In this episode of A View from Afar political scientist and former Pentagon Analyst, Paul G. Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning will discuss, debate, and assess whether deterrence is still a valid concept in international relations.

Paul and Selwyn will assess whether deterrence has failed in Syria, Ukraine, the Middle East, and failed to stop an intensification of threat in the South China Sea.

And they will consider the questions:

Is nuclear deterrence dead in the water?

But, overnight, the New York Times released details of a secret new nuclear deterrence plan that has been advanced in secret by the Biden Administration. Biden’s Nuke Plan is designed to ensure the USA stays ahead of an arms race, and a supposed coordination of nuclear weapons technologies being developed by China, North Korea and Russia.

New questions arise.

Does a new-generation arms race, led by the United States, based on advanced nuclear weaponry, made more fearsome due to a rapid advance of artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making and target-selection, mixed with hybrid warfare, cause aggressive nations to rethink the consequences should they preemptively initiate conflict?

• And what about the majority of the world, what about small states, small powers, that seek stability and security via multilateralism or a constellation of like-minded nations – how does deterrence impact on their decision-making?
• Do alliances, led by global powers, that rely on deterring adversaries through development of superior weaponry and technology, offer small states more risks than benefits?
• Specifically, is it preferable for many small states to focus on de-escalation and cooperative security rather than bind themselves to collective security agreements that are focused on deterring adversaries?
• And, the big question: How do we as member states in a world where bipolarity and conflict is intensifying, ensure de-escalation occurs without reaching a tipping-point that we cannot return from?
• Is cooperative security, and mutually agreed to weapons and technological controls, the way toward restoring an uneasy peace in the world?

Live Audience: Remember, if you are joining us live via the social media platforms, feel free to comment as we can include your comments and questions in this programme.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has New Zealand firmly in its sights.

Last week, New Zealand’s foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta attended the annual NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels – alongside her counterparts from Australia, Japan and South Korea.

Mahuta’s participation came after New Zealand’s then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern joined last June’s NATO leaders’ summit in Madrid. Mahuta was also a guest at the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in April 2022, albeit only in virtual form.

At a more granular level, a NATO military delegation visited New Zealand last month for meetings with officials in Wellington. The head of the delegation said NATO was ‘determined’ to ‘deepen and strengthen our cooperation with our Indo-Pacific partners’.

And this week, top NATO official Benedetta Berti is visiting Wellington. As part of her visit, Berti – who heads NATO’s Policy Planning Unit in the Secretary General’s office – will speak to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs (NZIIA) on the impact of the war in Ukraine on the Indo-Pacific. Berti will also explain why NATO is seeking to expand its ties with countries in the region such as New Zealand, according to advance NZIIA publicity material for the event.

The grouping of four Indo-Pacific countries is sometimes referred to as the AP4, or ‘Asia Pacific Four’, particularly by the more hawkish Australia and Japan.

So far, New Zealand has tended to avoid using the AP4 acronym, perhaps to play down the implication that Wellington has joined yet another new bloc.

The website of New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) contains only a single mention of the AP4 – after Mahuta’s attendance at the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting last year. There is no mention of AP4 at all on the Ministry of Defence or Beehive ministerial websites, according to a Google search.

NATO itself has also generally shied away from using the AP4 acronym, perhaps in deference to New Zealand’s sensibilities. But this might be starting to change. Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, talked openly about the potential of the AP4 at a speech at Tokyo’s Keio University in February.

In that address, Stoltenberg told his audience that NATO had ‘in many ways…already institutionalised’ the AP4 and described the four countries’ participation at the NATO leaders’ summit in Spain in 2022 as a ‘historic moment’.

We can expect to hear much more about the AP4 in the future.

Stoltenberg has publicly invited all four AP4 leaders to attend this year’s leaders’ summit in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius.

In diplomatic terms, this probably means New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins and the other three AP4 leaders have already decided to go.

This is significant.

For one thing, it means Jacinda Ardern’s presence at last year’s NATO summit in Madrid was not just a one-off move to show solidarity with NATO countries in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Second, it shows how New Zealand is continuing to forge a more hardline foreign policy stance under Hipkins’ leadership.

After all, the involvement of the AP4 in NATO is being driven chiefly by the alliance’s interest in China.

At the Madrid summit last year, NATO launched its new long-term Strategic Concept that openly called out China for its ‘stated ambitions and coercive policies’ and pinpointed Beijing as a source of ‘systemic challenges’ for the alliance.

And much of the press conference after last week’s NATO foreign ministers’ meeting that New Zealand’s Nanaia Mahuta also attended was focused squarely on China.

Stoltenberg told media that China was ‘coming closer to us’ and cited a range of familiar Western criticisms of Beijing – ranging from its ‘assertive behaviour’ in the South China Sea, to actions over Hong Kong, Taiwan and its ties with Moscow – that made it necessary for NATO to ‘update and develop’ its stance towards China.

Indeed, the NATO Secretary General openly linked the alliance’s recent deepening of partnerships with Indo-Pacific countries such as New Zealand with NATO’s China strategy – which he called a ‘huge effort’.

Of course, unlike Finland – which became NATO’s 31st member last week – New Zealand cannot formally join NATO, given the alliance’s geographic focus.

But if New Zealand continues to align itself with NATO as part of the AP4 – which could be seen as ‘NATO plus’ – the implications could be as significant as the extraordinary signals from defence minister Andrew Little that Wellington could soon join non-nuclear components of the AUKUS pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and United States.

For one, it means that New Zealand will almost certainly strive to meet NATO’s military spending target of 2 per cent of GDP – a figure which Stoltenberg described last week as a ‘floor not a ceiling’.

To that end, New Zealand’s defence minister Andrew Little is continuing a softening-up campaign in the media to pave the way for greater military spending, ahead of the imminent reporting-back of a defence policy review committee and the Government’s Budget in May.

Any response from Beijing to the latest developments on New Zealand’s involvement with NATO and AUKUS has yet to be fully felt.

But China – New Zealand’s biggest trading partner – made no secret of its displeasure after Jacinda Ardern attended the NATO summit in Spain last year. At the time, the Chinese Embassy in Wellington issued a statement noting Beijing’s opposition to ‘all kinds of military alliances, bloc politics, or exclusive small groups’, while a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said NATO should not seek to ‘replicate the kind of bloc confrontation seen in Europe here in the Asia-Pacific’.

After the NATO meeting in Madrid in June 2022, Jacinda Ardern gradually reined in New Zealand’s more hawkish positioning with more soothing tones towards Beijing – culminating in her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Thailand in November and her pledge to travel to China early in 2023.

Upon taking over the Prime Ministerial role from Ardern in January, Hipkins said a trip to China would be high on his priority list – but the signals have been rather mixed since then. Last month, Hipkins appeared to play down expectations of a visit to Beijing, citing ‘moving parts’ and domestic pressures during New Zealand’s election year.

Delaying an invitation to New Zealand’s Prime Minister to visit China would certainly be one way for Beijing to signal frustration.

Chris Hipkins may well be heading to the NATO summit in Vilnius.

But it could mean he has to wait longer to visit Beijing.

Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Project’s geopolitical analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian. He is currently working on a PhD on New Zealand’s relations with the Gulf states.

Political Roundup: NZ needs to distance itself from Australia’s anti-China nuclear submarines

The New Zealand Government has been silent about Australia’s decision to commit up to $400bn acquiring nuclear submarines, even though this is a significant threat to peace and stability in the Asia Pacific. The deal was struck by the Albanese Labor Government as part of its Aukus pact with the US and UK to combat China.

The debate over the incredibly expensive and provocative nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet is raging in Australia, where former prime minister Paul Keating has labelled it the country’s worst decision in over a hundred years, especially because of the huge risks it poses to Australia and peace in the region.

