A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse how the Pacific region has become the epicentre of foreign policy assertions from the region’s, and the world’s, powers.

This month has seen the United States President Joe Biden forward commit to increasing the USA’s presence in the Pacific. The announcement was pitched during a Whitehouse meeting in Washington DC with New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

Meanwhile, at the same time, the People’s Republic of China’s foreign minister Wang Yi was on a whistle-stop series of meetings with Pacific regional leaders, seeking mutual agreements on investment, infrastructure development, and security.

And back in China, the PRC took exception to this element of the US-NZ joint statement where Biden and Ardern jointly stated: “… we note with concern the security agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the Solomon Islands. In particular, the United States and New Zealand share a concern that the establishment of a persistent military presence in the Pacific by a state that does not share our values or security interests would fundamentally alter the strategic balance of the region and pose national-security concerns to both our countries.”

That position compelled China’s spokesperson for its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zhao Lijian, to state: “We noted the relevant contents of the joint statement, which distorts and smears China’s normal cooperation with Pacific Island countries, deliberately hypes up the South China Sea issue, makes irresponsible remarks on and grossly interferes in China’s internal affairs including issues related to Taiwan, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. China is firmly opposed to this.”

New Zealand is now positioned squarely on the fault-line between two opposing global powers.

Now add into the foreign policy mix the election of a new Labor Government in Australia where Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was quickly sworn in alongside his cabinet and then whisked off to a QUAD security pact leaders’ summit, and, most recently has met with his Indonesian counterpart, President Joko Widodo, to discuss securing a more cooperative relationship between the two regional powers.

In this episode of A View from Afar Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning deep-dive into these events to determine what this all means and where the shifting sands of Pacific foreign policy is heading.

One this is for sure, the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ summit this year will be important and interesting.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

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

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

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.

A View from Afar: In the first half of this week’s podcast Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan are joined by Dr David Robie to examine instability in the Pacific’s Polynesian region – specifically to identify what’s going on in: New Caledonia, Fiji, Samoa. In the second half, Buchanan and Manning analyse the latest on Afghanistan and consider whether the USA’s humiliating withdrawal suggests an end to liberal internationalism.

Specifically the first half of this episode looks at:

• New Caledonia where there’s the third and final referendum on Kanaky independence;
• In Samoa there’s a new government but only after the old guard attempted to resist democratic change, a move that caused a constitutional crisis; and
• Fiji, to add to its Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama’s politics headache, is the question of how Fiji gets its NGO and aid workers out of Afghanistan.

THEN, in the second half of this episode Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning dig deep into the latest from Afghanistan. The deadline for western personnel to have withdrawn from Afghanistan is looming. The Taliban leadership states it will not extend the negotiated deadline of August 31, and United States president Joe Biden insists the US will not request nor assert an extension. But Biden has instructed his military leaders to prepare for a contingency plan. 

• But what does this humiliating withdrawal indicate to the world?
• Is this the realisation of a diminishing United States, a superpower in decline?
• Can the US reassert itself as the world’s Police, or does Afghanistan confirm the US is in retreat and signal an end of liberal internationalism?

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WITH COMMENTS ON THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

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

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

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.

A Pacific social justice movement is calling on the New Zealand government to formally apologise for the Dawn Raids of the 1970s.

The Labour and then National governments of the time authorised police raids on Pasifika homes and work places, to check for overstayers; even churches and schools were not taboo.

This practice had followed a boom period where migration was encouraged to New Zealand from the Pacific to fill labour shortages.

When the economy declined it was the Pasifika community that became a political scapegoat for a lot of the social ails that followed.

In the midst of all this the Polynesian Panthers evolved from a need for Pacific migrants to have representation when the government, and sections of the media, seemingly turned their back on them.

The Polynesian Panthers now want a government apology for the race-based Dawn Raids.

During the Dawn Raids police used a policy of “random checks” to stop Pacific people and an “idle and disorderly” charge to detain them even when no crime was committed.

