Dr. Macey gave a very interesting presentation on New Zealand’s role on the international stage. His talk was organised into three sections:

·       Identities, narratives and alliances – how New Zealand thinks of itself and how it presents itself to the rest of the world, including the alliances it has formed

·       Evolution towards an independent foreign policy which serves our interests and values

·       New Zealand’s role as a small state on the international stage

Firstly, Dr Macey outlined his career path, a most impressive set of positions including diplomatic posts in Tokelau and Geneva, in Paris and Bangkok as ambassador to France and Thailand in addition to his work with the WTO and on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol negotiations.

Identities, narratives and alliances

“New Zealand punches above its weight” said Hillary Clinton. Dr Macey wonders whether this is true. Historically New Zealand has been “part of Britain” a piece of European democracy which helped to maintain stability in the Pacific. More recently we have developed stronger links with the U.S., through the ANZUS alliance, although these links are now somewhat under question!

We are perhaps slowly recognising our importance in the Pacific, surrounded by water and with the 4th largest EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) in the world. “We are in and of the Pacific” according to Norman Kirk – this is a key dimension of our identity and will be in the future.

It has taken some time for New Zealand to develop strong ties with Asia. Traditionally we taught French and German in schools, exported to UK and were somewhat “reluctant” to think of ourselves as New Zealanders. However, in the early 1980s the Asia 2000 Foundation was established, trade discussions began with ASEAN and a formal trade agreement with Australia (Closer Economic Relations) was signed in 1983. The issue of our relationship with China is important. New Zealand has to decide what is the best way to be involved in what some call a developing “cold war” between the major powers. Given the increase in Chinese influence in the Pacific, should we become involved with AUKUS, or will the potential effects on our trade relationship be too severe? It is a fine balance.

It has been argued that we must have a strong relationship with the US, who will protect our trade position. However, the recent tariffs suggest that this is not the case. Dr Macey concluded that there isn’t an obvious link between our trade security and our relationship with the US.

Another dimension of our identity is our focus on indigenous people. We have brought this into our independent foreign policy, to the extent that the Free Trade Agreement with UK has a clause which promotes Māori interests – the first FTA to recognise the rights of indigenous peoples.

Evolution towards an independent foreign policy

Our historic alliances gave us a misplaced confidence! UK entry into the EEC, the stock market crash of 1987, the ANZUS rift on nuclear policy, French nuclear testing and the Rainbow Warrior bombing were shocks. We received little support from UK over the Rainbow Warrior situation – the message was that we’re “on our own”. A rules-based order is not a guarantee of security!

So a careful approach is needed to try and balance our interests with our values. The price of a moral foreign policy is inconsistency, although the NZ public expects that our foreign policy should be moral. These days we do not simply follow the UN on human rights but instead attempt to follow our own path.

Since the shocks of the 1970s and 1980s we have diversified our alliances in order to manage risks. We have established trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, Brunei and a number of regional organisations. These agreements have rested on good diplomatic relations. In addition to signing a FTA with China, negotiations based on good diplomacy with China enabled us to reach agreements with Taiwan and Hong Kong. Small state diplomacy has reaped rewards!

New Zealand’s role as a small state

Are we punching above our weight? In order to do so we need to be useful to the large countries. One way to do this is to be seen as not too closely allied to those countries involved in the big power rivalry. Neutrality is attractive to the big players when they are looking for chairs of organisations – we have chaired the UN Security Council twice, achieving significant success in brokering the resolution on the Occupied Territories in the Middle East. It is much more likely that US would have voted against the resolution if the Council had been chaired by a country more closely allied to one of the major political blocs.

New Zealand is well-thought of for several reasons, including:

·       Innovation – such as our role in the development of EFTPOS systems

·       Our reputation as an honest broker who is too small to harm the big players

·       Our focus on indigenous rights

·       Our ability to maintain good relations – even at the height of the rainbow Warrior issue we kept relations with France very professional

Climate Change

The large countries don’t want to negotiate with 200 small countries regarding the challenge of addressing climate change. Tim Groser and Dr Macey played  a very important role in “knocking heads together” In the “pre-Paris” discussions in Durban New Zealand was in control of two out of three processes. Dr Macey was Climate Control chair while Tim Groser was asked to be a facilitator (sort of a hit-man) in negotiations. He managed to get US and China to reach agreement – such that they would set targets but would not be sanctioned if they did not achieve them. This “New Zealand” proposal was a major success.

Dr Macey concluded that we punch at our weight – international diplomacy is a survival game, where we focus on cushioning the effect of the loss of a rules-based order and take advantage of our ability to be seen as non-threatening but honest and capable broker.

Several questions were asked by U3A members

How is New Zealand doing in the “global poker game” of international diplomacy? Do we have the cards? Dr Macey replied that we have some cards – good ideas, competent people – but perhaps the game is more like contract bridge than poker.

Is there a pipeline of outstanding people who will ensure the continuing success of New Zealand diplomacy? This is a major concern – MFAT is no longer a career ministry, years of service have declined and roles are perhaps less attractive as micro-management from Wellington has been enabled by advances in communications technology.

How do we achieve leverage with India in our free trade negotiations? It is clear that India will not simply open up its dairy industry to New Zealand. The strategy is to “get our foot in the door” and refrain from closing opportunities by drawing lines in the sand.

When will we allow nuclear propulsion? Dr Macey’s view is that while nuclear power is essential in the fight against global warming, visits by nuclear-propelled ships is a much more contentious issue.