Here in New Zealand, reaction and debate has been rather muted, despite the fact that the issue has huge consequences for this country and will inevitably lead to some very tough choices for the Government here.

Former NZ PMs join the debate to condemn Aukus

Debate on what Aukus means for New Zealand is finally getting underway this week, with some interesting contributions yesterday from two former prime ministers.

First, former National prime minister Jim Bolger participated in a forum about New Zealand’s foreign policy in Wellington in which he is reported by the Herald’s Audrey Young to have criticised the Australian submarine buy up as “beyond comprehension” because of the cost and the damage to peace in the Pacific region.

Bolger said that New Zealand certainly doesn’t want any such submarines, and challenged proponents of the Aukus deal to defend it: “If you can find any Australian official who can explain why they need nuclear-powered submarines, come and tell me. I’d like to know.” And Young reported Bolger asking rhetorically, “How mad are we getting?” She says that “He spoke with despair about the near-daily threats of nuclear war which had the potential to destroy the planet.”

Following this, former Labour prime minister Helen Clark also came out strongly against the increasing militarisation of the Pacific by New Zealand’s allies. She tweeted yesterday that “New Zealand interests do not lie in being associated with Aukus”, and that such an “Association would be damaging to independent foreign policy.”

Clark has also lent her weight to those in the Pacific who are arguing that the Australian deal has been done behind the backs of the Pacific countries, which is bad for the stability of the region. There is a sense that Australia has betrayed its neighbours in unilaterally starting a new defence alliance that will inevitably lead to an arms race in the Asia Pacific.

Opposition from National and commentators

The National Party is much more critical of the Aukus deal than Labour. National’s foreign affairs spokesperson Gerry Brownlee has been strongly critical, saying the deal is bad for New Zealand’s security.

Asked by a journalist if the submarine pact will make New Zealand safer, Brownlee, who was a Minister of Defence in the last National Government, replied: “No, I don’t think it does”. He also criticised the way that Western countries are currently painting China as “the enemy”, saying “I’m not sure that’s the right sort of thinking” and “What I don’t like is the concept that we just seem to be dividing the world”.

Brownlee has also criticised Australia’s decision because it will create problems working with New Zealand, especially because of the nuclear elements of the new submarines. Such submarines will be barred from New Zealand waters.

National’s criticisms of the Australian submarine policy won’t go down well with many other politicians. Already New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has condemned the notion that Aukus will make New Zealand less safe, saying yesterday “That is an astonishing statement to make”, and he called for more military spending here.

Although the Green Party have been conspicuously silent on the huge new military development, former Green MP Gareth Hughes wrote this week on the submarine deal saying that nuclear war was now “terrifyingly possible in the next few years”, and New Zealand is likely to be dragged into any conflict between Australia and China because this country is signed up to a treaty that imposes an obligation to do so if Australia is attacked.

Hughes is astonished that New Zealand isn’t debating what is going on, and troubled by the fact that the current Government is pushing us more into alignment with Washington: “New Zealanders need to talk more about the risks, our decision-makers need to explain why New Zealand is aligning more closely with the United States military and as a sovereign country we have to ask are we acting independently or as a cog in a machine?”

Leftwing commentator Josie Pagani has also come out today against the Aukus deal: “The agreement is unnecessarily provocative to China, possibly foolhardy in its nuclear proliferation. It is not clear what Australia achieves by positioning nuclear submarines in the South China Sea, a long way from home.”

Also today, former United Future party leader Peter Dunne has penned a column calling for more debate on what Aukus will mean for New Zealand and the Asia Pacific. He argues that the way Aukus has been developed gives “the clear impression that Aukus is more a vehicle to reassert US influence in the region than a genuine multilateral security pact.” Dunne says that Prime Minister Chris Hipkins can’t continue to paint the issue as one that doesn’t involve New Zealand or require a reaction.

Questions over New Zealand’s independent foreign policy

Political scientist Nicholas Khoo, of the University of Otago, argues this week that the New Zealand government has been deliberately opaque in its reaction to the Aukus developments, saying Labour is “hedging” on the issue with its response of “ambiguity”. He points out that when the Aukus deal was first announced the then prime minister Jacinda Ardern was careful to welcome it and express her pleasure about the investment, and only citing New Zealand’s ban on nuclear vessels as a problem for the deal.

But he says that as the submarine alliance develops there it will make such equivocal stances less possible for New Zealand, and New Zealand’s independent foreign policy will become harder to maintain. In particular, there will be pressure on New Zealand to respond positively to the development.

The Labour Government has already purchased new sub-hunting P8-Poseidon aircraft. These will be expected to work closely with the Australian submarine fleet to hunt Chinese subs. And in doing so, New Zealand will not only be painting a military target on its back in working with Australia, but it will be alienating itself from our biggest trade partner, China.

The tightrope act of staying onside with both Washington and Beijing will get more difficult. Of course, this week the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nanaia Manuta, has travelled to Beijing. It’s partly a symbol of New Zealand’s increasingly strained relations with China that such a trip hasn’t occurred for four years. But she will be trying to mend fences.

At the same time, however, the United States Government sent their “Indo-Pacific czar” Kurt Campbell to Wellington, who spoke out publicly about being in “deep discussion” with the Government about increasing NZ-US defence arrangements, including how New Zealand could become involved in Aukus. In terms of this, he said: “We will be announcing soon that we want to launch a bilateral engagement between the United States and New Zealand on technology”.

After talking to the New Zealand Government, Campbell also claimed “We agreed that we would launch the critical components of Aukus, and then take steps to look at other partners” like New Zealand.

Security choices for New Zealand

Aukus developments will eventually require New Zealand to make some choices. As Peter Dunne argues today, New Zealand is likely to be pushed off its high-wire tightrope act between Washington and Beijing: “as the Aukus debate intensifies, New Zealand’s careful, fence-straddling diplomacy of the past two decades will be tested as never before. We cannot afford both our current level of relationship with China and involvement with Aukus. As Aukus develops, China is likely to force us to make clear where we stand.”

At the moment, New Zealand really has three options in terms of Aukus: 1) Attempt to join the broad programme in a supportive and auxiliary way, 2) Keep a distance, and diplomatically stay silent on the developments, or 3) Stand up against the militarisation of the Asia Pacific by condemning the development.

Campbell’s visit to New Zealand clearly shows that the first option is possible. This would amount to New Zealand going along with the new “might is right” doctrine that is building up. But, more likely, New Zealand will continue to try to keep onside with Western allies without fully joining in or opposing the increasing militarisation. But this is unlikely to be sustainable.

The third option of greater independence and neutrality is also possible. The Māori Party has recently put forward a new defence policy that would position New Zealand as neutral – a  “Switzerland of the Pacific”. This is an idea that needs more debate.

Some academics are arguing that New Zealand might actually be advantaged by being sidelined and right out of any US-UK-Australia security alliance. For instance, Prof Robert Patman of the University of Otago has argued this week that New Zealand stood to benefit by staying outside of Aukus completely and could “diversify its trade more easily with south-east Asian nations that did not like the tie-up.”

Clearly, a new cold war is quickly developing – and one that could soon be a hot war. This comes exactly 20 years after countries like the US, UK and Australia illegally invaded Iraq, leading to disaster. New Zealand would do well to avoid the same drumbeats to war that we are hearing at the moment.