Negative stereotypes
Mainstream media at the time appeared complicit in perpetuating negative stereotypes.

One of the Polynesian Panther’s founding members, Will ‘Ilolahia, said the Dawn Raids marked a dark time for the Pasifika community.

“It was harrowing to hear our community coming and telling us about all these issues and then some of my friends and that were picked up on the road even though they were actually New Zealand-born Pacific Islanders. And so the call for an apology I think is long overdue.”

The call went out during a public kōrero on the Dawn Raids at the Auckland Arts Festival.

Echoing the Panthers’ call was Pasifika youth leader and mental health advocate Josiah Tualamali’i.

He’s pledged to write weekly to the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, asking for her to honour the call for an apology.

✊?The Polynesian Panthers have issued the call for an apology for the racist dawn raids. Please whānau & friends let’s lift our voices to #TautokoThePanthers call. ✍ Please write for free to:

Rt Hon. J Ardern
Freepost Parliament
PB 18 888
Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6160 pic.twitter.com/RxlQ7PTenl

— Josiah Tualamali’i ???? (@JosiahT_NZ) March 13, 2021

‘Honour the past’
“Please honour and own what’s happened in the past. The government can show us with the large number of Pacific MPs we have and Pacific decisions makers across government that it’s not a small thing to own what’s happened in the past.”

He said it was a privilege to amplify the voices of those no longer here to tell their stories.

“But thankfully we have [some of] the Panthers who are still here with us. Some of them are still here who can remind our country of what’s happened and that we can do more to remedy and to set out the future that Aotearoa needs.”

Tualamali’i said young Pasifika were learning about what was a dire part of New Zealand history despite a lack of coverage in school curricula.

He said universities, churches and Pacific youth clubs helped spread the story but the Polynesian Panthers had been the driver.

“More of the story’s being told online and particularly the exhibition that the Panthers have been going around Aotearoa with and the books they’ve been writing is a huge part of that.

“They’ve put the effort in to tell the story and I suppose, in a small way, our generation is trying to honour what they’ve told us,” Tualamali’i said.

He hoped others of his generation would also write to the prime minister and express how they felt about the Dawn Raids and also ask for a formal apology.

Open up pathways
Meanwhile Will ‘Ilolahia said one way the government could show they were genuinely sorry was by opening up pathways for 10,000 Pacific people currently overstaying in Aotearoa.

“I would suggest that the government in their apology for the Dawn Raids provide a pathway for residence for the present overstayers here in Aotearoa.

“That will be a meaningful apology, rather than being just a ‘I’m sorry’.”

‘Ilolahia was also part of an Auckland Tongan Advisory group which helped put together a petition which was delivered to Parliament last year calling on better channels towards residency for such people.

The petition was scheduled to go before a Select Committee this month.

‘Illolahia said the overstayers represented by petition were contributing members of society.

“I’ve got cases of people being here for 13 years. Their children are actually playing rugby, representative. Their children are head boys in some of our schools,” he said.

‘Contributing to Aotearoa’
“They are working on farms. One particular lady is sewing Korowai. You can’t tell me that these people are not contributing to Aotearoa.”

‘Ilolahia also said the people were unprotected because of their status, meaning some were being taken advantage of by being paid minimal rates and working under bad conditions.

RNZ Pacific approached the government for a response to the call for an apology.

The prime minister’s office referred the matter to the Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio.

Aupito ruled nothing out and in a statement said: “I have been approached regarding a formal apology from the government for the Dawn Raids.

“I am now receiving advice on this and at this stage it would be inappropriate to comment further due to these ongoing discussions.”

Meanwhile, both Tualamali’i and ‘Ilolahia will continue their fight for an acknowledgement for what they regarded as a great evil that had occurred to many Pacific families.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It is clear and proper that New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is closely monitoring a concerning situation of deteriorating violence in West Papua.

