As the coalition government backs closer alignment with US geo-strategic interests, critics warn of instability and loss of sovereignty in a region militarisation is dividing.
I have to question the characterization of New Zealand First as a "nationalist party". While it has been described as representing "economic nationalism", New Zealand First is in fact a manifestation of the mid-twentieth century New Zealand colonialism, which in part explains its appeal to a certain cohort of elderly European New Zealanders. From about 1950 through to the mid 1970s New Zealand colonialism offered its peoples, both Maori and Pakeha prosperity, stability and security that was the envy of the world. A "better Britain" as the saying went, and there was a colonialist determination to show that they could do things as well as the mother country, if not better. Hence the "economic nationalism" and government supported industrialization of the fifties and sixties. The British monarchy was revered (these days, even though upheld by the political establishment, it is merely tolerated by the public) and everyone understood that the high standard of living enjoyed by the working class could be attributed to imperial markets for the agricultural produce of Maori lands confiscated or appropriated by colonial governments. New Zealand First seems to believe that it is possible to return to those glory days of colonialism which had their curtain call in 1984, when "economic nationalism" was decisively rejected by the Lange-Douglas administration. Some thought at the time that the quid pro quo for the surrender of the economy to the forces of global capitalism would be an "independent foreign policy" but such a chimera was never really on the cards, and despite its name New Zealand First is a party that has never thought national political independence to be either necessary or desirable. Now in all practical respects, both politically and economically, the Realm of New Zealand is more profoundly colonialist than it was in the mid-twentieth century, and the New Zealand First leader feels quite at home with that even though he must realize that the "economic nationalist" and egalitarian train departed the station a good forty years ago. Fundamentally Peters is no nationalist. He stands for a kinder, more assertive colonialism. In other words he would like to return to New Zealand to the condition under which he was born and raised at Whananaki, but the reality is that only the worst elements of the colonialist system have survived into the twenty-first century, while its better side has gone with the wind.
I have to question the characterization of New Zealand First as a "nationalist party". While it has been described as representing "economic nationalism", New Zealand First is in fact a manifestation of the mid-twentieth century New Zealand colonialism, which in part explains its appeal to a certain cohort of elderly European New Zealanders. From about 1950 through to the mid 1970s New Zealand colonialism offered its peoples, both Maori and Pakeha prosperity, stability and security that was the envy of the world. A "better Britain" as the saying went, and there was a colonialist determination to show that they could do things as well as the mother country, if not better. Hence the "economic nationalism" and government supported industrialization of the fifties and sixties. The British monarchy was revered (these days, even though upheld by the political establishment, it is merely tolerated by the public) and everyone understood that the high standard of living enjoyed by the working class could be attributed to imperial markets for the agricultural produce of Maori lands confiscated or appropriated by colonial governments. New Zealand First seems to believe that it is possible to return to those glory days of colonialism which had their curtain call in 1984, when "economic nationalism" was decisively rejected by the Lange-Douglas administration. Some thought at the time that the quid pro quo for the surrender of the economy to the forces of global capitalism would be an "independent foreign policy" but such a chimera was never really on the cards, and despite its name New Zealand First is a party that has never thought national political independence to be either necessary or desirable. Now in all practical respects, both politically and economically, the Realm of New Zealand is more profoundly colonialist than it was in the mid-twentieth century, and the New Zealand First leader feels quite at home with that even though he must realize that the "economic nationalist" and egalitarian train departed the station a good forty years ago. Fundamentally Peters is no nationalist. He stands for a kinder, more assertive colonialism. In other words he would like to return to New Zealand to the condition under which he was born and raised at Whananaki, but the reality is that only the worst elements of the colonialist system have survived into the twenty-first century, while its better side has gone with the wind.