"South Sea Britain", "Quiet corner of old England", "Loyal son of the British Empire" - that's what New Zealand was called a couple of decades ago. However, since the mid-80s of the XX century, this country has been spoken of as a "troublemaker in the Asia-Pacific region", a "traitor to the interests of the West", a "naughty boy" infected with the incurable "New Zealand syndrome". New Zealand was the only country in the Western world that was able to defend its own interests even at the cost of breaking traditional military-political relations with its powerful allies during the ongoing Cold War. It created original social and political relations within the country and redefined its role and place in the system of international relations. Such radical changes were associated with the processes of national and political self-identification of New Zealand society, which took place in the second half of the XX century. The curtailment of economic ties with Europe, the reduction of British cultural influence, the reinterpretation of many European values, and the unique geographical location have led to the emergence of a special "New Zealand nationalism".

In its main features, the historical development of New Zealand followed the path of other "white dominions" of Great Britain. The main sector of the economy was agriculture, focused mainly on the former metropolis. In foreign policy, according to the strategy of "imperial unity", the focus was on the mother country as the only and reliable"protector".

After the Second World War, New Zealand tied its fate to another "friendly" country that could protect it - the United States of America. The Mutual Defence Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States (ANZUS), concluded in July 1951, was the real embodiment of the new policy of "relying on two protectors". New Zealand, like Australia, sought to use the union not only to ensure its security, but also to protect its regional interests. Following in the wake of its ally's policies, New Zealand has served US global interests to a greater extent and has become embroiled in many foreign policy actions, including the war in Korea and Vietnam.

In the early 1970s, the seemingly unshakable alliance began to be questioned. The Labour government, which came to power in 1972, took a new approach to solving foreign policy problems. The leader of the New Zealand Labor Party (NZLP), Norman Kirk, declared that "small countries" in the new international environment cannot rely entirely on their protectors and must defend their own interests [Independence and Alliance..., 1983, p. 3]. The Labor government withdrew its military contingent from Vietnam and reviewed cooperation

page 131

with the United States in the field of nuclear strategy, putting forward the idea of creating a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the South Pacific. As a first step in implementing this idea, it was planned to introduce a ban on the entry of American ships with nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons on board into New Zealand ports.

Such a radical revision of foreign policy was due to the profound processes that took place in New Zealand in the second half of the twentieth century. The changes in economy, culture and social relations caused by them were closely connected with the processes of nation formation and the definition of national identity.

For a long time, the political system of New Zealand was built mainly on a two-party principle. Two political parties, the National Party and the Labor Party, were in power, replacing each other. The National Party of New Zealand, which united well-to-do farmers and the large urban bourgeoisie, was committed to liberal-conservative traditions, including loyalty to the British Commonwealth and ANZUS partners. The Labour Party proclaimed the principles of social justice and in many ways resembled the Labour Party of Great Britain. The foreign policy of the Labor Party was not much different from that of its opponents. After World War II, the two-party system underwent a major transformation.

In the post-war years, New Zealand experienced significant changes in the economy. From a predominantly agrarian country, it has become an agrarian-industrial one. Mechanical engineering, metalworking, chemical, oil refining, coal, and textile industries developed rapidly. The network of road, rail and air connections has expanded. The inflow of foreign capital investment has increased enormously. By 1976, their total amount reached $ 1.4 billion. [Malakhovsky, 1981, p. 162].

Industrial development was accompanied by the growth of agriculture, which, using the latest technical means, achieved a significant increase in production. At the same time, the growth of agricultural production was accompanied by a steady decrease in the number of people employed in the agricultural sector. At the same time, the number of employees working in the manufacturing industry, construction, and energy sectors, and especially in the service, finance, and government sectors, has steadily increased. In 1979, 10.8%, 34.1%, and 55.4% of the amateur population worked in the primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors of the New Zealand economy, respectively (Malakhovsky, 1981, p. 165). The increasing growth of the urban population was therefore natural. In 1977, New Zealand had a population of 3,140,000, of which more than half lived in the seven largest cities.

The economic recovery has led to a sharp increase in the influx of labor from abroad. The country needed workers, and the authorities encouraged immigration. Thus, quotas were abolished and subsidies for immigrants from Western European countries were expanded. At the same time, the country attracted, as a rule, highly qualified specialists. For many immigrants, the Government provided opportunities to improve their skills. In 1960 - 1971, the positive balance of external migration amounted to 80.9 thousand people. Only in 1973/74 the number of new arrivals in the country was over 38 thousand people [see: Stefanchuk, 1987, p. 143-144]. Most of the newcomers settled in large cities and industrial centers. At the same time, the share of immigrants increased not only in industry, but also in the financial and insurance business, social security, municipal and personal services.

