By Antipodean Village Blogger
[Summary & Update:
This blog explores how resources already present in the capital city of nuclear-free New Zealand, geographically remote from world conflicts, might be leveraged to help develop fresh shared, win-win regional and wider international overviews on present and potential future conflicts. Such overviews would enable more comprehensive shared visions and policies to address issues to be developed.
Such amenities could also help provide new, more effective channels to deal with increasingly vexing and dangerous South China Sea problems as well as the Ukraine crisis ]
Dear Prime Ministers Tony Abbott and John Key
In the light of some difficulties that Australia has been experiencing in relation to Indonesia and China, I was inspired to write to you both to ask you to consider whether and how New Zealand might be able to support constructive regional dialogue to help address such developments more effectively.
Australia and New Zealand certainly share many historical experiences and contemporary perspectives. However at the same time, Australia’s different geostrategic position and diplomatic relationships mean it has some inherently more complex and difficult issues to deal with. Australia interacts in the world as a middle rather than a small power, and it fronts directly onto the Asian region that includes some very large nations like Indonesia, China and India.
In its quest for security, Australia has formed a strong military and intelligence alliance with the United States. The military aspect of the alliance, involving United States forces being based on Australian territory, has irritated China. The intelligence aspect, impacting as it has on Indonesia, has caused irritation that still continues. Difficulties with Indonesia have been compounded also by Australia acting vigorously to stem the flow of thousands of boat people coming through that country.
Consequently, Australia is finding it difficult to progress cooperation with Indonesia about that and other issues.
Consequently also, China and Indonesia are beginning to cooperate in unprecedented ways. This cooperation includes Indonesia allowing Chinese ships to sail through its waters near the Australian controlled Christmas Islands (see the map in the Fairfax graphic accompanying this blog), and a visit by the head of Indonesia’s military chief General Moeldoko to China. Should such cooperation continue to expand it could result in new geostrategic pressures on Australia and, at some stage, even alter the wider power balances of the region.
[See:
Bishop: Aust still waiting for Indonesian response on code of conduct
Navy incursions into Indonesian waters causing ‘go slow’ in military relationship, Defence Force Chief David Hurley says
TNI chief to visit China, may meet Xi Jinping ]
Given its comparative geographic remoteness, tranquil environment and smaller size, New Zealand has on the other hand generally been able to develop lower-key, less controversial foreign relationships.
So I wish to ask, can New Zealand use its relatively quiet, undisturbed geostrategic position as a basis from which to support calm wider regional diplomatic dialogue, understanding and harmony?
I believe New Zealand can situate itself to help, and would like to propose some innovative, practical and cost effective ways it might go about this.
I would like to make two main proposals: (1) Develop Wellington as a diplomatic village, and (2) Develop a network of “capital-to-capital” sister city relationships.
Any costs should be more than recovered by the international profile, high-level connections and skills that would come with such developments.
That is, as a place where diplomats, politicians, academics and other interested parties can always meet to share views and learn more about matters of interest and concern. How could this be brought about? How could it be made productive? Some ideas for consideration:
Much more depth and resilience could be added to diplomatic conversations if new “capital-to-capital” sister city networks were to be developed, particularly if good use was also made of the internet and social media. I would like to propose:
Europe has come through many tensions and potential conflicts with places like Geneva and Vienna where all could meet to talk through and seek to resolve their differences. There is no such permanent centre in the Asia-Pacific region with its many potential sources of conflict. Why not make Wellington a centre for regional dialogue? Anyone aware of regional tensions must know that there is a lot of good work that could be done in such a centre, starting right now. Let’s move to create a future that works.
Yours in peace
Antipodean Village Blogger
7 Comments
We have learned from Julian Assange and others how the powers that be seek to foil or frustrate conflict resolution.
I think your proposals to resolve conflicts using a mediator such as Wellington to be eminently sensible. We have already seen the disastrous attempts at using military solutions to achieve “final solutions” do the opposite. They mostly affect innocent civilians.
It is time for an alternative approach. It is what the creation of the United Nations hoped to accomplish.
Well thought out and achievable. I think your idea should be looked into by the PTB as it makes a great deal of sense due to NZ’s somewhat neutrality and bridge-building capabilities. Certainly Australia cannot hope to fulfil such a role as you have so ably pointed out her situation within the regions, particularly those closest to us.
Great in principle and I commend you on the concept. Wondering what progress have you seen since this was first published? Diplomacy moves slowly at the best of times, but can achieve greatness in the long run.
The strategic benefits to NZ certainly outweigh any financial costs and the geolocation provides excellent physical neutrality while still being instantly connected in today’s cyber world.
Thanks Guy – you put your finger well on some key advantages of New Zealand that are there to be leveraged. Wellington has amenities – government, embassies and academic institutions that could be networked to help do this effectively.
Decision-makers operating in grooves can take time to recognize opportunities even when they are right in front of them, although when I have explained verbally how the concept could work, people seem to be able to get it quite readily.
Helen Clark has also “liked” similar village-connections blogs on Twitter when I drew her attention to them while she was campaigning to become the United Nations Secretary General, indicating that she saw their potential. One United States academic specialist on China recently based in Wellington for a while also warmed to the idea when I explained it to him.
I suspect that it will be as the regional and world geostrategic situation continues to worsen that New Zealand and perhaps other decision-makers, faced more directly with potentially drastic possibilities, might look more seriously at such proposals. Or perhaps some opposition politicians will be first to do so and adopt them as policy.
Yes, I like the idea conceptually. But, the New World Order isn’t really interested in harmony. That’s the meat of the problem.
The bankers and elite wield the power, not the politicians. So, until we set an example by moving away from the fiat currencies and becoming truly independent, we are no more than a pawn of the elite.
Bank funded debt is the global problem. There is no practical reason for it, except to fund war, regimes, and crisis. That’s debt.
So, in my mind NZ needs to change the way we consider “debt” and instead of taxing residents through debt, we must develop new methods of finance that are safe and transparent.
We must delink ourselves from the banking elite. Only then can we claim to be impartial. The current systems of finance and “markets” are farcical. They are 100% manipulated and supported by our government and the elite.
So, the way I see it, diplomacy isn’t the issue.
It’s the debt based monetary system that funds war and crisis. That’s the conversation we should be having.
I know I may have moved away from the subject a little. But everyone knows this. So, let’s stop the charade. That’s number one.
Then we can facilitate global relationships with trust.
Right now, NZ supports the US and UK war machine, the elite, and their cabal. That must stop. And then we can claim to be the global village for discourse. But until then. Its a farce and every diplomat in Wellington knows it.
Thanks, Robert.
My prime interest is to see a new forum set up where multi-level conversations can take place in which all can share their diverse views and knowledge, around which relevant, good quality research and framing can be developed and fed into more, on-going conversations.
Such conversations would be taking place at a stage history where humans have created technologies that are able to support unprecedented collaboration, development and well-being for all, or bring their species and perhaps most others to an end through war or ecosystem and/or civilizational collapse.
Opening up such conversations could help like nothing else to bring all to an awareness of such stakes and help motivate and equip them to clarify and frame the best, viable options available and ways of implementing them.
So while my concern is more processual than substantive, the processes I recommend should support any and all to bring up and share any relevant and significant points, and have them recognized as such, in ways that cannot done very easily at present.
Yes, I am in all favour of open debate and discussion. You are correct of course John. We do not have robust debate anywhere these days. It seems to me the conversations are dominated by people who went to the same school. Same school, same sh**! Just look at the NZ political chamber. It’s a joke. Devoid of creative thought and full of old school cronyism.
We need diversity, and respect. Keep up the good work.
Best
Robert