Beijing: Relations Are What You Make Them

The People's Republic of China is a country that has recently been closely watched, with western nations keen to see China play along and put pressure on nations like Iran and North Korea. Concern continually floats around the fear that China will see itself as 'the exception of the rule' when it comes to dealing with security destabilizing states. But recently China has been more inclined to play ball as Mark Landler and Steven Lee Myers reported in an editorial article for The New York Times. They noted that China was first in line to call out North Korea with the recent test of missile technology with a rocket to launch a satellite into space. And although more recently China has been inclined to oppose sanctions on nations like Iran, recently China came around to enforce sanctions and also play an active role in nuclear talks. This shows that China's concern about regional security is existent even with the demand for oil in China, and it reflects well on relations with the United States where stability on the Korean Peninsula and Middle East is paramount. Mark Landler and Steven Lee Myers left their article with an open question however: Is China's coming around to sanctions based around getting a better price for oil from Iran? Only time will tell. But having read their article, I found myself finding this picture too rosy reflecting on recent deterioration in relations between the Philippines and China over a territory dispute. Is there still plenty to worry about?

According to recent reports, a Philippine Navy plane spotted several foreign vessels in a lagoon at the disputed area of Scarborough prompting the Philippines to send its biggest warship to have a closer look. The fishing boats turned out to be Chinese when the war ship arrived to conduct an inspection, where it was found the vessel contained large amounts of unlawfully collected corals, clams and live sharks. Jason Miks from The Diplomat had the story, reporting that following the incident, Chinese military vessels were dispatched and positioned themselves between the fishing boats and the Filipino BRD Gregorio del Pilar blocking the sailors from accessing the Chinese boats and make arrests. The incident says something about the inclination of the Chinese to move forcefully when incidents around boarder disputes, rather then as Jason Miks goes on to point out, take the high road and have the disputed islands ownership settled in international court and avoid uncertainty and strategic marshaling in the future. The reason for the reaction comes with strong public sentiment in China in favor of seeing such disputes dealt with harshly. China doesn't want its influence in the region to wain to the advantage of other players, but if their interest is to be sustained such a hard line policy can only force harsher responses by Filipino and the Vietnamese - who also hold claims to ownership of the territory - in the future. With a diplomatic solution out of sight, neither side wants to back away strategically, which leaves room for wondering if China is to be a co-operative neighbor or not?

One couldn't fairly talk about the shape of China in terms of relations without talking about Taiwan. The People's Republic of China has had a strong interest in seeing the island not declare independence not just because of how that reflects on the island being a strong democracy increasingly Americanized, but also because China remains interested in not seeing the independence of Taiwan trigger a flow of separatism in the mainland. Nancy Bernkopf Tucker and Bonnie Glaser discuss Taiwan from the point of view of the United States in an article for The Washington Quarterly called: 'Should the United States Abandon Taiwan'? They discuss the issue in the opposite regard, suggesting that whilst it might seem an idea to appease China and avoid having to look at the island of Taiwan as a potential spark point, that instead: "Indeed [that] sacrifice might promote new appetites and necessitate fresh efforts...[on China's behalf]". But the arguments being made here is again neo-realist where nations are either forced to use power, or suffer in the hands of those who have it and use it. But this leaves the solution of the 'high road' - as Jason Miks talked about it prior -  intact but unused. My argument here isn't that China is more aggressive then others have portrayed it. I think instead there is plenty of room for relations to follow by choice, rather then be suffered as neo-realists might try and convince us.

China might be inclined to feel a vulnerable power since its rise has been both resent, and accumulated with so much fear from other nations in the world. But the concern will only remain if China makes itself the 'exception of the rule'. China remains strongly dependent on its economy in order to sustain growth. Impoverished groups still exist in China, but as time moves on China is going to see its relations reflect on its trade and its economy. China's ability to continue to conduct its current method of economic bridging to extinguish independence orientated sentiment, like has been the case with Taiwan, will be drained if China looks to strategic methods more and more in the future. The neo-liberal 'high road' of making economic ties reflect on ones relations with other nations is not simply a high road to be flirted with as one among many ways of doing business. The article by Mark Landler and Steven Lee Myers reflects the want to see China in a different light from seen previously. This is clearly the case when one looks to Taiwan. The situation has changed alot reflecting on how former President Bill Clinton marshaled two U.S. battle groups in 1996 after China conducted a missile exercise in the waters surrounding Taiwan ahead of elections there. The need for power has been clearly undermined with continued economic ties reflecting on relations, with the Taiwanese President kind enough to use the phrase 'one nation, two areas' talking about the relationship with China in the recent visit to Beijing. Such observations can only lead China to becoming more inclined towards neo-liberal thinking. Thinking and the behavior which results is not a condition of the nation-state but instead learned, and thus exercised. The hope can only be that this reflects on the prospect of better relations with nations elsewhere.

