Opinion
22 FARMERS WEEKLY – farmersweekly.co.nz – May 10, 2021
NZ rejects the herd mentality Alternative View
Alan Emerson
LAST week saw a high-level conference on our relationship with China. It is in my view a special relationship that goes back to the early 1970s, when the then Labour Government invited China to have an embassy here. It was the first in the so-called free world. That relationship has grown since to the extent we were the first country to have a Free Trade Agreement with China. The conference was interesting in that it was frank and honest while not being sabre rattling. Our position with China has upset a few of our ‘friends’. My position is simple. I am extremely proud of the fact we are an independent democracy. We have stood independently on many issues from nuclear ship visits to nuclear tests in the Pacific, extolling free trade, advocating for arms control and having a strong and independent voice at the United Nations. That independent stance has made the other members of the Five Eyes spy network, Australia, Canada, the US and the UK apoplectic. The issue is that Five Eyes is a spy agency that wants to get into issues such as human rights. Anything it would seem to embarrass China.
Five Eyes started as a joint intelligence agency between the US and UK back in 1941 when we were fighting Hitler. In 1946, Winston Churchill expanded it when he talked about “the special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the USA”. A lot of things have changed since 1946, including there not being a British Empire. It was set up to “monitor the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc”. The Soviet Union doesn’t exist as such, and we trade with both Russia and members of the Eastern Bloc. Then in the late 1990s word finally got out that it actually existed. Until then, for the previous 50 years it had been totally behind closed doors. It was described as a “super national intelligence organisation that doesn’t answer to the laws of its own countries”. A simple example is Five Eyes spying on another country’s citizens to circumvent the laws of that country. It’s never been the subject of parliamentary scrutiny in New Zealand or anywhere else. Logic would suggest that while the security interests with the Five Eyes countries could align, the social commentary certainly doesn’t. Just think of America and ex-President Trump. I even have a problem with Boris Johnson. Australia – need I say more? NZ, to its credit, has said that while it is a member of the Five Eyes security network, it won’t extend it beyond intelligence gathering. In a major speech late last month Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta set out the
Government’s objections to Five Eyes proposed social commentary. I totally agree with that position. The issue was that Five Eyes, minus NZ, admonished China for its treatment of the Uyghur people. We were criticised roundly for that position. I was offended by one pompous, rounded vowelled and chinless British politician criticising us for our lack of commitment to Five Eyes. The Australians waxed lyrically as you’d expect, even suggesting we were “free loading”. We weren’t. Our position was merely to reject the herd mentality. China is a major trading partner and a friend. To get involved in a slanging match with that country does us no favours.
I don’t believe trade is above politics. What I do believe is that we should make our own decisions irrespective of international power plays, positioning and politics.
Just think of the international and trade implications. The US, under the Biden administration, has said that China needs to be reined in. Why would we want to be part of that scenario? Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton said that conflict shouldn’t be discounted with
FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS: Alan Emerson believes getting involved in a slanging match China will do us no favours.
China. I thought it was an amazing statement and he should concentrate on taking the trash out but again, do we want to be part of that debate? Not to be outdone, the UK has accused us of cosying up to China’s communist rulers. They must still think the empire is alive and well. Australia brashly criticised China and is paying for it with trade sanctions. Do we want to try and win a debating point and substantially lose trade as Australia has? We then had a colossal own goal by the ACT Party who want Parliament to debate a motion declaring China’s oppression of the Uyghur people an act of genocide. I’m not supporting the treatment of the Uyghur people, but the world is a nasty place.
According to Wikipedia, we’ve had eight acts of genocide in the last short while and there has been little commentary from anyone. So why would ACT put petty politics above common sense? Why would it put political point scoring above our country’s wealth? As I said at the start, I’m proud of NZ’s independent foreign policy. I don’t believe trade is above politics. What I do believe is that we should make our own decisions irrespective of international power plays, positioning and politics.
Your View Alan Emerson is a semi-retired Wairarapa farmer and businessman: dath.emerson@gmail.com
Parliament needs some introspection From the Ridge
Steve Wyn-Harris
WHAT’S going on in Parliament? I suspect a combination of frustration, leadership anxiety,
RISKY MOVE: ACT party leader David Seymour. ACT tried to get Parliament to pass a motion that China is engaged in genocide, which Steve WynHarris believes could potentially damage trade relations with NZ. Photo: @dbseymour/Twitter
leadership ambition, a majority complacency and just the usual carry on. Let’s start with ACT first. Why the hell is David Seymour and company so determined to piss off our biggest trading partner? I know it’s the view of an exporter but that’s what I am. If it were the Green’s pushing this, I wouldn’t be surprised. ACT tried to get Parliament to pass a motion that China is engaged in genocide in the north west in the Xinjiang province.
The Labour government resisted using the term genocide, which to date has only applied to Nazi Germany, Cambodia and Rwanda, and had it watered down to ‘severe human rights abuses’ are occurring there. Yes, we all know that what China is doing to the Uighurs is not good as there is credible evidence of human rights abuse, but our Parliament passing any sort of worded motion censuring and lecturing China is not going to make one iota of difference to the Uighurs situation. If ACT genuinely wanted to make a difference to these people, why are they not calling for large numbers to be offered sanctuary here, or sums of money and aid to be sent to them? They are doing it to embarrass the Government and thus score political points, but in the process putting our trade and exports in jeopardy. China may not need us greatly but for better or worse, we have hitched ourselves to their economy and rely heavily on it. I know that I’m putting pragmatism in front of principle, but if prodding China only antagonises rather than forces a behavioural change, why bother? Use more effective measures
to force change rather than proposing ineffectual words and a whole lot of hot air. I’ve checked out the ACT website and their mission is all about public policy and their 16 principles are all focused onshore – and not a single mention of this nation being the world’s conscience. Only a few months ago, they were calling for the abolition of NZ’s own Human Rights Commission. And why stop at China? Myanmar has been appalling with their ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya; the Central African Republic, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Afghanistan and South Sudan are all countries committing gross human rights abuses right now. Perhaps they will be their next causes if this is the new focus of that party. Now, let’s have a crack at Trevor Mallard, the speaker of the house. He was never well-suited to this role, as he’s been a bovver boy all his political career. He even had a fight with Tau Henare in Parliament back in 2007. He’s shown bad judgement in his public utterances over the sexual complaints from parliamentary staff and it cost us, the taxpayer,
$300,000 in a defamation case. Again, he went too far last week and showed a complete lack of judgement. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern gave him a public dressing down and said his conduct was “totally inappropriate”. If he doesn’t leave Parliament in the next two years, it’s hard to see his political career extending another term. His time is up. There is no love lost between him and National’s Chris Bishop, since Bishop took Mallard’s seat off him for a term. Bishop also went too far in his determination to get a political scalp and has politicised what must be an exceedingly difficult situation for the complainant in this matter. It’s no wonder women are reluctant to complain or press charges in these cases and the way our politicians are behaving, only makes it more difficult and less likely. Politicians do a tough job on our behalf and it is important that we have a robust democracy. But civility is important too, and let’s hope there is more of that in our Parliament in the future.
Your View Steve Wyn-Harris is a Central Hawke’s Bay sheep and beef farmer. swyn@xtra.co.nz
