[ad_1]
WWhile the epithets thrown by American, Russian and Chinese leaders on each other are making world news, a little-noticed diplomatic row is getting worse between normally friendly neighbors Australia and New Zealand.
This is unexpected and unwanted. The two countries are arguably among the most closely interconnected on the planet. Its long-standing and intimate social, economic and intergovernmental ties rival only those of the United States with Canada, the United Kingdom with Ireland, and France with Belgium.
And the consequences of a diplomatic rift between Tasmania are potentially dire for regional stability. It would slow down the incipient union of democratic countries in the Indo-Pacific region, signaled by the resurgence of the Quad by US President Joe Biden as a counterweight to the influence of a rising China. It would slow progress toward liberalizing regional trade and hamper cooperation to help Pacific island states facing economic weakness, debt to China and rising sea levels. It would undermine the credibility of both countries as a destination for trade, investment and tourism.
The latest confrontation between Wellington and Canberra came earlier this month when Australian Home Secretary Peter Dutton referred to New Zealanders sent home as part of his government’s policy of deporting convicted and sentenced non-citizens. to more than a year in prison as “garbage.” New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta retaliated, saying her comments “only serve to destroy her own reputation.” The uproar continued when it was reported that Australia had deported a 15-year-old boy to New Zealand without his parents.
Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, has repeatedly pointed out to her Australian counterpart Scott Morrison the unreasonableness of deporting people who have grown up in Australia to what is practically a foreign country to them.
For New Zealanders, the policy is a reminder of Australia’s tough asylum policies, which stand in stark contrast to their own country. As the overseas processing of asylum seekers continues in Australia, Papua New Guinea and Nauru, New Zealand has repeatedly offered to accept some of the detainees there and welcomed one of the most well-known detainees in the country. extraterritorial center, the writer and journalist Behrouz Boochani.
The deportation dispute came just weeks after Canberra canceled the citizenship of a woman with dual citizenship of New Zealand and Australia, a woman with two children who had been married to an Isis fighter and was detained by authorities in Turkey. . He applied for repatriation to Australia, where he had grown up and from where he had left, using his Australian passport. Ardern accused Australia of abdicating its responsibilities, calling the cancellation of citizenship “incorrect” and arguing that “any impartial person would regard this person as Australian.”
It is worth mentioning that New Zealand’s worst case of terrorism, the Christchurch mosque massacre two years ago, was perpetrated by an Australian. Despite suggestions from then New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters, Australia did not request extradition; New Zealand has taken responsibility for his trial and life in prison, at considerable cost.
Australia’s actions reflect more than the decisions of a hardline minister. Although Kiwi journalist Rebekah Holt has called Dutton’s comments on the deportations “racist dog whistles,” her immigration policy has the support of the majority of the electorate.
Despite tough talks by Dutton and Morrison on the one hand and Ardern and Mahuta on the other, a real breakdown in relations is unlikely because the two sides have so much to lose. On and off disagreements have emerged from 1900 to the present over governance, potatoes, apples, immigrants “through the back door,” airlines and security, and most recently Covid-19 border closures.
But they have been managed in an acceptable way, although not always to the full satisfaction of each of the parties. Leaders continue to consult almost daily on the full spectrum of common interests. The two countries enjoy the world’s most effective bilateral free trade agreement (since 1983), liberal investments, travel, educational and residential arrangements, cross-recognition of professional and business qualifications, and cooperation with defense forces. Their sporting rivalry in rugby and cricket is highly valued despite exuberant and irreverent jokes from fans.
As a smaller partner, New Zealand benefits disproportionately from the relationship. Australia is New Zealand’s second best trading partner (very close to China) and the main investor and source of tourists. Therefore, Wellington is prudent in accepting the policies dictated by Canberra, however unpleasant. Persuasion can sometimes moderate these policies, but not always. Since the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs and occasional irritants, New Zealand will remain Australia’s closest partner and vice versa. The current dispute may persist, but it will be handled.
