ウィスパリング同時通訳研究会コミュのPM Jacinda Ardern Addresses Lowy Institute

Te whare e tu nei

Te marae e takoto ana, tena korua

E nga mate maha, haere, haere, haere.

Nga tangata whenua o tenei rohe, tena koutou.

Tatou nga kanohi e hui mai ana,

Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa

Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be with you today and to greet you in the same manner in which I would greet an audience in New Zealand.

First, I acknowledge all those here today. Those who have passed. And importantly, the mana whenua or people of the land, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation. I would like to extend that respect to any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders here with us today.

When I was asked to share a few thoughts with the prestigious Lowy Institute, I welcomed the opportunity. Afterall, I have just come off the back of trips into Asia, the United States, and Europe. Only those in Australia know as much as we do, how much thinking time that much flying represents.

And so today represents an important opportunity to reflect on a question that I myself and my cabinet colleagues have been discussing for some time, and that is: In an increasingly polarised and contested world, when the push and pull of foreign diplomacy is heightened, how do you successfully sustain a truly independent foreign policy?

I may not conclusively resolve this vexed question today, but I will at least share with you New Zealand’s perspective on it.



But first, some important scene setting.

I’m mindful that in traversing the international environment at present, it may leave everyone feeling a little bereft.

After all, in just a few short years we have seen the space in which we transact foreign policy, become increasingly difficult.

Europe is facing the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the complete disruption of the international rules based order in their region. But more than that, the sense of peace and stability that they’ve broadly experienced since the aftermath of World War Two has been shattered.

The war itself is challenging our notions of conflict and demonstrating how multifaceted warfare now is, with cyber-attacks and prolific disinformation accompanying the more traditional forms of combat.

In our region we’re observing an increasingly contested environment, and add to that the wider global impacts of an ongoing pandemic, the economic crisis that has ensued, and the powerful forces that are disrupting social cohesion and the trust people have in the institutions that serve them.

And if this isn’t enough, we are yet to succeed in addressing one of the most immediate security issues in our region, that of climate change.

In a word – it’s grim out there.

But just as I confessed in a speech I gave just last week, I am an optimist at heart and remain so. The pressures we face present – yes – challenges, but also opportunities.

Opportunities, if we pull, on our own terms, in the same direction.

Last week in that same speech, this was a sentiment I touched on, but I was asked in the aftermath, what ‘on our own terms’ meant.

For me, the encapsulation of New Zealand’s foreign policy today is best summed up in three principles.

The first principle, simply put is a sense of collectivism or global cooperation.

There’s a reason why in the aftermath of World War Two, where like Australia, New Zealand suffered incredible loss of life, we were present for the establishment of the United Nations in San Francisco. We were seeking order and ballast as much as we were seeking to have a voice.

In the face of global conflict and tension, we continue to position ourselves based on the principle of upholding the rules based order through multilateral institutions. And when seeking solutions to issues, be it war or dispute, New Zealand will turn to these same institutions to act as mediator, and when necessary, as judge.

I can point to a number of examples where we have used these institutions in recent times. We did so to put on record our concerns about China’s actions in the South China Sea, Hong Kong and Xinjiang; our condemnation of the military coup in Myanmar; and the threat to regional peace and stability posed by North Korea’s repeated ballistic missile tests in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

And in many cases we have been in the company of others.

If a nation values the rules-based order, human rights, being a good and law-abiding neighbour as defined by the UN, sovereign rights no matter size, wealth or power, and a sense of shared responsibility then it will pursue its interests accordingly, but more often than not in the company of others who share similar values and interests.

But multilateral institutions are imperfect, and they have and will fail us. And when they do fail, our first port of call must always be to find ways to make them stronger. Equally, we cannot be left unable to respond to global challenges because we encounter dysfunction or worse, moral failings.

In recent times there has been no better example of that than the failure of the UN to appropriately respond to the war in Ukraine because of the position taken by Russia in the Security Council.

A morally bankrupt position, in the wake of a morally bankrupt, and illegal war. Under these circumstances, waiting for our multilateral institutions to act was not an option for New Zealand.

Here, when the system fails, we seek partnerships and approaches based on the second principle of our independent foreign policy – our values.

A conviction that we have a moral responsibility to do our part to maintain the rules based order. That regardless of whether a collective approach is possible, maintaining the basic values of human rights, gender equality, state sovereignty, climate action – that falls on each of us to defend and uphold. That we are increasingly interdependent on one another and are, and have always been, impacted by the choices of others.

But we of course have to recognise that these principles of collectivism or global cooperation and our values are and will always be shaped by the third principle, Place.

And our place, is in the Pacific.

The Pacific is who we are as well as where we are. It is both our identity and our place in the world.

We are a nation whose founding document between its indigenous people and the crown is known as the Treaty of Waitangi. And it’s our first nations people who have a shared voyaging history. Our people came from waka mapping the pacific, and these documents, connections and history continue to shape us as a nation.

And while I know this is not often how we are positioned, when you look at a map with New Zealand at the centre rather than at the bottom, or if we are honest, missing from the map entirely, our islands are bounded by the Pacific and Southern Oceans – and the Tasman Sea. A region with its own history, culture, and institutions – and one of the reasons when we took office we launched the Pacific reset.

For us the regional architecture of the Pacific is critical. New Zealand is committed to the Pacific Islands Forum as the vehicle for addressing regional challenges.

To that end, Forum members have been working together to develop the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent to provide a long-term vision of what we want to achieve together for our region.

We have a strong commitment to supporting broader ambitions for our region’s security, as set out in the Biketawa and Boe Declarations. Importantly we see local security challenges being resolved locally, with Pacific Islands Forum Members’ security being addressed first and foremost by the Forum family.

That’s because we have a history of meeting one another’s needs, including most recently through the regional deployment of personnel to Honiara to support the re-establishment of peace and stability following unrest.

The model exists, we need to use it.

That is not to say that there will not be others who have an interest in the Pacific – there are. France, Japan, the UK, US, and China have all played a role in the Pacific for many, many years. It would be wrong to characterise this engagement, including that of China, as new. It would also be wrong to position the Pacific in such a way that they have to ‘pick sides.’ These are democratic nations with their own sovereign right to determine their foreign policy engagements. We can be country neutral in approach, but have a Pacific bias on the values we apply for these engagements. .

But Priorities should be set by the Pacific.

They should be free from coercion.

Investment should be of high quality.

And issues that affect the security of all of us, or may be seen as the militarisation of the region should come through the PIF as set out in the Biketawa and Boe declaration, as such a change would rightly effect and concern many.

Ultimately, rather than increased strategic competition in the region though, we need instead to look for areas to build and cooperate, recognising the sovereignty and independence of those for whom the region really is home.

And so while we each maintain our independence, and New Zealand certainly does, we are part of a family. One that is incredibly important to us and central in our decision making.