spinofflive
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) and New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters shake hands in Beijing on May 25, 2018. –  (Photo by THOMAS PETER / POOL / AFP)        (Photo credit should read THOMAS PETER/AFP/Getty Images)
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) and New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters shake hands in Beijing on May 25, 2018. – (Photo by THOMAS PETER / POOL / AFP) (Photo credit should read THOMAS PETER/AFP/Getty Images)

PoliticsNovember 28, 2018

New Zealand wants to be a ‘bridge’ to China? Careful we don’t get walked over

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) and New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters shake hands in Beijing on May 25, 2018. –  (Photo by THOMAS PETER / POOL / AFP)        (Photo credit should read THOMAS PETER/AFP/Getty Images)
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) and New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters shake hands in Beijing on May 25, 2018. – (Photo by THOMAS PETER / POOL / AFP) (Photo credit should read THOMAS PETER/AFP/Getty Images)

When it comes to tension between the US and China, National and Labour are on the same side – the fence. Guyon Espiner examines a foreign policy that tries to have it both ways. 

We have the Five Eyes alliance with the US but have no free trade agreement with them. We have the FTA with China but little engagement on security and intelligence.

This was always a precarious position requiring some agile diplomatic gymnastics. Now, as US-China relations become strained – National Party leader Simon Bridges calls it a “virtual war” – New Zealand risks a dangerous fall.

Rather than scurrying away as the elephants stomp, Trade Minister David Parker wants his country in the middle of the fight, saying New Zealand could be a “bridge” between the two countries.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern hasn’t been able to fully explain how we might fulfil this role but both she and Mr Parker will be hoping for signs of a ceasefire later this week, as China and the US meet at the G20.

With billions of dollars of tariffs fired off in a trade war, Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping meet in Buenos Aires with the hope of a deal or at least a de-escalation.

Despite Mr Parker’s heroic talk of bridging the gap between the sparring super powers, it’s doubtful that assisting with this is within New Zealand’s sphere of influence.

It might be more productive for the government to focus on managing the issues directly at play between New Zealand and China. There are plenty of them and they’re gaining momentum.

A decision is imminent on whether to let Huawei roll out parts of New Zealand’s 5G network. The US is putting pressure on its allies to block the Chinese telco, citing security concerns. Or is it just trying to constrain China? Australia has sided with the US. GCSB Minister Andrew Little is going to upset one side whatever his decision.

And then there is the very curious case of Anne-Marie Brady. In September last year the Canterbury University academic published her paper Magic Weapons, claiming a campaign of corrupt and covert influence by China in New Zealand.

Since then she claims her office has been broken into twice, her home targeted in a suspicious burglary and also that her car may have been tampered with.

The government’s response has been to say as little as possible but that is becoming increasingly untenable.

Tiananmen square in Beijing, China. Photo: 123RF

This week 29 academics and authors wrote to Ms Ardern expressing alarm at the reports of intimidation and demanding assurances that attacks on academic freedom would not be tolerated.

Ms Ardern insists it’s a police matter and that the investigation continues. Prof Brady believes the police have actually finished their work and her supporters fear the government’s silence is a sign of weakness.

If indeed it can be shown that operatives in any way connected to the Chinese government were responsible for the actions Prof Brady describes then this will be a big challenge for the prime minister.

What does she do? How hard does she go? This comes at a time when talks to upgrade the FTA appear stalled. There’s plenty at stake. Two-way trade with China was $8.6 billion in 2007 when the pact was signed. It is now worth more than $26b.

While the public here may demand a strong response to any proof of intimidation, China will not take kindly to a scalding from New Zealand. Back in July when the government’s Strategic Defence Policy Statement was critical of China’s military build up in the South China sea, its diplomats were quick to register their displeasure.

Perhaps the cold shoulder is already being offered. Mr Parker was unable to secure a meeting with his counterpart, China’s Commerce Minister Zhong Shan, during a recent visit to Shanghai. Ms Ardern, invited to China a year ago, had expected to visit this year. But now the trip is off. “All capitals are busy approaching the end of the year and Beijing is no exception,” she explained.

If ‘we’re too busy to meet you’ sounds like a snub then perhaps it is.

Keep going!
littlefacebook

PoliticsNovember 27, 2018

Andrew Little: NZ is watching Facebook closely and will take action if needed

littlefacebook

The justice minister tells the Spinoff he’s keenly watching the UK-led inquiry into fake news, disinformation and Facebook and backs calls for the company to be held accountable. 

As global pressure to hold Facebook accountable for its impact on democracy mounts, New Zealand’s justice minister has told the Spinoff he is actively monitoring events and considering the influence of the social media giant here.

Amid what has been called a “global trust crisis” for Facebook, representatives from seven international parliaments that make up the “international grand committee on disinformation and ‘fake news’” gather in London today to quiz Richard Allan, the company’s vice president of policy solutions. While New Zealand is not represented on the grand committee, Andrew Little said he was nevertheless “watching very keenly what they’re able to achieve”, and welcomed “a point of accountability for organisations like Facebook”.

The committee had urged the all-powerful Mark Zuckerberg, who is both chairman and CEO of a company that can boast more than two billion regular users worldwide, to appear before them in person or via video link, but he has declined, a decision scolded as “dismissive”.

“The committee still believes that Mark Zuckerberg is the appropriate person to answer important questions about data privacy, safety, security and sharing,” it said in a statement.

“The recent New York Times investigation [“Delay, deny and deflect: how Facebook’s leaders fought through crisis”] raises further questions about how recent data breaches were allegedly dealt with within Facebook, and when the senior leadership team became aware of the breaches and the spread of Russian disinformation.”

Last week Raymond Huo, the chair of the New Zealand Justice Select Committee, said that he had had “not had any contact with or correspondence from international counterparts” in the international committee, which includes chairs from parliamentary committees in Canada, Ireland, Argentina and Brazil.

“The powers that a House of Commons select committee has tend to far outstrip what New Zealand select committees have, so good on them for doing what they’re doing and really pressing Facebook for that information,” said Little.

“This is on our radar, we are thinking about it, and that’s why I’ve particularly asked for the committee to look at it,” he added, in reference to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the last election.

“We are thinking about what we can usefully do.”

Little said the global social media companies had shown an increasing willingness in the last couple of years to tackle misinformation on their sites.

“How you draft regulations or laws that require them to do that in certain ways with certain objectives I think is hugely difficult,” he said.

“Because it transcends borders and therefore nation states, the question is what do you do at a global level or an international, diplomatic level… The only recourse then is international agreement and international law. And getting that to fly with the likes of Russia and some of the big countries, and places where some of that interference is sourced from, is going to create its own problems.”

Little said he had recently had a briefing from Twitter, but had not had any direct engagement with Facebook.* “In opposition I had two meetings with Facebook representatives. I haven’t had any in the year since I’ve been minister of justice. Which is not to say that it won’t happen or that I won’t seek it out. But I haven’t to date. At some point it may be appropriate to do so.”

As part of the New Zealand Justice Committee’s inquiry into the last election – something undertaken after every election – members are tasked with considering “the increased importance and use of social media in campaigning, advertising, and expression of political opinions”, chairperson Raymond Huo told The Spinoff last week.

In a letter to Huo from late October, Little urged the committee to pay particular attention to “the resilience of our electoral system against foreign interference risks” and to “provide any recommendations for improvement, and reassure the public that they can vote and participate in future elections with confidence”. That should include asking “whether there are sufficient protections against interference via electoral advertising, including through social media”, Little wrote.

Little’s office also released to The Spinoff a briefing note from the Ministry of Justice, dated November 1, surveying “US studies on the efficacy of ‘fake news’”.

“There are increasing expectations on social media companies to take steps to protect the integrity of their platforms,” it observes.

“Facebook and other companies have undertaken significant efforts to detect and remove fraudulent accounts. We can and should expect these companies to be vigilant given the potential implications. As these companies are based offshore, any attempt to regulate content will be resisted (see for example testimony of Facebook, Twitter and Google before the House of Commons Inquiry). The companies make the case that authoritarian regimes would likely take advantage of any precedent to order the removal of allegedly fake news.”

It concludes, under the heading “Potential policy responses” by saying: “There may remain options to regulate social media in way that does not unduly impinge on rights. We will watch developments in the UK carefully, and also consider what options might be available domestically. We can expect the Justice Committee when looking at electoral advertising rules to consider whether those rules need updating to better meet the challenges of online content.

“Finally, this is an issue that might be addressed multilaterally with like-minded partners. It is an issue of concern and potential vulnerability for many open democracies. We will continue to monitor international developments and support efforts to engage social media companies to take appropriate actions consistent with New Zealand’s democratic values.”

Little also confirmed his intention to see new privacy legislation updated in the wake of Privacy Commissioner John Edwards’ broadside against Facebook over its refusal to comply with requests under the NZ Privacy Act. “As long as Facebook has an office and a presence here, we’ve got to be able to issue meaningful corrections to them if we think they’re not in compliance with our expectations.”

* Update: The minister’s office was in touch shortly after this piece was published to say that he “briefly met with a Facebook government relations advisor in May this year in relation to changes to the Privacy Act. ‘My advisor says Facebook repeatedly requested meetings and the May meeting was brief but registered in the ministerial diary.'”

But wait there's more!