NZDF General discussion thread

[Stuart M]

Just a quick note that the ABC is reporting that the Chinese Pacific Agreement has been "shelved"for now. Not a lot of detail as yet but a very intersting development.

True

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/china-fails-to-ink-security-pact-with-pacific-nations/news-story/7663e5465f36a1f5bce9c5fad76e2407

Talks between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and 10 Pacific Island nations failed to reach an agreement on a wide-ranging security deal Monday, after sharp warnings the proposal would push the region into “Beijing’s orbit”.
A virtual summit of leaders and foreign ministers was expected to discuss proposals to radically increase China’s involvement in the security, economy and politics of the South Pacific.

But the effort appeared to have fallen short after some regional leaders voiced deep concern.

“As always, we put consensus first,” co-host and Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama said after the meeting, indicating that broad agreement would be needed before inking any “new regional agreements”.

The CCP have settled for memorandums of understanding about BRI deals.

I get two feelings about this: first that BRI understandings was what they expected and anything more was a bonus.
Second that they strutted in with a rather presumptuous expectation that the PI,'s would fall over themselves to sign what ever was put in front of them, and got a bucket of cold water for their trouble and the MofU being the face saver.

The historian's will probably tell us in due course want did happen.

 

[Wombat000]

I appreciate that ‘I’m singing to the choir’:
NZs existence as a self determining entity relies on stability of the SW pacific.

there is no accident that the CCP moved as it did.

Bandaids and cuddles are nice but won’t cut it, even if it’s by a plane or a ship load.
We are not in benign ‘Kansas’ anymore.

NZ needs to wake from its coma.
Aust needs to actually expect more!
The US needs to re-adjust accordingly.

 

[Gooey]

Interview on Youtube, for the geographically interrupted.

NZ must invest in military to counter China: Analyst | Q+A 2022 - YouTube

Thanks for the utube Q&A Stu. Tick, v good

 

[ngatimozart]

Prof Anne-Marie Brady on the PRC FM Pacific Island blitz and what it means for NZ. She's quite blunt.

 

[Stuart M]

NZ 'not defined' by China over Pacific relationships, Nanaia Mahuta says | Stuff.co.nz

“But we don’t have to rush into these things because the foundation of our relationship with the Pacific is very strong.

“We don’t take the relationship with the Pacific for granted at all. We have a very different approach, and we are not defined by China and the way that they are conducting their relationship,” Mahuta said.

“In fact, we’ve built our relationship over a long period of time with the Pacific... We don’t need to react in a way that makes us look desperate about the relationship.

So aside from blandishments from Arderns White House meeting with Biden, on top of the recent budget allocation for Defence, and if we include the Foreign ministers response, what is NZs actual response to China's diplomatic activities in the Pacific?

In functional terms; absolutely nothing.

 

[recce.k1]

NZ 'not defined' by China over Pacific relationships, Nanaia Mahuta says | Stuff.co.nz



So aside from blandishments from Arderns White House meeting with Biden, on top of the recent budget allocation for Defence, and if we include the Foreign ministers response, what is NZs actual response to China's diplomatic activities in the Pacific?

In functional terms; absolutely nothing.

You got to look at the layers Stu!

Through the "lens" of the "euro-centric" MSM at the top layer, nothing much seems to be happening ("Mahuta is doing nothing" etc)!

But look through the "lens" at the understated layer of underlying cultural affiliations, affinity and relationships, presumably Mahuta and her Pacific counterparts are in lock step what needs to be done and what the priorities are. I think this is playing out with Fiji's statement by Frank Bainimarama on Monday and then the Cook Islands former PM and current PIF SG Henry Puna a day or so ago, and recent comments by Samoa's PM Fiame Naomi Mata'afa also in the last day or so.

They are laying out dialogue on these issues (particularly the CCP's "Security" agreements) needs to be done on a consensus basis, rather than have individual states put under pressure, they have "politely" pointed this out in their statements which is also a message to the CCP Foreign Minister. Mahuta is essentially saying the same thing. The PIF forum is the place to do so and we will have to see what eventuates.

They are also saying they actually have other priorities (rather than CCP "Security" agreements). They will say these things "politely" (rather than aggressively).

And for balance they are saying all this to all major powers, not just the CCP, it could also be directed to say the US (or even NZ if we were to up ante, somehow, of course), take for instance even the AUKUS agreement which is actually somewhat contentious (eg lack of Aus. Govt consultation at the time). And now the CCP wants to sign them up to a "security" agreement for their own benefit? Yeah/Nah as we say colloquially!

I see Aust. Foreign Minister Wong is now traveling to Samoa and Tonga. As long as she doesn't come across as "demanding" and is willing to listen, which she reportedly handled matters rather well when she successfully visited Fiji, she should be right and Australian concerns will be listened to carefully!

Perception wise, should Mahuta be seen to be doing more? Yes of course, alot more, but she is probably correct that Aust FM Wong needs to build up relationships being new to the scene so to speak, perhaps she figures it is best to stand back from the limelight for a while? If so hopefully not for too long of course!

 

[ngatimozart]

NZ 'not defined' by China over Pacific relationships, Nanaia Mahuta says | Stuff.co.nz

So aside from blandishments from Arderns White House meeting with Biden, on top of the recent budget allocation for Defence, and if we include the Foreign ministers response, what is NZs actual response to China's diplomatic activities in the Pacific?

In functional terms; absolutely nothing.

In AMB's interview in the video in my post above, she compared the current CCP / PRC push in the region to the Imperial Japanese Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere which I hadn't actually looked at the current CCP / PRC strategy in those terms but I think is the appropriate analogy. I just don't understand Mahuta's approach in this because any FM worth their salt would be all over this like a rash, but she's not. This is the greatest threat to NZ's security in 80 years but she does next to nothing. It certainly doesn't help when a previous PM puts pronouncements like these out Sir John Key calls on Government to work with China in the Pacific instead of trying to get rid of them | Newshub. Kind of reminds me of Neville Chamberlain an his appeasement policy; that worked great. I am highly suspicious of Key's motivation because he's always been a PRC fanboi WRT trade over all else. This illustrates the problem because on one hand we have a government that is keen on making announcements about announcements and doing little in action; and a former PM who's a trade addict and PRC fanboi terrified of upsetting them because he'll lose money one way or the other. The consequence of all this is that NZ will suffer, probably significantly more than it did during the 1941 - 45 period.

On another note this is a link to the POTUS - NZPM Joint Statement. I have copied the part of it that pertains to this conversation:

"We are concerned with growing strategic competition in the Pacific region, which threatens to undermine existing institutions and arrangements that underpin the region’s security. The United States acknowledged that Pacific Islands Forum Members have a strong commitment to support one another to meet the broader ambitions for the region’s security, as set out in the Biketawa Declaration and Boe Declaration. We recognize that Pacific Islands Forum Members have worked hard together to meet one another’s security needs, and today have the capacity and commitment to continue doing so. In this regard, 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.​

​

A freer and more open Indo-Pacific depends on preserving the international rules-based order in the maritime domain. To that end, we reaffirm our support for freedom of navigation and overflight, in the South China Sea and beyond, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). We oppose unlawful maritime claims and activities in the South China Sea that run counter to the rules-based international order, particularly UNCLOS. We reiterate our grave concerns regarding the human-rights violations in Xinjiang, and the erosion of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, which undermines the high degree of autonomy enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. We underscore the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and encourage the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues."​

Note: I have added the hyperlinks for the Biketawa and Boe Declarations.​

Pretty much run of the mill but still nails NZ colours to the mast. Definitely won't please Beijing.

 

[Stuart M]

You got to look at the layers Stu!

Through the "lens" of the "euro-centric" MSM at the top layer, nothing much seems to be happening ("Mahuta is doing nothing" etc)!

But look through the "lens" at the understated layer of underlying cultural affiliations, affinity and relationships, presumably Mahuta and her Pacific counterparts are in lock step what needs to be done and what the priorities are. I think this is playing out with Fiji's statement by Frank Bainimarama on Monday and then the Cook Islands former PM and current PIF SG Henry Puna a day or so ago, and recent comments by Samoa's PM Fiame Naomi Mata'afa also in the last day or so.

They are laying out dialogue on these issues (particularly the CCP's "Security" agreements) needs to be done on a consensus basis, rather than have individual states put under pressure, they have "politely" pointed this out in their statements which is also a message to the CCP Foreign Minister. Mahuta is essentially saying the same thing. The PIF forum is the place to do so and we will have to see what eventuates.

They are also saying they actually have other priorities (rather than CCP "Security" agreements). They will say these things "politely" (rather than aggressively).

And for balance they are saying all this to all major powers, not just the CCP, it could also be directed to say the US (or even NZ if we were to up ante, somehow, of course), take for instance even the AUKUS agreement which is actually somewhat contentious (eg lack of Aus. Govt consultation at the time). And now the CCP wants to sign them up to a "security" agreement for their own benefit? Yeah/Nah as we say colloquially!

I see Aust. Foreign Minister Wong is now traveling to Samoa and Tonga. As long as she doesn't come across as "demanding" and is willing to listen, which she reportedly handled matters rather well when she successfully visited Fiji, she should be right and Australian concerns will be listened to carefully!

Perception wise, should Mahuta be seen to be doing more? Yes of course, alot more, but she is probably correct that Aust FM Wong needs to build up relationships being new to the scene so to speak, perhaps she figures it is best to stand back from the limelight for a while? If so hopefully not for too long of course!

*looks at Solomon Islands CCP agreement*

Not achieved overnight and apparently there was a l$t of encouragement despite large amounts of domestic opposition. Its entirely possible they are just angling for a better deal.
I am afraid that I don't have as much faith as you do in Pacific Island consensus decision making inso far as its decisions will be in NZs interest, especially when one considers the relative neglect of these nations by Australia and NZ both, and a frankly rather paternalistic attitude over the course of history.

 

[Stuart M]

In AMB's interview in the video in my post above, she compared the current CCP / PRC push in the region to the Imperial Japanese Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere which I hadn't actually looked at the current CCP / PRC strategy in those terms but I think is the appropriate analogy. I just don't understand Mahuta's approach in this because any FM worth their salt would be all over this like a rash, but she's not. This is the greatest threat to NZ's security in 80 years but she does next to nothing. It certainly doesn't help when a previous PM puts pronouncements like these out Sir John Key calls on Government to work with China in the Pacific instead of trying to get rid of them | Newshub. Kind of reminds me of Neville Chamberlain an his appeasement policy; that worked great. I am highly suspicious of Key's motivation because he's always been a PRC fanboi WRT trade over all else. This illustrates the problem because on one hand we have a government that is keen on making announcements about announcements and doing little in action; and a former PM who's a trade addict and PRC fanboi terrified of upsetting them because he'll lose money one way or the other. The consequence of all this is that NZ will suffer, probably significantly more than it did during the 1941 - 45 period.

No disagreement from me on that one, but see below.

On another note this is a link to the POTUS - NZPM Joint Statement. I have copied the part of it that pertains to this conversation:

"We are concerned with growing strategic competition in the Pacific region, which threatens to undermine existing institutions and arrangements that underpin the region’s security. The United States acknowledged that Pacific Islands Forum Members have a strong commitment to support one another to meet the broader ambitions for the region’s security, as set out in the Biketawa Declaration and Boe Declaration. We recognize that Pacific Islands Forum Members have worked hard together to meet one another’s security needs, and today have the capacity and commitment to continue doing so. In this regard, 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.​

​

A freer and more open Indo-Pacific depends on preserving the international rules-based order in the maritime domain. To that end, we reaffirm our support for freedom of navigation and overflight, in the South China Sea and beyond, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). We oppose unlawful maritime claims and activities in the South China Sea that run counter to the rules-based international order, particularly UNCLOS. We reiterate our grave concerns regarding the human-rights violations in Xinjiang, and the erosion of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, which undermines the high degree of autonomy enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. We underscore the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and encourage the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues."​

Note: I have added the hyperlinks for the Biketawa and Boe Declarations.​

Pretty much run of the mill but still nails NZ colours to the mast. Definitely won't please Beijing.

But it won't totally displease them as NZ has not, in any way shape or form, begun to do anything to kinetically oppose the CCP, for example buy more P8s or bring forward frigate replacement with more, and more capable, ships . It can be said to have jumped into a US led trade agreement, but that can be dismissed as standard NZ commercial opportunism as a small nation.

And this will be keenly noticed.

So if you look at what Mahuta has said and done, lack of rearmament and the Ardern/Biden media release plus comments by Key and others like him from across the political spectrum, it just looks like more feathers on the peacock of NZ fence sitting.

So, were I the CCP bod in Wellington, my weekly report to the Emperor could very well read that NZ civil and political establishment has not fundamentally changed its position, despite more flowery language to appease minor sections of the polity and to mute objections from Canberra/Washington. Wellington continues to defacto support CCPs efforts to bring win-win development and cooperation to the relevant nations of the Pacific.

 

[recce.k1]

*looks at Solomon Islands CCP agreement*

Not achieved overnight and apparently there was a l$t of encouragement despite large amounts of domestic opposition. Its entirely possible they are just angling for a better deal.
I am afraid that I don't have as much faith as you do in Pacific Island consensus decision making inso far as its decisions will be in NZs interest, especially when one considers the relative neglect of these nations by Australia and NZ both, and a frankly rather paternalistic attitude over the course of history.

RE: *looks at Solomon Islands CCP agreement*
Sure I agree with you 100% on that one. I think it's fair to say the perception is PM Sogavare is motivated by what appears to be a self-interest, also ambitions of prestige for the Solomon Islands within the wider region and prestige for himself as the person who delivered this (with CCP backing of course). But his particular security deal wasn't replicated by the CCP in their recent bid to have ten other nations sign up to their latest proposals.

In terms of not having much faith in PI consensus decision making etc, we will have to see what plays out in the next month or so (sure there could be one or two nations that take a different path). But since the Solomons deal, and to rehash an earlier post on the Polynesia thread, now that the PI Forum are better understanding what the CCP are up to they have said (of them):

In saying so, being a Forum Dialogue Partner is not without its own expectations and responsibilities – chief among which, is to nurture a relationship that is respectful of our shared values, built on joint collaboration and partnership, works with and through our regional mechanisms and progresses mutually agreed priorities.

REMARKS: SG Puna to 2nd China-Pacific Foreign Ministers Meeting – Pacific Islands Forum

www.forumsec.org

But the signs so far are positive. So far the CCP Policing and Cyber Security agreements haven't been signed. Which is a sign of failure by the CCP.

Looking at what the experts are saying (I hadn't read these when I posted earlier, as I would have quoted them then etc).

From a paywalled NZ Herald article quoting University of Canterbury's Professor Anne-Marie Brady:

Brady said China's recent diplomatic push into the Pacific was beginning to look like an act of hubris, particularly after it failed to get Pacific island nations onboard with a cooperation agreement, which leaked last month, while Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was touring the region.

"The Xi government's strategic overreach in the Pacific is turning into a diplomatic failure. They don't want the Chinese public to be raising questions about the failure of BRI [the Belt and Road Initiative - President Xi's key foreign policy platform].

"The Wang Yi trip to the Pacific has been a disaster for China. Almost every Pacific state he has visited has politely rebuffed the plan to create a cross-Pacific security agreement led by China that excluded New Zealand and Australia," Brady said.

Analysis: Experts react as China lashes out at New Zealand

China experts think officials went soft on New Zealand after Ardern's US visit.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Also from a tweet by Prof. AMB earlier this morning:
"Wang Yi visit to Vanuatu: 5 agreements on cooperation economy, technology, health & blue economy--but not security. "

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532025831907893248

And from a Lowly Institute article on how Australia engages with the Pacific Island nations to gain their support, it aligns with what I've been saying the key is to listen to their concerns and their priorities and work with them. So far Australia it seems is doing really good. From the article lots of good quotes, here are some:

Australia should not compete with China’s resources in a zero-sum game because it would backfire. Australia and Pacific Islands countries should not share security priorities because the relative weighting will be different. Pacific Islands countries emphasise security threats including climate change or illegal fishing. As Fiji’s Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama argued, “Geopolitical point-scoring means less than little to anyone whose community is slipping beneath the rising seas”. Pacific Islands countries have expressed a determination not to be “dragged” into a geostrategic competition.

By eyeing the Pacific as a competitive backyard, or by emphasising the prospect of Chinese financed dual-use infrastructure ports or fishing fleets for grey zone activity, Australia would only undermine how successfully its policies respond to interests of different Pacific Islands countries – and would overlook that Pacific Islands countries are not “passive dupes” and can leverage Australia-China geopolitics to their advantage.

Australia should instead take deliberate steps to understand, and act on the security priorities of Pacific Islands countries in ways that achieve true partnership. Equally, Australia should actively promote Pacific regionalism, cohesion, co-operation, and solidarity.

Competing with China in the Pacific will backfire | Lowy Institute

Co-operation, not competition, provides the best chance for Australia to enhance ties with Pacific Island countries.

www.lowyinstitute.org

In terms of "paternalistic attitude over the course of history" etc, sure there will be some PI and/or influencers that think like that but we have those sorts in NZ and Aust too (think "Green type parties, and marxist has been's" etc). Overall though the PI Forum leadership will look past that and look forward to what Aust and NZ can do to support their concerns and ambitions which so far is looking fairly good!

 

[ngatimozart]

No disagreement from me on that one, but see below.



But it won't totally displease them as NZ has not, in any way shape or form, begun to do anything to kinetically oppose the CCP, for example buy more P8s or bring forward frigate replacement with more, and more capable, ships . It can be said to have jumped into a US led trade agreement, but that can be dismissed as standard NZ commercial opportunism as a small nation.

And this will be keenly noticed.

So if you look at what Mahuta has said and done, lack of rearmament and the Ardern/Biden media release plus comments by Key and others like him from across the political spectrum, it just looks like more feathers on the peacock of NZ fence sitting.

So, were I the CCP bod in Wellington, my weekly report to the Emperor could very well read that NZ civil and political establishment has not fundamentally changed its position, despite more flowery language to appease minor sections of the polity and to mute objections from Canberra/Washington. Wellington continues to defacto support CCPs efforts to bring win-win development and cooperation to the relevant nations of the Pacific.

The CCP aren't impressed. This is the NZ edition of the Global Times report on it and it's reasonably mild New Zealand parrots anti-China rhetoric as US exerts greater pressure on S.Pacific with empty talk of assistance - Global Times. This is the Beijing edition How blatant that US with worldwide military bases feels ‘concerns’ about other’s Pacific presence - Global Times and it includes the threat "However, Australia should serve as a vivid example for New Zealand. Canberra messed up ties with Beijing. And the Chinese market it lost was almost in no time grasped by the US. If giving up its previous political wisdom, New Zealand may lose at both ends eventually. There have been various examples about how the US tricked and failed its allies." So according to them we should be quaking in our boots and start kowtowing. Newshub ran this early this morning China's foreign ministry slams Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, US President Joe Biden for comments on Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan | Newshub and later in the day Nanaia Mahuta meets with Chinese just hours after Beijing gives NZ 'unprecedented dressing down' | Newshub. Hopefully she didn't weaken in resolve. She should also have lodged a formal protest over Wang Li dealing directly with the two Realm States without going through Wellington. That's a breach of diplomatic protocol because Wellington is responsible for their foreign affairs and defence.

 

[Gooey]

Thank you chaps for some nice summaries and assessments.

Within this RNZ piece, Mr. Buchanan - who runs the consultancy service 36th Parallel Assessments - said the joint statement was "a little too US-centric" for his liking and had too great a focus on security.

Joint US-NZ statement 'a little too US-centric' - Defence analyst

New Zealand seems to be on track to becoming full military allies with the United States, a defence analyst says, following the prime minister's White House visit.

www.rnz.co.nz

It makes sense to me now that Paul makes his money by feeding the NZ independent foreign policy system. He is a good example of the group think of local, so-called national security experts who are all about soft power, particularly the exceptionalism of Aotearoa NZ, with no understanding of our history or hard power.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Thank you chaps for some nice summaries and assessments.

Within this RNZ piece, Mr. Buchanan - who runs the consultancy service 36th Parallel Assessments - said the joint statement was "a little too US-centric" for his liking and had too great a focus on security.

Joint US-NZ statement 'a little too US-centric' - Defence analyst

New Zealand seems to be on track to becoming full military allies with the United States, a defence analyst says, following the prime minister's White House visit.

www.rnz.co.nz

It makes sense to me now that Paul makes his money by feeding the NZ independent foreign policy system. He is a good example of the group think of local, so-called national security experts who are all about soft power, particularly the exceptionalism of Aotearoa NZ, with no understanding of our history or hard power.

Very good summary Gooey, I was unable to voice my dislike of the man and his position in a meaningful way but I agree completely with your points.

 

[Gibbo]

.... She (FM Mahuta) should also have lodged a formal protest over Wang Li dealing directly with the two Realm States without going through Wellington. That's a breach of diplomatic protocol because Wellington is responsible for their foreign affairs and defence.

Yes I was perplexed when the media stated Wang Li had approached Cook Islands & Niue as they are very definitely NZ territories, or whatever the term is these days. I put it down to usual lack of fact-checking by the MSM but if it is indeed true & that he did approach them directly that is a very calculated intent to sabotage the relationship NZ has with those nations... yet another clear signal that China has no-one's interests other than their own at heart...and will do whatever it feels warranted to do so.

I'm firmly of the belief that Govt, senior advisers at least, aren't as thick nor ignorant as you'd assume by following the NZ MSM and that we don't know half of what is really going on in Wgtn behind closed doors... I reckon Wang Li's direct approach to the Cooks & Niue will have Wgtn fuming and finally realising they can no longer trust China.

The easy answer?... get the EMAC project back on track & get a robust surveillance system in place that can watch over both our EEZ & the SouPac. It is a project flagged years ago so China can't whinge about it being a US driven response to recent events. But there's a thought...get the US involved & leverage off them for EMAC... Sattelites, fixed wing, RPA, Top Gun! lol

 

[Gooey]

Yes Gibbo, action the EMAC as a fast flash-bang project along with emergency funding for additional P-8, C130, and long-range anti-ship weapons for 5 Sqn.

Obviously, better NZDF terms & conditions and more personnel for the RNZAF and RNZN too.

This can all be justified by NZGov and will keep us v much more onside with our Allies!

 

[Stuart M]

Thank you chaps for some nice summaries and assessments.

Within this RNZ piece, Mr. Buchanan - who runs the consultancy service 36th Parallel Assessments - said the joint statement was "a little too US-centric" for his liking and had too great a focus on security.

Joint US-NZ statement 'a little too US-centric' - Defence analyst

New Zealand seems to be on track to becoming full military allies with the United States, a defence analyst says, following the prime minister's White House visit.

www.rnz.co.nz

It makes sense to me now that Paul makes his money by feeding the NZ independent foreign policy system. He is a good example of the group think of local, so-called national security experts who are all about soft power, particularly the exceptionalism of Aotearoa NZ, with no understanding of our history or hard power.

Paul B is a unabashed leftie, and former US Academic and is more of the Helen Clark school of NZ defence and foreign policy. Irrc his specialisation is or was South America. Whats more interesting is some of the more traditional left thinkers in NZ like Bradbury and Trotter are now very anti-CCP and pro increased defence spending.

 

[recce.k1]

Yes I was perplexed when the media stated Wang Li had approached Cook Islands & Niue as they are very definitely NZ territories, or whatever the term is these days. I put it down to usual lack of fact-checking by the MSM but if it is indeed true & that he did approach them directly that is a very calculated intent to sabotage the relationship NZ has with those nations... yet another clear signal that China has no-one's interests other than their own at heart...and will do whatever it feels warranted to do so.

Well stated, the CCP's arrogance is on full display and which will be noticed not just by us but other Pacific nations.

I think another miscalculation of the CCP is that many of the Pacific nations work on multlateral dialogue and consensus (as per the posts mentioning the Pacific Island Forum). Granted the Solomons situation is an outlier, but that move warned the other PI nations and us etc, that change was afoot. I also think PM Sogavare will pull his head in a bit as he risks being on the outside of the "Pacific family" (particularly as he has some "grandiose plans" for his nation eg as becoming a major tourism hub and the upcoming Pacific games. Hey but what would I know, time will tell)!

I'm firmly of the belief that Govt, senior advisers at least, aren't as thick nor ignorant as you'd assume by following the NZ MSM and that we don't know half of what is really going on in Wgtn behind closed doors... I reckon Wang Li's direct approach to the Cooks & Niue will have Wgtn fuming and finally realising they can no longer trust China.

Fully agree and in terms of your comments on following the NZ MSM that's why I'm (going out on a limb and) cutting Foreign Minister Mahuta some slack, the MSM doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes and she appears to have sufficient "mana" or gravitas with her counterparts judging by recent actions and comments.

But I will say, as others have pointed out, her Foreign Minister role is only "part time" (as she grapples with her other roles, which are highly controversial and being of importance to her, which suggests perhaps she isn't spending as much time as she should on her Foreign Affairs role. If our PM had any nous she would prioritise Mahuta's FM role (and do away with her other roles), this is clearly an important time to be a Foreign Minister!

The easy answer?... get the EMAC project back on track & get a robust surveillance system in place that can watch over both our EEZ & the SouPac. It is a project flagged years ago so China can't whinge about it being a US driven response to recent events. But there's a thought...get the US involved & leverage off them for EMAC... Sattelites, fixed wing, RPA, Top Gun! lol

Yes and in terms of your last comments, there is now a potential framework in place. I'll quote some bits from a Financial Times article (it may or may not be pay-walled but if it doesn't fall foul of the forum rules it may provide some very useful discussion points for us. But I can access the article in its entirety if I do a google search using the headline)!

Quad security group plans system to track illegal fishing by China (22 May)

The US, Japan, Australia and India will on Tuesday unveil a maritime initiative aimed at curbing illegal fishing in the Indo-Pacific, a US official said, in the latest effort by the “Quad” to counter Chinese activity in the region.
*********************
The initiative will use satellite technology to connect existing surveillance centres in Singapore, India and the Pacific to create a tracking system for illegal fishing from the Indian Ocean and south-east Asia to the South Pacific, according to the official. The system will allow the US and its partners to monitor illegal fishing even when fishing boats have turned off the transponders that are typically used to track maritime vessels. “We’re going to provide a global capacity that will link the systems together to be able to track illegal shipping for the first time,” said the official.
*********************
The other official said the US was crafting a multi-faceted strategy that would range from more engagement to providing help on climate change, which is an existential threat for some Pacific Island nations.
He said the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, UK and France would soon launch an initiative called “Partners of Pacific” to help Pacific Island nations.
*********************
The new maritime initiative comes as the US and its allies worry that Beijing is negotiating a security pact with Kiribati, a nation of 33 islands than span roughly 3,000km along the divide between the North and South Pacific...
Gregory Poling, head of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at CSIS, said Chinese military access to Kiritimati (Christmas Island) or other islands in eastern Kiribati would be much more serious than the Solomons.

‘Quad’ security group plans system to track illegal fishing by China | Financial Times (ft.com)

Now we know NZ has a Defence Capability Project to better surveil its maritime environment, but if we can partner with this (and add value to it by purchasing capabilities to assist with this) it will be of tremendous value. If so, presumably Aust and NZ will gain access to the real time data. Now imagine if, say Fiji for example, and/or other PI nations, could also be a location for a terminal or whatnot, they then become engaged and a willing supporter etc. (Assuming I've understood the potential correctly)! After all they have a huge vested interest in their fisheries not being plundered.

So for NZ to add value, the NZG can't just sit back on its backside and say "hey Joe we bought four Poseidons", they need to as you say get the EMAC project on track, do things like for example bring forward the long range UAV survellience capability programme (how about purchasing a couple of units and terminals early, like now/soon-ish following the ADF lead, so that NZDF staff can gain value experience and skillsets before expanding the project? Might even be a helpful recruiting tool), absolutely acquire additional P-8's, put some EMAC capabilities in the Pacific itself (base some there), look at other technologies like the E-7 (yes there is no complex "air battlefield" overwatch as such, but what that capability could bring is basically a flying radar system that can respond to any "unusual" activity, eg perhaps air assets operating with "gray zone fishing fleets" etc. Probably a lower priority of course but ahem, compliments a future restoration of the ACF heh ; ). And of course an expanded RNZN maritime presence.

 

[Stuart M]

The CCP aren't impressed. This is the NZ edition of the Global Times report on it and it's reasonably mild New Zealand parrots anti-China rhetoric as US exerts greater pressure on S.Pacific with empty talk of assistance - Global Times. This is the Beijing edition How blatant that US with worldwide military bases feels ‘concerns’ about other’s Pacific presence - Global Times and it includes the threat "However, Australia should serve as a vivid example for New Zealand. Canberra messed up ties with Beijing. And the Chinese market it lost was almost in no time grasped by the US. If giving up its previous political wisdom, New Zealand may lose at both ends eventually. There have been various examples about how the US tricked and failed its allies." So according to them we should be quaking in our boots and start kowtowing. Newshub ran this early this morning China's foreign ministry slams Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, US President Joe Biden for comments on Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan | Newshub and later in the day Nanaia Mahuta meets with Chinese just hours after Beijing gives NZ 'unprecedented dressing down' | Newshub. Hopefully she didn't weaken in resolve. She should also have lodged a formal protest over Wang Li dealing directly with the two Realm States without going through Wellington. That's a breach of diplomatic protocol because Wellington is responsible for their foreign affairs and defence.

Nanaia Mahuta meets with Chinese just hours after Beijing gives NZ 'unprecedented dressing down' | Newshub

"Suggesting New Zealand was on its way to becoming a full military ally with the US was "reading a lot into that particular statement", Mahuta said.

"There is not an indication that that's the case."

The acting Prime Minister, Grant Robertson, doesn't expect any trade repercussions from China over the statement.

"New Zealand continues to have an independent foreign policy. We have strong views around the Pacific region and making sure it's the Pacific countries whose interest things occur in. We haven't changed our stance." "

This is all very well, but Im not convinced that the substance of NZs policy settings have changed beyond alterations in rhetorical style, as there is no major improvements nor plans to improve NZs defence capacity let alone capabilities. Nor is there any plans, as outlined by Mahuta above, to be involved in anything like the Quad agreement, to take active steps to oppose the CCP through alliances.

So what we have from NZ is rhetoric, not active anti CCP actions, which is what I think they will be concerned about, enough to use trade sanctions against NZ. So for that reason I dont think we will get more from the CCP other than rhetoric in return for rhetoric.
I think that we need to be very careful to make a distinction on this point, the difference between rhetoric and action; One is posturing often for domestic audiences or to placate others, the other can shoot, and im sure the CCP are very aware of the difference and will respond accordingly, hence Robertsons comment.

*Edit* You are quite right about their approach to Realm territories.. that was underhanded and a deliberate provocation.

 

[Gibbo]

Nanaia Mahuta meets with Chinese just hours after Beijing gives NZ 'unprecedented dressing down' | Newshub

"Suggesting New Zealand was on its way to becoming a full military ally with the US was "reading a lot into that particular statement", Mahuta said.

"There is not an indication that that's the case."

The acting Prime Minister, Grant Robertson, doesn't expect any trade repercussions from China over the statement.

"New Zealand continues to have an independent foreign policy. We have strong views around the Pacific region and making sure it's the Pacific countries whose interest things occur in. We haven't changed our stance." "

This is all very well, but Im not convinced that the substance of NZs policy settings have changed beyond alterations in rhetorical style, as there is no major improvements nor plans to improve NZs defence capacity let alone capabilities. Nor is there any plans, as outlined by Mahuta above, to be involved in anything like the Quad agreement, to take active steps to oppose the CCP through alliances.

So what we have from NZ is rhetoric, not active anti CCP actions, which is what I think they will be concerned about, enough to use trade sanctions against NZ. So for that reason I dont think we will get more from the CCP other than rhetoric in return for rhetoric.
I think that we need to be very careful to make a distinction on this point, the difference between rhetoric and action; One is posturing often for domestic audiences or to placate others, the other can shoot, and im sure the CCP are very aware of the difference and will respond accordingly, hence Robertsons comment.

*Edit* You are quite right about their approach to Realm territories.. that was underhanded and a deliberate provocation.

I'd be the first to agree the Govt has the foreign ministers priorities farked up... Mahuta needs to get into the SouPac now! However there could be more at play in the background than the MSM know about... reece.k1's post above mentions the 'Quad' plan for tracking illiegal fishing (which means tracking vessels which equates to maritime domain awareness, military or otherwise) and the planned 'Partners of Pacific' strategy... maybe the Govt is now waiting for these to mature enough to know where they will prioritise investment. It's easy to assume only the rhetoric has changed but we only know what the MSM are told!

One interesting development that barely rated a mention in the MSM and could potentially signify a change in thinking (I say optimistically) is included in this article:

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

"...on Friday, Henare said there would be no new Labour Government defence capability plan"...

ie: priorities seem to have changed from 12 months previous when this article was written: Government will rewrite Defence Force's priorities, possibly signalling 'leaner years'

 

[Stuart M]

I'd be the first to agree the Govt has the foreign ministers priorities farked up... Mahuta needs to get into the SouPac now! However there could be more at play in the background than the MSM know about... reece.k1's post above mentions the 'Quad' plan for tracking illiegal fishing (which means tracking vessels which equates to maritime domain awareness, military or otherwise) and the planned 'Partners of Pacific' strategy... maybe the Govt is now waiting for these to mature enough to know where they will prioritise investment. It's easy to assume only the rhetoric has changed but we only know what the MSM are told!

One interesting development that barely rated a mention in the MSM and could potentially signify a change in thinking (I say optimistically) is included in this article:

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

"...on Friday, Henare said there would be no new Labour Government defence capability plan"...

ie: priorities seem to have changed from 12 months previous when this article was written: Government will rewrite Defence Force's priorities, possibly signalling 'leaner years'

Not sure there is much going on in the background to be honest, at least on the political side, but there will be in MFAT and Defence.

Yes, the Quad .. a multilateral group to which New Zealand is not a party and NZ has never shown any interest in joining, quite the contrary I recall when it was set up and the then Labour government said it was not interested in joining. An error Imo, but hopefully one a future NZ government will reverse.


Mind you, I think that if NZGov can get good coverage with minimal investment that they might just go for it.

Until we can see actual action to join in these grouping, and when NZ invests in the capabilities to pull its weight, it is nothing more than rhetoric, and the last 25 odd years don't encourage me to believe its going to be anything more than that.

On the no show of a new capability plan, Im not sure what that's about.. suspect it could be that they don't want to complicate next years election, one they may just lose, by adding into it anything that might scare the horses or aid the opposition.