March 19, 2025 • 18 mins
This week is seeing New Zealand’s highest-ranking politicians walking a tricky diplomatic tightrope.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been courting his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi to kickstart trade deal discussions – but their meeting took a twist when Modi raised concerns about ‘anti-Indian activity’ in New Zealand.
Around the same time, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Winston Peters has been in Washington for his first face to face talks with the second Trump administration.
Those come at a time when the US is causing upset in Europe with its stance on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
So, how should New Zealand handle these new diplomatic relationships? And can we apply any of our tactics from our relationship with China?
Today on The Front Page, Al Gillespie is with us to look at our changing world.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Kilda.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
By The New Zealand Herald.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
This week is seeing New Zealand's highest ranking politicians walking
a tricky diplomatic tight rope. Prime Minister Christopher Luxen has
been courting his Indian counterpartner Andra Mody to kickstart trade
deal discussions, but their meeting took a twist when Mody
raised concerns about anti Indian activity in New Zealand. Around
(00:36):
the same time, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Winston
Peters has been in Washington for his first face to
face talks with the second Trump administration. Those come at
a time when the US is causing upset in Europe
with its stance on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
So how should New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Handle these new diplomatic relationships and can we apply any
of our tactics from our relationship with today on the
front page? Why can't our university professor of international law,
Our Gillespie is with us to look at our changing world?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Now let's start with India.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
The meeting between Luxon and Mody seemed quite positive for
the most part, Hey, but There was a small discussion
near the end where Mody said, and I quote, we
have shared our concerns about anti India activities by some
illegal elements in New Zealand. We are confident that we
will continue to receive the support of the New Zealand
(01:36):
government in taking action against these illegal elements. Now he's
referring to the separatist Kalistan movement. What do you make
of this coming up in the talks?
Speaker 3 (01:47):
This is a difficult area. I think the first point
is that when he mister Mody mentioned illegal elements, he's
talking about illegal in terms of India, not illegal in
terms of Zealand. The problem of seek separatism and its
link to violence and terror historically has been very strong
(02:08):
and there has been a number of atrocious acts and
reprisals against these communities over time. The way India has
responded is that it's designated a number of these groups
associated with separatism as terrorist organizations. New Zealand and other
countries haven't responded in the same way, and this has
(02:30):
created difficulties not just with this current statement, but also
like with countries like Canada, whereby there has been interference
in Canadian domestic affairs against some of these separatist groups.
From here, the question will be whether there is pressure
put upon the government to designate the separatists seek separatists
(02:51):
as terror groups, which would mean talking in support of them,
raising finance for them, or any advocacy for them a
criminal activity, or the approach with New Zealand has which
has continued to allow them to exercise their freedom of
speech and exercise it responsibly. The key thing is that
there should never be an advocacy for violence at home or
(03:12):
advocacy for violence abroad.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Luxeon quickly said after that statement, New Zealand has strong
free speech laws and this had been expressed. Does this
suggest a potential issue further down the track.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
It does suggest a potential issue because some of these
communities seeking separatism do methods like they hold fake referendums,
or they have advocacy which can be quite confrontational to India.
And the question will be where the New Zealand does
more to control these groups. It's hard for us because
(03:46):
we value freedom of speech and dissent quite strongly, and
we allow diaspora communities to speak freely without fear of
repercussion from their original countries, and so we see this
worth communities from China, communities from Russia and communities from Iran,
whereby they are allowed to speak with the freedoms that
(04:07):
New Zealand gives an opposition to the countries that they
once came from. The point where it becomes difficult and
it should not be tolerated is if it involves any
advocacy of violence. But for discussion of peaceful change, I
think we need to be liberal and open to these avenues.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
New Zealand is committed to doing more with India across
a wide range of areas, defense and security, trade and economics,
people to people ties, education, tourism, sports and culture. Our
two way trade today stands at around three billion New
Zealand dollars a year, but there is huge potential to grow.
And it is in that context that I want to
(04:45):
say thank you and I'm pleased to welcome me if
it's a Minister Goyal and Minister maclay on their agreement
between New Zealand and India that we will launch immediately
free comprehensive free trade agreement negotiations making sure that we
work towards a balanced ambition and comprehensive agreement.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
How do we balance things like this when we are
hard launching our pitch for a trade deal with India,
does the fact that we're perhaps keener than India for
this deal give them power.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
We're at a point in international politics where everything's becoming
quite muddy, and an ideal world, discussions about trade wouldn't
be muddied by discussions about dissident groups in foreign countries.
But what you're seeing is that discussions about trade are
now linked to the war on drugs, illegal immigration gangs.
And you don't have to see mister Trump for this.
(05:36):
And so what used to be distinct avenues whereby you'd
have your negotiations and deal with it one problem at
a time, now everything is getting quite muddy, and so
that means it's not unexpected that you might find the
relationship for a trade deal linked to political repression of
a group that is deemed by terrorist organization in India
but not in New.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Zealand on the other side of the world.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Winston Peters has been in the US with Secretary of
State Marco Rubio on Wednesday.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
Well, we shared some significant information. For example that since
eighteen seventy we've been asking it about a trade agreement
and I put it out to him how patient they
were on a matter of tariff. We had set the
centard four decades ago and other countries were catching up
in terms of fairness. He understood that. So we came
(06:23):
where much more confident than when we originally came here.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
He's came to secure New Zealand an exemption from agricultural
tariffs the US has promised from April second. Now, New
Zealand doesn't currently seem to be on the US's radar
when it comes to these tariffs and the trade wars
happening overseas. What do you think we need to do
to not catch their attention, to stay under the radar.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, I think we are on the radar. It just
hasn't been announced, and we aren't going to find out
whether we've been detected and will be impacted until April
the second. I think what will happen, and what has
been happenant is what we have tried exceptionally hard not
to cause offense to mister Trump or his regime. And
this means that when things have been difficult or some
(07:10):
of mister Trump's suggestions have been problematic for New Zealand
in terms of what we believe as a rule based order,
we haven't been critical unlike other countries. And then when
mister Goff, our ambassador, our highest diplomat in Britain's made
some undiplomatic comments, he was removed from his post. And
so our approach so far has been not to upset
mister Trump, even though he may be doing things which
(07:32):
are not in our interest. The problem we face is
that it might not be enough just being quiet and
not upsetting mister Trump, because he's already made clear with
the countries which is closer to like Australia than New Zealand,
that even they will not have exemptions over the moves
of a free trade and so I would be surprised
if we are exempt from the new next level of
(07:55):
tariffs while comparable countries which are closer to him are
not exempt. But having said that, I think that the
role here is manifest uncertainty. We really can't predict what
will happen or why, but you can expect that things
will be linked together in unexpected ways, and so you
might find that we are exemple in a trade deal
if we do something else that's not related to trade.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
What do you think the US will want to see
from New Zealand going forward over the next four years.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
I think political support will be very important for initiatives
that the United States wants, and these will be from
reforming the international system through to bilateral initiatives that may
involve security. And so they certainly won't expect us to
be critical of any other decisions of mister Trump, because
these aren't seen as policy decisions. They're seen as personal decisions,
(08:56):
and they can be held quite detrimentally against us. So
I think as he reforms the international architecture, he will
expect us to step in behind and not voice opposition.
That will get quite hard as things like the details
of Ukraine's peace agreement come to the fore, and we
may have to swallow a peace agreement which we have
vocally and strategically defended Ukraine for. We may now have
(09:19):
to find that some of the things that we hold sacrisant,
like non annexation of territory, accountability for crimes, freedom of
countries to join the security arrangements that they want, may
all get pushed to one side. Because mister Trump will
make a peace here with mister Putin. We will either
have to be silent or if the international world divides
and Europe forms a different group. Have to choose between
mister Trump and the European approach.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Defense has become a big talking point in recent months.
Trump has reaffirmed his previous wishes to see the US's
partners spend more on defense, and both Luxeen and Peters
have been pushing that message as well, including in India.
But Trump wanted to see a two percent of GDP
go towards defense when he was last in office. That
(10:01):
would be double what our government committed in last year's budget.
