According to the usual indicators of a small state, including such things as population, land mass, geographical location, military capability and economy, New Zealand can very much be considered to be that of a small state. However, although almost all of these factors are considered small enough to make one consider NZ a small state, is this really the case? Or are there other factors that need to be taken into consideration? As well as these factors, there are also many characteristics typical of a small state, and it is this point for which one must consider if NZ can actually be considered a small state. According to McCraw, in order for a state to be considered that of a small state, they must fulfill five of the following:
1: Low participation in international affairs
2: Have a narrow foreign policy scope
3: Economic focus
4: Strong sense of internationalism
5: Large focus around moral emphasis in policy
6: Small states avoid behaviour that alienates
more powerful states
1: Low participation in international affairs
2: Have a narrow foreign policy scope
3: Economic focus
4: Strong sense of internationalism
5: Large focus around moral emphasis in policy
6: Small states avoid behaviour that alienates
more powerful states
Is New Zealand Really a Small State?
This is where the questions begin to emerge as to NZ’s status as a small state. There are many historical illustrations of NZ’s significant participation in world affairs. NZ has historically been involved in world conflicts, largely due to its alliance obligations, including World War I and II, Vietnam to name a few. NZ has also proved to be a significant global trader, with many significant markets in such countries as the US, Asia and Europe. Many countries historically relied on NZ for many agricultural goods, particularly pre-war. Lastly, NZ (under all governments) has proved to be a very active member of the United Nations.
“Our foreign Policy is Trade” -Muldoon
With regards to NZ’s foreign policy scope, although the immediate focus is generally based around neighbourhood and key issues, the Pacific and United Nations are largely apparent. With regards to NZ’s economic focus, it has largely revolved around trade, with a previous NZ Labour Government prime minister, Robert Muldoon, went as far to say that “Our foreign policy is trade.” Trade is still today one of the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s key focuses. This is also illustrated in the fact that many of NZ’s embassies roughly follow trade patterns. The point that NZ is largely internationalist proves often true. According the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “multilateralism is the central pillar in NZ’s foreign policy. As a small player on the international stage, our economic and physical security depends on a properly functioning system of collective security, the international rule of law and dispute settlement. Through our multilateral diplomacy in general, and out engagement with the United Nations in particular, NZ seeks security, prosperity and the preservation of freedom, for itself and others.
“For countries of our size and strategic situation, collective security and development of agreed norms and rules of international behaviour are strongly in out national interests”
-NZMFAT
Moral emphasis with regards to many of NZ’s policies is arguably dependent on the influence of either the left wing Labour party, or the right wing National party. Many political scholars argue that Labour places a lot more moral emphasis then that of National. And with the changing of governments has come the fluctuation in moral values. Under the National Bolger government (1990-1997), the Minister for External Relations and Trade said “we cannot afford to be hindered by a single ideological approach, to take the moral high ground on every international issue of the day, or to feel that we have some divine right to lecture the world.”
With regards to the last of McCraw’s characteristics of a small state, NZ clearly illustrates its incongruence with this, not only on one occasion, but many. With the most significant alienations of the world super powers being apparent in the form of NZ’s opposition to ANZUS, French military testing in the Pacific and the failure to send NZ troops to Iraq. All of these decisions were a clear disagreement with more powerful states and contributed very much to an alienation between NZ and the respective world power. ANZUS resulted in almost all NZ’s beneficial ties with the US and Australian being terminated, and only today is the level of the relationship returning to almost pre-ANZUS levels. The bombing of Rainbow Warrior (a Greenpeace vessel) in Auckland’s port on July 10th 1985, was a clear demonstration of how much NZ alienated the French, with regards to its resistance of nuclear testing. And could the possible lack of a free-trade agreement with the US be a direct result of NZ’s opposition to the war in Iraq?
Although NZ does fulfill many characteristics of a small state, such as small population, small land mass, isolated geographical location and low military capability, many other political factors are a clear illustration of NZ’s small appearance but loud voice of the political international stage. NZ is not a state that lets the greater powers dominate its policy, and NZ’s anti-nuclear is a demonstration of that. NZ is limited by such things as an isolated geographical location and low military might, but instead uses more “soft-power” means to achieve its specific targets
