About ... free trade deal with China
Aunty Helen Clarke is in U.K.. Yesterday she appeared on Hardtalk, BBC's flagship interview programme. It's only 30 minutes long, but a lot of issues were discussed, from republican movement to carbon neutral, and also hot on the agenda, the free trade deal agreement.
She defended government's decision by trying to separate trade agreement with human right issues. I cannot remember how she exactly said on this, it was something like "yes we are a progressive country with principles, but we cannot survive with only priciples."
She used the example of U.S. forces in Iraq. Should New Zealand cease all the trade relationship with America because of this?
In a realistic point of view, I totally agree with her. Furthermore, whether the 2008 "Tibet Massacre" was actually happened, or just stories made up from tibetans in exile, is still in doubt - I still cannot see any independently verified evidence that proves either the existance or non-existance of such massacre.
What Chinese really want from this trade agreement is not economic benefit, but recognition from a western country that China is a free market, and a referee that introduces China into the greater international economic community.
That's pretty much the only thing New Zealand can give.
We have our priciples but if we want influence others to accept our priciple, we need power. New Zealand does not have that power, whether in form of a military or economic force. Therefore a "fair" International negotiation is the only way to go, you give others a little,you get a little.
But, if we cannot survive with only priciples, can we survive with no priciples?
No either. That's another question Clarke should a think about.
However, free trade does not mean that New Zealand has to give up its priciples: we can use it as a tool to influence, and help make changes in China. So I think "economy and "priciples" are compatiable, what really matters is the balance point between these two points - we cannot survive with no priciples