So can we afford to invest this much in defense?
And what would happen if we aren't being shown to
pull our weight.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
I think two percent now is your minimum opening bid.
Countries in Europe are getting closer to three or four percent.
We are in a very concerning arms race right now.
That the two percent is your minimum, and that that's
the NATO target that we're being tied to. Mister Luxon
has expressed approval of the two percent target, But the
(10:32):
question we have is when will that be achieved by
and what kit you will buy and from who. The
question of affordability is a horrible question because every piece
of military kit you buy has an opportunity cost, which
means it's not being spent on housing, health or education.
The challenge we've got is that the world is changing
(10:54):
so quickly and the risks are rising. That countries similar
to us have the same challenge, but they too have
to make the same commitment of a two percent or
more change. It's not like anyone's flush with money right now,
but everyone's facing the same risks and needs to prepare forward.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
It a high stakes phone call today between President Trump
and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
We're getting down to a very critical stage.
Speaker 6 (11:21):
It's believed to be the first time Trump and Putin
are speaking to each other since Ukraine agreed to a
thirty day ceasefire with US negotiators a week ago. Still
no guarantees from Russia.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
And it's a bad situation in Russia, and it's a
bad situation in Ukraine.
Speaker 6 (11:35):
What's happening in Ukraine is not good.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
But we're going to see if we can work a
peace agreement.
Speaker 6 (11:42):
Both leaders said to discuss the future of the war
in Ukraine, including possibly how land and assets in Ukraine
could be divided.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Speaking of defense and conflicts, Luxon took part in a
virtual leader's summit for the Coalition of the Willing so
countries backing Ukraine and looking to deploy peacekeepers to the region. Now,
the US's stance on Ukraine has flip flopped a bit
in recent weeks, hey since we last spoke. Currently, the
US and Ukraine have agreed to the potential of a ceasefire,
(12:17):
but Russia doesn't seem very interested in The US currently
isn't doing much to force them to the table. Despite
a mammoth two hour call between Putin and Trump. Where
does this leave New Zealand? Do you think we will
be siding with Europe more on this one?
Speaker 3 (12:31):
It's too early to say. And the ceasefire that's been
negotiated between mister Putin and mister Trump is at an
early stage, and they've agreed a partial ceasefire to cover
energy infrastructure. They're going to talk about a maritime ceasefire
over the Black Sea. There's no discussion of a ceasefire
(12:51):
on the front lines where the soldier's arm but mister
Putin has made it clear that he expects that there
will be no rearmament or resupply of uk position, which
puts Ukraine at a distinct disadvantage. There's no international observers
to see whether the small bit that they've agreed will
actually even be monitored independently. Mister Putin seems to be
(13:12):
saying that they want the ceasefire to be linked to
substantive peace negotiations at the same time, which means that
he will have leverage that Zelensky doesn't have in the
way that if the negotiations go badly, the partial ceasefire
will break quite quickly. For New Zealand, what this means
is we have to see what the terms of the
(13:33):
agreement are. And it appears that mister Putin and mister
Trump have agreed that there will be some annexation of territory.
And that's even before we discuss issues of compensation, accountability
and sovereign choices of alliances. With that one principle of
annexation of territory being given over that this goes against
the UN Charter, that this goes against basic principles of
(13:56):
international law. And so if the Americans and Russian degree
this is the first step for peace, we're instantly going
to find a reaction from Europe. And because the Europeans
might say no, we don't accept this, and we will
continue to support Ukraine. If that does happen, New Zealand
will have to say, well, we're either going to follow
Trump's approach or the approach of the Europeans with the
Coalition of the Willing. This is a discussion between France
(14:18):
and Britain at the forefront about whether there would be
some soldiers who would be put as a security blanket
for Ukraine against further potential aggression by Russia. At the moment,
mister Putin seems to have no tolerance for this idea,
and so we've got to be careful about talking ourselves
into a circle until we know exactly what the parameters
are that Trump and Putin want.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Should we be taking a harderligne on this.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
We are doing the correct thing being part of the
discussion of the Coalition of the Willing, and we are
doing the correct thing to show our willingness to be
part of this approach. It's premage sure to try to
say what path we should take until we can see
where Putin and Trump land, and only then we should
be able to respond. But at the same time we
(15:04):
need to be very careful that we don't sacrifice principles
about international rules and international order which help keep peace
and security for all of the world and benefit countries
like New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Our New Zealand has a unique relationship with China compared
to our other Five Eyes partners. We tend to get
along with them pretty well, even when Australia and the
US are at odds with them. Are there any key lessons,
any dos or don'ts from that relationship we could look
at applying to the Trump administration, to India, to any
of those tense geopolitical situations.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
At the moment, I think.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
That the diplomatic relationship with China is good. It could
be better. There was concerning what happened over the Cook
Islands and this will be difficult to manage in the future.
