Ardern’s response to Ukraine invasion is too cautious – Newsroom

Comment

New Zealand now finds itself standing virtually alone among western countries in having applied few meaningful economic sanctions against Russia.

New Zealands initial response to Russias invasion of Ukraine has been remarkably nuanced.

In Parliament this week, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern againcondemnedVladimir Putins attack, describing it as the blatant act of a bully brutal, intolerable, and an act of aggression.

Other party leaders largely echoed the Labour leader with the National Partys Christopher Luxon describing Putin as completely unhinged.

The strong language and condemnation may suggest that New Zealands position is indistinguishable from that of other western countries.

However, New Zealand now finds itself standing virtually alone among western countries in having applied few meaningful economic sanctions against Russia.

This week, evenJapanandSingaporefell into line with EU, UK and US-led moves to make Russians pay a heavy economic price for Putins brutal war. Both countries had been traditional hold-outs on sanctions.

But instead of immediately reintroducing a ready-to-go autonomous sanctions bill from National that Labour had previously blocked, this week Ardern said the Government was working on a bespokeRussian sanctions bill.

For Ardern, this is a typically pragmatic solution, with advice to be sought and details to be worked out in good time.

But the problem for the Government is that, globally, nuance has largely been thrown out of the window in the wests response to Russias brutal assault against its neighbour.

Shocking images of Russias bombing and destruction of Kyiv, Kharkiv and other Ukrainian cities alongside the massive influx of refugees into Poland and other EU countries have galvanised the worlds response to Ukraine in a way few would have thought possible, even just a few short weeks ago.

Rather than Arderns cautious approach, rapid decision-making and retribution are now very much the order of the day.

Across the west, countries are rushing to supply Ukraine with weapons to defend itself. From New Zealands part of the world, Australias contribution of$70 million in armsis notable.

But Germanys overnighttransformationof its foreign policy is perhaps even more instructive. In response to the invasion, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz not only scrapped the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Germany and Russia itself a hugely significant and symbolic shift but is also reversing Germanys long-held ban on sending arms into foreign conflicts. Berlin will now supply Kyiv with a wide range of weapons.

Scholz is also pledging an enormous new, one-off war-chest of 100 billion (NZ$163 billion) and is committing to lifting its military budget to a minimum of 2% of GDP a huge increase on the countrys current spending level of roughly 1.5%.

After a steadydeclinefrom 3% of GDP in 1980 to a low-point of about 1.1% in 2015, New Zealands own military spending has been increasing rapidly ever since.

It currently hovers around the same 1.5% level that Germany had until Scholzs new commitment.

Could New Zealand follow Germanys lead and seek to increase its military budget even further?

Both the recently releasedIndo-Pacific Strategyof the US and New Zealands new, hawkishdefence assessmentsuggest that it may.

The two new blueprints openly identify China as a threat.

Russias sudden invasion of Ukraine may well be harnessed to emphasise the risk of geopolitical instability in Asia and the perceived need to counter this with military deterrence.

If Russias invasion of Ukraine heralds the start of a new militarisation of the world, Labours decisionlast yearto spend another $20 billion on defence could be just the beginning.

During the early Cold War period, US President Dwight Eisenhowers Cross of Ironspeechin 1953 warned of the trade-offs that higher military spending brings: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

In other words, the peace dividend of the post-Cold War era is now gone as geopolitical analyst Ian Bremmerpoints out.

By arming Ukraine and imposing massive economic sanctions on Russia, the west hopes that Vladimir Putin will reconsider his actions and stop the war.

Alternatively, some hope that Putin could be rolled in apalace coupthat brings a more benevolent leader to power.

But there are far less palatable endings as well.

If Russias economy collapses, it may bring about a repeat of Russias turmoil of the 1990s the ultimate outcome of which was Putins own rise to power.

Another worst-case scenario could be a war inside Russia itself.

The Russian Civil War from 1917 to 1922 still holds the Guinness World Record for being the worldscostliest civil war, with some 10 million soldiers and civilians dying from fighting, starvation and illness.

It is also worth recalling the more recent, sobering experience of the Arab Spring.

Revolutions across the Middle East in 2011 ultimately resulted in long-running, bloody civil wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen and powerful new strongmen in Egypt and Tunisia who tolerate little in the way of dissent.

As always, it is a case of being careful what you wish for.

Away from sanctions and military spending, New Zealand has some other useful options that it could tap into as a small democracy.

Using the tools of multilateralism has been one pathway.

Foreign affairs minister Nanaia MahutacondemnedRussias actions at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva as a clear act of aggression, a blatant breach of Ukraines sovereignty.

New Zealand was also one of more than 90 countries to co-sponsor a UN General Assemblyresolutioncondemning Russias military offensive, which passed with support from 141 of 193 member states.

Moscows current disregard for diplomacy makes an intermediary role for New Zealand seem less likely in the short term, although Putins belligerence has not stoppedIsrael,Franceand evenChinafrom trying to keep dialogue alive this week.

Another area on which New Zealand could focus is the nuclear threat.

Vladimir Putin announced on Sunday that he had placed Russias nuclear forces onhigh alert.

The implicit nuclear threat also underpins therefusalby Nato and its allies to enforce the no-fly zoneover Ukraine that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called for.

Jacinda Ardern made no mention of the nuclear dimension in her speech to Parliament this week.

This is perhaps surprising, given that Labours adoption of a nuclear-free policy in 1984 became such a cornerstone of New Zealands identity and outlook.

Ardern declaredthat climate change was my generations nuclear-free moment during Labours 2017 election campaign.

Behind the scenes, however, this week New Zealand did sign up to ajoint statementfrom 13 countries at the UN mainly from Latin America that expressed grave concern and rejection of Putins threats.

Phil Twyford, New Zealands disarmament minister, also expressed similar sentiments in aspeechto the UN Conference on Disarmament.

Twyford called Putins nuclear threats an irresponsible and destabilising act that could bring catastrophic consequences for humanity.

In just one week, Russias invasion of Ukraine has already changed geopolitical calculations around the world.

Putin has certainly given New Zealand a lot to think about.

And this is just the start.

Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Projects international analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian.

This article can be republished under a Creative CommonsCC BY-ND 4.0license. Attributions should include a link to the Democracy Project.

Read this article:

Ardern's response to Ukraine invasion is too cautious - Newsroom