staying out of sight and out of mind.
That may be a sound tactical move to get through the next four years. But it risks undercutting future speeches about the importance of the rules-based order.
Luxon was just in China, where he repeatedly stressed his willingness to air disagreements — predictably, and respectfully. But is he equally willing to confront differences with the United States?
New Zealand now has a security partner that appears to have abandoned the rules-based order, and a trade partner that never truly believed in it.
Developed democracies in Europe and Asia may still believe in the rules but they are unable to enforce them if the two superpowers don’t play ball. Without a rules-based system to shield it from coercion, New Zealand faces growing pressure to align with a superpower.
Ministers insist they aren’t pressured by China or the United States on defence or economic decisions. But that’s not true.
The US expects developed democracies to help build a strong military presence to deter China from taking Taiwan or coercing its neighbours. China, in turn, wants them to stay out of its way in exchange for access to its consumer market and manufacturing capabilities.
Geographic necessity
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told attendees, including New Zealand’s defence minister Judith Collins, at the Shangri-La security conference that Asian countries should view China as a threat, not an economic opportunity.
“We know that many countries are tempted by the idea of seeking both economic cooperation with China and defense cooperation with the United States. Now that is a geographic necessity for many. But beware the leverage that the CCP seeks with that entanglement. Economic dependence on China only deepens their malign influence and complicates our defense decision space during times of tension,” he said.
Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand are all countries Hegseth may have had in mind.
China has signalled to New Zealand that the trading relationship is stable—for now. But that could change if New Zealand joins anything related to AUKUS.
Su Xiaohui, deputy director of a think-tank linked to China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told Politik that joining the pact would be “decisive” for the NZ–China relationship.
“Every country can make its own choice, of course, but if you choose to join in the framework, like AUKUS, it is kind of different for the relationship and for the strategic structure of the region,” she said
After Luxon met with senior Chinese leaders, state media praised New Zealand’s ability to “balance its relationships” and navigate “geopolitical complexities with independence and flexibility.”
It reads like a warning not to upset the status quo. But that decision may no longer be New Zealand’s to make.
31 Comments
The Secuity Council members have increasingly stared putting themselves first in matters of trade, resource domination and security. If Global stability from the UN cohesion ceases, has the role/worth of the UN run it's race?
Is it no longer worth funding?
In addition to the great powers unilaterally discarding the rules based order you could add the UN's own ineffectiveness in responding to conflicts and its ideological capture by subversive actors, as factors contributing to its slide towards irrelevance.
US always had a veto so was it really collaboration or simply them sitting in on a global governing body they knew they had the upper hand in for decades, and utilised for their own benefit.
Five member nations have veto power over the security council. The US does not have the power to impose its will unchallenged.
NZ as per then PM Savage’s declaration at the outbreak of WW2, would go where Britain goes.The two world wars saw the decline and fall of Britain and its empire, and simultaneously the rise of the USA to full on super power status. Coupled to that was the successful American campaign in the Pacific, the defeat of the Japanese Empire which had stripped out British interests all the way through from Hong Kong to the Indian border, and for quite a while, threatened Australia and New Zealand. It is hardly surprising then that New Zealand has long established affiliation and accompanying trust in first one traditional and then the next. It should not be forgotten either, with a view to China, that the pandemic that devastated nations globally, economically and societally, originated there, whether by chance or whatever, none of which the Chinese have either acknowledged or apologised for, and that in itself presents a profound difference in political ideology, human values and accountability to what we as a nation would normally expect.
Agree we need to pick our friends carefully. Geographically though we are stuck with Aussie and all that comes with that.
From a defence capability we need to be stepping up significantly to better protect ourselves. Russia and Ukraine have change to face of war and demonstrated that technology has added layers that never used to be there through the use of drones of widely varied sophistication.
We still have a significant EEZ which needs to be monitored. it is perhaps possible that the required surveillance can be achieved cheaper and more effectively using a fleet of UAVs, and keeping the higher value assets (P8s) until needed. But I still see a need for a fixed wing strike capability as well as better naval capabilities to respond to needs. Our army needs to be multi talented across a broad spectrum of warfare types for self defence as well as being able to contribute to multinational operations if called upon.