It is also apparent that groups who have long monitored the security situation in West Papua have contacted the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, urging her to speak up against the violence and human rights abuses in the Indonesian-controlled state. I believe the Prime Minister should. Here’s why.

When considering the history of West Papua – the increasing violence; the enduring wish of its peoples for self-determination; the arrests on treason charges of those who seek a pathway toward independence; the intensifying concerns of its immediate neighbours Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and the states that make up the Melanesian Spearhead Group – it would be a brave but significant step should New Zealand also add its considerable weight behind a call for a multilateral-led resolution to the West Papua conflict.

New Zealand’s reputation as an honest-broker on global human rights issues, and the Prime Minister’s significant reputation for being able to identify common-ground, and, map out a way forward for parties with disparate interests, would provide significant leverage and resolution to a conflict that is at risk of becoming a human catastrophe.

Also, New Zealand is right, smack, in the middle of the Asia Pacific region. Despite Australia’s historical interests in Melanesia, this is New Zealand’s patch as well. Human rights abuses, conflicts, disorder within our region will impact on New Zealand in the future as they have in the past.

Take the Solomon Islands conflict in the early 2000s. The Melanesian state was descending into civil war. In 2003, I was in Townsville, at an Australian airforce base when the leaders of Melanesian and Polynesian states (including New Zealand’s Helen Clark and Australia’s John Howard) signed a non-aggression pact and sent armed forces to the Solomon Islands to help reestablish peace and progress.

The operation became known as RAMSI (Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands).

Under RAMSI, once order was restored in the Solomon Islands, the countries of this region helped the once chaotic state to establish good governance and government operations, and helped to establish a thriving civil society.

The merits of RAMSI can be seen today in how the Solomon Islands now functions as a progressing state and valuable member of the Pacific Islands Forum.

Regarding West Papua, New Zealand, and indeed the other nations of the region, ought not to permit a repeat of the violence that took hold of East Timor in 1999.

For years those advocating self-determination in East Timor were persecuted and killed by forces and militia loyal to Indonesia’s interests. In 1999 the crisis descended into massacre. In the end, it was estimated over 100,000 people were butchered in an unnecessary and preventable street-conflict.

At the time in 1999, New Zealand was hosting APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Co-Operation) leader’s summit. It was the end of the National Party’s run of government and Jenny Shipley was the prime minister. The government was determined to keep East Timor and its troubles off the APEC agenda. It refused to allow the massacre to be discussed at formal APEC meetings, that is, until the United States’ then president Bill Clinton and Japan’s then prime minister Keizō Obuchi demanded that a special meeting to discuss a multilateral response to the East Timor crisis be held.

While thousands of people were being massacred on the streets of East Timor’s capital, Dili, the leaders of APEC’s nations forged a consensus that became a pathway to peace.

Obuchi’s message to his Indonesian counterpart Habibie was as follows: “East Timor remains in a very difficult situation. But Japan has a good relationship with Indonesia. And Japan will continue to encourage Indonesia to take measures to bring East Timor back to a state of peace.”

He went further with diplo-speak akin to: ‘We are your friend Habibie, you know we are your friend. Afterall we provide you with $2 billion US in humanitarian aid [60 percent of the annual total]. We do not want to take that away from you, to do so will cause hardship throughout Asia, and only bring retaliatory consequences to all. So allow the international peacekeepers in to help you bring about peace. To do so is not an embarrassment. It is recognising the gesture of a friend. And to do so will prevent Japan from having to withdraw its aid to the people of Indonesia.” (ref. Scoop, Selwyn Manning, 1999)

The gesture was significant and began a process that led to East Timor becoming the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste – a self-determining independent state.

I argue here, that there is no need for Asia Pacific’s leaders to sit back and dispassionately observe a disturbing escalation of violence in West Papua.

Timor-Leste’s experience, as does RAMSI – the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands – provide examples of how leaders of a region, who have the willpower, can and do bring warring parties back from the brink of atrocity.

