Author: Robert Ayson

News that Minister Todd McClay will be seeking assurances on New Zealand’s trade position from his EU and UK counterparts following the pro-Brexit referendum vote reinforces a predictable focus. As night precedes day, pre-referendum coverage in New Zealand focused on the economic implications of a leave vote. And as day then turns into night, a continuation of the same pattern is to be expected.
 
But Brexit is going to be a much bigger and wider problem for New Zealand because of what it means for the western commitment to a global order founded on international cooperation. Britain is now set to exit the European Union, which, for all its faults, has been the deepest experiment in voluntary cooperative interstate relations the world has ever seen. In turn an already strained EU has been robbed of one of the five permanent members of the UNSC, and one of its most pragmatic and sensible participants. Despite the efforts of the remaining 27 powers to rally around a flag with one less star, whatever remains of the EU’s aspirations for significant global influence is fast disappearing. Likewise, an already diminished United States has lost its chief EU partner in the promotion of global rules. A major new crack in the trans-Atlantic commitment to sustained international leadership has been opened. And if you think this doesn’t matter, just think for a moment about Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Ukraine, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, human rights, and cyber-security. 

Author      David Capie

I was born in England (in glorious carpet-making Kidderminster, birthplace to former Prime Minister Walter Nash, and home to the mighty Kidderminster Harriers FC). I came to Wellington when I was ten, and apart from a very brief, foolish and extremely expensive wager against the All Blacks at Eastern Hutt Primary School in Standard Four, New Zealand has had my loyalty. My dad is a Scot, my mum is a Kiwi, but despite growing up on the other side of the world, I have always retained my deep-seated, innate fondness for Britain. I’ve been back many times and I’ve always thought of the UK as a very familiar but still slightly foreign country. Not home, but perhaps the next best thing. Put it this way: I unhesitatingly cheer for the All Blacks and the Blackcaps against all comers, but every four years some cruel part of my DNA still hopes against hope that the English football team can live up to their tabloid hype and win the World Cup. I'm still trying to find some way to get that fixed and in the meantime to get excited about Aston Villa’s away fixtures next season.

So it’s as both a British citizen and a New Zealander that I feel so deeply disappointed and profoundly saddened by today's EU referendum vote. Let's be honest: in political science we almost certainly overdo the earthquake metaphors, but this really does feels like a moment when tectonic plates are shifting. Events are fast moving, things are really complicated and hard to interpret. At this stage it’s hard to know quite what has driven the ‘Leave’ vote over the line (is it fears of ‘rampant’ immigration? Deep-seated frustration with elites? The EU’s democracy deficit? Disillusion with globalization and deeper economic integration?). Plenty of people who seemed to be doing OK out of closer integration also voted LEAVE. It’s difficult to know what this means for the British, European or world economies, but it’s hard to see any particularly happy news. It’s also hard to know what it means for EU-like regional integration projects the world over (although no-one’s tried to leave ASEAN yet, at least as far as I know).

But there are three things that strike me about this vote, as I write (not too long after the result), late on a Friday night.  

Author  BK Greener

I recently attended an international security event. As is normally the case, fewer than twenty percent of the people attending were women. After a series of initial briefings we were divided up into working groups. In one of the smaller groups the man to my right knew me well. He knew my expertise. The man to my left didn’t. During the presentations the man to my left carefully explained the matter under discussion to me. The man to my right grimaced. I endured the explaining politely, and then attempted to demonstrate through my interactions that I knew something about the topic that was being explained to me. Actually, I’ve written a book or two on it. 

The first issue here, then, is that I had my own area of expertise in international security mansplained to me. The man to my left was attempting to be helpful. But had I been a man would he have assumed that lack of knowledge on my part? The man to my right didn’t say anything. He was waiting for me to reveal that, actually, I knew the topic well. And of course, for him to explain this for me would also be problematic.

Yet I didn’t stop the man to my left and correct his mistake. Why?​

Author: John Battersby

The weekend’s discovery of 494kg of methamphetamine on a Northland beach is hugely significant. Never before has such a large cache of the drug been found at one time in New Zealand. This single haul is more than the total combined amount of meth seized across the entire country in 2015. 
​
Police estimate the drugs’ potential street value at nearly half a billion dollars, but it’s much harder to quantify the enormous social harm that amount of methamphetamine could cause.  For every ounce consumed, users are damaged and those under the influence of methamphetamine often end up being dealt with by police in a range of criminal contexts. The many mental and physical health effects on users and their families ultimately falls to our health system to deal with. This is a huge social cost which has now been avoided because of the seizure of these drugs.

Author David Capie

The release of the 2016 New Zealand Defence White Paper last week has sparked an unusual amount of media coverage of defence issues.  Arguments have raged for and against additional defence spending and most of the major newspapers have offered editorial views, including The Dominion-Post and the Otago Daily Times. Some regular contributors to Incline have been at the forefront of this commentary and analysis and in lieu of a standalone post this week, we thought we’d share some of the coverage.

In a piece at The Spinoff, David Capie took issue with some of the more excitable press coverage that followed last Wednesday’s launch, arguing the obsession with drones and cyber warriors missed the point that the White Paper’s focus on New Zealand’s neighbourhood means it has a good chance of finding support from future governments of all political stripes.  Robert Ayson has been as prolific as usual, arguing in the Dominion Post, that the $20 billion committed in capital spending means “the government wants its successors to have real military options for operations further afield.” But, he warns decisions need to be made soon, “the clock is ticking.” CSS Senior Fellow Peter Greener makes a similar point about future spending in this Radio New Zealand story. In another piece published in the Lowy Interpreter, Ayson argues that New Zealand’s White Paper shares with its recently published Australian counterpart a common focus on maritime strategy, but a different view on the geographical focus for those efforts.

Author: David Capie

“Can I give you a hug, my old friend?” So Chinese PLA Admiral Sun Jianguo greeted Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee on the sidelines of this weekend’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. The admiral was on a charm offensive, striding the hotel corridors pursued by a huge Chinese press pack, and doing his best to make chummy small talk with everyone from the Australian Air Chief (who looked youthful) to the Russian Vice-Minister (bright eyes). But, as the weekend unfolded, not everyone got to feel the love.
 
Tradition has it that the US Secretary of Defense kicks off proceedings, and Ashton Carter’s Saturday morning keynote address to the opening plenary seemed designed to send two messages. First, he set out the now familiar mantra that the US is a resident power in Asia and is here to stay. Echoing a line used by Senator John McCain in a speech the day before, Carter said predictions the US would withdraw from Asia have been consistently proved wrong, and the US re-balance will continue long after this November’s elections. Describing US engagement with the region, the Secretary of Defense shrewdly started by talking up American diplomatic activity, then highlighting trade and TPP, and only finally touching on the military dimension.