“The question is not whether we agree with Wong’s framework but whether we are willing to think as clearly about the world we’re actually living in”…well, yes, this seems to be the problem. Asia is very clear eyed about how to ‘adjust’ to the new geopolitical landscape. In NZ our thinking is limited to dissecting the latest political poll and which ‘side’ will have a 61-60 lead after the next election.
Vietnam recently launched a new International Finance Centre in about 12-18 months of concentrated work. This was initiated by the new Communist Party General Secretary, To Lam, after his election in August 2024. It operates a Fintech regulatory sandbox and is constantly innovating. It’s not just Singapore but all countries across Asia, a 4b person population, with a serious focus on improving living standards for all.
NZ is stuck, drifting aimlessly, focused purely on increasing exports rather than building out a future. It’s a shame, as we do have plenty to offer.
And today we have a headline from the PM, who sees his job as getting NZ 'disproportionate influence'... I don't think the weight of principle is what it once was, and we seem to have veered away from some of the more critical/weighty principles that made up our diplomatic offer.
China has not merely arisen, it has restored itself to a natural position, with perhaps some harsh lessons around the national costs of complacency baked into its world view, perhaps to include not letting little tails wag it any more than polite condescension might tolerate. The risk for small countries with a narrow trade offer - e.g. New Zealand - is that dependency on one or another of the big powers is a much higher risk; the pain of losing market access so much more existential. Room to move is dependent on an ability to move into being able to access the room that's there.
Which leads me to a question about Singapore: where was Europe in the analysis? Are they, for Singapore, a potential load balancer that helps buffer Singapore against lurches in the investment link to the US or the trade link to China?
Wong discusses the EU's growing autonomy, the importance of EU-ASEAN integration and how the EU is one way to avoid the binary trap.
To your point, though, I saw that reporting: Wong is not talking about "influence" or "boxing above our weight": he is talking about practical projects, shared pathways and trade arteries. Walking, not talking, is the Wong framework.
“The question is not whether we agree with Wong’s framework but whether we are willing to think as clearly about the world we’re actually living in”…well, yes, this seems to be the problem. Asia is very clear eyed about how to ‘adjust’ to the new geopolitical landscape. In NZ our thinking is limited to dissecting the latest political poll and which ‘side’ will have a 61-60 lead after the next election.
Vietnam recently launched a new International Finance Centre in about 12-18 months of concentrated work. This was initiated by the new Communist Party General Secretary, To Lam, after his election in August 2024. It operates a Fintech regulatory sandbox and is constantly innovating. It’s not just Singapore but all countries across Asia, a 4b person population, with a serious focus on improving living standards for all.
NZ is stuck, drifting aimlessly, focused purely on increasing exports rather than building out a future. It’s a shame, as we do have plenty to offer.
Great stuff Deb!
Thanks, Raf: appreciate the support and added insight; from today’s DMs, it’s clear others share our concerns. Travel safe !
"Our foreign policy debate has calcified around a choice that doesn’t exist."
So much this!!!
Very good analysis. I almost feel if we replaced foreign with domestic, if this statement/article would still be coherent.
And today we have a headline from the PM, who sees his job as getting NZ 'disproportionate influence'... I don't think the weight of principle is what it once was, and we seem to have veered away from some of the more critical/weighty principles that made up our diplomatic offer.
China has not merely arisen, it has restored itself to a natural position, with perhaps some harsh lessons around the national costs of complacency baked into its world view, perhaps to include not letting little tails wag it any more than polite condescension might tolerate. The risk for small countries with a narrow trade offer - e.g. New Zealand - is that dependency on one or another of the big powers is a much higher risk; the pain of losing market access so much more existential. Room to move is dependent on an ability to move into being able to access the room that's there.
Which leads me to a question about Singapore: where was Europe in the analysis? Are they, for Singapore, a potential load balancer that helps buffer Singapore against lurches in the investment link to the US or the trade link to China?
Wong discusses the EU's growing autonomy, the importance of EU-ASEAN integration and how the EU is one way to avoid the binary trap.
To your point, though, I saw that reporting: Wong is not talking about "influence" or "boxing above our weight": he is talking about practical projects, shared pathways and trade arteries. Walking, not talking, is the Wong framework.