Author        Robert Ayson

It’s not impossible to find foreign policy convergence between the Ardern government and the Trump Administration. New Zealand’s Prime Minister recently said her government ‘accepts’ the reasons for the limited use of force against Syria which was led by the United States with contributions from the UK and France. New Zealand and the United States have both endorsed the evolving dialogue between South and North Korea. And while Trump and Kim Jong-Un may not be able to make the region great again, Wellington will have taken some comfort that preparations for their meeting has delayed the chance of violence on the peninsular.
​
Yet the areas of divergence make for quite a list. In her first major foreign policy speech as Prime Minister Ardern affirmed that a close relationship with the United States was ‘fundamental’ to New Zealand’s foreign policy outlook. But she also pinpointed two specific areas of difference. One was climate change. The Trump Administration’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement stands in contrast to Ardern’s pitch that this issue is the nuclear free movement for her generation. 

Authors         Tess Newton Cain and Anna Powles

At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) held in London last week, Britain's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson announced the UK would expand its diplomatic network with the opening of nine new diplomatic posts in Commonwealth countries, including three in the Pacific: Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu. The reasons given were threefold: boosting prosperity, addressing security issues, and environmental protection.

The UK’s post-Brexit reorientation to the Pacific is raising a number of questions about the nature of Britain’s re-engagement with the region. Here we examine three critical areas for consideration: security, the quality of political and diplomatic engagement and regionalism.

Author      Robert Ayson

Speaking in Paris, the first stop on her European visit, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern connected the dots between two of her government’s central foreign policy priorities: the South Pacific and climate change. “New Zealand does not simply sit in the Pacific”, she told the Paris Institute of Political Studies, “We are the Pacific too, and we are doing our best to stand with our family as they face these threats.”
 
A strong Pacific emphasis has also featured in Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ early contributions to the coalition government’s approach to the world. His signature moment to date is his address in Sydney where he said it was “critical for New Zealand to embark on a new, re-energized Pacific strategy.”

 Authors     Benedict Xu-Holland and Harry Berger

​When Trade Minister David Parker signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in Chile on 8 March it came just a few weeks after the Labour-led coalition government released a National Impact Assessment of the deal. In a series of interviews Parker argued that Labour was signing TPP-11 for pragmatic reasons (he gave the agreement a ‘7 out of 10’). Walking away from the deal, he said, would mean New Zealand would suffer a net-loss from a decline in investment and trade opportunities. The evidence Parker cited was largely based on the country's prior preferential trade agreements (PTAs). For example, he said the 2008 New Zealand–China Free Trade Agreement (NZCFTA) was the reason for the huge increase in trade and investment between the two countries in the last decade. ​

​But how persuasive are Mr. Parker’s claims? Without detailed post-hoc modelling it is near impossible to credibly infer causality between New Zealand's PTAs and aggregate trade growth. A host of variables may be responsible, from changing migration patterns to a shift to consumption-based growth. Australia, which only signed a PTA with China in late 2015, saw its own trade quadruple during the previous decade. In light of this, can New Zealand credibly attribute our success to the NZCFTA? And what does this mean for claims made about the CPTPP?

Author      Joanna Spratt 

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters’ recent ‘Shifting the Dial’ speech brought some welcome clarity to the new government’s foreign policy, complementing Prime Minister Ardern’s first foreign policy speech of a few days earlier. Delivered in Sydney, Peters’ speech focused on New Zealand’s neighbourhood: Australia and Pacific Island Countries. What did the speech signal for New Zealand’s development cooperation efforts under the Ardern government?
 
The most interesting part of the Minster’s speech was the ‘shift of the dial’ in working with the Pacific. New principles now underpin New Zealand’s “shared destiny” with Pacific Island Countries: understanding, friendship, mutual benefit, collective ambition, and sustainable results. Underpinning these principles is the assertion that New Zealand has a common identity with the Pacific, and therefore similar interests. This is the analysis that led to the integration, about a year ago, of MFAT’s Pacific Division and the Pacific Aid Programme. The Minister’s speech is a clear articulation of what this integration can mean in diplomatic terms.
​

Author    Jon Fraenkel

During a whistle-stop tour of Samoa, Tonga, Niue and the Cook Islands, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has promised a ‘reset’ of Pacific policy. She says her government can and will do better in the region. Speaking at the Lowy Institute in Australia on March 1st, Foreign Minister Winston Peters stressed the need to ‘shift the dial’ on New Zealand’s Pacific policy. But beyond a few new projects to build roads, provide cyclone relief, and assist small businesses, and a sensible revision to rules about portability of pensions, what is really likely to change as regards New Zealand’s Pacific policy?
 
Much of Mr Peters’ Lowy Institute speech offered the familiar warm words about New Zealand’s distinctive Pacific identity, but he also indicated considerable ‘anxiety’ about China’s presence in the region. Bearing hallmarks of continuity rather than change, Mr Peters echoed the focus of his predecessor on ‘sustainable economic development’. That prioritization has been contested by some critics of former Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully’s aid policy, who prefer instead a focus on poverty alleviation and social welfare.   

Author     David Capie

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern gave us the clearest sense yet of the direction New Zealand’s coalition government will take in foreign policy in a speech to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs in Wellington this week. 
 
Any Prime Minister’s first big foreign policy speech attracts interest, but given Ardern sits at the head of an ideologically diverse three-party government, her address drew closer scrutiny than most. The Prime Minister faced the dual challenge of laying out a fresh new foreign policy vision while juggling the diverse interests of her New Zealand First and Green Party partners.
 
In this, the speech was largely successful. 

Authors     Robert Ayson and David Capie

If Bill English wasn’t preparing to enjoy his retirement and was instead getting stuck into his first full term as Prime Minister, it is almost certain that his government would be planning to extend its military contribution in Iraq. National's decision might have been broadly predictable, but the same cannot be said for Jacinda Ardern’s Labour-led coalition. What the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues choose to do on Iraq presents a series of challenges in the weighing of international and domestic expectations.

The latter are not to be sniffed at. When John Key finally announced in February 2015 that New Zealand would send forces to join their Australian counterparts at Taji, Labour’s leader of the time Andrew Little was quick to oppose that decision. When the mission was renewed in mid-2016, Labour and its two current political partners – New Zealand First and the Greens - all indicated that they did not support an extension of New Zealand's military presence. 

​Author   Robert Ayson

​Meetings between New Zealand and Australian foreign ministers are a regular occurrence. They rarely produce moments of novelty or excitement in Trans-Tasman relations. But on the occasion of Julie Bishop’s visit to meet Winston Peters at picturesque Waiheke Island, we have good reasons to pay close attention. On the assumption that the two governments will release a readout of their meeting, here are the five things I think need to be included.
 
First, while it may seem completely routine for the two foreign ministers to emphasise the importance of the trans-Tasman relationship, that point is more poignant than usual. It would be a further signal of the determination on both sides of the ditch to get beyond the noisy atmospherics over the Manus detainees and claims of political interference. 

Michael Powles

​There can be no doubt that the international environment in which New Zealand will have to operate in the decades ahead will be enormously more difficult than the environment we’ve been used to. The facts pointing to China’s coming economic preponderance and the political power that will give it, regionally and globally, seem indisputable.
 
Nevertheless, a few observers seem to believe that if several other countries act together, under US leadership, China’s power could somehow be contained. I believe that they are simply ignoring clear facts. Perhaps there is an element of wishful thinking. “Past policies have been successful – let’s just continue them.” I’m reminded of the man who’s said to have jumped off the top of the Empire State Building in New York and to have been heard shouting, as he passed the 50th floor on his descent, “Fine, so far!”