Jacinda Ardern has, for good reasons, obvious diplomatic credentials. She is seen as an honest broker on the world stage. A new generation leader. She is reacquainting New Zealand to a foreign policy that we were once proud of, that is as an independent Pacific Island state. The realignment is something to celebrate. With regard to West Papua, there is an opportunity to use it, and to do good for the people there, who are experiencing persecution and death for their ethnicity and for their political views.

It need not be so.

This week New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern concluded her first bilateral with China’s two top leaders President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang and ended with clear signals the two countries are poised to build on the $30billion two-way trade relationship.

But there was more to this bilateral meeting than simply New Zealand – a comparatively small South Pacific economy – solidifying a progressive trade relationship with a global economic superpower. There were significant signals given by both state leaders involving multilateralism and a vision for a non-fossil-fuel future.

For more on this, listen to Radio New Zealand’s The Panel where Selwyn Manning joined Verity Johnson and Wallace Chapman to discuss the NZ-PRC bilateral (On fossil fuels + NZ-PRC’s Relationship )

***

As Ardern said: “We also discussed our shared interest in strengthening the international rules-based order and on climate change, as an issue of global importance.” As such, both New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China indicated significant stances in foreign policy terms.

Firstly, the reference to “international rules-based order” appears a signal that New Zealand Government would support China in principle should it seek recourse through World Trade Organisation rules when countering any escalation of the United States/China trade war. The WTO, and other multilateral bodies such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, are central to New Zealand’s independent foreign policy. There’s consistency here. New Zealand simply cannot support the alternative, unilateralism, even when disestablishment threats against multilateral bodies are being pitched by New Zealand’s most significant security partner, the United States.

This is a diplomatic delicacy, a courageous statement, that Ardern was willing to deliver.

On numerous occasions this year United States’ President Donald Trump warned that his administration would abandon the WTO should it not reform and emerge with a trade-rules framework that embraces US trade interests. Trump’s threats also signalled how his Administration would track further toward isolationist-unilateralism should China object to any abuses to WTO rules and international trade law.

You can expect that the US Embassy was busy overnight filing its briefing to Washington DC.

Secondly, China included a gutsy clause in the NZ-China Joint Climate Change Statement that was issued by both Premier Li and Prime Minister Ardern after their meeting.

The PRC and NZ stated: “Both sides recognise the importance of the reform of fossil fuel subsidies, which will bring both economic and environmental benefits, thereby supporting their shared global commitment to sustainable development.”

The idea of abandoning fossil fuel subsidies was first advanced by Jacinda Ardern at her first APEC leaders’ summit shortly after becoming prime minister. There, at APEC, she argued on a panel consisting of herself and the vice chair of Exxon Mobil that fossil fuel subsidies ought to be abandoned – that governments should cease subsidising fossil fuel industries and channel their economies toward developing a future free of fossil fuel carbon emissions.

Clearly, the PRC heard her message and was ready to signal support for it as an ideal. This is a win for Ardern. It is also a respectful acknowledgement that the Asia Pacific’s economic superpower rates her as a significant leader on the global stage.

Additionally, the clause also indicates China – in a week where reliable PMI figures showed it in a very favourable space – that it is confident that its future lies less with the old technologies that assisted the development of today’s western economies and more with the new-tech solutions to global economic development.

The USA will be aware that this move signals that China sees itself as more advanced in the area of AI, machine learning, alternative energy transportation and development than its European and United States counterparts.

Ardern has demonstrated how important it is to meet with significant powers face to face. At such bilaterals, she can offer respect and determination while her counterparts observe her honest, trustworthy, progressive no-nonsense leadership in action.

New Zealand will be the beneficiary of this approach: Ardern said: “I also raised with President Xi the importance New Zealand places on upgrading and modernising our Free Trade Agreement with China – an ambition that he shared.”

Both states have agreed to progress our trade relationship well beyond the current record levels of two-way trade (currently at $30b per annum).

With Premier Li, Ardern said: “We discussed the FTA upgrade, and agreed to hold the next round of negotiations soon and to make joint efforts towards reaching an agreement as soon as possible.

“We also discussed China’s Belt and Road Initiative, noting that the Minister for Trade and Export Growth, David Parker, would lead a business delegation to the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing in April. This will help identify opportunities for mutually beneficial and transparent cooperation so we can complete a work plan as soon as possible.

“I reiterated to Premier Li that New Zealand welcomes all high quality foreign investment that will bring productive economic growth to our country.”

This latter point deserves some caution. China has expressed interest in furthering infrastructure investment within New Zealand – including investments that could be argued are contrary to New Zealand’s strategic interests, into the dairy and primary diversification sectors. While any New Zealand Government ought to proceed with caution here, if our diplomatic trade-negotiation team is buoyed by the country’s new leadership style, then perhaps mutual beneficial ventures can advance beyond a Joint Climate Change Statement.

PS: While in Beijing, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern also invited President Xi for a State visit to New Zealand as part of New Zealand’s hosting of APEC in 2021.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

This week might come to be seen as a turning point in New Zealand’s complex trading and political relations with China. Suddenly there is a very strong awareness of the deteriorating relations between the capitals of Wellington and Beijing. And although there is plenty of confusion and contention about the details, it’s clear that the Chinese Government has initiated a type of political blowback against New Zealand. This is based on what the Beijing government see as a betrayal by its formerly-close trading partner.

Three factors have been discussed this week as signalling that China has initiated a campaign of retaliation against New Zealand: 1) the sudden announcement that China is postponing the long-planned launch of tourism initiative in Wellington next week, 2) the mysterious turning back of an Air New Zealand flight to Shanghai in the weekend, and 3) the long-running inability of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to arrange a diplomatic visit to China.

The story about the postponement of the tourism launch was broken by Barry Soper on the frontpage of the Herald on Tuesday, explaining that: “The 2019 China-New Zealand Year of Tourism was meant to be launched with great fanfare at Wellington’s Te Papa museum next week, but that has been postponed by China” – see: China, New Zealand links sink to new low: PM Jacinda Ardern’s visit on hold, tourism project postponed.

In a second piece on Tuesday, Soper points out that the diplomatic explanations for the postponement aren’t credible: “the lame excuse from Wellington officials that there was a change of schedule. Given the Year was announced two years ago by the Key Government when the Chinese Premier visited here, Beijing’s had plenty of time to schedule it in” – see: NZ feeling the heat of the Chinese dragon.

This article also delves into the long-running difficulties that Ardern is having in getting an official visit agreed to by Beijing. Soper says: “The invitation for Jacinda Ardern to visit Beijing early this year’s been put on ice and all her talk at the end of last year about neither side being able to coordinate their diaries was baloney.”

In addition, Soper points to the third issue – the “turning back of the new Air New Zealand plane over the weekend, which was half way to Shanghai, because it wasn’t registered”. These three incidents illustrate, according to Soper that “New Zealand is feeling the heat of the Chinese dragon’s breath and if we’re not careful it could incinerate us.” He reports that “word from the Chinese capital is that retaliation is being worked on.”

And Soper points out that it’s easy to understand why the Chinese have become upset with New Zealand, after the Government here essentially decided late last year to ban the Chinese company Huawei from being involved in the new 5G telecommunications network.

I covered this at the time in my column, Huawei decision is the price of being in Five Eyes, pointing out that the decision was widely seen as fulfilling a US Government request to help it its geopolitical battle against China and Huawei. I predicted, “There is certainly going to be a cost for the ban… this country’s economic and diplomatic ties with the superpower of China will now be strained as a result.”