It takes years to develop those capabilities, and we should have started 20 years ago.
FG. From someone who has spent time in the region and understands the culture, I am a little surprised that you appear to expect acknowledgement or, even more, apology, from the Chinese for allowing the escape of the virus from Wuhan.
Appropriate article to raise a relevant discussion, but let's make something clear the US attack on Iran was not "unprovoked". Iran has been a bad player for years in the ME. Some research on Iran by the author might be called for.
Israel has been nuclear armed for a long time. In the same manner as Russia, and China sort of, Israel’s policy is to only resort to those in the face of an existential threat. The Middle East region is pretty much wide open. Any nuclear detonation will fall out on the surrounds, borders don’t count for much in those circumstances. Iran’s overt sponsorship of extreme terrorism, the brutality of the administration on its own people, gives credence to the probability that the Iranian leaders couldn’t give a toss about the consequences of any nuclear strike they ordered, provided f course they made themselves safe beforehand. Nukes are surely bad enough without being allowed into the hands of rogue states and that in turn raises the very worrying prospect that Nth Korea will now intervene for exactly that purpose.
FG. The Mullahs likely wouldn't care about making themselves safe given a nuclear conflagration would herald the coming of a messiah who will usher in a shariah ruled paradise world. Kim won't supply nukes to Tehran. China currently imports 90% of the oil Iran produces and is heavily dependent on it. Beijing most definitely won't want WMD in the hands of the unstable mullahs, its muted response to the yanks bunker busting in Iran is telling. Kim will already have had the word from Xi.
Murray, yeah I had a chuckle at that too. Irans belligerent actions over many years against the US include repeated attacks on shipping and hundreds of attacks on US bases by the IRGG and its proxies. Add to that the blatant repeated Iranian nose thumbing at the IAEA and todays announcement by the Tehran that Grossi should be tried and executed. 'Death to America' being screamed by Mullahs at political meetings tends to indicate they could be harbouring, you know, just a little bit of provocative sentiment.
The original provocation was the West - first the Brits - wanting the oil under the Iranians.
Read Longhurst's 'Adventure in Oil' - written back when the Brits still believed, well before Woke. There wouldn't be the hatred, if there hadn't been provocation. And we didn't go there to distribute largesse...
Seuss's Butter Battle Book aptly describes the rest.
It depends if you count proxy attacks. Certainly, Iranian-backed groups have attacked US forces in the Middle East. There have also been credible allegations of Iranian assassination plots against the US, and obviously Iran and Israel (a US ally) have been exchanging fire.
I was only meaning 'unprovoked' in relation to direct strikes on each other's sovereign territory. Not at all to say the Iranian regime are a peace-loving bunch.
Cheers Dan. I rather suspect the reason Iran hasn't (yet) hit the continental USA is because they simply don't have the reach (again - yet), but it wouldn't surprise me if the IRGC are working to fix that problem. Having said that, as Jeffery Sachs pointed out Iran perhaps should have a level of concern in that the US demonstrated their ability to reach out and touch any place on the planet from home bases.
I guess most people, including me, were expecting the raid to come from Diego Garcia with at least four B2s positioned there. another diversionary feature of the strategy.
Another aspect is that it appears that Iran did not detect the B2's at all, and if the F35 escort went the whole way, they they too were not detected. Adds a little depth to the message that the US can reach out to you with some degree of impunity.
Murray. Is it that surprising though that the F35's were not detected given Israel's comprehensive dismantling of the the IRGGs air defences by the ultra high tech deployed by the IAF and aided by US surveillance intel? Look at the way Ukraine with ancient and homemade hardware has so severely degraded Russias SAM systems, the same gear as Iran had. I'm still marvelling at Hegseth's revelation that the first GBU57 created the bombing shaft and the other 5 were dropped down the same tiny shaft. Terrifying !
The F35 is not as stealthy as the B2, although still of significantly Low Observable (LO) technology.
The precision targeting is not a surprise to me, as that has been demonstrated before, not least by the anti-missile systems which have very small windows to hit to effectively take out incoming missiles, many of which will be hypersonic. Even the timing is not particularly significant.
The capabilities of the GBU57 are demonstrated during testing to be able to penetrate 60 ft of reinforced concrete, but would never reach especially deep unless they were to all intents, 'stacked' on top of each other. I'm not sure if this would work, but I'd think they would be 'stacked' close together so that following weapons enter the hole of the one ahead of it while the first ones debris is still in the air. But nanosecond timing for these is very much the norm I'd expect. Five weapons in one hole is not really a surprise, and that the holes are relatively small suggests the stack timing was close.
Thanks Dan. I think you specifying it is the regime that is belligerent, as opposed to the general populace, is pertinent. There are signs that the revolutionary guard is under increasing pressure from dissidents and is having to crack down with increasing violence. I remain ever hopeful that the intelligentsia and middle classes will gain the upper hand in Iran. Memory of the horrific Iran/Iraq war that cost 1m lives is still very much alive and the latest war with Israel has demonstrated to the people that the IRGG is in fact a paper tiger and not the unstoppable force they had been given to believe.
"Some research on Iran by the author might be called for." .... really? - IMO this was one of the things that the author got right.
THIS HAS ZERO TO DO WITH NUKES - and everything to do with the U$/Israel trying to regime change Iran so that they can gain control of its vital strategic location.
Remember that Iran is the only land bridge that joins Asia into the ME, Europe, and Africa - its geographical positioning extending from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman is just as critical now as it has been for 2000 years.
The U$ knows that this corridor is the vital link for the multi-trillion BRICS/BRI investment in a new multipolar global trade/currency/security global initiative that will redefine the global economy to one of cooperative free trade - one where all members of the bloc can benefit, and shake loose the U$'s predatory hegemonic dominance.
This fight is not only existential for Iran but also for any notion that the U$ empire can continue its global hegemony.
Russia, China, and its neighbour Pakistan in particular, will back Iran to the hilt and the BRICS nations will backstop them.
The only way that the U$/Israel can 'win' (sic) this battle, is to take it nuclear - THIS IS THE WILDCARD, and Trump and Netanyahu are the two deranged narcissist lunatics sitting at the card table.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHReAMIbkyY
.. quoted/paraphrased at 6:50...
JudgeNap - Why did Trump spend $100 million dropping 32,000 lb bombs on empty tunnels from which the nuclear material and their equipment had been safely extracted, days and weeks before?
Aaron Mate - "Well this is where you have to enter into the realm of psychology and mental health. Basically, Trump didn't like the fact that Israel was getting most of the credit on Fox News for their attacks on Iran, and so Trump wanted in.
Normally you can maybe just dismiss this stuff as just deceptive leaks, aiming to make Trump look bad, but based on his behaviour, I think it is quite possible that part of this was that he wanted to look tough,
Maybe he thought in his head that he could do some damage, but Iran knew this was coming, and as many of your guests have discussed, they moved out their enriched uranium, prior to these strikes, therefore leaving their stockpile intact - I think there is a psychological factor here - wanting to look tough on Fox News and get credit.
And then the are the political reasons - what is the strategic aim of trying to deprive Iran of its right to enrich uranium because we know it's not stopping a nuclear weapon, because everybody knows Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon, and they were negotiating in good faith to put that in a binding agreement which Trump and Netanyahu sabotaged.
Max Blumenthal talked about this - if you undermine Iran's ability to enrich Uranium, then you are basically undermining their ability to meet their population's needs. And what goal does that serve?- it serves regime change.
If there is unrest - if there is even more discontent on top of the existing sanctions that the U$ has imposed, then if you deprive Iran of its right to produce energy and to meet its domestic needs, then you increase the chances of regime change.
