Conversation between HE Ambassador Wang Xiaolong and Peace And Disarmament Coalition Aotearoa

2024-10-13 08:10

Chinese Ambassador to New Zealand, H.E. Wang Xiaolong participated in an online discussion with members of the Peace and Disarmament Coalition Aotearoa. During the conversation, they exchanged views on several key topics, including the UN Summit of the Future, the significance of people-to-people connections, and the need to break through information bubbles. The discussion also covered issues related to arms control and disarmament in Northeast Asia, BRICS cooperation, and the state of China-New Zealand relations. Below is the video and transcript of their conversation.


Introduction 

Mike Smith  

Thank you very much for agreeing to have this conversation with my friends from the Peace and Disarmament Coalition Aotearoa. 

Ambassador

It's my pleasure and privilege.

Mike Smith  

We've got the Hon Matthew Robson, Professor Kevin Clements and Dr Gray Southon, all friends of mine and all firm advocates and activists for peace. 

Matthew Robson

Good morning, Ambassador. First of all,  I'd just like to congratulate you on the 75th anniversary coming up. Thank you for making this time this morning. It's such an important issue for our country, and, of course, the issue for the world. 

About myself, I, you may know, have the title Honorable because I was fortunate enough to serve as a minister in the Helen Clark government. We call it the Helen Clark-Jim Anderton government. And as Minister of Disarmament and Arms Control, I had the good fortune to often meet with Chinese diplomats on the  issues of disarmament and nuclear weapon question. Things struck me always was that at that time, China and Russia were the only countries of the five declared nuclear powers that have a no-first-strike policy, which China still keeps. 

So today, what I'm particularly interested in is hearing your views on issues. And I know that you're welcoming some of the things that we can say as well. This committee, which is I'm on, has had quite a long history in terms of New Zealand’s politics. Most of the people on it have contributed to working towards New Zealand having an independent foreign policy and not being part of military alliances.

We are very concerned about the militarization by NATO of the Pacific and what I've termed New Zealand rushing into the nuclear arms of NATO. So one of the big issues that we've got is pursuing what we saw as a principled-anti-war agenda, which we are concerned that New Zealand has moved away from. So what today's meeting will take away and the conversation with you is very important to us. And hopefully what we've got to say will be useful to you as well. Thank you.

Gray Southon

My observations have come to the conclusion that the world is dealing with and faced with what they call a poly-crisis - a whole range of different challenges for which the overwhelming majority requires a very high range of international cooperation. And I've been really impressed with the statements of Xi Jinping around these issues, the various initiatives is undertaken.  And that encapsulates a large portion of the issues that I think we need to address, recognize the extraordinary challenges that the current international environment presents, and hoping that this meeting will lead a way to going forward in developing international cooperation.


On the Summit of the Future and the international environment

Ambassador  

Well, thank you again, Mike, for inviting me to join such a distinguished group of thinkers and activists in support of peace and in support of a strong relationship between New Zealand and China. I'd love to share some of our thinking, our perspectives on some of the issues on the agenda for the international community, particularly in relation to the ongoing Summit of the Future and the UNGA session going on at this moment in New York. 

You gave me a list of questions based on your perusal of the position paper we published last year before the 78th UNGA session, and you may have noticed that we have since published another follow-up paper about two weeks ago on similar subjects, but in conjunction with the issues on the agenda for the Summit of the Future and the current 79th UNGA session. 

Originally, the meeting for today had been planned for an earlier date, but I think we have the benefit of having today's discussion when the summit itself has been concluded and the Pact for the Future having been adopted. But let me start by sharing some of our perspectives on why we think a Summit of the Future is timely and pertinent, and why we have published these two position papers. 

A little bit of background. As we see it, and we share this sentiment flagged by Secretary General Guterres at the Summit of the Future, that the world is going through a period of turbulence and transition. In many ways, we're standing at a crossroads. We see both some very positive and encouraging developments, but we see some negative and challenging developments as well. 