New Zealand's Little Brother Complex

New Zealand is a small country in the South Pacific Ocean, who's geographical size and population is about the same as that of an average state of the United States. New Zealand has more sheep then people - and a military that is compared with many others, tiny - making it easy to look from the outside and ask: What foreign importance can New Zealnd really have? Analysts from Stratfor a defense and intelligence advisor to top U.S. officials was kind enough to bring such sentiment out from the darkness recently, with the help of Wikileaks of course. Stuff.co.nz had the story, saying that: "When it comes to geopolitical importance," Stratfor analyst Chris Farnham wrote to colleague William Hobart in September last year, "it doesn't get much f---ing lower than New Zealand". I couldn't help reflecting on these comments, hearing that New Zealand Prime Minister John Key was in Seoul for a Nuclear Summit with world leaders. John Key echoed Barack Obama in his speech, with the two men's positions mirrored to the extent they were kind enough to mention each other in their speeches. New Zealand looked like the little brother, following keenly the older sibling in hope of gaining something in return - perhaps a free trade deal? But is that really a symptom of being a small nation like New Zealand is? Is New Zealand a little brother to other nations in the world?

First lets start with as New Zealanders refer to it 'just across the ditch' - translation: over the Tasman Sea - with Australia. New Zealand and Australia are linked by foreign policy in a number of ways that could make the relationship seem to be that of a brothership, but only at first glance. New Zealand and Australia are inclined to mirror each other's strategic interests. New Zealand has its written down in its most recent White Paper that New Zealand would enter a conflict if Australia was attacked. The gesture is returned in the most recent Australian White Paper. New Zealand and Australia have however had a more recent separation in directions when it comes to economic pacts of free trade. When Australia was willing to go with the United States not only to Afghanistan but also Iraq, the United States became inclined to respond with a free trade deal, New Zealand who refused to go to Iraq was not so lucky. But normally the protocol with New Zealand and Australia was that New Zealand would go first, and then Australia would follow when it came to free trade deals. In clear defiance, New Zealand secured a free trade deal with the People's Republic of China - the cross Tasman relationship is yet to take on the same dynamic leaving a seperation in both aspirations and trade deals. As the saying goes, when the Australian economy catches a cold, New Zealand gets the flu, but being that New Zealand is increasingly aware of that as the case - New Zealand is looking beyond Australia more and more. The makes New Zealand less aligned with Australia deal wise beyond Oceania, but also less inclined to see its role as to follow Australia around like a lost little brother.

However, one of the key reasons that New Zealand doesn't look to Australia as a big brother, is that New Zealand already has a free trade deal with Australia. But in saying that that says something about countries that New Zealand doesn't have a free trade deal with. Let me give you an example of what I mean with India. A New Zealand news anchor by the name of Paul Henry made fun of the Indian Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit on the government television station TVNZ, to the extent that would rather not repeat the remarks here. India was not amused, and within a few days the Indian Minister of Internal Affairs summoned the New Zealand High Commissioner Rupert Holborow. He apologized and made the statement that:“as New Zealand’s High Commissioner to India, I would like to convey my deep regret for the hurt these comments have caused". How much this reflected on existing free trade negotiations between India and New Zealand one can only speculate. However, when New Zealand Prime Minister John Key went to India later on that year, he found the Indian Prime Minister playing hard ball and no free trade. But it's more then that, New Zealand's main export is dairy and meat produce - I have a Chinese friend in Hong Kong who drinks New Zealand milk, it's more expensive she says then other milks, but tastes so much better. Hong Kong seems to exist as a demonstration of what a lack of protectionism looks like: New Zealand milk. But countries like the United States and India are more inclined to want to hold back - they have their own subsidized or noncompetitive farming industries to protect. New Zealand and free trade just doesn't work in many cases, leaving a fiasco to be revealed - particularly when New Zealand considers the dependency it has on free trade, over dealing with its marginal economy at home.

New Zealand currently has a National government focused on fiscal responsibility, which means putting the squeeze on government spending and cutting public sector jobs, as well as services. The sharp reality is that that leaves New Zealand without a plan, and dependent on growth and investment with our trading partners to keep ourselves afloat. A buy of New Zealand farms by Chinese, German and American investors over the last few years are a good demonstration of that. But New Zealand's inclination to look to expanding global markets for their milk and dairy produce are another demonstration - take what has gone on with New Zealand and China since a free trade deal has existed there. A dependency mindset is certainly in existence here, but more then just that - there is a fiasco in the making. If New Zealand hits the brakes and goes into recession - current arguments of fiscal responsibility are going to look like part of the problem, not the solution. That will especially be the case when New Zealanders reflect on tax changes made by their current government. What would likely result? A shake up of internal change, if New Zealand wants growth, it needs to be an innovator - that means new markets and new products - and a focus on investment. For the time being New Zealand has its focus on free trade as its source for growth over investment. There will be less of that in the future with this internal reflection. It might cost New Zealand, but there is always the potentially for it to really pay off. New Zealand for the time being might be a little brother to other countries in the world with the carrot of free trade. But for how much longer? New Zealand cannot sustain its little brother complex with free trade being a wild goose chase.