I think the economic relationship is excellent. I think the
cultural relationship could be strengthened, and we need to find
more initiatives between countries to build bonds bilaterally and in
the region. But the lesson for the United States and
(15:56):
New Zealand is that with China we speak freely behind
closed doors and the discussions are robust and forthright, but
we try not to conduct those in public. But that
is beginning to change now as some actions come to
our attention. But with America, I think it's the same.
We need to be able to speak very clearly behind
(16:17):
closed doors, but be very careful what we say in public,
because whether we like it or not, some misplaced words
could have implications of ten to millions of dollars for
New Zealand exporters.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Would you like to see us taking a stronger stance
in any realm the same way we did, say forty
years ago, with nuclear testing, Yes, yeah, I would.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
I think the one area I'm particularly concerned about is
the arms race and what we need to be more forthright.
Even though we must increase our capacity, we need to
consider that the choice of how we increase our capacity,
because warfare in betwenty first century is very different to
warfare in betwentieth century, and so we're going to have
(16:56):
to work out who our suppliers are and what the
obligations of those shall be. But at the same time,
we need to redouble our reference for disarmament and international
debates around this, whether it's artificial intelligence and nuclear planning,
whether it's the fragmentation of the architecture which keeps nuclear
weapons at Bay. We need to become more engaged than
we have in recent years, and so we need to
(17:17):
almost have a dual process where we increase our own
security but we raise our voice to try to mitigate
the threat of nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Thanks for joining us out.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
You're welcome, Chelsea.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzadherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our sound engineer.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Kilda.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
By The New Zealand Herald.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
This week is seeing New Zealand's highest ranking politicians walking
a tricky diplomatic tight rope. Prime Minister Christopher Luxen has
been courting his Indian counterpartner Andra Mody to kickstart trade
deal discussions, but their meeting took a twist when Mody
raised concerns about anti Indian activity in New Zealand. Around
(00:36):
the same time, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Winston
Peters has been in Washington for his first face to
face talks with the second Trump administration. Those come at
a time when the US is causing upset in Europe
with its stance on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
So how should New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Handle these new diplomatic relationships and can we apply any
of our tactics from our relationship with today on the
front page? Why can't our university professor of international law,
Our Gillespie is with us to look at our changing world?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Now let's start with India.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
The meeting between Luxon and Mody seemed quite positive for
the most part, Hey, but There was a small discussion
near the end where Mody said, and I quote, we
have shared our concerns about anti India activities by some
illegal elements in New Zealand. We are confident that we
will continue to receive the support of the New Zealand
(01:36):
government in taking action against these illegal elements. Now he's
referring to the separatist Kalistan movement. What do you make
of this coming up in the talks?
Speaker 3 (01:47):
This is a difficult area. I think the first point
is that when he mister Mody mentioned illegal elements, he's
talking about illegal in terms of India, not illegal in
terms of Zealand. The problem of seek separatism and its
link to violence and terror historically has been very strong
(02:08):
and there has been a number of atrocious acts and
reprisals against these communities over time. The way India has
responded is that it's designated a number of these groups
associated with separatism as terrorist organizations. New Zealand and other
countries haven't responded in the same way, and this has
(02:30):
created difficulties not just with this current statement, but also
like with countries like Canada, whereby there has been interference
in Canadian domestic affairs against some of these separatist groups.
From here, the question will be whether there is pressure
put upon the government to designate the separatists seek separatists
(02:51):
as terror groups, which would mean talking in support of them,
raising finance for them, or any advocacy for them a
criminal activity, or the approach with New Zealand has which
has continued to allow them to exercise their freedom of
speech and exercise it responsibly. The key thing is that
there should never be an advocacy for violence at home or
(03:12):
advocacy for violence abroad.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Luxeon quickly said after that statement, New Zealand has strong
free speech laws and this had been expressed. Does this
suggest a potential issue further down the track.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
It does suggest a potential issue because some of these
communities seeking separatism do methods like they hold fake referendums,
or they have advocacy which can be quite confrontational to India.
And the question will be where the New Zealand does
more to control these groups. It's hard for us because
(03:46):
we value freedom of speech and dissent quite strongly, and
we allow diaspora communities to speak freely without fear of
repercussion from their original countries, and so we see this
worth communities from China, communities from Russia and communities from Iran,
whereby they are allowed to speak with the freedoms that
(04:07):
New Zealand gives an opposition to the countries that they
once came from. The point where it becomes difficult and
it should not be tolerated is if it involves any
advocacy of violence. But for discussion of peaceful change, I
think we need to be liberal and open to these avenues.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
New Zealand is committed to doing more with India across
a wide range of areas, defense and security, trade and economics,
people to people ties, education, tourism, sports and culture. Our
two way trade today stands at around three billion New
Zealand dollars a year, but there is huge potential to grow.
And it is in that context that I want to
(04:45):
say thank you and I'm pleased to welcome me if
it's a Minister Goyal and Minister maclay on their agreement
between New Zealand and India that we will launch immediately
free comprehensive free trade agreement negotiations making sure that we
work towards a balanced ambition and comprehensive agreement.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
How do we balance things like this when we are
hard launching our pitch for a trade deal with India,
does the fact that we're perhaps keener than India for
this deal give them power.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
We're at a point in international politics where everything's becoming
quite muddy, and an ideal world, discussions about trade wouldn't
be muddied by discussions about dissident groups in foreign countries.
But what you're seeing is that discussions about trade are
now linked to the war on drugs, illegal immigration gangs.
And you don't have to see mister Trump for this.
(05:36):
And so what used to be distinct avenues whereby you'd
have your negotiations and deal with it one problem at
a time, now everything is getting quite muddy, and so
that means it's not unexpected that you might find the
relationship for a trade deal linked to political repression of
a group that is deemed by terrorist organization in India
but not in New.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Zealand on the other side of the world.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Winston Peters has been in the US with Secretary of
State Marco Rubio on Wednesday.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
Well, we shared some significant information. For example that since
eighteen seventy we've been asking it about a trade agreement
and I put it out to him how patient they
were on a matter of tariff. We had set the
centard four decades ago and other countries were catching up
in terms of fairness. He understood that. So we came
(06:23):
where much more confident than when we originally came here.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
He's came to secure New Zealand an exemption from agricultural
tariffs the US has promised from April second. Now, New
Zealand doesn't currently seem to be on the US's radar
when it comes to these tariffs and the trade wars
happening overseas. What do you think we need to do
to not catch their attention, to stay under the radar.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, I think we are on the radar. It just
hasn't been announced, and we aren't going to find out
whether we've been detected and will be impacted until April
the second. I think what will happen, and what has
been happenant is what we have tried exceptionally hard not
to cause offense to mister Trump or his regime. And
this means that when things have been difficult or some
(07:10):
of mister Trump's suggestions have been problematic for New Zealand
in terms of what we believe as a rule based order,
we haven't been critical unlike other countries. And then when
mister Goff, our ambassador, our highest diplomat in Britain's made
some undiplomatic comments, he was removed from his post. And
so our approach so far has been not to upset
mister Trump, even though he may be doing things which
(07:32):
are not in our interest. The problem we face is
that it might not be enough just being quiet and
not upsetting mister Trump, because he's already made clear with
the countries which is closer to like Australia than New Zealand,
that even they will not have exemptions over the moves
of a free trade and so I would be surprised
if we are exempt from the new next level of
(07:55):
tariffs while comparable countries which are closer to him are
not exempt. But having said that, I think that the
role here is manifest uncertainty. We really can't predict what
will happen or why, but you can expect that things
will be linked together in unexpected ways, and so you
might find that we are exemple in a trade deal
if we do something else that's not related to trade.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
What do you think the US will want to see
from New Zealand going forward over the next four years.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
I think political support will be very important for initiatives
that the United States wants, and these will be from
reforming the international system through to bilateral initiatives that may
involve security. And so they certainly won't expect us to
be critical of any other decisions of mister Trump, because
these aren't seen as policy decisions. They're seen as personal decisions,
(08:56):
and they can be held quite detrimentally against us. So
I think as he reforms the international architecture, he will
expect us to step in behind and not voice opposition.
