Well, the football World Cup is over and the good guys won, geo-politically speaking. Meaning: Spain was the first European country to officially join the case that South Africa brought before the International Court of Justice over Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza. Spain has also refused to let America use its military bases in Spain for its illegal war on Iran. Recently Spain significantly expanded the access of undocumented migrants (especially children) to residency in Spain etc. In response, a petulant Donald Trump has threatened a total trade boycott of Spain.
In stark contrast, the social experiment in libertarian extremism that Javier Milei has inflicted on Argentina has resulted in Milei repeatedly asking Donald Trump to bail out his government, both politically and economically. Trump has personally intervened in local elections to rally public support for Milei, and (incredibly) the Trump administration has thrown Argentina a $20 billion lifeline to keep its economy afloat.
Domestically, Milei has brought down inflation… but only by taking a chainsaw to the welfare safety net, and by halving state spending on education and science. Even as the social damage is becoming more apparent, Milei is becoming more authoritarian. In a show of support, billionaire crackpot Peter Thiel has temporarily relocated his family to Argentina, where his wealth will insulate the Thiels and their ilk from the social harms caused by Milei’s excesses.
Phew. Thanks to that goal scored in the 113th minute by Spain’s Ferran Torres, the world has been saved from the spectacle of Donald Trump and Javier Milei lording it over everyone else.
Footnote: Trump did do his best to foul the entire tournament. Lest we forget, the US denied entry to a Somali referee, repeatedly harassed the team from Iran, gloated over their defeat, and successfully pressured a compliant FIFA boss Gianni Infantino to re-instate a red-carded American player who – since his parents are naturalised immigrants from Nigeria – would never have been able to play for the US if Trump’s racist immigration policies had been in force at the time.
US missiles = Good; China missiles = Bad
A fortnight ago, this column cited the dates and mission objectives of the three US nuclear ballistic missiles launched into the Pacific from US military bases over the past 12 months. One of those three ICBMs carried dummy multiple warheads that, as the Pentagon put it, are intended to “overwhelm “[enemy] defences” – a capability that risks undermining the principle of mutual nuclear deterrence. None of this moved New Zealand to voice the slightest bit of concern.
Yet when China fired a test missile a few weeks ago, it was as if the sky had fallen in. Foreign Minister Winston Peters whipped up a lather of concern about China launching a ballistic missile test into international waters in the Pacific, even though this was only the second time this has happened in 40 years. (To repeat: the US carries out several such tests, annually.)
When briefly queried about the double standard on TVNZ’s Q& A programme yesterday, Defence Minister Chris Penk made a feeble distinction that the US has an agreement with the Marshall Islands to carry out its tests. (So if China won a similar go-ahead from the Solomon Islands or from French Polynesia to host an ICBM test range nearby, then would that make it OK by us? Not likely.)
Unfortunately… if our alleged goal is to prevent the Pacific from becoming a theatre of nuclear escalation, that horse bolted many decades ago. For the past 80 years, US has been using the Pacific as its nuclear test range. Between 1946 and 1958 the US exploded 67 nuclear bombs on local atolls in the Marshall Islands. This has left a poisonous legacy, and has stoked lasting local resentment of the US military presence.
For Penk to claim that the Marshall Islands has an “agreement” with the US is misleading. It discounts the displacement of thousands of local Marshallese and ignores the ongoing effects of the nuclear contamination of (a) their ancestral homelands and (b) the fishing stocks on which their livelihoods depend: not to mention the significant erosion of the Kwajalein Atoll into which the US continues to fire its test missiles. By comparison, the impacts of China’s missile launches into the Pacific are trivial to non-existent.
Penk also justified his concern about the China missile test on the grounds that it is an “outsider” to the region. Maybe someone needs to give Penk a map. In reality, China has a vast, 18,000 kilometre long coastline on the Pacific Ocean. Just like the US, China is also a global and economic superpower. Even if China was not faced with massive US military bases situated nearby in the Pacific – and it is – China’s status as a global superpower means that it, too, has a legitimate military presence in the region. After all, the US has claimed for decades that its role as a global policeman has entitled it to a military presence in Asia, Africa, Europe etc.
For Penk to claim that – in effect – the Pacific is an American lake to which no other military power has any right of entry, is provocative and highly dangerous. It precludes us from the option of engaging positively with China on defence/security issues in future, in exactly the same way that we already do on trade. The schizoid way that we treat China as a vital friend on trade and economic issues, but a deadly foe on defence/security matters is deeply irrational.
The Emperors New Alliance
According to Peters and Penk, New Zealand is still considering whether to join the “Ocean of Peace” mutual defence alliance that Fiji and Australia have recently signed. Indeed, caution would be advisable. For starters, how on earth can the “Ocean of Peace” concept pretend that it is about keeping the Pacific nuclear free and de-militarised, when one of its foundation members (Australia) seems hellbent on acquiring a fleet of nuclear capable, nuclear-submarines?
These are submarines that the Aussies themselves have said will significantly extend their “force projection” strike capabilities much further into the Pacific. In the process, Australia will not only be sailing their nuclear powered craft through Pacific waters, but will be taking up threatening positions adjacent to the maritime trade routes that traverse the South China Sea.
Does that stance of aggression sound like something that’s consistent with claims to be creating an “Ocean of Peace?” Hardly. Australia, in its customary role as a US proxy, is actively militarising the Pacific, and bringing the threat of nuclear war – either on purpose or by accident – into the heart of the region.
This development should be being resisted by New Zealand. If New Zealand were to join the “Ocean of Peace” alliance (or its big brother, AUKUS) our anti-nuclear legislation could not possibly survive in its current form. With AUKUS, we would become an interoperable/interchangeable cog within a nuclear armed/nuclear powered alliance.
Moreover, as part of the “Ocean of Peace” alliance wouldn’t we be required to allow our Aussie partners to dock their nuclear powered, nuclear capable submarines at our ports? What kind of defence partner would we be, if we refused them entry? To be clear, the second-hand Virginia class submarines that the Australians are acquiring from the US will be nuclear capable. Before we allow these subs to dock in New Zealand ports, do we plan on simply taking Canberra’s word that they are not nuclear armed? Those kind of assurances haven’t been good enough for us in the past.
So far, neither Peters nor Penk have spoken about the negative implications that the “Ocean of Peace” alliance or the troubled AUKUS pact would have for our anti-nuclear legislation. Ironically, Penk has previously called for a national “debate” on whether we should maintain our ban on nuclear powered vessels. Yet Penk pointedly refused to engage in this debate when asked some relevant questions on the matter by Jack Tame yesterday, on Q&A.
These are basic questions to be asked here. In future, would nuclear powered, nuclear capable Aussie submarines be allowed, under any conditions, to dock at New Zealand ports? Do we think that Australia sailing its nuclear submarines through the Pacific would mark an escalation in the militarisation of the region? As a global economic power, does China have as much right as the US to a military presence in the Pacific – and if not, why not?
Lets hope that someone asks such questions of the government, before the November election.