The country's economic growth was accompanied by an improvement in the social situation of the population. By the late 1960s, New Zealand ranked fourth in the world in terms of living standards as a share of GDP per capita. The country was referred to as go-

page 132

in the "welfare state", where there was no social inequality typical of North American and European countries.

Since the early 1960s, the New Zealand Government has begun to diversify the national economy and its foreign trade to reduce their dependence on the former metropolis. In parallel with the restructuring of the industry, new sales markets were being developed. The search for them was subsidized by the government. By the early 1970s, the three largest countries in the Pacific basin - the United States, Australia, and Japan-had taken the leading place in New Zealand's foreign trade relations. The Middle East, South-East Asia and Latin America also became consumers of New Zealand products.

Economic changes after the Second World War led to the emergence of a "new social class"in the country. If pre-war New Zealand, focused on stable exports to the UK, was a kind of frozen conservative society, then in recent decades it has undergone profound changes. The industrialization of the country and the growth of the service sectors of the economy required a highly qualified labor force. This gave an impetus to the development of education in general and special and higher education in particular. If in 1945 only 5 thousand people graduated from the country's universities, then in 1981 170 thousand received university diplomas. [Department of Statistics..., 1987, p. 278]. At the same time, the vast majority of graduates studied in New Zealand, and not in the UK, as before. These people began to acquire their own economic and social status in society. Some were successful in business and finance, while others rose to powerful positions in the service sector, the media, education, and the public service. Thus, a new capitalist elite aspiring to power emerged. Part of this elite, which supported the principles of free enterprise, united in the New Zealand Party, which, in the words of the Labor leader D. Longi, who replaced N. Kirk, was "a revived National Party of New Zealand" (Stefanchuk, 1987, p. 36). Another part of it, which focused its activities on social issues, became part of the Labor Party, significantly influencing the future policy of the NPLP. The third part, mainly the intelligentsia, began to create their own new political associations, such as the Party of Values.

The new political elite was united by two important factors. First, it represented a "new social class", which included a part of the urban population, represented by highly skilled workers and well-educated urban intelligentsia, many of whom came from families of post-war immigrants. Secondly, the new elite, as well as the entire "new social class", was not economically, politically, or culturally connected with Great Britain. Therefore, it was she who became the main inspiration for the emerging "New Zealand nationalism".

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, New Zealand society continued to associate itself with the United Kingdom. During the war, New Zealand soldiers fought for the British Empire, for the British nation, for British interests. W. Churchill was popular in New Zealand because he was considered a hero in Great Britain; the accession to the throne of the young English queen was sincerely welcomed by the inhabitants of a distant country; the first ever ascent of Mount Everest by New Zealander E. Hillary was regarded as a victory of the " Anglo-Saxon races". Even joining the ANZUS was seen as acting within the traditional New Zealand self-determination as a "loyal servant of a large empire" [Australia, New Zealand and the United States..., 1991, p. 190]. A similar image of the country was maintained and

page 133

encouraged by the UK. As the New Zealand historian J. Phillips noted, New Zealanders ' perception of their country as "the most beautiful son of the empire" "came from the British ruling class and met the needs of this class" [New Zealand, Canada and the United States.., 1987, p. 158].

With the emergence of the "new social class", attitudes towards New Zealand as a "corner of old England" within the country began to change. The impact of British culture on New Zealand society has begun to decline dramatically. The share of English radio and television shows and films produced in the UK had almost tripled by the early 1980s. If in 1957 half of all books sold in the country were published in England, by the 1980s the share of English books was only 10%. At the same time, the share of books published in New Zealand increased from 7% to 65% [New Zealand, Canadaandthe United States..., 1987, p. 38-42]. At the same time, publications, radio and TV programs were addressed to the local New Zealand audience, and not to the British one, as it was before. Teaching of New Zealand history and literature was introduced in schools and universities. National theaters and museums sprang up.

In the 1960s, an attempt was made to replace British culture with American popular culture. Hollywood movies and pop music attracted interest from a part of the country's population, but in general, American culture was not popular with the "new social class" of New Zealand, especially among its highly educated elite. She saw American expansion in this direction as " cultural imperialism." Therefore, as J. Phillips noted," The United States could not replace British culture and become a new emotional and intellectual center", and" the vacant space was filled with interest primarily in its own history and culture " [Australia, New Zealand and the United States..., 1991, p. 189]. New Zealand's participation in the Vietnam War caused the population to "feel shame that New Zealand was just a pimple on the tail of a big eagle" [Australia, New Zealand and the United States..., 1991, p. 192], and this further alienated the country from the United States of America and intensified the search process national identity.

