GLOBAL INTERESTS, GLOBAL ROLE FOR NEW ZEALAND

• The core international institutions date back to the 1940s. The world has changed dramatically since that time. Most colonies have made the transition to independence. Four decades of Cold War came to an end with the break-up of the Soviet Union. The past two decades have seen the democratisation of many societies that previously had authoritarian governments of the right or the left - in Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia.

• Looking at key global players we see a much more diverse picture. The US remains the pre-eminent economic, commercial and military power. But it no longer commands the "leader of the free world" loyalties it enjoyed during the Cold War. A united and expanding European community is seeking a larger international role. The Asian economies, notwithstanding the 1997-98 downturn, have become a dynamic factor in global growth. Latin American economies are heading in a similar direction. China and India are demonstrating their giant potential. Russia faces a gulf between aspirations and resources.

New forces are shaping global economic development

• Over several generations we have also seen the transformation of the global economy. The command economies have largely collapsed. Market models of various kinds now prevail. Global capital markets operate in a giant free-for-all that would never have been possible under the Bretton Woods system. There has been revolutionary change in the economics of transportation and travel, especially by air.

• And now the new economy is emerging on the back of the information revolution. The focus of trade is gradually shifting from goods to services. The knowledge economy is driving business development and wealth creation. Multinational corporate structures are a feature of globalisation. Skills and labour are becoming more mobile. National boundaries are becoming less significant as we enter the electronic commerce era.

New-generation relationships between states are being developed

• Regionalism is a phenomenon of the late 20th century. Agreements such as CER and the EU treaties have meant much more intimate relationships between member states and a blurring of the divide between domestic and external policies. Diplomats increasingly have to think domestically. The pressures of globalisation are nudging modern economies further in this direction.

The multilateral rules-based system has been extensively developed

• New Zealand has since the end of World War II actively supported the development of multilateral institutions which give small states an international voice (and vote) and promote the rule of international law. These institutions are not completely robust: they depend on preserving the consensus on liberal values and the duties of international citizenship. But they do provide important safeguards for the interests of New Zealand and other small states. New Zealand has played a part out of proportion to its size and established a track record of activism and creative involvement.

Civil society is questioning globalisation

• Nations of all sizes have made binding treaty commitments in areas such as trade, environment, labour and human rights on the basis that they serve the greater national good. But there are challenges to some of these institutions, notably from parts of civil society concerned at the impact of globalisation, the loss of "sovereignty" and the influence of multinational business.

Threats to the multilateral system do exist

• The trend has been for greater international engagement and for steady development of institutions. It has been based on a growing recognition that an internationalist approach serves the wider national interest. Internationalism has delivered immense benefits. But the trend is not irreversible. Contrary pressures - such as historical, religious and ethnic antagonism, great power status or aspirations, or a sense of insecurity - could combine to undermine them. Such pressures are particularly visible in the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, East Asia and South Asia. The great powers still have unilateralist habits. Rogue states and the proliferation of nuclear and other technologies present special risks.

Conflict increasingly occurs within rather than between states

• Modern conflicts are typically within states rather than between states. In such cases there is tension between the need to maintain international peace and security and the UN principle of respect for the territorial integrity and political independence of member states.

There is a continuing gulf between the haves and the have nots

• Poverty remains the great global challenge. More than a fifth of the world's people live in extreme poverty, while many more subsist outside the modern economy. This usually means living without the other basic human rights and freedoms we take for granted in New Zealand. Conflict and violence are typically associated with lack of economic and social development.

New Zealand security policy: factoring in global interests

The principles, obligations and legal framework set out in the United Nations Charter remain fundamental elements in New Zealand foreign policy.

The Charter brings together commitments to fundamental human rights, the rule of international law, social progress, friendly and peaceful co-existence and united effort to maintain international peace and security.

• The United Nations was set up in 1945 in order to:
  • promote international peace and security ("save succeeding generations from the scourge of war");

  • reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person;

  • promote respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law (respect for the 'rule of law'), and

  • promote social progress and better standards of living.

• New Zealand's interests continue to be served by active participation in the United Nations and other institutions in the multilateral system. International legal principles are of fundamental importance to us and other members of the global community. So too are commitments to collective efforts to maintain peace and security and to secure respect for human rights.

• Among the obligations members accept are those relating to pacific settlement of disputes (Chapter VI) and action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression (Chapter VII).

There will continue to be moral, legal and practical dilemmas to be faced in the area of international security

• Use of military force, even with the backing of a formal UN Security Council resolution, will always involve difficult political and moral judgments. There are high risks and high costs in any initiative carrying the risk of bloodshed. There can also be difficulties with decisions not to become involved.

• Sanctions, under Article 41 of the Charter, have been increasingly used in response to threats to international peace and security in recent years, but have had a limited record of success. New Zealand recognises them as a legitimate instrument, but has drawn attention to deficiencies in their application and also to the unintended harm they can inflict on innocent civilians and neighbouring countries. The Security Council needs to develop "smarter sanctions", more targeted at the regimes and elites for whom they are intended; and it needs to overhaul procedures for approving humanitarian exemptions.

But we can and should help keep the peace

• There are few things as fundamental for New Zealand foreign policy as a commitment to help keep the peace. Parts of the world are still torn by violence. This means loss of life or a life of misery for far too many. Violence on this scale offends deeply held New Zealand values. As a country committed to act against abuses of basic human rights we have an obligation to play our part in preventing or resolving conflicts within or between states.

New Zealand's contribution as a good international citizen has been disproportionately large

• New Zealand's contribution has been out of proportion to its size. The combination of solid principles, independence, activism, constructive approach and professionalism has left us in good standing. Our record in peacekeeping is particularly strong.

We shall want to maintain the option of making a contribution to United Nations or other collective responses to crises

• Military force is not the method of choice. We shall always prefer to use peaceful means to respond to conflict in keeping with the principles of the UN Charter and fundamental New Zealand values. But collective military responses may, in some cases, prove to be the best (or least bad) option. In that event New Zealand governments will want to have available capabilities which are relevant, deployable, supportable - and which minimise risks to New Zealand forces. There will be a high threshold for any question of participation in operations involving risk of combat.

Contributions to UN or other coalition operations will remain a primary NZDF role

• In the absence of a direct threat to New Zealand's security it is likely that contributions to collective security efforts (including peacekeeping) under UN auspices will remain a primary role for the NZDF - and a principal point of reference for development of NZDF structure and capabilities.

PREVIOUS | CONTENTS | NEXT