Of course, it wasn’t just the Huawei decision that soured relations with China – Wellington has been edging away from a close friendship with Beijing for a few years. This is all explained in a must-read column today by Victoria University of Wellington’s strategic studies specialist, Robert Ayson, who goes through the deterioration of the Wellington-Beijing relationship, saying that even under John Key “New Zealand was raising concerns about China’s behaviour in the South China Sea” and in return received some messages “suggesting that Wellington should stay quiet if it wanted an FTA upgrade” – see: New Zealand and China: time for clarity in a hall of mirrors.

According to Ayson, New Zealand’s criticisms of China have been increasing, especially with Ron Mark as Minister of Defence, and with the Government “calling out” China “for nefarious cyber activities”.

The Labour-led Government is still denying, or at least downplaying, the serious pushback that is now coming from Beijing. For the most recent examples of this, see Jo Moir’s news report, Winston Peters dismisses claims govt visits to China stalling.

The best quote in this story is from Shane Jones who declares: “I don’t think I’m one of these losery politicians that’s apparently not allowed to go to China, in fact I’m very popular with the Chinese – I think they see a kindred industrial spirit.” And David Parker is also reported as having visited China and seen no signs of trouble in the relationship.

But there’s clearly now a consensus amongst political commentators and journalists that the political blowback from China is real, many of who are complaining that the Prime Minister and Government are either failing to be upfront or else simply being delusional about the relationship.

Veteran political journalist Richard Harman reports that “the foreign affairs community” is certainly asking questions about China’s retaliation against New Zealand, and says diplomats and officials even see the incident with the Air New Zealand flight as evidence that the relationship has soured – see his column, Why was the AirNZ plane turned back?.

The suggestion is made that China is now cracking down “on technical infringements of its laws” when it comes to New Zealand exporters or the national carrier. In this regard he reports that Victoria University’s David Capie “suggested that what the incident showed was that New Zealand no longer had a special relationship with China. In other words, all things being equal previously, China would have found a way to let the plane land.”

China is prone to using this type of ambiguous retaliation, according to Newsroom’s Sam Sachdeva: “China has a history of operating with plausible deniability when it comes to meting out punishments” – see: NZ-China ‘scheduling issues‘ cause for concern.

Sachdeva reports, “One observer noted that blowback often begins with tourism numbers, moving onto international education before spreading to the wider trade and economic relationship – a script into which the postponement of the Year of Tourism launch sits uneasily.”

The problem, according to the New Zealand Herald, is that New Zealand appears to have chosen sides in the growing US-China rivalry – see the editorial: Has our govt antagonised China?. It points out that “it is not hard to see why China would have the impression this country is not the friend it used to be. The new Government’s ‘reset’ of policy towards the Pacific Islands is strongly tinged with support for the US and suspicion of China’s interests in the region.”

New Zealand observers in Beijing are also commenting on what’s going on. The most interesting is businessman David Mahon, who is interviewed by Liam Dann, saying that the decision to ban Huawei was “seen as a Five Eyes stitch up” and “a breach of trust” – see: NZ/China relationship: ‘We have a big problem’.

Mahon suggests that New Zealand had been building a much closer relationship with China for the last four decades, with the Chinese having huge respect for this country, but “In the last 12 months or so that has almost reversed. So there is now a very different view, almost an opposite view of New Zealand.”

There are real dangers of the China-NZ relationship getting much worse. Geopolitical and security analyst Paul Buchanan says that he’s now warning his clients against going to China due to risks to their safety as a result of what’s going on at the governmental level. On Newstalk ZB, Buchanan said “if you are a New Zealand resident in China, you need to be cognisant of the fact that there could be a knock on your door and you could be taken away on corruption charges or turpitude charges” – see: Kiwis warned over ‘hostage diplomacy’ from China.

Slowly but surely, the current government has engineered a major reorientation of foreign policy according to Audrey Young, who labels the Relationship with China a diplomatic mess. She complains that this “was never foreshadowed before the last election”.

The shift appears to lie with New Zealand First and Winston Peters: “Peters has been an irritant. A year ago Peters framed his Pacific Reset in terms of a response to counter China’s growing influence in the region, and he challenged China’s most important foreign policy strategy, the Belt and Road initiative. He ended the year with a speech in Washington, almost a love-letter to America, practically begging them to get more involved in the Pacific to counter China’s influence. A National Party Foreign Minister could not have made such a speech without being accused of wanting to rejoin Anzus.”

According to Young, the onus is now on the Government, and the Prime Minister, to fix the deterioration. They need to “to take a lot more care in preserving the relationship New Zealand had and to be less cavalier.”

Similarly, the Prime Minister needs to sort out her long-promised trip to Beijing, according to economics journalist Hamish Rutherford – see: Until Jacinda Ardern visits China, questions about the relationship will only deepen.

Rutherford discusses the on-again-off-again trip: “Ardern is left trotting out the line that this is a scheduling issue, and the only thing keeping her from an official visit is scheduling clashes. This has been the case for some time; journalists were asked to prepare for a trip in December, however this was abruptly cancelled. The longer the situation goes on, the more it appears that the excuse that the problems are caused by scheduling issues are simply a subtle diplomatic slap. For weeks there have been rumours that officials at the Chinese Embassy have warned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that the trip is not happening until other issues are resolved, something Mfat denies.”

Herald business editor Fran O’Sullivan is also calling for the Government to quickly fix the problems – see: Chinese relations must get back on track. Her suggestion, however, is that the “postponed” tourism event needs to be sorted out by the Minister of Tourism Kelvin Davis getting “on the first plane up to China to sort out the debacle”.

But perhaps it’s the Minister of Foreign Affairs that needs to be sorted out. Richard Harman suggests that this might already be happening: “The Prime Minister appeared yesterday to deliver a subtle message to Foreign Minister Winston Peters telling him, she, not him, ran foreign policy. This contrasts with her admission last year that she had not read a speech he gave in Washington directly criticising China and calling for more American involvement in the Pacific” – see: Ardern takes the lead on China.

Could Peters even be shifted on from his portfolio, in order to satisfy the Chinese? It seems unlikely, but that’s the hint that security specialist Robert Ayson is making when he says that fixing the NZ-China relations “may also mean a change in the pecking order within the politburo in Wellington.”

Ayson’s column, cited above, also has plenty of other suggestions for how the mess might be fixed – and these include providing the Chinese government with greater clarity about the Huawei decision, showing that New Zealand is not simply “a willing member of a new Cold War”, stop cosying up to the US, and pull back from Winston Peters’ anti-China Pacific Reset strategy.

Finally, last month Matthew Hooton wrote an important and prescient column about New Zealand’s changing relationship with China and US, and this is well worth reading as background for what is happening now – see: Is Jacinda Ardern on board with the Winston Peters Reset?.

While controversy dogged Nauru’s detention of TVNZ Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver during the Pacific Islands Forum earlier this month, some critics question how the reporting “overshadowed” climate change and other critical Pacific issues.

New Zealand journalists have expressed their outrage against the holding of Dreaver during the summit, but Massey University’s Pasifika director Associate Professor Malakai Koloamatangi says reporting of important issues discussed at the forum was sidelined by attention focused on media freedom.

“Because of what happened to Barbara Dreaver, and the lack of access to refugees, it was kind of a distraction and it detracted from maybe covering the main business at the forum,” he says.

READ MORE: Barbara Dreaver: Mana counts in the Pacific

Dr Koloamatangi says issues such as climate change, regional security, immigration and trade are significant concerns for the Pacific and the forum.

However, these issues had been “outmatched by the spotlight” on Dreaver and Nauru’s refugee camps.

“The refugee issue is probably not as important in the Pacific as it is in New Zealand and Australia, that’s really the reality of the situation.

People here and Australia have a lot of time to be concerned about the refugees in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, but unfortunately for Pacific Islanders themselves there are other pressing issues like poverty and domestic violence, third world diseases and so on that they are probably more concerned about.”

Highly sensitive
Dr Koloamatangi says the refugee issue is a highly sensitive one for Nauru.

He says he does not condone limiting press freedom, but it is a sensitive and complicated issue which needs to be looked at from many points of view.

“All journalists need to be respectful of the laws and regulations of the countries where they work…but on the other hand you have people who have decided that this is the way they’re going to work, regardless of the fact that they will be punished by the law.

“Some of them have been to prison, so it’s a choice.

“Obviously when Barbara decided not to follow the directions given by the Nauruan government she was obviously taking a risk, and with risk come possibilities of penalties and punishment…but it’s what makes her the quality journalist that she is.”

Nauru issued a statement explaining Dreaver’s detention by police, saying her accreditation and access for the Pacific Islands Forum had been revoked due to a breach in visa terms, but was reinstated the next day.

Dreaver said the interview she held with a refugee was outside a restaurant, not inside a camp.

Detained three hours
However during the interview she said she was questioned by police and held at a police station for three hours for breaching her visa.

“I was under the impression, and I know, we were allowed to talk to refugees. I think it probably shows that things are a wee but sensitive here. In fact, a lot sensitive.”

Nauru’s statement said the government expected media to portray the detention of Dreaver as preventing press freedom.

“We have only asked for co-operation from the media in order to preserve public safety, and this is not unreasonable.”

Nauru President Baron Waqa said media attending the forum were not interested issues in the Pacific – only issues for their own nations and they should have had a stronger focus on the forum.

“How many leaders here? But we’re having to deal with these other issues which do not even touch on the concerns of the Pacific and the rest of the leaders. It disappoints us,” he said.

“Don’t tell me about refugees being an issue. How can it be an issue for Tonga, for Kiribati? No, it’s an issue for Australia and for all those refugee advocates out there.”

‘Selling news’
President Waqa said journalists were invited and came to Nauru to report on the forum but chose to report on other issues on the island.

He said the “media are impressing your will on us” and “sell our news”.

However, Radio New Zealand journalist Gia Garrick, who reported on the forum, rejected the President’s statement.

“Sell the stories? For money? Well, being part of [public broadcaster] RNZ I would completely refute that.

“It’s kind of a double standard from the President because on the first day he invited journalists to go and talk to refugees in the community, saying things along the lines of the refugees here live harmoniously, they live in the community, we’re not going to stop access to them, we invite you to talk to them and you’re more than welcome.”

A journalist who attended the forum provided Pacific Media Centre with the guidelines issued to journalists covering the event which states:

“You are only authorised to report on, or take photos or videos of, the PIF (Pacific Islands Forum). Any other subjects must be approved by the RON (Republic of Nauru).”

Mixed messages
Garrick said journalists were sent mixed messages from the get go because guidelines were vague and as the refugee situation was raised at the forum it was not clear what the restrictions were.

“There was no way a set of very vague visa guidelines and a direction from the media person was going to stop us from reporting the story.

“We still covered the forum as we would previous years, but there was also the matter of the refugees, the 900 refugees that they were keeping in detention centres on the island.”

New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFAT) supported Dreaver after her detention by Nauru police, stating in a release that her detention was unacceptable.

MFAT spokesperson Todd McClay said: “Freedom of the press is a fundamental part of any democracy and journalists must be free to tell important stories.”

Union E Tū, stood by the TVNZ Pacific correspondent, welcoming the support shown by MFAT, while challenging Australia for its alleged role in her detention.

“This is a story of huge public interest to audiences across the world and Barbara did not shy away from tackling it, even though it has always been clear authorities in both Nauru and Australia are not keen on a light being shone on the issue, E Tū said.

“While Barbara was detained by Nauru police, Australia too must take some responsibility for this attack on press freedom.”

Maxine Jacobs is a postgraduate student journalist on the Asia Pacific Journalism Studies course at AUT University.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz