theangle.org

NZ Parliament Buildings. Credit Alexander Efimov

By Alex Schlotzer

New Zealand is far better placed to be a stronger regional partner, or “peacekeeper” (or even “sheriff”) than Australia.

Some will decry me as being “un-Australian” or worse but in my humble opinion our neighbours from across the ditch are in a superior position to exercise successful regional diplomacy than Australia. While there’s a very healthy (if not bordering on obsessive) rivalry between our nations, this is one area the Kiwis easily trump us.

But what could move me to suggest such heresy, to commit such treasonous words to paper (ok…not paper but you know what I mean)?

Firstly, New Zealand has never been seen by the region as being a stooge of the United States of America. Sure NZ is another “western” nation but they are not nearly as vocal about their relationship with the US, nor are they seen as being as close to Washington as Australia. They’ve been in some major scrapes with us and other western nations over the years but never to the same extent. (Admittedly they’ve never had the military muscle to be major supporters in joint efforts.)

However, more importantly it is the fact that New Zealand is not seen or regarded as being the “white” nation in the Pacific and Oceanic region.  Australia, on the other hand, is often portrayed as being out of place and out of touch with the rest of the region, and accordingly is regarded with some suspicion by various countries (their leaders at any rate).  This also depends on which political party (and leader) is in government in Australia.

Secondly, they take much more concerted efforts to work with other countries in our region. Again due to lacking a military-industrial complex, NZ has had to adopt non-violent diplomatic measures through calm negotiations.  Australia, particularly under former Prime Minister, John Howard, had a propensity to deploy military and police forces to regional “hot spots” rather than first seek more diplomatic outcomes.  Here too, this contributes to Australia’s regional perception of being out of place and out of touch and adds to the suspicion other countries have of Australia.

By demonstrating a willingness to take unilateral military action against other countries, Australia has clearly made itself untrustworthy.

New Zealand on the other hand has illustrated their efforts to provide humanitarian aid and support. As well as this kind of aid, the country has also attempted more often to seek diplomatic outcomes to potentially explosive situations.

Thirdly, New Zealand, unlike Australia, has a treaty with its Indigenous peoples. Sure this treaty may not be perfect and some could argue quite reasonably that it is a sham; with little real commitment from New Zealand’s governments.  However, the fact that an official, signed treaty has been established with the Maori, and study of their language is included in education curricula as well as place names, is well regarded regionally.

The relationship between Government and the Maori people further enhances New Zealand’s image as one of being willing to engage in reconciliation and consultation.  New Zealand has also  illustrated a genuine openness in their engagement with their regional neighbours.  Of course this can’t be said for rugby union matches but that is an entirely different story!

What this short list does highlight is that when it comes to regional diplomacy, it really is about trust and respect.  Perhaps the relationship with the region during Howard’s stewardship was more strained than normal; and why it gives me the illusion of Australia’s regional position being more fraught than it should be. It does not seem to me that this position is getting any better; or worse for that matter.

Our current Prime Minister is a man of the global stage. However the more recent issue of “boat people” and the so-called “Indonesian solution,” demonstrated that Australia is still viewed with suspicion by some in Indonesia’s legislature, despite the president claiming to be a “pro-Australian” leader. [Read more here about my thoughts on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's (SBY) second term].

However this is not the only example with our relations with Fiji (both pre and post military coup) being strained. Australia’s heavy-handed reputation in some regions like Bougainville and mainland Papua New Guinea demonstrates how we continue to suffer a poor image regionally.

To conclude, New Zealand, being a smaller country without the military muscle regionally, relies on diplomacy and conciliation to achieve outcomes. And without a significant military industrial complex, New Zealand is not necessarily considered a military threat and viewed with less suspicion; while Australia remains more of a military threat regionally.

I’ve made the case as to why I think New Zealand is a better regional peace keeper.  But I’d like to know what do you think; is Australia or New Zealand a better regional peace keeper?

Alex Schlotzer is a straight talker when it comes to politics and loves to vent his spleen. He is actively involved in Australian and international politics with a keen understanding of the dynamics of the political machine. Alex has a prolific online presence and has been a cyber activist for over 15 years. He can also be found at his blog and his exciting online project Australian Politics TV.

Related Posts:

• What Lies Ahead for the Gillard Government?
• Coalition Circus Hits Town
• Top Three Reasons for Activists to Invest in an iPhone
• Resources: Picture Sharing Tools for Activists and Reporters
• MICF Review: Damian Callinan’s ‘The Merger: Sportsman’s Night 2′
• Alex Schlotzer at ‘Share the Spirit’
• Opposition in a Special Kind of Wilderness
• The state of electronic civil disobedience in Australia: 2010
• Altona By-election Brief
• How Conroy Has Won on Mandatory Internet Filtering