Robert
G. Patman, University
of Otago
Twenty-five years ago today,
the world’s strongest military state found itself
powerless to prevent attacks on its homeland by al Qaeda, a
small transnational terrorist group.
Now, a quarter
of the way into the 21st century, it’s possible to
identify the major trends that have shaped the world and New
Zealand’s place in it since that terrible
day.
The response by the United States to the
atrocities led eventually to a quagmire in Afghanistan, an
illegal invasion of Iraq, and an ill-defined “war on
terror” that arguably set in motion the forces shaping
today’s fraught geopolitical landscape.
The
post-9/11 era has been marked by the clear erosion
of an international rules-based order previously led by
the US and enshrined in institutions like the United
Nations.
The Iraq invasion in 2003, China’s
assertiveness in the South China Sea, Russia’s annexation
of Crimea and subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine in
2022, all point to a new era of power politics.
The
US has managed to prevent a repetition of 9/11. But this
should not mask the costs in terms of America’s power,
autonomy and influence in the world.
Military
overreach (fighting simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq), the 2008 global financial crisis, high debt levels,
and the emergence of authoritarian China as a second
superpower have diminished US dominance.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
But the
post 9/11 world has also been characterised by borderless
issues too big even for superpowers to fix: climate change,
pandemics, terrorism and supply chain fragility are
challenges that can’t be resolved without international
cooperation.
Above all, the first quarter of this
century has seen an absence of global leadership. The United
Nations Security Council has been reduced to the role of
international bystander by the veto
privileges of its permanent five members.
Shifting perceptions and
policies
Initially, navigating the emerging new
world order wasn’t overly problematic for a small state
like New Zealand, traditionally a strong supporter of
multilateralism and the rules-based system.
For 15
years after 9/11, Wellington managed to establish and
maintain close ties with both the US and
China.
Helen Clark’s Labour-led government of
1999 to 2008 expressed solidarity with US President George W
Bush’s war on terror and deployed
troops to Afghanistan. Despite opposing the Iraq
invasion, her government ended
the rift over New Zealand’s non-nuclear
stance.
The Wellington
and Washington declarations of 2010 and 2012 during John
Key’s National government codified a revitalised and
expanded strategic partnership between the two
countries.
Meanwhile, New Zealand became the first
developed nation to sign a free trade agreement with China
in 2008, and signed a Comprehensive
Strategic Partnership agreement with Beijing in
2014.
But perceptions began to shift significantly
after 2016 because of growing concern about China’s
assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific
region.
Announcing New Zealand’s first
comprehensive National Security Strategy, Labour defence
minister Andrew
Little said in 2023, “we do not live in a benign
strategic environment”.
In this context, the
National-led coalition elected later that year pledged
closer alignment with traditional allies, in particular the
US. This has culminated
in a “softly softly” approach to the disruption of
international relations and trade during President Donald
Trump’s second term in office.
New Zealand has
refused to publicly question or challenge Trump’s threats
against liberal democratic allies Canada (a fellow member of
the Five Eyes intelligence sharing arrangement) and
Denmark.
It has also had relatively
little to say about a clear disregard for international
law by the Trump administration, whether it be in relation
to Gaza, Iran, Ukraine or Venezuela.
Lessons from
9/11
At the same time, New Zealand has
significantly strengthened its military ties with Washington
by joining
networks of US-led strategic groupings during the past
22 months.
Nevertheless, New Zealand’s policy of
restraint has not
spared it from the consequences of Trump’s trade
protectionism or the economic fallout from the unilateral
attacks on Iran.
So why has the National-led
government persisted with an approach to an administration
seemingly
indifferent to the interests of allies and
friends?
The answer seems to be that the current
international situation is seen as so dire New Zealand has
little choice. It must seek closer alignment with the US
even if it comes at some cost to a distinctive foreign
policy.
There are substantial grounds
to be sceptical about this assessment. One of the key
lessons of the post-9/11 era is that great powers cannot
solve all of the world’s problems, even if they wanted
to.
The alternative would be to work closely with
other small and middle powers to help fill
the present vacuum in global leadership.
It
might ruffle feathers in Washington or Beijing, but
promoting multilateral solutions to the huge environmental,
trade and security challenges the world now faces would be a
rational response to the legacy of 9/11.
Robert
G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University
of Otago
This article is
republished from The
Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the
original
article.
