Australia and New Zealand — the two largest powers in South
Pacific — may, and should, continue to lend their support to freedom and
democracy in international relations. However, the Australia-New Zealand duo should
not aspire to establish themselves as regional hegemons or join the ranks of
the world’s great powers — such as the United States — because if they could
distinguish themselves from the desires of other Western powers to
“democratize” (Westernize) the world, while holding firmly onto the principle
of non-intervention in sovereign affairs, this pair of South Pacific country
may hold potential to offer an alternative pathway to realpolitik in international relations (like the current Sino-US
geopolitical rivalry) — a model of global governance which valorizes democracy,
but free from the intention to establish hegemony.
For one, the concept of democracy is not resented by the peoples
of the developing world. At the heart of the developing nations’ refusal of
liberal democracy was the history of colonialism initiated from the West which
forced the least developed nations to accept the West’s universal worldviews
and governance approaches. Indeed, the essence of democracy — the capacity to
enhance the transparency of governance and accountability of leaders — should not
be denied or distorted.
However, the West is seemingly eager to protect its
interests by promoting the spread of liberal democracy across the globe. Hence,
it faces a tough opponent, China, which is determined to capitalize on the nationalistic
sentiments of developing countries by highlighting the destructiveness of
Western-led humanitarian interventions such as the Anglo-American intervention
in Iraq and presently in Syria.
Hence, if Australia and New Zealand endorsed freedom and
democracy but kept themselves at arm’s length from Western-led military interventions,
their reputation in the developing world is likely to grow vis-à-vis other
Western powers, especially given both Australia and New Zealand are not
preoccupied with the history of colonialism.
In fact, the paramount desire of developing nations like the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) states is arguably to protect
their sovereignty and to jointly create a region free from interventions from
outside powers. This can be seen in ASEAN’s Zone of Peace, Friendship and
Neutrality (ZOPFAN) concept.
Hence, it doesn’t matter what discourse Beijing uses to expose
the shortfalls of Western liberal democracy. This is because the key factor
which fuels China’s rising popularity in the developing world is the
geopolitical imbalance produced by the West’s global preeminence, which has hindered
developing countries’ opportunities to shape their own national outlooks and
The potential of the
New Zealand-Australia dyad — the making of a possible, new model for global
governance distinguished by the true spirit of democracy: the respecting of
other nations’ right to self-determination — should not be underestimated.
In fact, it should not be forgotten that China’s authoritarian
governance model (termed “socialism with Chinese characteristics”) would not
necessarily be suitable for other nations. This is because China is still largely
homogeneous. In an ethnically diverse region like Southeast Asia, an
authoritarian governance model which upholds a single language, religion, or a
monolithic national ideology might be unsuitable. This is quite well illustrated
in the cases of countries whose leaders were determined to push the interests
of a single race, religion, or national ideology, resulting in lingering
With the relative decline of the West and political uncertainty
in the Asia-Pacific, Australia and New Zealand might hold potential to “freshen
up” the realist norm of great power politicking in international relations by
illustrating a model for global governance which promotes democracy and cultural
diversity which is free from hegemonic interests. In
fact, the hidden strength of both New Zealand and Australia could be their potential
to exemplify international relations with the “South Pacific Way” — a mode of global
governance distinguished by the merging of democracy and the norm of
non-intervention in sovereign affairs: both are democracies which have little-to-no
direct involvement in regional conflicts.
contrary to Kipling’s proverb “East is East, and West is West, and never the
twain shall meet,” the “South Pacific Way” might demonstrate otherwise — the
potential for Western norms (democracy) to be merged with Asian norms (non-interference
in sovereign affairs), in the pursuit of global governance.
The “South Pacific Way” would probably suit the needs and reality
of Southeast Asia as well, as ASEAN — Southeast Asia’s only regional
organization — too was modeled over the combination of democracy and
non-interference in sovereign matters: this is the “ASEAN Way,” its principle
of resolving intramural conflicts through consensus and consultation.
In a recent article, I suggested
that with the shift of power from west to east, it might be possible to observe
a world order characterized by an Asian yin-yang (non-confrontational) dialectical framework, as opposed to the Hegelian
(confrontational) dialectical framework common to the West’s balance-of-power
approach in international relations. If the merging of Eastern and Western
norms is a slow and difficult process — given the vast gap between the two sets
of worldviews and lingering Sino-US geopolitical rivalry — then perhaps it is
time for a conciliation of Asian (non-interference in sovereign affairs) and
Pacific norms (democracy without hegemonic aspirations, demonstrated by the
Australia-New Zealand dyad) to nurture a common identity pertaining to the
With the West still embroiled in geopolitical conflicts,
and the Chinese Dragon’s rise arousing much uncertainty around its periphery, the
potential of the New Zealand-Australia dyad — the making of a possible, new
model for global governance distinguished by the true spirit of democracy: the
respecting of other nations’ right to self-determination — should not be
B., Y. (2017). The
US’ China Policy: A Perspective from Asia. IPP Review.
J. (1999). The Concept of Flexible Engagement and the Practice
of Enhanced Interaction: Intramural
Challenges to the ‘ASEAN Way’. The
Pacific Review, 12(4), pp. 581-611.
S. (2014). A New Regional Cold War? American and Chinese Posturing in the
Pacific. Asia & The Pacific Policy
Studies, 1(2), pp. 409-422.
Tarling, N. (1999). The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia.
Volume Two, Part Two: From World War II to the Present. UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 101-102, 244.
Tarte, S. (2014). Regionalism and
Changing Regional Order in the Pacific Islands. Asia & The Pacific Policy Studies, 1(2), pp. 312-324.
Waqanivala, E. S. (2015). Is Hegemony in the South Pacific Possible? Master’s
dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington.