Jacinda Ardern’s Labour government is achieving something no other western country has done – staying on side with China. Her latest speech on relations with China once again shows the west how deft diplomacy is done – with a carefully choreographed message that reiterates New Zealand is not joining the western aggression against the country’s biggest trading partner, while at the same time voicing some necessary hard words about human rights abuses.
The prime minister gave a highly anticipated keynote speech at the China Business Summit in Auckland on Monday, which clarified her government’s orientation to China following a controversial speech two weeks ago by the foreign minister, Nanaia Mahuta. Mahuta had said that New Zealand won’t simply follow the Five Eyes security alliance’s condemnation of China. Today, Ardern essentially endorsed Mahuta’s distancing from western allies, arguing her government would make its own decisions on how to communicate its concerns about human rights abuses. Then speaking in a Q and A session she used a sporting analogy, saying “I’m often asked which lane are we swimming in. We swim in New Zealand’s lane.” This is a very clear rebuff to the increasing pressure from western allies for her government to take a harder line.
Ardern’s repudiation of western pressure doesn’t mean she is cravenly kowtowing to Beijing. In fact, most media reportage of the speech concentrates on her more forthright criticisms of China. Most critically, Ardern said it’s “becoming harder to reconcile” the political systems of the two countries. And she spoke at length about her communications, publicly and privately, to China about New Zealand’s concerns.
But nor was Ardern’s speech an attack on China, or a signal that New Zealand is shifting away from its close relationship with that country. Any hard words are simply part of the government’s navigation of a tricky landscape, in which careful criticisms of China are entirely expected. To walk the China-west tightrope, a few critical words aimed at Beijing are required at times.
Even Ardern’s statement that “there are some things on which China and New Zealand do not, cannot, and will not agree” is something of a diplomatic guise. It might sound tough to her domestic audience but is, in fact, a message to China of her government’s willingness to “agree to disagree” on the big issues, which will go down perfectly in Beijing.
There was an element of play-acting at today’s summit, with government representatives from both sides giving their expected lines. So Ardern made her criticism of human rights abuses, and this was followed by the Chinese ambassador Wu Xi’s formal rebuke about these being “internal Chinese matters” for her country.
These exchanges are entirely by the book. Most likely, Ardern’s speech would have been run by the Chinese embassy, just as their response would have been telegraphed back to Ardern in advance.
Beijing knows Ardern cannot avoid firing a few tough words. Not only is this demanded by allies, but more importantly it’s expected from across the political spectrum within New Zealand. The rising public concern about China’s alleged human rights abuses made the topic unavoidable for Ardern. Plus, Ardern’s Labour party are currently being forced to debate and choose whether to support a motion in parliament condemning the Chinese government’s actions in Xinjiang as “genocide” of the Uyghur people.
The response to these pressures is to reiterate New Zealand’s much vaunted “independent foreign policy”, which seemingly allows the government to glide gracefully between friendship with both China and the west. It’s something of a fig leaf, of course, for what is simply a pragmatic determination to retain a highly beneficial trade relationship with China.
Ardern got the balance right today. There were just enough critical things said to placate those wanting to see a harder line taken on human rights abuses, but not enough criticism that China will be offended. Beijing is willing to incur small amounts of criticism, especially if it’s not part of a western pile-on. They appreciate that Wellington’s criticisms are made separately to Washington and London. They will generally be very happy with today’s speech.
Ardern can get away with a cosier approach towards China because there are few domestic critics of this orientation. In fact, at the China Business Summit, influential former prime ministers from both Labour and National were strongly backing the current government’s approach. Helen Clark, in power 1999 to 2008, said that recent criticisms from Anglo allies were “a slur that should be denounced”, and she asserted that “New Zealand is no one’s footstool”. She also agreed with the government’s line that the Five Eyes alliance was suffering from mission creep in issuing joint statements on human rights.
John Key, who replaced Clark as prime minister until 2016, spoke similarly, and was highly critical of the west’s aggression towards China, which he put partly down to the influence of Donald Trump’s presidency. He argued the government should be putting the interests of jobs in the economy ahead of the allies’ strategic opposition to China.
All domestic voices are seemingly on board with the “independent foreign policy” line. For the government it has the appearance of underpinning their actions with great principle and values. But it’s mostly just a way for New Zealand to justify following a path of national interest (which in this case is selling lots of dairy, wood, and meat), and this means the country can do so without appearing so craven.
Of course, there will still be some global criticisms about New Zealand not taking a strong enough line against China. This has certainly been the case over the last two weeks. But these attacks aren’t really politically damaging for Ardern and Labour, because New Zealanders like to rally behind prime ministers under attack from elsewhere. What foreign observers might see as Ardern kowtowing to Beijing, will be seen domestically as her successfully swimming in turbulent global waters between China and the west.