Governor Walz’s address to the graduates of the University of Minnesota Law School is not just a message for them, but a call to all who cherish the rule of law. While his remarks center on the current state of affairs in America—one I believe to be deeply concerning—there are troubling signs in many historically liberal democracies that legal integrity is yielding to expedience. It is up to each of us to safeguard the principles that uphold justice and ensure they do not erode in the face of convenience.
Tag Archives: international events
Remembering Differently: Aotearoa’s evolving ANZAC Day narrative
For me, ANZAC Day (April 25th) is a time of mixed emotions and deep reflection. As a Quaker and a committed pacifist, I oppose war and its preparations, yet I honour those who risked—and often sacrificed—their lives for causes they believed were worthy. I cannot condone the violence of war, but I do respect the courage it takes to stand up for one’s moral convictions.
I respect my father’s decision to enlist during the Second World War. While I respect his commitment, I admire even more his courage in facing certain court-martial when he refused to obey orders he considered morally indefensible. Orders that, if carried out by the Axis, would have been later deemed war crimes. His stand has always resonated with me, a reminder that honour sometimes means resisting even the most established demands.
This morning, as I have done regularly since my parents’ passing, I attended the ANZAC Dawn Parade and Service in the town square of Feilding alongside thousands of local residents. This year, I was joined by our granddaughter on a cold but calm morning—quite a contrast to last year’s gusty, freezing, and drizzly start when my wife, daughter, and two grandsons kept me company. We left home at 5:45 a.m. in the dark, walking the two kilometres to Manchester Square, reaching there about 6:20 a.m.
Perhaps the bracing weather helped last year’s speeches feel more inspiring, with a strong call to action to reduce the causes of war. The diversity of voices then brought their messages to life. In comparison, today’s service featured only three speakers and left me feeling disappointed. The highlight was a speech on ANZAC values by a senior student from the local high school—a nod to principles I hold dear. The other two speakers, our local MP and the district council mayor, delivered the usual political platitudes, which seemed devoid of the substance and heartfelt reflection that this day deserves. My granddaughter and I returned home around 7:45 a.m. feeling let down by the lack of genuine inspiration.
A changing perspective: A personal observation:
Over the decades, New Zealand’s commemoration of ANZAC Day has evolved significantly. Originally, it was a solemn occasion focused solely on honouring the sacrifices of soldiers—especially those at Gallipoli in 1915. With time, however, the tone has shifted toward a more inclusive and reflective celebration that does not shy away from acknowledging the horrors of war and its lasting impact on both individuals and communities.
I’ve noticed that while 109 years ago ANZAC Day carried a shared meaning for Australians and New Zealanders, our perspectives have gradually diverged. In Australia, the day has moved from a focus on mourning to a celebration of mateship, courage, and endurance, even national p[ride. In Aotearoa, however, the emphasis now leans more towards inclusivity, reflection, and the recognition of all those affected by conflict—including the often-overlooked contributions of Māori and the scars left by mass violence.
I suspect that the anti-war, feminist, and Māori rights protests of the 1970s and 1980s played a significant role in reshaping New Zealand’s approach. These groups challenged the glorification of war and uncritical heroism, paving the way for a broader social criticism. Today, New Zealanders commemorate ANZAC Day without glorifying military violence or fixating on an ‘enemy other’ as the basis of our national identity.
Though there have been changes in Australia too, they seem to me less pronounced than in New Zealand. As each nation continues to redefine its identity and its relationship with the past, I remain grateful that New Zealand’s evolving perspective is increasingly aligned with my own contemplative approach. I’m interested to hear from any Australian readers—how has your experience and interpretation of ANZAC Day changed over time?
Tariff Wars: The U.S. Muscle Flexing That’s Shaking Global Trade
It seems the current U.S. administration’s approach to “reciprocal tariffs” reflects a narrow, bilateral lens on trade relationships, rather than acknowledging the inherently multilateral nature of global trade. The administration appears focused on balancing trade deficits with individual countries, as evidenced by its policy of imposing tariffs that aim to “equalise” trade flows on a country-by-country basis. This perspective assumes that trade should be balanced bilaterally—a significant departure from the multilateral principles that underpin global trade systems.
In reality, international trade operates as a complex, multilateral network. A country like New Zealand might have a trade surplus with one partner (e.g., the U.S.) while running a deficit with another (e.g., China). These imbalances are natural and often reflect comparative advantages, consumer preferences, and global supply chains. As long as a country’s overall trade balance across all partners is sustainable, bilateral deficits or surpluses are not inherently problematic.
The U.S. administration’s focus on bilateral deficits disregards this multilateral dynamic and risks oversimplifying trade relationships. By targeting individual countries with tariffs based on perceived imbalances, the policy could disrupt global supply chains and create inefficiencies. Moreover, this approach may fail to address the root causes of the U.S.’s overall trade deficit, which include domestic factors like low savings rates and high consumer demand for imports.
This bilateral focus also risks alienating key trading partners and undermining the multilateral frameworks, such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), that have historically facilitated global trade cooperation. It’s a strategy that prioritises short-term leverage over long-term stability in international trade relationships.
International Responses
Countries are clearly taking divergent approaches to the U.S. tariffs, and each strategy reflects their unique economic priorities and political calculations.
Canada, for instance, has opted for a strong retaliatory stance. It has imposed a 25% tariff on U.S. auto imports, particularly targeting vehicles that don’t meet the North American content requirements under the USMCA. This move is designed to protect Canadian workers and industries while sending a clear message to the U.S. that unjustified tariffs won’t go unanswered. Canada’s approach is very much about defending its economic interests while maintaining leverage in future negotiations.
The European Union is also preparing countermeasures, with leaders like Ursula von der Leyen emphasising that the EU will respond from a “position of strength.” The bloc is considering targeting U.S. tech companies and industries in Republican-led states to maximise political pressure. However, there’s also a push within the EU to balance retaliation with efforts to bring the U.S. back to the negotiating table.
Meanwhile, New Zealand has taken a markedly different path, choosing diplomacy over retaliation. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has emphasised that New Zealand is a low-tariff country and has benefited from open trade policies. The government argues that imposing reciprocal tariffs would only hurt New Zealand consumers by raising prices and fuelling inflation. Instead, they’re focusing on dialogue and maintaining strong relationships with the U.S., even as they express confusion over the 20% tariff calculation.
The Gamble of Diplomacy
The U.S. administration’s approach seems less about compromise and more about leveraging its economic power to reshape trade relationships. This makes New Zealand’s diplomatic strategy a gamble, as it relies on the assumption that reasoned dialogue will eventually prevail. However, in a climate where the U.S. appears intent on unilateral action, the effectiveness of this approach remains uncertain.
This article was made with the assistance of Copilot.
Tariff Turmoil: A follow up
Below is an overview of how the U.S. reciprocal tariff framework targets different countries—and the relative competitive impact these measures can have on New Zealand’s exports versus those from its trade partners.
The Rationale Behind the Numbers
The U.S. administration calculates its tariffs by essentially “matching” what it claims its trading partners impose on U.S. products. In some cases, the calculation includes factors that aren’t strictly border duties. For example, New Zealand’s domestic 15% Goods and Services Tax (GST) is sometimes unwittingly conflated with its WTO‑compliant border tariffs, which inflates the perceived protection to an effective 20%. This discrepancy puts New Zealand at a disadvantage when U.S. buyers compare new prices at the border. It might be said that the harm inflicted on smaller nations such as New Zealand is “collateral damage” in a tariff war not of our making.
A Comparative Breakdown
Here’s a table summarising the situation for key NZ partners:
| Country | U.S. Tariff Rate (Reciprocal) | Underlying Rationale & Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 10% | Australia’s trade policies impose only modest border tariffs (and while it does have a GST, it isn’t factored into the U.S. calculation in the same way). This lower effective barrier gives Australian exporters a price advantage in the U.S. market. |
| United Kingdom | 10% | The U.K. maintains low nominal tariffs on U.S. goods. With a transparent tariff regime and minimal added taxes, British exporters face a relatively low tariff burden, helping them remain competitive in the U.S. market. |
| Canada | Sector-Specific (often around 25% on certain non-USMCA items) | Although part of the North American trade bloc with exemptions for many goods under USMCA, some Canadian sectors face higher tariffs. Overall, however, Canada’s major export sectors benefit from closer alignment and robust trade agreements with the U.S. |
| Japan | 24% | Japanese exporters encounter a moderate U.S. tariff. This figure reflects Japan’s own protective measures and the non-tariff barriers it imposes on U.S. goods, resulting in a reciprocal rate that is higher than those for Australia or the U.K. |
| European Union | 20% | The EU’s collective trade policies combine modest border tariffs with various non-tariff measures. The 20% rate reflects the overall level of protection the EU is seen to apply, placing it between the lower rates for Australia/the U.K. and higher figures for Japan or China. |
| China | 34% | China is hit with the steepest U.S. tariff. This punitive 34% rate is designed to counter longstanding U.S. grievances over Chinese trade practices—including high tariffs and various non-tariff barriers—that have contributed to a large trade imbalance. |
| New Zealand | 20% (as claimed by U.S. calculations) | New Zealand is calculated as having an effective 20% barrier largely because its 15% GST is mistakenly bundled with its minimalist border tariffs. In practice, New Zealand’s actual border duties are WTO-compliant and modest, but this miscalculation inflates the U.S. response. This places New Zealand at a distinct disadvantage compared to nations faced with a 10% rate, such as Australia or the U.K. |
Relative Impacts on Exporters
- Competitive Pricing:
With U.S. importers confronted by lower tariff rates on Australian or U.K. goods (10% versus New Zealand’s 20%), there is a strong incentive to source from these countries. New Zealand exporters may have to either absorb costs—thereby reducing margins—or pass them on, potentially hurting their competitiveness in a highly price‐sensitive market. - Market Perception and Trade Diversion:
When U.S. buyers compare tariff-adjusted prices, those exporting from Australia or the U.K. could appear more attractive. This dynamic might lead to trade diversion away from New Zealand, even in cases where New Zealand’s products are of premium quality. - Sector-Specific Vulnerabilities:
Industries that rely heavily on exporting to the U.S. could be more severely impacted by the higher U.S. tariff. For instance, if New Zealand’s high-value agricultural or specialty manufactured goods become comparatively pricier, U.S. buyers might pivot to alternative suppliers from markets with lower effective barriers. - Strategic Reassessment:
Facing a policy that seemingly “penalises” it by marking its export costs as effectively higher than those of close trading partners, New Zealand may be compelled to seek new markets or bolster negotiations in forums like the WTO. Alternatively, domestic exporters might push for government intervention or support in mitigating the impact of a mischaracterised tariff regime.
In Summary
While many of New Zealand’s trade partners such as Australia and the United Kingdom are assessed a relatively modest 10% reciprocal tariff by U.S. policy, New Zealand’s figure of 20%—largely driven by a controversial calculation that includes its 15% GST—places its exporters at a significant disadvantage in the U.S. marketplace. Japan and the EU fall in between, with moderate tariffs reflecting a need to balance protection with market access, while China endures the steepest rate amid broader trade tensions.
Tariff Turmoil: Navigating the 20% Shockwave from the USA
So President trump is imposing a 20% “reciprocal” tariff on imports from Aotearoa. What I know about international trade could be written on the back of an envelope, but I fail to see how the US administration conjured up the 20%. In my view there’s quite a bit of confusion and mixed messaging around the numbers provided. Here are some points that I think might help clarify the situation:
- A Questionable Calculation:
US officials have apparently produced a chart suggesting that New Zealand “imposes” a 20% tariff on American imports. In reality, most US products enter New Zealand tariff‐free or with very modest tariffs that adhere to WTO guidelines. Many experts believe the US calculation improperly factors in New Zealand’s 15% Goods and Services Tax (GST) along with the limited ad valorem tariffs on specific products. Since GST is a broad consumption tax imposed on all goods and services sold in NZ, whether imported or produced domestically—not a protective import tariff—this combination creates an “effective” rate that appears much higher than the actual border tariff policy would warrant . - The Reciprocal Argument:
The Trump administration has justified its moves on the grounds of reciprocity, claiming that New Zealand’s trade policies unfairly penalise US exports. Some commentators have noted that New Zealand’s overall import measures may seem more burdensome only when viewed through an averaged or aggregated lens—where GST is conflated with tariffs—despite the fact that US products largely enjoy duty‐free access into New Zealand. Moreover, while New Zealand exports to the US do exceed its imports from the US by about 20%, this trade imbalance is not directly linked to any explicit 20% tariff on US goods by New Zealand. Instead, it appears to be used more as a political rationale rather than a reflection of an actual tariff structure . - Political and Strategic Motives:
Beyond the numbers, it’s important to consider that the Trump administration’s tariff policies are part of a broader protectionist strategy. In many cases, these measures have been aimed less at accurately matching trade policies and more at leveraging trade relationships for political and economic leverage. In this context, portraying New Zealand as having a 20% tariff—even if the figure is derived from a misinterpretation—serves as a justification for imposing higher duties on NZ exports .
To summarise, the so-called 20% tariff appears to be a calculation error or a politically motivated figure that combines New Zealand’s GST (a domestic consumption tax) and its minimal WTO-mandated tariffs, rather than a reflection of any aggressive trade barrier intentionally imposed by New Zealand. The US measure, then, seems less about exact reciprocity and more about signalling a tough stance on trade imbalances and perceived but unspecified unfair practices.
Additional Thoughts:
This situation highlights how trade policy can be as much about perception and political messaging as it is about economic reality. For New Zealand, understanding the true nature of its export conditions is crucial to formulating an effective response—whether that means engaging in trade negotiations, seeking clarification through WTO channels, or diversifying export markets.
Furthermore, similar debates have arisen in other bilateral trade contexts where domestic taxes have been misconstrued as trade barriers. The phenomenon underscores the importance of clear, transparent metrics when discussing tariffs internationally. It wonder how local economists and trade experts will advise businesses to mitigate any adverse impacts in the wake of these politically charged tariff decisions?
My thoughts on MAGA
So, President Trump wants to make America great again. I don’t have any problem with that—most people, I think, aspire to live in a nation that is great. But my question is: what does he mean by “great”?
Our New Zealand national anthem seeks for the nation to be “good and great,” and then goes on to describe this greatness as being free from dissension, envy, hate, and corruption. It asks for blessings of plenty and peace, and for protection from dishonour and shame. It also speaks of preaching love and truth to humanity. To me, these are the very essence of greatness. Is this what President Trump means?
Greatness, as described in our anthem, does not imply blind allegiance or disregard for the rule of law. It does not demand strict conformity to cultural, religious, sexual, or gender norms. Instead, it suggests a welcoming of diversity in all its forms. These ideals contribute to greatness—both as individuals and as a nation. I’m the first to admit that we often fall far short of these ideals, but they remain goals worth striving for. Are these the ideals on President Trump’s mind?
From my perspective, as an observer from an isolated archipelago at the bottom of the world, these seem far removed from President Trump’s concerns. He doesn’t appear to see greatness in humility, sharing, or offering a helping hand. Instead, it seems he equates greatness with being the most powerful—the strongest, getting his way irrespective of the needs of others. It’s all about one-upmanship, whether it’s within sections of American society or in dealings with other nations—even friendly ones.
Of course, I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.
Nōku noa nei te whakaaro
I’m not great at maths, but …
According to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, tariffs are being imposed on Canada due to the high levels of fentanyl crossing from Canada into the USA. Apparently, this is something that Canada needs to fix. Fair enough. Last year, approximately 20 Kg of the stuff was intercepted as it crossed from Canada to the US, which is sufficient to kill around 9 million Americans.
However, it turns out that Canadian authorities intercepted 400 Kg of the stuff crossing from the US to Canada. In other words, twenty times more than the amount going in the opposite direction. That amount could kill every Canadian four times over with plenty to spare.
This raises the question of whether both countries are equally effective at detecting fentanyl crossing the border or if US border security intercepts significantly less fentanyl compared to Canadian border security.
And yet, either way, is it something Canada needs to fix? Is there something I’m missing? It’s like a heavy smoker criticising a light smoker for polluting the air! If Canada is being held responsible for the tariffs imposed by the US, they could equally justify imposing a 400% tariff (25% x 20) on all imports from the US. Fair’s fair after all.
And then of course there’s the illegal gun trade between the two countries which also is heavily imbalanced. Around 30,000 guns illegally cross from the US to Canada while only about 3,000 guns cross illegally from Canada to the US. Given the incredibly high gun death rate compared to other developed nations, perhaps Canada should be held accountable for these statistics as well. Since gun deaths outweigh fentanyl deaths, shouldn’t that take priority?
Nōku noa nei te whakaaro
Note to Readers: Over recent months I have tended to ask Copilot to lightly edit my draft posts to improve readability. Today, when I asked Copilot to edit my draft it responded with “I’m afraid I can’t talk about that topic, sorry about that.” Even when I reminded it that it was a post expressing my personal opinion and should not be interpreted as factual, Copilot still declined to proof read the draft. It does make me question who is in charge…
Navigating a New Global Order
This article discusses the evolving global order as Donald Trump moves away from the traditional US-dominated world order, leading to a new era termed “Pax Autocratica.” This shift is characterized by the US withdrawing from international agreements such as the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accords, and questioning the value of the United Nations. Trump’s administration is seen as more isolationist and self-interested, using tariffs and other measures to assert global authority.
The article highlights that while the US remains powerful, its approach to wielding power has changed, potentially leading to a more authoritarian international order. The rise of autocracy, particularly with the rapid growth of Asia, especially China and India, is challenging the previous Pax Americana. The author suggests that New Zealand, with its vibrant democracy, will face increasing pressure in this new geopolitical landscape.
Historical examples of previous world orders, such as the Pax Romana and Pax Britannica, are used to illustrate how global power dynamics have shifted over time. The article concludes that understanding these historical shifts can help us navigate the current changes and find New Zealand’s place in the emerging international order.