And there's also, I think, the fact that Iran has tethered its right to enrich uranium to an expression of its sovereignty - there is something psychological here in the eyes of foreign actors like Trump and Netanyahu, who just have such contempt for Iran's existence as a state - as a state that resists U$/Israeli dictate.Even an expression of Iran's sovereignty must be destroyed to teach them a lesson, in the same way that when Hamas carried out a one-day operation on Oct 7, Israel had to carry on a more than a year long genocide, just to teach the natives a lesson, that you don't raise your heads to the masters of the region, which is Israel and the U$."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please, Murray, take some time to reflect on the fact that the JCPOA* - the so-called P5+1 agreement signed with Iran in 2013 wasn't just China/France/Germany/Russia/UK, but it also included the 26 other EU countries referred to as the "+1".
In essence, there were 31 countries in all that were perfectly happy with how the entire program was performing, and it only took one ignorant barely literate baffoon to ruin the entire arrangement when he gleefully tore it up.
* (The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) also known as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal, is an agreement to limit the Iranian nuclear program in return for sanctions relief and other provisions. The agreement was finalized in Vienna on 14 July 2015)
In effect, Trump caused this war and now he owns it - it is farcical to think that Iran could ever imagine that the US will be agreement capable, let alone with Trump at the helm.
Iran has the support of the BRICS bloc now, and as such the vast majority of the global population.
There is a new game in town, and the US's increased efforts under Trump to destroy it will only result in an accelerated meltdown of their economy, reserve currency status, and what's left of their diplomatic status.
The US had a rude awakening when they found out that their PGDP is only ~1/3rd of China's, and that India has now overtaken them too.
Rome II was already alight, and Admin #47 chose to pour petrol on the bonfire.
I don't always agree with you, but I certainly agree that this conflict with Iran is largely Trump's fault. If he hadn't torn up the agreement in his first term Iran's uranium stockpiles would have been insignificant, and at a much lower grade. When he kicked off, the Iranians really turned up the dial on their enrichment activities.
I disagree with this though: "everybody knows Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon". I think they want a bomb, but the JCPOA gave them something they wanted more. Good diplomacy until it was derailed.
It IS a game of chess, but it's not just positioning. The world - including us - requires large volumes of low-entropy energy (there was a time when some early-adopters and egalitarian types though we could swap seamlessly to 'renewable' energy, but that is of too-high entropy to run modern society - read: rates of consumption). That low-entropy energy is leaving us; we're down to fracturing rock, sponging tar-sands, deep-water drilling; the dregs.
So the remaining stocks - Russia, Canada, Saudi A, Iran/Iraq, Venezuela - wil be more keenly contested. By default, that's a genuine TINA.
You don't get that because you don't get the Limits to Growth, I suspect.
The bat crazies are the Israelis.
When finally cornered they are just as likely to throw nukes at Rome, London or Paris.
And Europe knows it.
Can you clarify - you mean narrowly that Israel are as likely as Iran to nuke European capitals? Or do you think Israel are as likely to use nuclear weapons at all?
The former I don't think is high on anyone's expectations - this isn't about war in Europe.
The latter, well Israel have apparently had nukes for years without using them. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime are pretty open about their intentions, and nuclear weapons could clearly play a big part in them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Square_Countdown_Clock
"The clock is a large electronic billboard which displays the message: "Only [X] days remaining to the annihilation of Israel" in Farsi, English, and Arabic visible from anywhere in the square."
The Israelis won't nuke Europe while they are winning.
But if that ever turns watch out. They could spray them everywhere.
They are that crazy.
Is that based on anything in particular, or just vibes?
And where does that lead you in terms of policy? Best to make sure they keep winning?
I certainly don't agree with everything Israel does, but if I had to choose somewhere to live in the Middle East Israel would be very high on my list - their policies, freedoms, human rights and culture fit much better with me.
Based on the history of their behaviour. It's a technique.
When was the last time they threatened to attack Europe?
Attack or subjudicate? And does financial subjudication count?
Because of that, one race was guilty.
DP
"........Rules are giving way to power; economics to security; and efficiency to resilience,...."
I fully agree. Although maybe it's always been that way.
For power we need to develop a defensive sting in our backyard. And physical resilience big time.
And like em or hate em, Oz is our only close relative.
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.