That will get quite hard as things like the details
of Ukraine's peace agreement come to the fore, and we
may have to swallow a peace agreement which we have
vocally and strategically defended Ukraine for. We may now have
(09:19):
to find that some of the things that we hold sacrisant,
like non annexation of territory, accountability for crimes, freedom of
countries to join the security arrangements that they want, may
all get pushed to one side. Because mister Trump will
make a peace here with mister Putin. We will either
have to be silent or if the international world divides
and Europe forms a different group. Have to choose between
mister Trump and the European approach.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Defense has become a big talking point in recent months.
Trump has reaffirmed his previous wishes to see the US's
partners spend more on defense, and both Luxeen and Peters
have been pushing that message as well, including in India.
But Trump wanted to see a two percent of GDP
go towards defense when he was last in office. That
(10:01):
would be double what our government committed in last year's budget.
So can we afford to invest this much in defense?
And what would happen if we aren't being shown to
pull our weight.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
I think two percent now is your minimum opening bid.
Countries in Europe are getting closer to three or four percent.
We are in a very concerning arms race right now.
That the two percent is your minimum, and that that's
the NATO target that we're being tied to. Mister Luxon
has expressed approval of the two percent target, But the
(10:32):
question we have is when will that be achieved by
and what kit you will buy and from who. The
question of affordability is a horrible question because every piece
of military kit you buy has an opportunity cost, which
means it's not being spent on housing, health or education.
The challenge we've got is that the world is changing
(10:54):
so quickly and the risks are rising. That countries similar
to us have the same challenge, but they too have
to make the same commitment of a two percent or
more change. It's not like anyone's flush with money right now,
but everyone's facing the same risks and needs to prepare forward.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
It a high stakes phone call today between President Trump
and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
We're getting down to a very critical stage.
Speaker 6 (11:21):
It's believed to be the first time Trump and Putin
are speaking to each other since Ukraine agreed to a
thirty day ceasefire with US negotiators a week ago. Still
no guarantees from Russia.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
And it's a bad situation in Russia, and it's a
bad situation in Ukraine.
Speaker 6 (11:35):
What's happening in Ukraine is not good.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
But we're going to see if we can work a
peace agreement.
Speaker 6 (11:42):
Both leaders said to discuss the future of the war
in Ukraine, including possibly how land and assets in Ukraine
could be divided.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Speaking of defense and conflicts, Luxon took part in a
virtual leader's summit for the Coalition of the Willing so
countries backing Ukraine and looking to deploy peacekeepers to the region. Now,
the US's stance on Ukraine has flip flopped a bit
in recent weeks, hey since we last spoke. Currently, the
US and Ukraine have agreed to the potential of a ceasefire,
(12:17):
but Russia doesn't seem very interested in The US currently
isn't doing much to force them to the table. Despite
a mammoth two hour call between Putin and Trump. Where
does this leave New Zealand? Do you think we will
be siding with Europe more on this one?
Speaker 3 (12:31):
It's too early to say. And the ceasefire that's been
negotiated between mister Putin and mister Trump is at an
early stage, and they've agreed a partial ceasefire to cover
energy infrastructure. They're going to talk about a maritime ceasefire
over the Black Sea. There's no discussion of a ceasefire
(12:51):
on the front lines where the soldier's arm but mister
Putin has made it clear that he expects that there
will be no rearmament or resupply of uk position, which
puts Ukraine at a distinct disadvantage. There's no international observers
to see whether the small bit that they've agreed will
actually even be monitored independently. Mister Putin seems to be
(13:12):
saying that they want the ceasefire to be linked to
substantive peace negotiations at the same time, which means that
he will have leverage that Zelensky doesn't have in the
way that if the negotiations go badly, the partial ceasefire
will break quite quickly. For New Zealand, what this means
is we have to see what the terms of the
(13:33):
agreement are. And it appears that mister Putin and mister
Trump have agreed that there will be some annexation of territory.
And that's even before we discuss issues of compensation, accountability
and sovereign choices of alliances. With that one principle of
annexation of territory being given over that this goes against
the UN Charter, that this goes against basic principles of
(13:56):
international law. And so if the Americans and Russian degree
this is the first step for peace, we're instantly going
to find a reaction from Europe. And because the Europeans
might say no, we don't accept this, and we will
continue to support Ukraine. If that does happen, New Zealand
will have to say, well, we're either going to follow
Trump's approach or the approach of the Europeans with the
Coalition of the Willing. This is a discussion between France
(14:18):
and Britain at the forefront about whether there would be
some soldiers who would be put as a security blanket
for Ukraine against further potential aggression by Russia. At the moment,
mister Putin seems to have no tolerance for this idea,
and so we've got to be careful about talking ourselves
into a circle until we know exactly what the parameters
are that Trump and Putin want.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Should we be taking a harderligne on this.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
We are doing the correct thing being part of the
discussion of the Coalition of the Willing, and we are
doing the correct thing to show our willingness to be
part of this approach. It's premage sure to try to
say what path we should take until we can see
where Putin and Trump land, and only then we should
be able to respond. But at the same time we
(15:04):
need to be very careful that we don't sacrifice principles
about international rules and international order which help keep peace
and security for all of the world and benefit countries
like New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Our New Zealand has a unique relationship with China compared
to our other Five Eyes partners. We tend to get
along with them pretty well, even when Australia and the
US are at odds with them. Are there any key lessons,
any dos or don'ts from that relationship we could look
at applying to the Trump administration, to India, to any
of those tense geopolitical situations.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
At the moment, I think.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
That the diplomatic relationship with China is good. It could
be better. There was concerning what happened over the Cook
Islands and this will be difficult to manage in the future.
I think the economic relationship is excellent. I think the
cultural relationship could be strengthened, and we need to find
more initiatives between countries to build bonds bilaterally and in
the region. But the lesson for the United States and
(15:56):
New Zealand is that with China we speak freely behind
closed doors and the discussions are robust and forthright, but
we try not to conduct those in public. But that
is beginning to change now as some actions come to
our attention. But with America, I think it's the same.
We need to be able to speak very clearly behind
(16:17):
closed doors, but be very careful what we say in public,
because whether we like it or not, some misplaced words
could have implications of ten to millions of dollars for
New Zealand exporters.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Would you like to see us taking a stronger stance
in any realm the same way we did, say forty
years ago, with nuclear testing, Yes, yeah, I would.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
I think the one area I'm particularly concerned about is
the arms race and what we need to be more forthright.
Even though we must increase our capacity, we need to
consider that the choice of how we increase our capacity,
because warfare in betwenty first century is very different to
warfare in betwentieth century, and so we're going to have
(16:56):
to work out who our suppliers are and what the
obligations of those shall be. But at the same time,
we need to redouble our reference for disarmament and international
debates around this, whether it's artificial intelligence and nuclear planning,
whether it's the fragmentation of the architecture which keeps nuclear
weapons at Bay. We need to become more engaged than
we have in recent years, and so we need to
(17:17):
almost have a dual process where we increase our own
security but we raise our voice to try to mitigate
the threat of nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Thanks for joining us out.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
You're welcome, Chelsea.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzadherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our sound engineer.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.