RFK Jr.’s Alternative Facts: When Reality Just Isn’t Enough
Has anyone noticed that few American interviewers really challenge their interviewees? There seems to be a trend away from in-depth research that could facilitate probing and leading questions. Several factors seem to be influencing this trend:
- The shift towards sensationalism and entertainment in media. In the race for ratings and clicks, in-depth investigative reporting often takes a backseat to more sensational, attention-grabbing content.
- The consolidation of media ownership can lead to fewer resources being allocated to investigative journalism, as profit margins become a higher priority.
- The consolidation has also seen a reduction in the editorial independence of media companies, aligning content more closely to the views of their owners.
Let’s take a recent claim made by RFK Jr. This week, Kennedy, US President Donald Trump’s pick to be health secretary, was questioned in Senate hearings over his time in Samoa during the measles outbreak, which killed 83 people. He claimed, “Eighty-three people died. When tissue samples were sent to New Zealand, most of those people did not have measles, we do not know what was killing them.” Yes, it’s true no measles was found. Not one. But, and this is where truth becomes a lie, no tissue samples were sent to New Zealand. Following his logic on measles in Samoa, perhaps he’ll next declare that because he didn’t receive any mail today, the postal service must be a myth. It’s fascinating how RFK Jr. dismisses vaccines, much like denying the role of seatbelts in car safety because he once took a short trip without wearing one and “turned out just fine.”
When lies are not challenged, but simply reported, the lies develop a life of their own, growing and melding with other lies and half-truths to become alternative “truths” while the real truth becomes “fake news.” The role of the Fourth Estate is to challenge claims made by those with influence by digging deeply into the claims made by politicians, business leaders—in fact, everyone who exerts some form of power, decision-making, or influence.
I do not know the process involved with Senate hearings for executive appointments, so I do not know what opportunity Democrats might have to follow up on RFK Jr.’s claims, but the role of journalists is precisely this. Will any journalist ask, “So, Mr. Kennedy, how did you manage to find evidence in samples that were never sent?” or “Can you share your secret method for detecting diseases in non-existent samples?”
And while they have him cornered, I can think of some more questions he needs to be asked:
- “Mr. Kennedy, can you explain how vaccines, which have eradicated diseases like smallpox, are actually a global conspiracy?”
- “Given your expertise, how do you suggest we protect ourselves from diseases without vaccines? Perhaps a daily dose of wishful thinking?”
- “Can you share your thoughts on how the medical community has managed to keep this ‘vaccine hoax’ going for over a century?”
- “What are your views on the scientific method? Is it just another tool of the ‘big pharma’ agenda?”
- “How do you respond to the overwhelming evidence and studies that support the efficacy of vaccines? Are they all part of the grand illusion?”
In the absence of investigative reporting, perhaps we’ll soon see news items like these:
- “In a groundbreaking revelation, RFK Jr. asserts that the absence of reported UFO landings on his front lawn is definitive proof that extraterrestrials don’t exist anywhere in the universe.”
- “When asked how to combat infectious diseases without vaccines, RFK Jr. suggested we all hold our breath indefinitely to avoid inhaling any germs.”
- “He recommends a daily regimen of positive thinking and crystal healing, claiming it’s just as effective as any scientifically developed vaccine.”
And JFK Jr is just one of how many political appointments?
How Tech Billionaires Screwed Us All
In a recent article by Rolling Stone, the increasing dominance of tech billionaires in shaping social media landscapes is brought into sharp focus. The piece investigates how unprecedented wealth and power are being utilized to steer digital platforms in ways that prioritize personal interests and political stances.
Noteworthy figures such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Peter Thiel are prominently mentioned, highlighting their outsized influence over popular platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and emerging social networks. The article meticulously details the significant changes these titans have initiated, ranging from algorithm adjustments to content moderation policies. Such alterations often align with their individual ideologies, thereby affecting millions of users worldwide.
Furthermore, the Rolling Stone article delves into the broader societal implications of this trend. It questions the ethical dimensions of allowing a select few to have such control over the digital public square and explores potential threats to democracy and free expression. Through interviews with industry insiders and digital rights advocates, it presents a nuanced discussion on the balance between innovation and responsibility.
As we navigate an era where digital influence equates to immense power, this article serves as a timely reminder of the need for vigilance and accountability. By following the trajectory of tech billionaires and their ventures, we gain a deeper understanding of the evolving dynamics within our digital ecosystems.
You can find the full article on RollingStone.
You must be logged in to post a comment.