The political elite of the "new social class" in its struggle for power with the old conservative circles did not want and could not have anything to do with their policies and ideology. She sought to develop her own values that would redefine New Zealand's place in the world. The result of these aspirations was the emergence of"New Zealand nationalism". The country began to be seen as an exceptional place on Earth, whose exotic nature was threatened by certain negative aspects of industrial civilization. Environmental movements and" greens " constantly contrasted images of virgin nature with the consequences of environmental pollution. It was during this period that New Zealanders began to call their country "Kiwi" more often to emphasize the exclusivity of its flora and fauna. The very word "kiwi" was used to refer to all New Zealand: "kiwi-product", "kiwi-sport", "kiwi-girl". All this emotionally charged the population and, according to the" greens", contributed to strengthening national unity.

The first manifestation of" New Zealand nationalism " occurred in 1973, when the Labor Prime Minister N. Kirk sent a New Zealand warship to the area of Muroroa Atoll in protest against French nuclear tests. This caused a huge sense of national pride in the country. The fight for the environment was becoming an important factor in the development of"New Zealand nationalism". It is no accident that the Party of Values, which emerged in the early 1970s, absorbed many of the ideas of environmentalists. The party called for a reassessment of spiritual and material values.-

page 134

It sought to bring them into line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Labour Party's values have also changed. Labour has consistently stressed that its main goal is also national unity and achieving genuine independence. In their opinion, "unity and independence of views" can set an example for more numerous, more powerful and powerful nations. "We can create such an excellent system," they said, " that the whole world will respect, that most countries will envy, and that many will emulate." by: Malakhovsky, 1981, p. 175].

The New Zealand Party, as it presented itself - the party of farmers and the bourgeoisie-also spoke from the standpoint of nationalism. She saw the unity of the New Zealand nation in the complete elimination of sexual and racial discrimination, the abolition of the separate system of representation of the indigenous Maori people in Parliament, and even in the country's withdrawal from the ANZUS bloc. In the 1984 election, the New Zealand Party played a role in the defeat of the National Party, winning more than 12% of the popular vote.

Protests against sports contacts with the Republic of South Africa were connected with the processes of national identity of New Zealanders. They were caused not only by the expression of the negative attitude of the country's residents towards the apartheid regime. For a long time, various sports competitions were held within the "white" dominions. Rugby matches were particularly popular. This traditionally British sport has long been associated with Anglo-Saxon values, and regular rugby competitions have demonstrated the unity of these values among the former dominions and the mother country. Protests against the tour of South African rugby players primarily expressed the reluctance of New Zealand to consider the country as the heirs of the Anglo-Saxons and "identify itself with the world domination of the white man" [Australia, New Zealand and the United States..., 1991, p. 193]. In 1973, Prime Minister N. Kirk canceled planned rugby league competitions in South Africa, and when the National Party government allowed them again in the early 1980s, a powerful wave of protests swept through the country, accompanied by clashes with the police. As noted by the New Zealand researcher D. Chapple, rugby for the first time became a source of international problems and "questioned our former national identity" [Australia, New Zealand and the United States..., 1991, p. 192].

The country's feminist movement played a major role in the development of "New Zealand nationalism". A new generation of women demanded more and more rights in the fields of economics, education, culture and politics. And they have achieved a lot. While in 1951 there was only one member of the "fair sex" in the New Zealand Parliament, by the early 1980s the number of women had reached 13. Feminists influenced the formation of a new national identity. Through their active participation in anti-war actions and protests against rugby, they "undermined" the country's "male culture" (war, rugby, etc.) and questioned the "identification of New Zealand as a country of masculinity" [Dann, 1985, p. 26]: it was with its presence that the "Anglo-Saxon race"was previously identified.

The most important element in the formation of New Zealand identity was the problem of the indigenous population-Maori. In the early 1970s, a movement developed in New Zealand to present the country as a Maori country, like Aotearoa ("The Land of the Long White Cloud"). Since the end of the 19th century, the Maoriland cultural movement has existed in New Zealand. At the time, the prevailing belief was that the Maori were an endangered people, and their fate was entirely in the hands of the Pakeha, the white inhabitants of New Zealand. The Maori culture, according to pakeha, was supposed to be very popular.-

page 135

adapted to European culture for their own good. Maori seaworthiness and military qualities were compared with Anglo-Saxon traditions, and Maori legends and tales were identified with Norse and Greek ones. In other words, as J. Phillips wrote, Maoris were presented as "honorary whites", "our Maoris", and the culture of "Maoriland" itself was designed to make New Zealand "more similar to its historical homeland-Great Britain" (Phillips, 1983, p. 520-535).

The Aotearoa movement was fundamentally different from the "Maoriland" culture. By the early 1970s, the Maori population exceeded 225 thousand people and continued to grow due to the high birth rate [Malakhovsky, 1981, p. 172]. Maori formed the most influential national minority in New Zealand, which began to seek greater rights, including land rights, the use of their native language, and the revival of national culture. There was a political mobilization of Maori tribes. They have dramatically stepped up their activities, especially for the protection of land rights. In 1975, the Maori of the North Island staged a grand "land march", which led to serious clashes between Aborigines and European settlers on the outskirts of Auckland. The confrontation was stopped only with the help of the police and army units.

The Maori actions found support among many Pakeha, primarily from the "new social class". In search of a national identity, the new class took a special interest in Maori and Polynesian culture. This" renaissance "inevitably led New Zealanders - Maori and Pakeha-to rethink "European cultural dominance in this part of the world" (Renwick, 1987, pp. 197-214). New Zealanders long before the Second World War felt that their country belonged to the Pacific region. But at that time, "Pacific affiliation" was associated with support for Western economic and political interests and encompassed the entire region, including Southeast Asia, Japan, and the United States of America [Australia, New Zealand and the United States..., 1991, p. 196]. The Aotearoa movement has helped New Zealanders understand that their country belongs specifically to the South Pacific. New Zealanders themselves increasingly began to perceive themselves as one of the peoples of Oceania, and the most developed and most responsible for this territory. Therefore, events in Fiji or New Caledonia became the focus of New Zealand society's attention.

The "South Pacific identification" had two important implications. First, the perception of New Zealand as a kind of "paradise", "land of surf and sun", located in the South Pacific Ocean, which must be protected from external pollution, has increased. Second, the perception of threats against New Zealand has changed. The Soviet Union, China, and communism in Southeast Asia are no longer a cause for concern. They were perceived as some other and distant world. But in the South Pacific, the "threatening shadow" of France loomed, detonating atomic bombs and suppressing the Kanaka movement in New Caledonia. These fears were reinforced by the presence in the region of American ships with atomic bombs and nuclear power plants. It was France and the United States that the young "New Zealand nationalism" began to perceive as the main troublemakers in this part of the globe.

Another important element of emerging "New Zealand nationalism" was the perception of the country as a kind of "moral example" for the "corrupted and corrupt" "old world". Like any migrant country, New Zealand, in its quest to attract immigrants and determine its place in the world, presented itself as "another Eden", "a country chosen by God", a new "Utopia island". Similar phenomena were observed in both Australia and the United States. But unlike

page 136

In these two countries, "New Zealand utopianism" was based on local traditions. Exceptional natural and climatic conditions gave rise to the motivation of the country's residents to "protect themselves from the evils of industrialization and urbanization of the old world" [Australia, New Zealand and the United States..., 1991, p. 197].

After the Second World War, with the growth of the economy and prosperity, New Zealand began to be referred to as the "world social laboratory", the main experiment of which was the creation of a "welfare state". However, by the early 1980s, such a role of the country in world history had ceased to meet the requirements of the "new social class", especially since by that time many examples of effective social policy had appeared in the world. Having found no particular reason for national exclusivity within the country, this part of New Zealand society shifted its national aspirations into the mainstream of foreign policy. Demonstrations near Muroroa Atoll in 1973 and protests against a South African rugby league tour in 1981 first brought this small country "at the end of the world" to the attention of world opinion. The feeling of national pride that emerged then ("The whole world is watching us!") has led to the idea of New Zealanders playing an exceptional role in the international arena, of being able to become a "moral example" for the rest of the world.

The essence of this "utopian moralism" was that New Zealand was not capable of influencing international relations through military force or economic leverage, and the only means of influence was a "moral example". In the conditions of the Cold War, the field of application of the "moral example" was the struggle for peace, for preventing a nuclear catastrophe, for the global environment. Realizing that this would be difficult to achieve on a global scale, New Zealanders focused their attention on the South Pacific region, which, in their opinion, could still be protected from the "diseases of the old world". In this regard, D. Phillips considered New Zealand's " utopian moralism "as a kind of equivalent to the"Monroe Doctrine". At one time, the United States, justifying this doctrine, referred to the desire to protect the Latin American continent from "old colonial European values" [Australia, New Zealand and the United States..., 1991, p. 198].

