by William McGimpsey

In an article in The Press, David Farrar proposed that New Zealand become Australia’s seventh state.

Summarised, Farrar argues that:

1. The “rules-based world order” is crumbling and being replaced with a “might makes right” world;
2. In such a world, small states like New Zealand are at the mercy of larger powers;
3. Therefore New Zealand should cede its sovereignty and become the seventh State of Australia to improve its security capability and bargaining power.

The problem with Farrar’s argument is that it overstates the problem and suggests a suboptimal solution that gives away too much.

Here’s my critique:

Is the rules-based order really crumbling?

Firstly, in my view, the rules-based order isn’t crumbling. The rules are still mostly being followed, just with some exceptions and pushback, as has pretty much been the case for decades.

There are basically three ways the Trump Administration is accused of tearing down the rules-based world-order – unilateral military interventions, tariffs, and withdrawal from multilateral agreements and institutions.

Let’s look at military interventions: Trump captured Maduro and bombed an Iranian nuclear facility without UN authorisation. This sort of thing is not really that out of step with actions in previous eras like George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, the NATO bombing of Kosovo in 1999, or the US invasion of Panama in 1989, all of which were considered violations of international law.

Next, tariffs. While on a long-term view of American history tariffs are normal, in the post-war era the US has generally maintained low tariffs and trade barriers. Trump’s tariffs which average out at 10-20% are a significant departure from this trend. But let’s not kid ourselves, China, the EU and several other Asian and South American nations have maintained significant trade barriers throughout the so-called rules-based era that are roughly comparable to these tariff levels. In fact, that was a big part of Trump’s rationale for implementing the tariffs in the first place – the US was abiding by free trade and WTO norms, while big trading partners like China the EU and other nations were rorting the system. So again, the idea that the tariffs represent a big change to the world-order is overblown.

The last factor is the Trump Administration’s withdrawal from numerous multilateral agreements. Nations often withdrew from international agreements in previous decades, but I grant that the scale and breadth of the Trump Administration’s withdrawal has been greater. But this doesn’t count as a wholesale dismantling of international law or multilateralism, or the establishment of a might makes right world. The vast majority of international law is still in place and effectively regulating international affairs. Trump Administration actions are better understood as a pushback and rebalancing in favour of nation-state autonomy rather than a wholesale rejection.

So all in all, I don’t buy the idea that the Trump Administration is overthrowing the rules-based order and creating a might makes right world.

Even if it was, would NZ becoming an Australian State be the best response?

There is little that could be accomplished by becoming a State of Australia that could not be accomplished through alliances. New Zealand already has a formal security alliance with Australia and is part of a number of other security cooperation agreements. Would becoming an Australian State significantly increase our degree of protection? It’s not clear that it would.

In terms of negotiating power, a similar or even superior result could be obtained through other types of alliance, the likes of which Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney advocated for at Davos recently. I have previously argued for consideration of something like the CANZUK alliance which would create a free trade bloc between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. This combined bloc would then have more leverage in negotiating trade agreements and dealing with other nations internationally. [I like the idea of getting more of our immigrants from Anglosphere countries as well, but disagree with CANZUK on complete freedom of movement.] Many other types of alliance are also possible.

Importantly, alliances would better preserve New Zealand’s sovereignty and the self-determination. And this is the key point: Farrar would have Kiwis give up their freedom and self-government, which is a very valuable thing to trade away if you don’t have to.

Why should New Zealand be a separate nation from Australia?

Firstly, there are important differences in population, and historical, cultural and legal development: While both countries have historic Anglo-Celtic majorities, New Zealand has an indigenous Maori minority that is around 10-20% of the population, and Australia’s indigenous people are the Aboriginals, who are about 3% of the population and are racially and ethnically distinct.

There are also important differences in how we have treated our indigenous populations: Maori are relatively well-integrated – constitutionally, we were brought together by the Treaty of Waitangi which legitimated the formation of a single nation from the two peoples. Australia has no such Treaty.

The British generally thought highly of Maori as a native race: William Pember Reeves described them as “the finest race of savages” – they make good rugby players, shearers and physical workers and so fit in well with New Zealand’s rural rugby playing culture. The Maori battalion also fought bravely in WWII and is widely praised.

Furthermore, Maori language and culture are part of the texture of everyday life in New Zealand, and while we complain about the force-fed or excessive nature of this, I don’t think most Kiwis would want to completely eradicate or reverse that either.

Then, New Zealand has embarked on a long-term Treaty Settlement project that aims to right the wrongs of the colonial past, restore stolen lands and provide compensation. I share the view that this has created a gravy train that seemingly never ends – a cottage industry of Maori rent-seeking which we now need to fix – but even so, it was still the right thing to do overall.

Then consider that the three highest profile Nationalists or immigration restrictionists in New Zealand are all Maori – Winston Peters, Shane Jones and Brian Tamaki. These are the people leading the charge to defend New Zealand’s sovereignty and national identity.

None of this applies to the relationship between the white majority and aboriginals in Australia. In fact, for most of their shared history, Aboriginals have been treated abhorrently.

Secondly, the flora, fauna and geology are also markedly different. Australia is a big flat dry desert. New Zealand is a narrow, mountainous archipelago with abundant rainfall. Our greatest hero was Sir Edmund Hillary, the first man to climb Everest. Australia is vertically impotent by comparison, with a distinct lack of rugged mountainous terrain. Australia has dangerous animals like snakes and crocodiles. New Zealand is so predator free we evolved flightless bird populations.

Thirdly, location: mainland Australia is over 2000km away from New Zealand. This is around the same distance between London and Moscow – we are a long way away from Australia and part of a different neighbourhood – closer to Pacific Island nations like Tonga, Fiji, Samoa and Vanuatu. Whereas Australia is closer to Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and up into South East Asia. Geographically, ethnically, diplomatically, and in terms of self-conception, New Zealand is a bridge between Britain and the Pacific Islands, whereas Australia is a British continent at the bottom of Southeast Asia.

The difference in locale gives us slightly different outlooks, trade and diplomatic relationships, and defence needs, all of which point to a need for independence.

More recently, we still have free speech, whereas the Aussies jettisoned theirs to “defend” multiculturalism. We would probably have to give that up if we joined Australia.

We are better at rugby, they are better at cricket. Like the US, Australia also invented its own football code, which, like gridiron, very few Kiwis really understand or care for. Kiwis and Aussies are mates, but we are also different.

Self-determination vs liberal insanity

Self-determination is a fundamental right – the right of a people to control their own destiny and govern themselves if they wish. It is well incorporated into the international human rights framework – Article 1 of the UN Charter and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

However, mainstream liberal politicians, pundits and academics have a hard time with it because it is a collective right that necessitates making distinctions between groups on the basis of race and ethnicity – which according to the moral code they have developed counts as “racist” and “collectivist” and therefore a form of what Orwell termed “wrongthink”. Liberals attempt to reconcile the cognitive dissonance here by denying there is a right of self-determination, or fudging what it means – attempting to interpret it as an individual right that is about expressing gender identity or other oddities along these lines.

The problem though is not the right of self-determination, the problem is that modern liberalism has descended into insanity – denying that biological distinctions matter and attempting “unperson” anyone that says otherwise. It is this modern liberal insanity that must give way here, not the right of self-determination. I grew up on a farm and had learned about genes, inherited traits, and different breeds before I became a teenager. The idea that these concepts don’t apply to humans and that we are somehow all the same was something I always knew was bullshit. It is simply too stupid for us to go on pretending otherwise.

A theory of sovereignty

Liberals also insist on universalism, and trip themselves up over how the right of self-determination can be universalised given that it cannot be simply applied equally to every individual like the rights to life, liberty and property can.

To solve this dilemma for liberals I have suggested the idea of fractal nationalism – the idea that self-determination is universalisable at different civilisational scales – local, national, and supranational or civilisational. In practice this looks like local self-governing communities embedded within distinct self-governing nations, that are part of alliances or confederal systems – all based on the principle of shared peoplehood – race, ethnicity, language, culture, religion, history and so on. This might sound complicated or nerdy but it is just what has happened in British civilisation throughout most of its history – with separate self-government for the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh within Great Britain; the US Founders Federal System of United States; and even how the modern Swiss state works with Cantons.

However, self-governance isn’t easy, and not everyone has the size, capability, organisation or institutions to govern themselves effectively. That’s why there needs to be something akin to a graduated driver license system – where you drive with an experienced licensed driver until you master the ability to operate the vehicle safely on your own. Driving a car is a significant responsibility – you can kill people if you make mistakes. Sovereignty is an even bigger responsibility with even higher stakes, so until a group has the capacity to exercise the right of self-determination on their own, they need assistance from a more experienced party – a form of civilisational paternalism.

In the New Zealand context I apply these ideas, in what I consider a logically consistent and universalisable way, by arguing for limited self-governing communities for Maori (for those who want to live in them) that reflect their aspirations under Article 2 of the Treaty; a sovereign state of New Zealand that protects its demographic identity from mass immigration; and a larger alliance between Anglosphere countries – the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Conclusion

New Zealand should stay separate from Australia because Kiwis and Aussies are different peoples, inhabiting very different lands, with different histories, and different outlooks. Importantly, there is no evidence the two peoples want to merge, and so each should remain free to govern themselves as is there right under international law. Whatever problems or threats are surfacing as a result of challenges to the rules-based order are better addressed through alliances and cooperation between like-minded countries on issues of mutual interest.

Originally published on The Zeitgeist.