Further reading on AUKUS, Foreign Affairs

1News: New Zealand better off outside AUKUS – Helen Clark
AAP: New Zealand opposition concerned by AUKUS
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): China will test NZ’s fence-straddling diplomacy as never before
Audrey Young (Herald): Former Prime Minister Jim Bolger denounces Aukus nuclear submarines for Australia (paywalled)
Koroi Hawkins and Caleb Fotheringham (RNZ): Pacific needs to sit up and pay close attention to AUKUS – Dame Meg Taylor
Josie Pagani (Stuff): The fist-pumping of Aukus doesn’t help counter the fist-pumping in Moscow
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Government considering new spying crimes to prosecute foreign agents
Thomas Manch (Stuff): A New Zealand embassy in Kyiv? Former defence minister Ron Mark thinks so
RNZ: MFAT confirms former NZ soldier Kane Te Tai’s death in Ukraine
Jan Kohout (RNZ): Emerging Pacific leaders in NZ for Dawn Raids-initiated scholarship

Other items of interest and importance today

CHILD POVERTY
Michael Neilson, Julia Gabel and Chris Knox (Herald): Cost of living: Child poverty levels hardly improving, still 120,000 in material hardship
RNZ: Child poverty reduction stalls ahead of cost-of-living crisis
Laura Frykberg (1News): Child poverty rates unchanged from previous year – Stats NZ
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Government’s child poverty reduction plan stalls
Michael Neilson (Herald): Child poverty: Campaigners say expanding in-work Family Tax Credit to beneficiaries would have ‘immediate difference’
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Children’s advocates say politicians must focus on child poverty – or stats will get worse
Jamie Ensor and Leighton Heikell (Newshub): Government says no change in child poverty rates ‘encouraging’ considering pressures, but other parties not impressed
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): Poverty statistics paint ‘rosy picture’ of reality for Māori, academic says
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Chippy’s ‘Let them eat pie’: Bread and Butter but none for hungry children

COST OF LIVING, ECONOMY
Rob Stock (Stuff): New data on household incomes highlights the gap between the richest and poorest
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): Bill Rosenberg on how to measure household inflation better than the CPI does
Brianna Mcilraith (Stuff): All the changes coming to your wallet to help ease cost of living pressure on April 1
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): RBNZ: We need to accept we’re poorer
Dan Brunskill (Interest): New Zealanders need to accept the pandemic made them poorer, the RBNZ says
RNZ: Firms, workers need to lower inflation expectations – RBNZ chief economist
Liz McDonald (Stuff): National promises a return to basic economics to tackle cost of living crisis
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): More ‘how’ less ‘what’ for social services
Liam Dann (Herald): Truckometer: Traffic data shows economic growth in low gear (paywalled)
RNZ: Easing heavy traffic points to flat first quarter for economy
Alka Prasad (Herald): Warehouse profits slump, CEO warns ‘peak misery’ still to come on cost-of-living crisis (paywalled)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk ZB): Auckland Council booting Local Government NZ is a warning to Kieran McAnulty
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Auckland pulls a Brexit – on the mayor’s casting vote
Finn Blackwell (RNZ): Auckland Council votes to leave Local Government New Zealand
Todd Niall (Stuff): ‘800 members getting pissed and dancing’: Wayne Brown pulls Auckland Council out of Local Government NZ
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Auckland Council quits Local Government NZ: Mayor Wayne Brown says drinking behaviour as reason for move
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): Wellington mayor decries ‘Auxit’ as Wayne Brown leads Auckland out of local government group
Todd Niall (Stuff): Road cones and bus trials: Fact-checking Auckland mayor Wayne Brown’s big ideas
Corazon Miller (1News): Auckland Council delays debate on $1b rail blowout amid govt talks
RNZ: Chlöe Swarbrick urges super-city MPs to meet over ‘slash-and-burn’ Auckland Council budget
Todd Nial (Stuff): Former chief science advisor to PM wants fix for Auckland’s at-risk Southern Initiative
Erin Johnson (Stuff): Auckland’s flood recovery operation to cost $1m a month
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Flood-affected Aucklanders breathe a sigh of rates relief
Erin Gourley (Stuff): The slogan that embarrassed a Wellington councillor
Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): Desperately seeking savings, Lower Hutt council plans to close aviary
Emily Ireland (Local Democracy Reporting): South Wairarapa water fails new standards
Rachael Comer (Stuff): Seven senior staff members signed resignation letter to Timaru District