The search for a national identity and place in the world in New Zealand was markedly different from similar processes in Australia. Even in pre-war times, when New Zealand was considered "the most loyal son of the empire", New Zealanders believed that the "big brother" treats them too jealously and suspiciously, is often "rude and unfair". The slightest sign of any arrogance on the part of Australia has always caused resentment in New Zealand. The close rapprochement between the two countries after World War II and the strengthening of mutual economic, defense and cultural ties were a natural reaction to the Pacific orientation of both countries, caused by the processes of national identification. But while Australia had its eyes on the entire Pacific Ocean, New Zealand associated itself exclusively with its southern part.

After the Second World War, Australia was also undergoing processes associated with the emergence of a "new middle class" and the weakening of British influence. But unlike New Zealand, "Australian nationalism" was formed much earlier. By the 1940s. Australia was already a fairly urbanized country, with established traditions and self-confidence in its own capabilities. It considered itself a major regional power and a serious international actor. Australia's geopolitical interests tended to extend northward, to Indonesia and Southeast Asia. Accordingly, they were perceived differently by both countries

page 137

and their threats. According to public opinion polls in the early 1980s, Australians and New Zealanders agreed only on the threat posed by the USSR (37% and 31%, respectively). Further, the perception of threats was noticeably different. If the Australians ranked the threats coming from Asian countries (Indonesia, China, Vietnam, Japan) as the highest, then the United States of America and France were considered the most dangerous for New Zealanders after the USSR [Defense and Security..., 1986, p. 40]. The Australians believed that their own armed forces would not be sufficient to repel external threats and it was necessary to rely on a more powerful ally. New Zealanders, on the other hand, believed that using the armed forces to eliminate threats to their country was simply unrealistic, and they looked for ways to solve problems with the help of a "moral example". Immigration processes were different in both countries. While Australia was dominated by immigrants mainly from Asian countries of the North Pacific, New Zealand received mainly immigrants from the islands of Oceania, which strengthened its "South Pacific identification".

By the early 1980s in New Zealand, national identity and international self-determination were not complete processes. They didn't even cover the majority of the country's population. There were still strong traditions of identifying with Great Britain and considering New Zealand culture as part of British culture among some of the urban population, while conservative traditions in rural areas still prevailed. A large majority of New Zealanders supported the country's participation in the ANZUS bloc. Attempts to address Maori issues, especially in the areas of land rights and education, were still rejected by the bulk of pakeha. Nevertheless, the identification processes not only continued, but also showed trends towards the dominance of the ideas of "South Pacific orientation" and "moral example".

Indeed, the demonstrations against the Vietnam War, the anti-nuclear protests of the 1970s, and clashes with police during the South African rugby league tour were mainly attended by young people and the most educated circles of the urban population. But among them were future Prime Ministers David Longy and Helen Clark, future leader of the feminist movement Margaret Shields, future leader of the Labor Party Phil Goff. It was their participation in public protests in the 1960s and 1970s that led them to enter politics. It was these people, who represented the elite of the "new social class", who began to gain constant popularity in the country and influence the formation of public opinion in New Zealand.

"New Zealand nationalism" was so deeply embedded in society that it even affected the National Party. Oddly enough, it was the Conservatives who took the first step towards defining New Zealand's "special place" in the world. In the early 1980s, New Zealand's Prime Minister, R. Muldoon, announced a new understanding of foreign policy and economic issues. "Our foreign policy is trade," he declared, "we are not particularly interested in foreign affairs, we are interested in trade" [New Zealand International Review, 1980, p. 3]. This slogan not only reflected the pragmatic approach of conservatives to foreign policy and economic issues, but also saw trends in "self - identification in New Zealand".

If the Conservatives limited the "special place" only to economic and trade issues, then the Labor Party that replaced them in 1984, led by D. Longy, for the first time demonstrated to the world the features of "New Zealand nationalism" in the military-political field. Foreign policy was now conducted in two main directions: for the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Pacific Ocean and against the entry into New Zealand ports of ships with nuclear weapons on board. At the beginning of 1985, D. Longy, on behalf of the government, announced the refusal to visit New Zealand for American ships from

page 138

nuclear weapons on board. The US retaliated by effectively ending all military contacts with New Zealand under ANZUS. The country was able to withstand unprecedented pressure from Washington and its allies. This happened despite the fact that, as D. Longi put it, "the United States could crush us like a caterpillar if it wanted to" [New Zealand International Review, 1989, p. 26]. In 1989, New Zealand legislated for a nuclear-free status. Even the National Party, which ruled the country throughout the 1990s, was unable to cancel it.

It should be noted that in foreign policy, " New Zealand nationalism "was closely associated with the concept of a" small country", which included New Zealand (McGraw, 1994, p.7-25). This concept was widespread and determined the development of foreign policy doctrine, regardless of which political party was in power. Its essence boiled down to the fact that "small countries" in international relations should occupy a place corresponding to their economic and military potential. They also have a certain set of characteristics that distinguish them from other countries, and they build their domestic and foreign policies based on these characteristics.

According to the concept of "small countries", the limited resources of small States imply their limited participation in international affairs. In terms of participation in international affairs - the level of international aid - New Zealand was noticeably inferior to other developed countries. New Zealand's UN decision to allocate 0.7% of GDP to developing countries has been largely ignored. In 1990, when the Conservatives came to power, official aid to New Zealand fell to a record low of 0.21% of GDP (Dominion, 30.12.1992, p.2).

The concept of" small countries " implies that the interests of such States are narrowed to the level of their region or are limited to problems that directly affect them. At first glance, this concept doesn't seem to apply to New Zealand. The country's interests as a global trading unit extended far beyond the region. With the exception of Australia, New Zealand's main trade and economic partners are located outside its own region. At the same time, New Zealand's vital interests abroad were much more limited than those of, say, Australia. In New Zealand politics, some geographical areas were given priority, while others were simply ignored. For New Zealand, the main diplomatic function was to promote its trade interests, and the attention of the diplomatic services was focused only on those areas that were important for the country in terms of trade.

The next distinguishing feature of "small countries" - the priority of economic interests over political ones - is most characteristic of New Zealand. The slogan "foreign policy is trade" put forward by R. Muldoon fully corresponded to this concept.

Another characteristic of small states is that they always strive to achieve their foreign policy goals through cooperation with other states, rather than acting independently. Indeed, "small countries" by definition cannot ensure their security without relying on the help of other, more powerful states. New Zealand, under governments of both political forces, has always preferred cooperation with strong partners. True, while National Party governments viewed the interests of an ally as their own, Labor advocated a more independent foreign policy, where the interests of allies should not be the highest priority. Conservatives are paramount when-

page 139

ANZUS was also given to the union with the United States, and Labor began to pay more attention to cooperation with Australia, the ASEAN countries and the UN.

It is believed that "small countries" traditionally tend to support the moral principles of international relations and established international legal norms. Indeed, New Zealanders have always sought to promote their ideals in foreign policy, the main ones of which they considered anti-militarism, anti-imperialism and internationalism [New Directions..., 1985, p. 11]. The ideals of social justice were also extended to the field of foreign policy and expressed in the form of a" moral strategy " of human rights. But at the same time, New Zealand did not forget about the principles of a pragmatic approach to international affairs. The country has often been criticized by Western partners, for example, for refusing to impose sanctions on Iran in connection with the" Rushdie case " or for not sufficiently condemning Russia's actions in Chechnya.

In the 1990s, the development of New Zealand society and New Zealand's foreign policy were significantly influenced by the processes of globalization, which was considered by New Zealand political scientists as a new era that followed the Cold War. New Zealand was one of the first countries to warn the international community against the euphoria that has gripped the world since the end of the Cold war. Calculations that" war will become obsolete "and it will be replaced by" economic disputes " at the UN, New Zealanders called premature. The country's Defense Minister, David Hensley, has suggested that the Cold War may be followed by numerous regional threats of such a level that "the bipolar system of the past may seem safer" [New Zealand International Review, 1992, p. 2].

The main signs of globalization, according to New Zealand experts, were the economic interdependence of countries and peoples, the expansion of trade, the growth of foreign investment, and the internationalization of the media. At the same time, they believe that globalization in no way means subordinating local and national interests to global interests. Moreover, in their opinion, globalization is the main source of reviving the rights and cultures of the peoples of New Zealand [Trans-Tasman Relations..., 1996]. It has strengthened the process of searching for national identity. This is primarily due to the revival of the constitutional and cultural rights of the indigenous Maori people. The Government not only confirmed the main provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, which allowed the Maori to have their own property and government, but also significantly expanded their land rights. The Maori language, along with English, has acquired the status of a state language. The English language itself in the media was so diluted with Maori words and expressions that it became incomprehensible to foreigners. New Zealand society has developed a "sense of guilt" about the country's past and the unfairness that has taken place against the indigenous population. Emphasizing your Maori connection has become fashionable. Many families of European descent have even started to teach their children in Maori schools [Trans-TasmanRelations..., 1996].

The process of national identity in New Zealand was markedly different from similar processes in Australia. If the Australian identity was based on the principles of multiculturalism( multiculturalism), then in New Zealand there was a fusion of two cultures - the indigenous population (Maori) and immigrants from Europe (Pakeha), which formed a new community of people - the "South Pacific nation". In the process of searching for a national identity, there was even the idea that New Zealand is part of Asia, and New Zealanders are an Asian people. In 1993, the country's Prime Minister D. Bolger presented himself as an Asian leader at a press conference in Tokyo. This caused a negative reaction from the leaders of some Asian states. Malaysian Prime Minister M. Mahathir, rejecting the " Asi-

page 140

New Zealand's" Asian ambitions", stated that this country could not possibly be considered an Asian culture, since it does not behave in accordance with the Asian tradition of non-interference in the affairs of other peoples [New Zealand International Review, 1994, p. 5]. In this regard, New Zealand opposition leader Helen Clark stated that "the desire of countries such as New Zealand, Australia, the United States and Canada to strengthen their influence in regional organizations such as ASEAN and APEC is an attempt to impose their own style and methods" [New Zealand International Review, 1995, p. 4]. As the Japanese scholar M. Kamaya noted, the" Asian fever "in New Zealand was an attempt to become more closely tied to the region, and this caused Asian countries to fear that" New Zealand's interest in the region will fade as soon as economic growth here begins to slow down " [New Zealand International Review, 1995, p. 4].

Following the concept of a "moral example", New Zealand actively worked to ensure global peace and security. Realizing that the country's capabilities are limited, the Government formulated the main criteria for its participation in UN events: whether they correspond to the strategic and economic interests of New Zealand; whether they have a real prospect of success; whether they are acceptable to the warring parties, to the New Zealand public and to its armed forces [New Zealand Herald, 1993, p. 5]. Following these criteria, New Zealand refused to send its troops to Bosnia and Herzegovina, as this territory was not within the scope of its national interests. It also abstained from voting in the UN Security Council on the introduction of an arms embargo on Bosnia, which caused dissatisfaction among some of its partners. For example, the British Prime Minister strongly urged support for international forces, and Malaysia expressed disappointment at New Zealand's refusal to "help co-religionists in Bosnia" [New Zealand Herald, 1994, p. 2]. In response to criticism, the New Zealand government stated that it would pursue a policy of "quiet diplomacy" rather than "megaphone diplomacy", believing that a small country like New Zealand cannot be guided only by ideological and moral approaches in international affairs and does not have a "sacred right to teach the world" [McGraw, 2000, p. 46].

After the Asian crisis of 1998, the National Party Government attempted to improve relations with the United States of America. In September 1999, an American delegation headed by President Clinton arrived in Auckland to participate in the APEC Summit. This was the first visit of such a high-ranking US delegation since the 1985 ban on the entry of American ships with nuclear weapons on board or with nuclear power plants into the ports of New Zealand. The US administration, interested in finding allies to conduct its many "peacekeeping" operations, wanted to improve relations with New Zealand. B. Clinton, in particular, suggested that New Zealand participate in the operation of the multinational force in East Timor. According to the agreements reached, New Zealand was placed under the Australian command as part of the international peacekeeping force in East Timor (INTERFET). one frigate, four helicopters, two transport planes, a tanker and an infantry battalion. The total number of New Zealand military personnel totaled 1200 people, or 10% of the total strength of the country's armed forces. The cost of the East Timor operation was NZD 75 million. [Asia Pacific Security..., 2000, p. 117]. New Zealand has actively supported US activities in other parts of the world. So, two Orion patrol planes and a Te Kaha frigate were sent to the Persian Gulf. About 20 New Zealand specialists were part of the British forces in Bosnia, several soldiers were engaged in mine clearance in Kosovo, and more than 30 people ensured order on the island of Bougainville.

page 141

The National Party's defence and security policies have been constantly criticized by the opposition and the New Zealand public. Thus, the National Alliance party advocated an independent foreign policy, including from the United States of America. "Military alliances that protect the status quo when that status is unfair and undemocratic cannot be part of our defense policy," said party spokesman M. Robinson [New Zealand Foreign and Defense Policy..., 1999]. The Green Party was even more radical. She offered to withdraw from the Five-Power Treaty and change its attitude towards Australia while the country follows an "outdated strategy" of the Cold War period, subordinated to America's goals [New Zealand Foreign and Defence Policy..., 1999.]. The New Zealand First Party advocated for tougher immigration laws so that the country would not be used as an "intermediate airfield on the way to other countries" [New Zealand Foreign and Defence Policy..., 1999.].

In December 1999, the opposition won the next election. The new Prime Minister of the country was the leader of the Labor Party Helen Clark. The subsequent resurgence of" New Zealand nationalism " worsened the country's relations with the United States and Australia. Australia claimed that trans-Tasman relations, which were already "built on sand", had "deeply cracked" [Australia and New Zeland..., 2000]. According to the United States, New Zealand's actions led to the destruction of the Western system of "collective security" and the emergence of "new New Zealand isolationism" [Asia Pacific Security..., 1999, p. 123]. They doubted that New Zealand, with such a small army, would be able to meet its obligations to maintain peace without proper training, artillery and air support, that is, without allies. The New Zealand leadership rejected such claims and warned the United States and Australia against interfering in its internal affairs, accusing them of constantly "inventing new threats" [Asia Pacific Security.., 1999, p. 125].

The emergence of" New Zealand nationalism " was a consequence of the processes of national and political identification of New Zealand society. The example of New Zealand demonstrates that "small countries" can take their own special place in the modern world. At the same time, it is not necessary to link your well-being and security with any strong ally or coalition. Relying on the norms of international law and cooperating with international organizations, it is possible to achieve economic and political stability, create conditions for social development and internal stability, and maintain good relations with neighbors. In any case, there is no doubt about it in New Zealand.

list of literature

Malakhovsky K. V. Istoriya Novoi Zelandii [History of New Zealand]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1981.

Stefanchuk L. G. New Zealand. Difficult Years, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1987.

Asia Pacific Security Outlook 1999/ Ed. by Ch. Morrisson. Honolulu: East-West Center, 1999.

Asia Pacific Security Outlook 2000/ Ed. by Ch. Morrisson. Honolulu: East-West Center, 2000.

Australia and New Zealand: the Defence Policy Gulf / Centre for Strategic Studies, Strategic Briefing Papers, Vol. 4, Part 2, November 2000 (http://www.vuw.ac.nz / css)

Australia, New Zealand and the United States: Internal Change and Alliance Relations in the ANZUS States. N.Y.: Pranger, 1991.

Dann Christine. Up from Under. Wellington: Allen and Unwin, 1985.

Defence and Security: What New Zealanders Want / Defence Committee of Enquiry. Wellington: Government Printer, 1986.

Department of Statistics (New Zealand). Wellington: Government Printer, 1987.

page 142

Dominion (Wellington). 30.12.1992.

Independence and Alliance: Australia in the World Affairs / Ed. by P. Boyce, J. Angel. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1983.

McCraw D. New Zealand's Foreign Policy under National and Labour Governments: Variations on the "Small State" Theme? // Pacific Affairs. Vol. 67. No. 1. Vancouver, Spring 1994.

McCraw D. New Zealand's Foreign Policy in the 1990s: in the National Tradition // The Pacific Review. Center for the Study of Globalization and Regionalisation, University of Warwick, Coventry, U.K., 2000. Vol. 13. N 4.

New Directions in New Zealand Foreign Policy. Auckland: Benton Ross, 1985.

New Zealand, Canada and the United States. Dunedin: University of Otago, 1987.

New Zealand Foreign and Defence Policy at the End of the 20th Century: Views of Political Parties // Proceeding of a Pre-Election Seminar Held at the University of Auckland, 21 October 1999 (http://www.vuw.ac.nz/css/docs/re-ports/Preelection.html).

New Zealand Herald. 5.06.1993.

New Zealand International Review. Vol. XIV, N 4 (July-August 1989).

New Zealand International Review. Vol. XVII. N 3. 1992.

New Zealand International Review. Vol. XIX. N 4. 1994.

New Zealand International Review. Vol. XX. N 4. 1995.

New Zealand International Review. (Wellington). 1980. N 1.

Phillips J. Musings in Maoriland // Historical Studies. 1983. Vol. 20. N 81.

Renwick W. Show Us These Islands and Ourselves... // New Zealand Journal of History. 1987. Vol. 21. N 2.

Trans-Tasman Relation: Integration or Divergence? / Australian Institute of International Affairs (http://www. dfat.gov. au/media/speeches/foreign/1996/index.html).

Permanent link to this publication: