Leaving the western alliance – Part III

Leaving the Western alliance – Part III

Blog No. 194. 

Previous blogs and Parts I & II of this blog have looked at the reasons why NZ can and should depart from its allegiance/subservience to the USA’s western alliance. When the time comes, it is anticipated that NZ will opt for neutrality, rather than entry into further embroiling alliances and the gratuitous enmities they can involve.

  • NZ, together with all other nations, faces three looming, existential perils; pandemics, climate change and nuclear war. These threats can only be addressed by concerted international cooperation through much improved institutions of global governance and the development, observation and enforcement of international law.
  • NZ’s partners in the western alliance, having established the lax governance structures that best suited their own interests, are working to ensure that such further reform should not happen.
  • NZ is not a natural partner for the Western alliance; culturally and geographically it is a mismatch.
  • It is not only the Anglo-led alliance’s disregard for international law and human life that runs contrary to New Zealand’s national interest: it is also the white-supremacist culture and character that is inherent to the association and is generally repugnant to New Zealand society.
  • In pursuit of Anglo-Saxon global dominance, NZ is being dragged into a US and UK inspired cold war with China that is not of its own choosing and is against all its commercial interests.
  • If NZ participates in a western alliance triumph in its cold war with China, New Zealand will lose its main trading partner and be expected to participate in further western adventures. If it participates in a western alliance that loses its cold war with China, the degree of harm done to NZ interests will be far greater.
  • It appears more likely that the western alliance will, at high cost to its members, lose in its bid to stop China’s successful development as the world’s leading economic power.
  • The major bond that binds NZ to the aggressive alliance is membership of the Five Eyes network, into which it was lured with no democratic discussion or legitimacy.
  • New Zealand’s leaving of the alliance may make other nations less enthusiastic about participating in the new cold war. The failure of the West to achieve its goal of curtailing Chinese progress can only be to NZ’s and the rest of the world’s advantage.  

Above, are some of the many reasons for New Zealand to leave the alliance. The disadvantages should also be considered.

  • In the words of President Bush in the context of his pretend war against terrorism “Those that are not for us are against us.” One doesn’t simply opt out of a Mafia: there will be consequences.
  • Though it has been argued that NZ will face a coup should it attempt to leave the Five Eyes alliance, it is most unlikely that the NZ military would consider such a move – though no doubt the NZ SIS, whose current existence and career structure is entirely due to membership of the alliance, almost certainly would. It would need to be dis-established at an early stage in the process.
  • The US government agencies are well practiced in regime change operations and one would certainly be mounted against any NZ government that contemplated such a move. 
  • When Australia attempted a similar move under Gough Whitlam, the British intervened and used an outdated constitutional provision to have the Australian Prime Minister removed by the Queen’s Governor General.  It is most doubtful that such a manoeuvre could be repeated in either the current New Zealand or Australian context.
  • The assault would come as a carefully coordinated and mightily funded PR campaign mounted from the USA, the UK and Australia. Its aim would be to alarm New Zealanders and convince them that the removal of the American alliance would not be in their interest. To support that campaign, there would be economic threats. These would be unlikely to go so far as to impose sanctions for fear of damaging relations with other alliance members.
  • In the course of the PR campaign to ensure NZ’s continued participation in the war against China, there will be arguments that without the Five Eyes, a blinded NZ will be exposed to international terrorism, to an uncontrollable tsunami of narcotics etc.
  • There will also be arguments advanced from within the security establishment that NZ will be exposing itself to threats of invasion or blockade by foreign powers.
  • There could well be false-flag cyber- and/or other attacks designed to demonstrate to an alarmed NZ public that China was indeed a hostile power.
  • There are convincing counters to all such arguments most of which have been given in previous blogs and for which this is not the place.

What is certain is that it would be very difficult for any New Zealand government to make any anticipatory moves in the direction of neutrality until it was convinced that it would have the support of NZ public opinion. The government could not make overt moves to prepare public opinion without triggering a counter-campaign along the lines mentioned above. It will therefore, be up to the New Zealand public to raise its own level of awareness from within its own resources.

Assuming the NZ government had reached a stage at which it has the confidence to opt out of the western alliance, where would it opt to go? To remain in splendid, neutral isolation, from where it would be powerless to make any significant impact on the global environment, would involve an intolerable level of risk and should not be considered as an option.

I attach a rough and ready spreadsheet showing the membership of international organisations most relevant to a New Zealand that wished to leave the western alliance. There are 193 Sovereign states (the whole global community) that are members of the United Nations Organisation, which is not included in the spreadsheet. New Zealand is currently a member of the UNO, the Five Eyes spying network and the OECD (a rich and primarily western nations’ club.) It is also listed by NATO as a ’NATO ally’ – but so is Russia, so one shouldn’t read too much into this status.

The OECD

“The mission of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world. The OECD provides a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems.” Membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is not incompatible with membership of other international groupings, so NZ would be able to continue as a member.

TheG77

“The Group of 77 is the largest intergovernmental organization of developing countries in the United Nations, which provides the means for the countries of the South to articulate and promote their collective economic interests and enhance their joint negotiating capacity on all major international economic issues within the United Nations system, and promote South-South cooperation for development.” The G77 counts China as among its members. Though it is clearly its major supporter, China does not count itself as a member (perhaps because it no longer considers itself as a ‘developing nation?’) As New Zealand is not a developing nation and given China’s leadership role in the G77 that could clash with a desire to be perceived as neutral in the USA/China cold war, membership of the G77 would not seem appropriate for NZ.

The Non-aligned Nations Movement. NAM

“The countries of the Non-Aligned Movement represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations’ members and contain 55% of the world population. Membership is particularly concentrated in countries considered to be developing or part of the Third World, though the Non-Aligned Movement also has a number of developed nations.”

The purpose of the organization was enumerated by Fidel Castro in his Havana Declaration of 1979 as to ensure “the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries” in their “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.” (It was Presidents Tito of Yugoslavia and Nehru of India and not Castro who initiated the movement that Cuba later joined, but Castro’s declaration provides a clear explanation of the organisations aims and for the USA’s disproportionate hostility to Cuba!)

The most obvious reasons given to justify New Zealand putting itself through the hassle of breaking its military and security ties with the USA’s empire, is one of practical economic survival and a wish to avoid being drawn into conflict with its main trading partner.

However, NZ has still to dodge the bullets referred to at the outset of Part II of this series. “Previous blogs have referred to “…the crises facing all humanity: pandemics; environmental collapse; climate change; high-tech nuclear war. None of these can be effectively addressed while the institutions of global governance are in their current state of anarchy.”  The UNO is in a state of stasis, with the necessary reforms made impossible by great power rivalry. The only other grouping which would appear to have the potential to remedy this situation is the Non-aligned Nations Movement, with two thirds of the votes in the UN General Assembly.

By adopting the five principles of no-alignment as illustrated at the top of this blog, by greatly bolstering its diplomatic capabilities, by joining and by pro-actively engaging in the non-aligned Nations movement, New Zealand would be better able to favourably influence its own destiny and that of the remainder of humanity.

Something to add? Please leave a comment in the box below

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *