Helen Clark, how I miss you.  The former New Zealand Prime Minister — the safest pair of hands this country has had in living memory — gave a masterclass on the importance of maintaining an independent foreign policy when she spoke at an AUKUS symposium held in Parliament’s old Legislative Chambers yesterday.

AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) is first and foremost a military alliance aimed at our major trading partner China. It is designed to maintain US primacy in the “Indo-Pacific” region and opponents are sceptical of claims that China represents a threat to New Zealand or Australian security.

The recent proposal to bring New Zealand into the alliance under “Pillar II”  would represent a shift in our security and alliance settings that could dismantle our country’s independent foreign policy and potentially undo our nuclear free policy.

Clark’s assessment is that the way the government has approached the proposed alliance lacks transparency.  National made no signal of its intentions during the election campaign and yet the move towards AUKUS seems well planned and choreographed.

Voters in the last election “were not sensitised to any changes in the policy settings,” Clark says, “and this raises huge issues of transparency.”

Such a significant shift should first secure a mandate from the electorate.

A key question the speakers addressed at the symposium was: is AUKUS in the best interest of this country and our region?

Highly questionable
“All of these statements made about AUKUS being good for us are highly questionable,” Clark says.  “What is good about joining a ratcheting up of tensions in a region?  Where is the military threat to New Zealand?”

Clark, PM from 1999-2008, has noticed a serious slippage in our independent position.  She contrasted current policy on the Middle East with the decision, under her leadership, of not joining the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Sceptical of US claims about weapons of mass destruction, New Zealand made clear it wanted no part of it — a stance that has proven correct. Our powerful allies the US, UK and Australia were wrong both on intelligence and the consequences of military action.

In contrast, New Zealand participating in the current bombardment of Yemen because of the Houthis disruption of Red Sea traffic in response to the Israeli war on Gaza is, says Clark, an indication of this change in fundamental policy stance:

“New Zealand should have demanded the root causes for the shipping route disruptions be addressed rather than enthusiastically joining the bombing.”

“There’s no doubt in my mind that if the drift we see in position continues, we will be positioned in a way we haven’t seen for decades –  as a fully-signed-up partner to US strategies in the region.

“And from that, will flow expectations about what is the appropriate level of defence expenditure for New Zealand and expectations of New Zealand contributing to more and more military activities.”

🧵
A hugely important interview with Helen Clark about AUKUS

Here are the highlights:

1- What are the issues here? How much are we prepared to spend? Where is this leading us to? 👇 https://t.co/mKVC21XSwQ pic.twitter.com/VHjWt3NboE

— Donna Miles دانا مجاب (@UnPressed) April 14, 2024

Economic security
Clark addressed another element which should add caution to New Zealand joining an American crusade against China: economic security.

China now takes 26 percent of our exports — twice what we send to Australia and 2.5 times what we send to the US.  She questioned the wisdom of taking a hostile stance against our biggest trading partner who continues to pose no security threat to this country.

So what is the alternative to New Zealand siding with the US in its push to contain China and help the US maintain its hegemon status?

“The alternative path is that New Zealand keeps its head while all around are losing theirs — and that we combine with our South Pacific neighbours to advocate for a region which is at peace,” Clark says, echoing sentiments that go right back to the dawn of New Zealand’s nuclear free Pacific, “so that we always pursue dialogue and engagement over confrontation.”

Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and is republished here with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Media Freedom Council has called Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown’s exclusion of some media outlets from his budget speech today “unacceptable”.

In an appearance at Auckland Transport’s Viaduct headquarters, Brown took time out of pitching his plan to sell the city’s holdings in Auckland Airport to complain about road cones, his “not financially literate” councillors and target the “nasty” media.

Brown’s team invited journalists from only a few organisations to the announcement. RNZ was allowed in, but Stuff, TVNZ and Newshub were not.

Stuff reported among those allowed in were “business leaders, former politicians and former rugby league coach Sir Graham Lowe”.

Some reporters threatened to walk out of the event in protest, drawing this response from the mayor: “They weren’t invited, but some of the media have been pretty nasty. We did invite media who are sensible; and the media who are not weren’t invited, and have now decided, some of them, to bugger off — well, that’s all right with me”.

Stuff queried the mayor’s decision, and was told only a “select few journalists… we feel were best able to convey the mayor’s message” were invited.

Media Freedom Council chair Richard Sutherland — also head of news at RNZ — wrote to Brown shortly afterwards, to “express our deep concern about the attempted exclusion of journalists from today’s budget presentation in Auckland”.

In addition to RNZ, the MFC represents Newshub, Newsroom, NZME, Stuff, The Spinoff and TVNZ.

‘Today’s events troubling’
“Today’s events are troubling. The media plays a crucial role in informing the public and holding officials accountable. Denying access to journalists compromises the public’s right to be informed,” Sutherland wrote.

“Furthermore, we are aware that invitations that were issued were selectively targeted to specific journalists. It is imperative to ensure equal opportunities for all bone fide journalists to cover significant public events, irrespective of their perceived affiliations or perspectives.

“To be blunt, it’s unacceptable to cherry-pick journalists based on who you think will give you the easiest ride.”

Sutherland called Brown’s decision an “affront to the democratic process and an insult to voters”.

Brown did not take questions after his speech, saying he did not have time.

He has had a strained relationship with the media since taking the mayoral chains last year. Mediawatch in April described it as “frosty”, at best.

In January, as Auckland suffered its worst floods in living memory, he called journalists “drongos” in messages to friends, upset he had to cancel a tennis engagement to deal with the media. He later apologised.

He refused 106 media requests in his first month of office, granting only two.

‘Sell them all’
The guts of Brown’s speech was to convince his councillors that selling the city’s 18 percent stake in Auckland Airport was the only way to avoid massive cuts to services and rate hikes.

He has his deputy Desley Simpson on side. She told RNZ’s Midday Report she did not want to sell the shares at first, but had listened to advice and had been convinced.

She said the mayor’s second budget proposal was as good as it was going to get, and she hoped other councillors agreed to it.

“In my heart, I didn’t want to sell the airport shareholding. But professional staff advice has said ‘sell them all’. And you know, that’s a hard pill to swallow when in your heart, you want to keep them.

“It’s an emotional wrestle that I think a lot of people are struggling with.”

Simpson said selling shareholding was not just a short-term fix, and would save the council $100 million a year in debt interest.

The council’s debt is currently more than $11 billion.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz