New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Photograph: Madeleine Chapman/The Spinoff

PoliticsDecember 17, 2018

How Jacinda Ardern can map a foreign policy for the progressive world to follow

Guest writer

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Photograph: Madeleine Chapman/The Spinoff

The PM has attracted attention because she talks – and does – politics differently. Yet there has been little debate domestically about what exactly New Zealand should prioritise on the international stage, write Nina Hall and Max Harris of the New Zealand Alternative

Jacinda Ardern stands out on the international stage. In an era of poisonous xenophobia and mean-spirited rhetoric, she has called for more compassion and kindness in politics and has stressed the importance of cooperation.

Ardern is operating in a challenging environment – with tensions between China and the United States being characterised by some as a new Cold War. This was most evident at the recent APEC summit where leaders failed to reach an agreement even on a final non-binding communique.

Ardern has attracted attention because she talks – and does – politics differently. Yet there has been little debate domestically about what exactly New Zealand should prioritise on the international stage. This is highlighted in the current discussions about whether New Zealand should sign up to the UN Global Compact on Migration.

Forging a progressive foreign policy

It will take substantial and thoughtful work – by civil society actors, activists, academics, and Ardern’s own government – to spell out a foreign policy platform that would give effect to the aspirations Ardern clearly has for New Zealand on the international scene.

The suite of pressing global problems is well known, from climate change to migration, from global inequality to conflict prevention. There are particular dilemmas for parties on the left. What does it mean to be progressive in this era of widespread dissatisfaction with neoliberal capitalism? Should progressive parties seek to rebuild the state as an economic actor and accept that this will privilege their own country’s citizens?

Some, such as the new German movement #aufstehen, have argued for more restrictive migration policies. Others, including the German Green party, are advocating for more open borders. There are strategic choices to be made, and New Zealand’s relatively thin civil society has not as yet provided much guidance about what direction the government should take.

So what could a progressive foreign policy look like today? We have interviewed a wide range of New Zealanders to explore what a values-driven foreign policy would mean for the country.

Peaceful conflict resolution

Governments should find diplomatic, rather than military, solutions to conflict. We interviewed 30 experts in New Zealand and overseas for a report on conflict prevention and peace mediation. We found bipartisan support for New Zealand to invest more in conflict prevention work.

Official information inquiries revealed internal government documents showing that both the Labour-led Helen Clark and National-led John Key governments expressed an interest in expanding New Zealand’s role in this area. However, neither government translated this into an institutionalised conflict prevention or peace mediation capacity.

In our report, we suggest New Zealand could set up a conflict prevention unit based on our past experiences, both good and bad. This includes Parihaka’s strategic non-violence movement, experiences from the Waitangi Tribunal, our nuclear-free movement and the Bougainville peace talks that New Zealand successfully hosted and facilitated in the 1990s.

We also note the need for decolonisation at home, including a better understanding of the negative effects of colonisation. Māori views need to be part of foreign policy. Without that effort, New Zealand’s advocacy for peace internationally would lack credibility, given the government has not fully addressed the institutionalised racism and economic inequality that are the legacy of historical, colonial injustices.

International trade, people and the environment

New Zealand is well positioned to rethink international trade agreements, given its domestic work on the Living Standards Framework, an emerging alternative to GDP. If New Zealand’s foreign policy flowed out of (and was not disconnected from) the government’s domestic agenda, trade agreements might be reassessed as vehicles to consolidate and support progressive agendas. For example, they might be used to tackle transnational tax avoidance or to cement protections of indigenous rights’ across borders.

Fresh thinking from scholars and public intellectuals can help flesh out the details of this. English economist Kate Raworth has argued we should measure our economy based on whether we are living within the Earth’s environmental limits and delivering the basic resources we need to live (health care, education, energy, democracy). Her work challenges the obsession with growth in GDP and outlines an alternative doughnut economics.

Todd Tucker, a scholar and fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, has highlighted the need for trade agreements to go forward only if they have substantial union support. Unions are vital stakeholders in international trade negotiations. Not only do they represent the interests of workers, but are critical for addressing domestic inequality.

International Monetary Fund researchers have found a correlation between lower union density and a significant increase in the income share of the top 10%. Genuinely progressive trade agreements should also do more to address global inequalities, and advance global sustainability, rather than just including an environment clause.

Widening the foreign policy discussion

Foreign policy debates should include a diverse range of views. Too often – in New Zealand and elsewhere – foreign policy is discussed by a narrow group of predominantly white middle-class experts who speak the technical language of global governance. This alienates many people from foreign policy discussions.

Foreign policy in New Zealand should be made in partnership with Māori. It should draw on the ideas of young people, unions, academics and the private sector.

There are many other areas a progressive New Zealand foreign policy could tackle, including human rights, environmental justice, and feminist foreign policies. Our aim is widen the Overton window and ignite debate at home, and abroad, about what progressive foreign policy looks like. The debate needs to happen if we are to build an international order capable of responding to challenges such as global inequality and climate change. New Zealand might just be able to set an example – in an emergent ethical, participatory foreign policy – for other progressive countries seeking to rebuild their relationships in that changing international order.

Nina Hall is assistant professor of international relations, Johns Hopkins University. Max Harris is examination fellow in law, All Souls College, University of Oxford

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keep going!

Climate change minister James Shaw and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern have welcome the climate change commission report. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

PoliticsDecember 17, 2018

NZ urged ‘high ambition’ on climate in Poland. Now let’s see that at home

Natalie Jones

Guest writer

Climate change minister James Shaw and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern have welcome the climate change commission report. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

We punched above our weight at the just-completed talks. But we must walk the talk at home, writes environmental lawyer Natalie Jones

After a fortnight of meetings and a one-day extension, a deal was finalised yesterday at the UN climate talks in Katowice, Poland. The accord was hailed as delivering a set of strong, robust rules which will give the Paris Agreement the best chance of being effective and workable. Nations also responded to the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C of Global Warming.

New Zealand played a small yet important role in the talks, as a member of the High Ambition Coalition. Dubbed “the Justice League for global warming diplomacy”, this is a group of countries which pushed for a strong response to the IPCC Report and a robust rulebook. First formed at the Paris Climate Conference in 2015, and widely credited with the inclusion of the 1.5°C temperature goal in the Paris Agreement, the High Ambition Coalition made an impressive comeback in Katowice after oil-producing nations Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia and Kuwait blocked agreement on how to respond to the IPCC Report.

It’s a small triumph in itself that New Zealand was included in the High Ambition Coalition. Back in Paris, New Zealand was not invited to be a member. We weren’t seen to be ambitious enough on climate change. That our international image has come so far is a credit to this government.

In the past year, the Jacinda Ardern led government has made great strides on climate policy, banning new offshore oil and gas exploration, launching a $100 million green investment fund, committing to plant one billion trees in the next decade, and holding a nationwide consultation on a Zero Carbon Act. Last week, the government announced it will put a cap on the Emissions Trading Scheme, and include permanent forests – making the scheme more predictable and fit for purpose. Here in Katowice, Climate Change Minister James Shaw ruled out carrying over surplus Kyoto Protocol emissions units to meet New Zealand’s 2030 target, which would have undermined real climate action.

These steps are all commendable and send a strong signal to markets. But we cannot rest on our laurels. New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are still fifth highest in the OECD per capita, and continue to rise. Our pledge to reduce emissions under the Paris Agreement – known as our nationally determined contribution, or NDC – is currently set at 30% below 2005 levels (11% below 1990 levels) by 2030. This is inconsistent with holding warming below 2°C, let alone 1.5°C. Under current policies –not counting measures which have been announced but not yet implemented– we won’t even meet this target. New Zealand’s emissions are projected to increase by 15% above 1990 levels by 2030.

Just looking at the numbers, it’s clear that New Zealand must do much more. We must do everything within our reach, and then some. This starts with passing an effective Zero Carbon Act, with cross-party buy-in. One of the most significant findings of the IPCC Report was that all sectors have a role to play. We must ensure deep and lasting emissions reductions across all sectors, including transport, industry, cities, and agriculture. Significantly reducing methane emissions, as well as carbon, is crucial. We must implement the changes to the ETS – and supplement it with other regulations, because another implication of the IPCC Report is that putting a price on carbon is no longer enough.

High school students remind negotiators at COP 24 that there are only 12 years left to limit the devastating impacts of climate change. Photo credit: Kiara Worth/IISD/ENB

We must revise our NDC in light of the latest science – aiming for at least a 50% emissions reduction below current levels by 2030. This is not radical: it’s the least stringent end of what would be our fair share of global effort. In September 2019, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will hold a climate summit in New York. This would be an ideal opportunity to announce our new, ambitious target on the global stage, and in so doing maintain international credibility.

All of this is especially true in light of the IPCC 1.5°C Report. Its messages are clear: to have a good chance of keeping warming to 1.5°C and limiting devastating climate impacts, we must halve emissions from current levels by 2030, and reach net zero by 2050. Doing this, according to the IPCC, will require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”. In short, the next 12 years will be an incredibly exciting period in human history, seeing unprecedented innovation and creativity. With our “can-do”, number-eight-wire mentality, Kiwis are well-positioned to be part of this economic opportunity.

More than anything, we, the public, must continue to give the Government a strong mandate for climate action. We can make a meaningful difference daily by eating less meat, flying less, and taking public transport or cycling, but we can achieve a lot more by collectively pushing effective policies at the national and local levels. This is not about bashing the government, but encouraging them to act. We still have a long way to go.

Declaring New Zealand to be “High Ambition” on the international stage shows courage and leadership. The government must ensure it lives up to the title at home, throughout the next 12 years and beyond.