EDUCATION
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Christopher Luxon’s big day back at school makes it really feel like election year
Matthew Hooton (Herald): National’s Christopher Luxon delivers a lesson for Labour with education policy (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): National finally finds an issue in Education – How will they screw it up?
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Transport Minister Michael Wood takes savage ‘right-wing hack’ jab at academic over education policy
Russell Palmer (RNZ): Union and Labour criticise National’s new curriculum policy
1News: National’s curriculum rewrite pledge won’t fix issues – NZEI
Amelia Wade (Newshub): National promises to ‘teach the basics brilliantly’, but how has the sector graded its latest policy?
Adam Pearse and Claire Trevett (Herald): National’s education shake-up: Hour a day of reading, writing, maths – Education Minister issues challenge
Russell Palmer (RNZ): National Party leader Christopher Luxon announces education policy
Luke Malpass (Stuff): National Party school policy focuses on daily hourly sessions for maths, reading and writing
John Gerritsen (RNZ): Maniapoto training centre double-claimed government funding for hundreds of students

HEALTH
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): New Zealand’s ethnic health inequities ‘avoidable, unfair and unjust’, academic says
Robin Martin (RNZ): New dioxin research deserves response, says New Plymouth mayor
Rachel Thomas (Stuff): Doctors make plea to stop advertising of prescription medicines directly to NZers
Jean Edwards (RNZ): Surgery delays leave Christchurch woman on liquid diet for a year – ‘My life is on hold’
Rowan Quinn (RNZ): Only 19 nurses outside of NZ granted fast tracked nurses visa by end of February
Concerns grow at plummeting rates of child immunisation
Lynne Chepulis (Stuff): Pharmac prioritised Māori and Pacific patients for access to new diabetes drugs – did it get it right?
Jacob Johnson (1News): Concerns grow at plummeting rates of child immunisation
Jamie Morton (Herald): Govt injects $70m into research on RNA tech used in Covid-19 vaccine
Toria Tokalau (Stuff): Health providers reach 96% of Pasifika community since Covid-19
Sophie Harris (Stuff): Lack of parking forces woman to cancel Starship appointments for terminally-ill son
Muriwai Hei (Whakaata Māori): Te Aranga Health Clinic bought to offer whanāu cheaper medical care
Dylan Cleaver (Spinoff): Inside the years-long fight to have a former All Black’s CTE recognised by ACC

POSIE PARKER
Thomas Cranmer: Free speech or transphobia? Kellie-Jay Keen’s visit to New Zealand sparks tensions
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): No one has the right to stop women from speaking
Katie Scotcher (RNZ): Rainbow groups take Immigration Minister to court over Posie Parker decision
Tom Hunt (Stuff): Human rights groups seek interim order to stop Posie Parker coming to NZ
Damien Venuto (Herald): Posie Parker: Did Immigration NZ get her decision right? – The Front Page
1News: Posie Parker’s entry to NZ encourages hatred – activist
Kate Hawkesby (Newstalk ZB): Posie Parker should never have been given all this attention in the first place
Mike Hosking (Newstalk ZB): Not liking what someone says isn’t a reason to ban them
Lloyd Burr (Today FM): Desperate trolls scrape the bottom of the barrel
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): Posie Parker is coming. Take a stand. We all have to.
Dita De Boni (NBR): Posie Parker: Can business be part of the pushback? (paywalled)
Rachel Smalley (NBR): Do corporates have a role in the ‘Posie Parker’ conversation? (paywalled)

PARLIAMENT, CO-GOVERNANCE
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): All of Us, All of Us
Waatea News: Co-governance proven success in right places says PM
Chelsea Daniels (Herald): Anti-co-governance group finding it difficult to book venues
Brent Edwards (NBR): The three Rs, Posie Parker, the police, climate change
Joseph Los’e (Herald): Te Pāti Māori push for Aotearoa name change gains momentum but lacks political support
Michael Fallow (Stuff): Prestigious Ardern portrait an arresting sight in National heartland

HOUSING
Laura Smith (Local Democracy Reporting): Rotorua emergency housing motels: Government-commissioned report finds residents had positive experience
Kelvin McDonald (Whakaata Māori): ‘They don’t have to buy the land’: Ngāti Potiki’s leasehold plan for whānau home ownership in Pāpāmoa
Andrew McRae (RNZ): Hapuu challenges council plan for housing on possible paa site

EMPLOYMENT
Dita De Boni (NBR): Vexed employee-contractor issue thrown on policy bonfire (paywalled)
Rebecca Rendle (NBR): Policy bonfire leaves burning questions for gig economy (paywalled)
Catherine Hubbard (Stuff): It took this young woman seven years to find a job
Peter Griffin (Listener/Herald): Good luck getting Kiwi employees to give up on remote work (paywalled)

BUSINESS
Matt Raskovic (Stuff): Banks are making a killing because they don’t have skin in the game
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Warring building supplies firms tie up critical NZ land with 999-year covenants
Rebecca Stevenson (Interest): Carter Holt Harvey axes land covenants including some set for 999 years
RNZ: Amazon group’s web services signs cooperation deal with New Zealand government

CYCLONE GABRIELLE
Niva Chittock (RNZ): No health officials present at community meeting over contamination at Awatoto industrial zone
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): Cyclone Gabrielle insurance claims top 40k, worth about $890m, ICNZ says
RNZ: Cyclone Gabrielle: Insurance claims hit $890 million
Marcus Musson (Stuff): Pinning blame for slash solely on forestry sector a modern-day witch-hunt

CLIMATE CHANGE, RMA, ENVIRONMENT
Dan Brunskill (Interest): Government review of the Emissions Trading Scheme will look for ways to incentivise more reductions and less carbon offsets
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): Mixed feelings on Emissions Trading Scheme review (paywalled)
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): Fear of ETS failure spurs review (paywalled)
No Right Turn: Climate Change: More Labour sabotage
Richard Harman (Politik): Select Committee told slow down; you’re moving too fast (paywalled)
Brent Edwards (NBR): RMA reform uncertain: Chris Bishop (paywalled)
Lianne Dalziel (Newsroom): New Orleans’ lesson on fallible flood defences: Let’s not ‘build back better’
David Williams (Newsroom): How the Rakaia turned into a pipe for irrigators

TRANSPORT
Tom Hunt (Dominion Post): Let’s Get Wellington Moving consultant costs climb past $130 million
Jonathan Mitchell (NBR): Nats say Govt’s EV charging strategy ‘rushed’ and ‘uncosted’ (paywalled)

OTHER
Thomas Manch (Stuff): New Police Minister Ginny Andersen wants to take political ‘heat’ out of law and order
Greg Hurrell (BusinessDesk): Sir Peter Gluckman: Science reforms a ‘missed opportunity’ (paywalled)
Lynley Ward (Herald): Not guilty plea: Former broadcaster-turned-conspiracy campaigner Liz Gunn defends airport charges

One year to the day since Russian tanks ran over the Ukraine border — and over the UN Charter and international law in the process — the world is less certain and more dangerous than ever.

For New Zealand, the war has also presented a unique foreign policy challenge.

The current generation of political leaders initially responded to the invasion in much the same way previous generations responded to the First and Second World Wars: if a sustainable peace was to be achieved, international treaties and law were the mechanism of choice.

But when it was apparent these higher levels of maintaining international order had gridlocked because of the Russian veto at the UN Security Council, New Zealand moved back towards its traditional security relationships.

Like other Western alliance countries, New Zealand didn’t put boots on the ground, which would have meant becoming active participants in the conflict. But nor did New Zealand plead neutrality.

It has not remained indifferent to the aggression and atrocities, or their implications for a rule-based world.

The issue one year on is whether this original position is still viable. And if not, what are the military, humanitarian, diplomatic and legal challenges now?

President Biden makes a surprise visit to Kyiv in dramatic show of U.S. support for Ukraine days before anniversary of invasion https://t.co/iqUrTrRqvq

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 20, 2023

Military spending
While New Zealand has no troops or personnel in Ukraine, it has given direct support.

Defence force personnel assist with training, intelligence, logistics, liaison, and command and administration support. There has also been funding and supplied equipment worth more than NZ$22 million.

This has been welcomed, although it is considerably less on a proportional basis than the assistance offered by other like-minded countries. However, the deeper questions involve how the war has affected defence policies and spending overall internationally.

While New Zealand’s current Defence Policy Review is important at the policy level, the implications affect all citizens and political parties. Specifically, most countries — allies or not — are increasing military spending and collaborating to develop new generations of weapons.

For New Zealand, this calls into question the longer-term feasibility of its relatively low spending of 1.5 percent of GDP on defence. And Wellington is increasingly being left out of collaborative arrangements (AUKUS being just one example), which in turn reinforce alliances and provide pathways to technology.

This is tied to the largest question of all: whether New Zealand wishes to relegate itself to becoming a regional “police officer” or wants to carry its fair share of being part of an interlinked modern military deterrent.

Amid U.S. claims that Beijing may be poised to send weapons to help Russia’s war in Ukraine, China accused the Biden administration of spreading lies and defended Beijing’s close partnership with Russia. https://t.co/52tRnRRAFh

— The New York Times (@nytimes) February 20, 2023

Diplomacy and domestic law
New Zealand also needs to reconsider its commitment to humanitarian assistance. So far, almost $13 million has been spent and a special visa created allowing New Zealand-Ukrainians to bring family members in for two years. With the war showing no sign of ending, this will likely need to extend.

But New Zealand’s non-neutral status also means it has other responsibilities, and should consider greater assistance with the Ukrainian refugee emergency. This would require going beyond the current visa scheme, and opening and expanding the refugee quota programme’s current cap of 1500.

Diplomatically, New Zealand also has to start considering what peace would look like. This raises hard questions about territorial integrity, accountability for war crimes, reparations and what might happen to populations that do not want to be part of Ukraine.

New Zealand has enacted a stand-alone law to apply sanctions on Russia. But because this now sits outside the broken multilateral UN system, a degree of caution is called for, given the door is now open to sanction other countries, UN mandate or not.

Preparing for the worst
Finally, New Zealand needs to prepare for the worst. The war is showing no sign of calming down. Weapons and combatant numbers are escalating unsustainably.

Nuclear arms control is in freefall, with Russian President Vladimir Putin suspending participation in the New START Treaty, the last remaining agreement between Russia and the United States.

At the same time, the US has ramped up the rhetoric, suggesting China might supply arms to Russia, and declaring unequivocally that Russia has committed crimes against humanity in Ukraine.

Were China to go against Western demands and provide weapons, countries like New Zealand will be in a very difficult position: its leading security ally, the US, may expect penalties to be imposed against its leading trade partner, China.

While Putin may be able to live with the rising death toll of his own soldiers (already over 100,000), at some point the Russian population won’t be. As the US discovered in Vietnam, it was not the external enemy that ultimately prevailed, it was domestic unrest, as more people turned against an unpopular war.

How Putin will respond to a war he cannot win conventionally, while risking losing popularity and position at home, is impossible to predict.

Everyone might hope his nuclear threats are a bluff, but New Zealand’s leaders would be wise to plan for the worst.

Whether a small, distant, non-neutral South Pacific nation might be a direct target or not is conjecture. What is not speculation, however, is that if the Ukraine war spins out of control, New Zealand would be in an emergency unlike anything it’s witnessed before.

Dr Alexander Gillespie, professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz