As New Zealand and Australia celebrated its close ties with the opening of the Trans-Tasman Covid-19 bubble, Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta today was looking a little further north. Shortly after those first flights had taken off, reminding us all of the world beyond our shores, Mahuta gave just her second major speech as Foreign Minister, focusing on our relationship with China.
It was titled “The Dragon and the Taniwha” - you can guess which is which - and Mahuta’s comments today certainly suggested this Taniwha has some teeth. But not just for baring at China.
A taniwha is a creature to be wary of. A creature that often inhabits risky and important places and should always be approached with care. In that sense, it’s the perfect metaphor not for New Zealand itself, but for any foreign policy speech and policy about China. It’s easy to be dragged under.
But Mahuta did show some Taniwha-like teeth today. While her opening words spoke to China’s importance to New Zealand and our respect for our largest trading partner, it wasn’t long before she mentioned our “differences”, something she touched on seven times in her speech. There was a “but” running through the entire speech.
For example, while acknowledging “the interests we share”, Mahuta quickly admitted, “Equally we have become more alert to the values that differentiate us”. While she celebrated the upgrade of our Free Trade Agreement, she also celebrated the fact that deal is now done by pointing out that New Zealand values trade “diversity” and does not want to “put all eggs into a single basket”.
While under John Key, National took the approach that China could take everything we had to sell before breakfast and stressed the barely touched potential of such a massive market, Mahuta made a point of valuing other markets.
On political issues she stressed that New Zealand would be “consistent and predictable” - and here’s the ‘but’ - but she took the unusual decision to list some of New Zealand’s concerns with China; “developments in Hong Kong, the treatment of Uyghurs in Xianjiang and cyber incidents”.
While stressing hers would be a values-based foreign policy, she went out of her way to stress that New Zealand and China have different values. “There are some things on which New Zealand and China do no, cannot, and will not, agree”.
And Mahuta wasn’t done there. Her two sharpest teeth were still to come. First, she tied New Zealand’s interests to China’s good behaviour and said it should act “in ways consistent with its responsibilities as a growing regional power”. She might have stopped there, leaving us to wonder precisely what those responsibilities may be. But she went further, saying we have a “firm view on the nature of those responsibilities”.
“They are represented in the various pillars of the multilateral order that were crafted in the second half of the 20th century, and the rules and norms that flow from them.”
Which parts of the “multilateral order”? She doesn’t say, which suggests she’s happy for China to ponder them all - including democracy and free elections; national sovereign borders; free trade; respect for copyright and intellectual property; global, multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organisation.
And finally, amidst a distinctly independent tone, she chose to take sides. With the Pacific island nations. She said their “economic vulnerability and indebtedness is a major risk for the future of the Pacific”. And lest she wasn’t clear enough she went onto spell out that while China is welcome in this part of the world, it’s only on certain terms. “There is a substantial difference between financing loans [bad, like China] and contributing to greater Overseas Development Aid investment [good, like New Zealand]”.
We also put in what sounded like a good word for our traditional allies, saying that diplomacy requires “respect and engagement to be shown to all international friends and partners. As a significant power, the way that China treats its partners is important to us”.
The language used today was as independent as we’ve heard from a foreign minister for some time. But it wasn’t focused on China alone. In questions after the speech Mahuta took aim at Five Eyes, and a glance at the Australian papers show that they largely ignored the teeth bared at China and saw only those bared at them and the rest of the Five Eyes whanau.
In more unusually strong language, Mahuta said that contrary to the Winston Peter’s era, she had made it clear to the Five Eyes that its remit was intelligence and security, not politics and diplomacy. It had a “specific purpose” and needed to stick to its knitting.
"We are uncomfortable with expanding the remit of the Five Eyes.
"We would much rather prefer to look for multilateral opportunities to express our interests."
Such a clearly expressed preference for finding new allies on regional issues is sure to raise eyebrows amongst our traditional, democratic allies. It is, frankly, remarkable to say we are shopping around for new supporters in the region. Cue worries from across the ditch.
China has been furious with Five Eye’s criticism of its actions in Hong Kong, for example. So the Canberra Times reported Mahuta’s comments as “a major accommodation to Chinese concerns”, while the ABC reported the “comments are likely to further inflame tensions in New Zealand's relationship with Australia”.
While Mahuta’s speech was more critical of China than such language suggests and the crucial line about “pillars of the multi-lateral order” speak to a world order more familiar to our traditional allies, it makes for an interesting overture just days ahead of Mahuta’s first major bi-lateral, with Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne.
In total, Mahuta’s words today spoke loudly to those engaged in the diplomacy in the Pacific; ‘don’t assume we will choose your side’. We will speak to our values, even if in the careful code of diplomacy.
The problem, of course, is that Mahuta’s metaphor struggles to sustain itself beyond the bounds of rhetoric and into the corridors of Beijing. Taniwha and Dragon tries to describe a relationship of respected equals. But while the respect may well exist, we’re kidding ourselves if the Dragon sees New Zealand as a Taniwha. A more honest description might be to stick to what we know and admit we are simply Kiwi - speedy and sturdy, useful in the right sort of environment. But, to a Dragon, we are about as scary and “powerful” as a pudgy, feathery little morsel. China might reasonably conclude that a country committed to a world order built in the second half of the 20th century is of little interest to it as it builds a new century, China’s century.
To “differentiate” ourselves from our largest trading partner and one of our oldest strategic alliances on the same day can be viewed in a host of ways. Only time will reveal such words are brave or foolish, whether we adhere to our values or tuck them away when they become inconvenient.
Still, if we don’t see ourselves as a taniwha, no-one else will. Perhaps if we start to behave like one, we will earn the respect of one. Perhaps.