On the positive side, we see the rise of the Global South, lifting billions of people out of poverty, making the world economy more balanced and in that sense, also more sustainable. And we see science and technology advancing at pace, pushing out the frontiers of possibilities and opening up new, enormous opportunities. And although there are different negative developments or challenges, but most countries and most people, if the statements they made at the summit itself is anything to go by, most of us haven't lost hope in a better future for the world, for peace and stability and for greater sustainable development. So that's the positive side. 

On the challenging side, we see multiple challenges on multiple fronts. 

On peace and security, we have two wars underway in the world. One in Ukraine, some people say it's the biggest in the continent since the Second World War. And we have the war in the Middle East, widening even as we speak. And we have increasingly the narrative of an increasing likelihood of war and its growing acceptability as a policy option, including nuclear wars. When you think of it, that's scary. And we have, as some of you have mentioned, the rise of military alliances, their expansion and their proliferation in different parts of the world. 

On the economic front, we have had the world economy underperforming for a number of years now.  COVID is a big part of it, but it's much more than COVID. It has a lot to do with some of the policy options some of the major economies have chosen in terms of the growing tariffs imposed on trade, the growing import and export restrictions, even outright bans. And these have led to slowing growth, fragmenting and shrinking trade and weakening economies. 

We've seen a lot of costs of living crises in many countries, and these cost of living crises is not so much a monetary issue that can be resolved through better management of demand, but rather a supply side issue. Because there have been some major economies adopting policies along the lines of “small yards” and “high fences”. But the problem is that these purportedly “small yards” are getting bigger and bigger, and the fences are getting higher and higher, causing major disruptions and fragmentation in global trade, and impacting individual economies and the broader world economy as well. 

And also on the economic side, we see worryingly slipping or even backpedaling of countries, particularly some developed countries, on their climate change commitments, in financing and in the domestic targets for emissions mitigation or reductions. So increasingly, we see these countries paying lip service to climate change, and a lot of them are still talking the talk, but some of them are no longer walking the walk, at least not as seriously. And increasingly, we see people or countries growing unabashed about erecting green barriers of protectionism or sacrificing the green transition for short term protection of the domestic heritage and carbon emitting industries. For many of them, climate change, in other words, is on the back burner. 

And we also see the rise of AI. Again, this has got potential for some paradigm shifts in terms of how people live and work and study, how we organize our economies and even the broader societies. But there is increasing realization that there's no guarantee that Artificial Intelligence will only do good and and no harm. 

And then, finally, as has been observed by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Guterres, that multilateralism and the multilateral system is under increasing strains, and some say even close to its breaking point. 

So, in summary, we in China think that, indeed, what has happened has reinforced our conviction that we live in this small world, getting even smaller. We have only one planet Earth, and our economies are closely interlinked. And if war breaks out, particularly if a nuclear war breaks out, that may mean the end of civilization as we know it. 

Like it or not, we share a common future, and the future we shall live in will very much depend on the individual and collective choices we make today. That's why we think that the Summit itself is very timely, and we support the Pact For the Future, although, depending on how you look at it, it represents either the lowest or the highest common denominator among the members of the international community. 

For all its imperfections, there are definitely a lot of places that things could be improved or strengthened, but at least it's a good starting point. The challenge, of course, for us is to build upon that Pact, and make sure that whatever is agreed could be implemented so that they could help to start to make the changes in how we work together as an international community, to address the many common challenges we face. 


The position of China 

Ambassador  

So coming back to the two position papers we’ve published, that is apparently the starting point of our discussions. The essence of these two papers, although they are about one year apart, the essence of these two papers are essentially the same. And they both draw heavily from the several global initiatives we have put forward: the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative. 

If it could boil down to one word, then the central message from both these papers would be cooperation, the need for us to work together, be it on maintaining peace and security, promoting economic growth and sustainable development, or addressing climate change or harnessing artificial intelligence and other progress in science and technology for good. So we need to, together, maximize the benefits and address the challenges dealing with the downside for our respective, mutual and common good. 

We certainly have many differences among countries and even within countries. Whenever these differences arise and exist, like what we have been trying to do between New Zealand and China, we hope that we could manage those constructively and and seek political settlements to disputes through peaceful negotiations, rather than resorting to the threat or the use of force. 

And for cooperation to work and bear fruits, we think that multilateralism, again, for all its imperfections and weaknesses, is still probably the best option that will give us the best chance of success - multilateralism based on commonly agreed rules, as best embodied in international law, and multilateralism achieved through an international system with UN at its center. Hopefully, all this work along these lines will conduce and eventually add up to what we call the building of a global community with a shared future for mankind. 

So that's I think what I want to speak to as a start, and I may go on to some of the other questions you have given me. But before doing that, we might as well listen to some of you who may want to come in with your own comments and thoughts.

Mike Smith 

Thanks very much, Ambassador. So who would like to start?

Kevin Clements  

Well, I'd like to just say that one of the big assumptions of the workshop we had in China was definitely the kind of revived support for the whole notion of cooperative and common security and to develop institutions that are capable of promoting cooperation rather than confrontation. 

So, you know, I'm very pleased to hear that this is sort of right at the heart of China's orientation towards multilateralism and the revival of the United Nations and so forth. And I'm also very pleased that you are seeing value in the Summit on the Future, because I think many of us are very cynical about what might come out of it. It does seem that the Pact For the Future maps out, in general terms, at least sort of some more objectives to go with the old SDGs, etc, as well. So yeah, very, very, very supportive of that.

Gray Southon  

I agree with you very much about the need for multilateralism, but I think there's another factor. And I may be naive in this, but it seems to me that the fundamental reason why multilateralism is being undermined is that, for a range of different reasons, countries find it more difficult to get along with each other. For instance, I've got quite a number of concerns about how New Zealand and China interact and it goes on and on and the big powers are finding each other threatening in a number of ways. 

When you've got these sorts of interactions developing, then it's increasingly difficult to see that the multilateralism is the answer, particularly when military power is playing such a dominant role. So just an attention to the simple processes of inter-government and international relations: seeing it not just as an interaction between governments, but about interactions between businesses and cultures and all those different ways nations can interact, which the Chinese papers recognize. 

This is a complex process and a very beneficial process, if it's done, and done effectively, and a very damaging processes. I think the relationship between domestic and international relations can be very positive, it can be very negative. And so there's a complex of interactions are working out there, which has an impact on the broader, multilateral process.

Matthew Robson

A bit succinct as I can, because one of the things that I have in mind with our conversation today and I hope it's the beginning of other conversations, as there's so much to cover, is that all of us have different forums where we input into the New Zealand conversation. And one of the things that's most apparent to me now, and includes myself, is often the ignorance of the positions of China, of developments of China. But not just of China, because you've mentioned the Global South, which is also the global majority, and the conversation there is very much, as you are well aware, of a multi-polar world. 

The official conversation in New Zealand, and that is reinforced by both the previous government under Jacinda Ardern and Mr Hipkins but also the present government, is that we put our eggs in one basket, which is the US-NATO basket. Now what I'm coming to get your views on this is really how we develop the conversation in New Zealand. I know that's up to us, the different forums. But last year, I was in Australia and had the opportunity to meet with your colleague, the Ambassador in Canberra, and it occurred to me, as he explained, the hostile environment that was developing in the media and parts of the government against China. We're a little bit behind in New Zealand, but it's a worrying trend in terms of that being entered. 

So my question really is in relation to the positive parts of what we can do in New Zealand. Some comments from you on the both the Silk Road and the BRICS, and they’re big topics, as part of the push to get a world which is multi-polar. And then back to the question of what the strategy of NATO is,as elevated in the Communiques, having named China as an enemy above Russia and they share the position. So in terms of the New Zealand debate, those are issues that I want to take up and have been taking up on others. And I am just interested in your comments on how you see the possibilities in New Zealand or the way to discuss these issues.


On the role of people-to-people links and the importance of breaking through the information bubble

Ambassador 

If I may, I can perhaps briefly respond to both of your questions together. Because I do see an important role to be played by the people-to-people links. Of course, the government-to-government level interactions would be important because they help to set the overall policy directions and the necessary policy environment for interactions between countries to take place. But at the end of the day, relations between states are about relations between peoples. So it is important that we listen to the voices of the peoples in different countries as stakeholders, as participants and as potentially contributors as well, and to make sure that their aspirations and their needs are reflected in the conduct of the relationships. So that's why we think that as in our bilateral relationship, these people-to-people links are very important. 

But let me also talk briefly about another issue that is related to this. The question about a hostile environment, as has been mentioned by the Honorable Robson. It has a lot to do with the information bubble we live in these days. For example, you mentioned, very little is known among the general public, both here in New Zealand and perhaps in some of the other developed countries, about China, about Chinese positions, and about what is going on in the country. There is the Anglo-Saxon media, and frankly speaking, a lot of their coverage on China is biased. I wouldn't say it's deliberate disinformation, but at least it helps to mislead and misinform the public about the country, about the people, and about some of its policies, both domestically and externally. I think that has impacted on the public perceptions and public sentiments towards other countries, towards some of the relationships involved. 

It is important that we break through that veil of at least inaccurate information, and by breaking through that information bubble. That's also why we think that these people-to-people links are important and why we've been encouraging our friends from different countries, including from New Zealand, to come to China to see for yourselves what is going on in the country. We would like to show the different faces and the different sides of the country. We are still a developing country, although we've been developing quite fast over the years, so there are still some very important imperfections. 

You may have noticed that not long ago, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China adopted an important resolution on furthering comprehensive reforms in the country. An important presumption for that resolution is that there are things that are imperfect and that there are things that needs to be improved in the country. That's why we need to further reform. 

So we would like to show you the different sides of the country, including its imperfections. But at the same time, we hope that these visits, and better information sharing and dissemination could help to put things in perspective for more people, so that they could better inform public discourse on the relationship and hopefully also policy making. 

Because ill-informed policy making will lead to distortions or even outright mistakes in policies which will have an impact on relationships. And I think there is widespread support in both countries, China and New Zealand, for a robust relationship to be developed.  Because, as people realize, it is in the fundamental interest of both to have such a relationship, But it is also important that we can have better-informed decisions to support the development of the relationship along the lines both sides would like to see to the benefit of both peoples. 

So that's my brief response to some of your comments. If I may, Mike, I would like to go on to some of the questions you have posed in your list, starting perhaps with Arms Control and Disarmament in Northeast Asia.

Mike Smith

Yes definitely, I absolutely endorse what you say about people-to-people relationships. I think they are crucial to building understanding of China. Mary, my wife, took our younger daughter to China on a school visit in 1994, which was one of the first visits we've had and I think we’ve had a connection by the sister city programs for many years with Xiamen particularly. 

And I do agree with you absolutely that people here do not get a good picture of China, and the best thing to do is to go and have a look and see what a vibrant, diverse and interesting place, culture and people it is. So that's just my endorsement, please do go on to pick up some of the questions, thank you Ambassador. 


On Arms control and disarmament in Northeast Asia and military alliances

Ambassador  

Arms control and disarmament in Northeast Asia is a heavily loaded topic with many dimensions. But for us, it is better to be seen in the broader context of peace and security in the region and beyond. 

We’re fortunate, I think, in Northeast Asia to have enjoyed overall peace and stability since the 1950s. We haven’t seen a major war or major military conflict in our part of the world since then. But there is no room for complacency because there exist some real and potential tension points in the region, and there are some concerning developments, both within the region and beyond, that may have an impact on the situation there. 

Of course, a key link in the overall equation for the region would be what happens on the Korean Peninsula, which I may come back to, if you like me to at a later stage. But there are other issues at play as well that are also important. For example, in relation to what happens on the Korean Peninsula, the US forward positioning of troops in both Korea and Japan, the efforts to introduce weapons or weapon systems into the region that will have a negative impact on stability, including the attempted deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Korea, Japan and the Philippines by the United States, for example. 

And there is also, longer term, the US-Japan Security Treaty. More recently, there is also the Quad, which claims it is not targeted at any specific country, but evidence suggests otherwise, including the most recent episode on the hot mic in the Quad Leaders Meeting in the United States. And there is, of course, the issue of AUKUS, which threatens to increase divide and tensions in the region and start an arms race. And there is also, as has been mentioned in earlier in our discussions, the attempts by NATO to extend its tentacles to this part of the world. 

At the heart of all this, we see the zero-sum cold war mentality. As a matter of principle, China does not believe in military alliances, so we have entered into none. Because military alliances, by definition, would be exclusive. They are targeted at other countries, and they could be confrontational, and they could lead to, rather than prevent conflicts or even wars from arising. So in many senses of the word, military alliances could be self-defeating. And they try to ensure absolute security through primacy, supremacy, hegemony or dominance at the expense of security of others. 

So eventually, as we see it, what we’ll end up with, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly, including by what has happened in Ukraine, that at the end of the day by establishing or extending these military alliances, rather than greater security for anyone, we end up with greater insecurity for everyone. So that's our general position on military alliances.

There is also the generic nuclear arms control and disarmament issues in which some of you may have a long standing interest. As far as China is concerned, we have always advocated non-proliferation, arms control in nuclear weapons and eventual complete nuclear disarmament. 

Before that happens, you may know that China only keeps a minimum nuclear arsenal, one of the smallest among nuclear weapon states and adopts a purely defensive nuclear posture. As has been mentioned by Matt, again, China is the only nuclear weapons state that adopts a no-first-use policy, and is the only one that has committed publicly to not using nuclear weapons against non nuclear weapon states or nuclear weapon free zones or areas. And we hope others nuclear weapon states could do the same. 

As for nuclear disarmament, we hold that those with the biggest nuclear weapons stockpiles should bear special and primary responsibility, and general nuclear disarmament should proceed gradually in a way that will maintain global strategic stability and ensure undiminished security for all. So that's where we stand in some general terms on some of the issues in relation to arms control and disarmament including in relation to Northeast Asia. 

If I may, let me come back to an earlier point that I made briefly about what happens on the Korean Peninsula, because this is one of the issues that will have a central impact on peace and stability in the region. There are several dimensions of the issues involved. One is denuclearization, but that is only the symptom of the issues on the surface, but what lies beneath the surface would be the longer term peace and security issues, the longer term peace architecture that we haven't yet put into place on the peninsula, even if the Korean War ended many many years back. And they have engendered some deep and long standing mistrust between some of the parties involved, and that lies at the heart of the issue, the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Unless those issues are dealt with head on, I don't think we'll see a fundamental and lasting solution.

There have been efforts in the past trying to bring that about through, for example, the Six-Party Talks. But some of you may recall that each time when we get close to a solution, there would be something that would happen to throw us back and throw the process back to square one, as if there are forces in some countries that don't want to see a solution to this problem. Because that will deny them the excuse for the forward positioning of the military troops, and without the instability and even chaos, sometimes they wouldn't be able to maintain their dominance on some of the regional countries. So I think, at some point, we need to face up to those issues and figure out a solution so that we could bring about a long term and lasting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the broader Northeast Asian region. Thank you.

Kevin Clements

I'd be very interested in your comments on BRICS and the countries that are lining up to join it.

Matthew Robson

I'd like to know a little bit about the BRICS and the Silk Road because of its contribution to peace, but just to continue on the question of the Korean Peninsula.In 2011, I had the opportunity to go and talk with North Korean’s officials about nuclear weapon free zones. And on the way through, I was able to talk with Ministry of Chinese Foreign Affairs officials. And so it was very instructive about the Six Party Talks. I understand it gets thrown back every time. But recently, there's also, you may be able to comment or you may not have up-to-date information, there's also been an initiative, coming out of the Japanese parliament for continued talk on nuclear weapon free zones in the Korean Peninsula. That's just one point. You may have some information on that.  

The second point is, of course, the forward positioning is something we're very concerned with on our committee, that the participation of New Zealand in the Rim-packed exercises which don’t assist, and also the exercises that take part in the north of Australia, which other NATO countries have joined in now, as well as the Pacific Rim base countries, Japan, South Korea, etc. So it’s a long question. I'm just asking if there's any further comments that, and I know Kevin's got good knowledge of this, just on the Korean peninsula, before we turn perhaps, to the role of BRICS and the role of the Silk Road in world peace.

Ambassador

Well, on the Korean Peninsula situation, I think we will support all initiatives that would contribute to a final solution to the problem. I don't have any knowledge of the latest initiative from the Japanese Diet. But again, we will welcome all initiatives that will be helpful. But I think any initiative, if it is going to work, will have to tackle some of the core issues I've just just mentioned, lying at the heart of the situation that has been going on for many years. And for that to happen, we need to change the cold war mentality that exists on the part of some of the players, and we need to take concrete steps to build up confidence and trust between the different parties, and we need to make sure that the legitimate security concerns of all parties concerned should be taken care of. So that's on the Korean Peninsula. 

On BRICS

Ambassador

If I may, on to BRICS. BRICS is one of the platforms put together by some of the emerging and developing country economies. I personally worked on it as Special Envoy for a number of years. When I was still there, we started the process of  the expansion of its membership, and we are glad that those discussions have come to some fruition. So quite a number of countries’ names have been added to the list. And very soon, the BRICS leaders will have their leaders meeting in Kazan, Russia in this expanded format. 

BRICS is only one of the organizations or platforms that reflect the current trend in this world, about the growing support for multilateralism, about the multi-polarization that has been going on, again, the rise of the Global South. And it has played a useful role in bringing these countries, the member countries, closer together, both economically and politically as well. 

But from day one, all the members of BRICS have made it very clear that BRICS is not meant to be an exclusive club. It's not meant to target any other countries. So we believe, similar to what is embodied in APEC in the early years, in open regionalism. And that's, I think, what we have been preaching, and that is exactly what we had been practicing as well. 

If you remember, BRICS started with four members. So it was started as BRIC, and then South Africa came on board. So we added the S and BRICS has become from singular into plural. So that, I think, signals very well for the future of the organization, and also the road it has taken since then, particularly with the latest further expansion of the membership. And hopefully, with this enlarged format, we could make even greater contribution to the process of equal and orderly multi-polar world building, as well as bringing about an inclusive and mutually or even universally beneficial globalization process. So that is, I think, the aim of  BRICS. And I think it is on its road to getting there, at least contributing to achieving these goals. 

But of course, BRICS alone won't be able to do that. So that's why we are reaching out to other countries as well. We are having these dialogues with other organizations, and we are developing this BRICS+ format so that we can welcome other countries, even if you are not exactly a member, to join in some of the discussions and cooperation. 

Matthew Robson

That would leave the door open for New Zealand, at least, to have a dialogue process with the BRICS.

Ambassador

If New Zealand is willing to do it, I think it'll be welcomed by the BRICS countries.

Mike Smith

On that question of BRICS+, we're having a Fabian session early next month. When I went to look at what information was available in New Zealand, or who'd reported that, I only found two reporters who had actually ever mentioned it. So there is very little awareness of  BRICS in New Zealand, in my opinion. 

So we're trying to do that, improve that with the Fabian. And interestingly, the person I found is an experienced journalist in the agricultural field at the moment, with diplomatic experience in the background. And his article I found actually he does advocate why New Zealand should join BRICS+, or should join the dialogue in the debate. And I have to say, I agree that it would be, in my opinion, a great deal for us to benefit from if we were able to get to that point. 

Okay, thank you very much, Ambassador, for your explanations and and presence and dialogue and discussion. It's been very much appreciated. 

Kevin Clements 

Can I ask some question about regional security architecture, which you alluded to earlier on. You know, a long time ago, when I was at the Peace Research Center at Canberra, I worked very closely on the whole development of the ARF and so forth. And then I worked with some Canadian colleagues on developing something similar in Northeast Asia, between China, Japan and Korea and so forth. There would be regular meetings specifically focused on regional peace and security. Is China sympathetic towards the development of something like the ARF and Northeast Asia?

Ambassador 

We have already a trilateral dialogue format among China, Japan and South Korea. That is been going on for a number of years at the Prime Minister's level, and it covers all aspects of the relationships, starting with, obviously economics, but going on to some of the other areas of common interest. Whenever the leaders get together, they also talk about some of the regional developments, including some of the peace and security related issues as well. So I think there's the basis there, and we could as well build upon that basis and take further steps as we go into the future. Certainly there is room for that. 

Mike Smith

Okay, any further, final questions? 


On China-New Zealand relations and the agency of New Zealand

Ambassador

If I may, because you gave me another question, I'd like to remark on, a possible role for New Zealand in some of the things we've discussed. Because as ambassador, this is something obviously of immense interest to me. 

We have a comprehensive strategic partnership, and that applies to both how we might work together bilaterally, but more importantly, also at the regional and global levels as well. On the surface, the endowments and circumstances of New Zealand and China couldn't be more different. But  below, if you scratch the surface, I think there's definitely a lot we share between us, at least much more than meets the eye. 

For example, both give top priority to economic growth and improving our  people's lives, and both pride ourselves on our sovereignty, dignity and independence, and neither would like others to interfere in our internal affairs, and both pursue harmony between men and nature. 

And I remember very clearly, before coming here as ambassador, I worked together very closely with New Zealand colleagues within the framework of the United Nations. Back in 2019 when the Secretary General of the United Nations called a summit of climate action, New Zealand and China and I personally took the lead on one of the nine clusters of issues, which is called nature-based solutions. And I'm very proud to say our cluster is the most productive and most successful out of all the nine clusters worked on in that process. 

So that's one of the examples, I think, how we might work together to promote sustainability, both in our respective countries and more broadly in the world. And both support multilateralism and the functioning multilateral system, and both support free trade and a rules-based multilateral trading system, and again, open regionalism. And both would like to see an open, fair, inclusive and non-discriminatory environment for innovation to take place. We may call these by different terms. You may call them values or interests or principles, but however you choose to characterize these, we share them between us, and they're important for both of us. 

Given the current complex geopolitical realities, there's a lot of room for agency, for what I call the SMCs, small and medium sized countries like New Zealand, that do not take sides and keep friendly relations with all countries in this world. There's a lot of space for you to contribute to peace and security and the building of an open world economy. It is an important public good that New Zealand can help to contribute, but it'll also serve your own interest,  and our common interest as New Zealand and China. So in that sense, it is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the useful thing to do. 

In that space, I think there's lot of potential for China and New Zealand to work together in the context of the United Nations and in some regional organizations as well, including APEC.

Concluding remarks

Mike Smith

Well, I think that's actually a good note to finish on, because absolutely I couldn't agree more. I think that the more we can focus on the things that unite us, and where the ways, where we can, as you began to say, work together, and then the better all of us are going to be. 

I personally see that the future for the world is heading towards Asia. I think we are part of that area, that part of the world. We have so much to learn. We've had to learn so much from our own indigenous culture about different ways of seeing the world. There's a huge amount we can learn from China about different ways of seeing the world. There's a huge amount of benefit that China's way of seeing the world can be to us. So that's certainly my view. 

One final thing I would like to say, I think that the other thing I'm really interested to hear what you said, Ambassador, about working together with New Zealand in the UN connection on climate change issues. Because I'm just reading about how China looks like it's appearing to get to peak CO2 emissions the huge development of electrical vehicles, the huge, huge, huge, colossal development of solar panel generation, is something that on a scale that we really don't even begin to comprehend. But the more that we could learn about and find out about it and hear about it, I think again, the better off would be. 

Thank you very much, Ambassador. And we look forward hopefully to see to having further such conversations, to deepen our mutual understanding and our relationship with you and the People's Republic of China. So thanks again. We'll sign off now.

Ambassador

Thank you again for giving me this opportunity, and I look forward to continuing the discussions, either online or in person in future. Thank you.