How New Zealand fits into the brave new world
Friday, 30 January 2026
Martin van Beynen is a Press journalist and regular opinion contributor.
OPINION: In time we might come to view President Donald Trump’s second term as the Great Rupture.
The word “rupture” obviously comes from a punchy and widely praised speech Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, delivered at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland over a week ago.
Carney used the speech to describe an emerging new world order where the great powers please themselves and extract continuous concessions from the weak.
Without actually naming Trump or the United States, he was clearly saying the US under Trump had joined China and Russia in turning its back on a fictional yet functional rules-based international order to achieve more power, wealth and security.
“We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition,” Carney said in speech unusual in the circumstances for its intelligence, honesty and accessibility.
In a way Carney’s message was nothing new. Our own prime minister and commentators around the world have talked about the old world order being broken and of the need to foster new partnerships to avoid loss of sovereignty and security. But Carney took the bold step of confronting the issue in front of world leaders and almost inviting the consequences.
Whether New Zealand rallies to the Canadian banner in such open terms remains to be seen but plenty of people think we should. Former Labour politicians Phil Goff and Steve Maharey have backed Carney’s sentiments and called on New Zealand to drop its craven approach to Trump.
Like various commentators and academic experts, Goff and Maharey have the luxury of secure jobs and incomes and do not have to face people whose livelihoods have been lost because of punitive tariffs. Nor do they have to explain their stance to allies, or experience the rebuffs and cold shoulders from countries happy to compete for the favour of the United States.
Carney may believe Canada can withstand any repercussions but New Zealand’s precarious position warrants caution no matter how inspiring Carney’s battle cry is.
We shouldn’t forget that Canada has a population of over 41 million people and a land mass making it the second biggest country in the world.
New Zealand’s “go along to get along” approach may in fact be the smart option.
For a start it’s working and most New Zealanders would be hard pressed to say they have been tangibly affected by Trump’s punitive economic measures and foreign belligerence. Moral outrage does not count.
On the other hand, thousands of Canadians employed in the car, aluminium and steel industries have lost their jobs.
Another point in favour of lying low is that Trump will not last. Perhaps just keeping our heads down until America returns to the more restrained entity it was before Trump is the right move. The rupture might be a tear that can be mended. Trump has done the world the favour of showing what happens when the illusion of the rules-based order is punctured.
We might be asked by the sanctimonious what we did during Trump’s reign but we would have solace in numbers. Of course, things may not return to normal or to what we knew before. China and Russia are increasingly aggressive and even without Trump the US may decide its interests are best advanced by controlling its hemisphere and letting the other great powers go their own way.
Also Carney has already shown the difficulty between balancing principle and pragmatism. He came to Davos having signed strategic partnerships with China and Qatar, not states that are known to share Carney’s values.
Most believe that if Carney wants to take a more independent strategy, one that is less reliant on integration with the US, Canada will be poorer. About 75% of its exports go to the US and although the US has so far complied with a free trade pact between itself, Canada and Mexico, a continued US commitment is dubious. Canada is facing a crisis of confidence and you have to wonder if Carney was appealing to Canadian nationalism in a bid to bolster his own government.
Canadians may be happy to make sacrifices for Carney’s principled approach but the pain of cuts in government spending, rises in the cost of living and reduced benefits and pensions will test the resolve of any country.
New Zealand may not be as vulnerable as Canada but its reliance on exports and its shaky economy present all sorts of risks.
New alliances dedicated to certain rules will no doubt emerge from the rupture but they are not worth much unless those rules can be monitored, defended and enforced.
The lesson from Carney’s sermon is not that reliance on other countries for trade, security and financial stability is foolhardy and bound to end in disaster. It’s more that reliance can become over-dependence and you always need a Plan B when the very arrangements you entered in good faith are used against you.
Carney used the term “reducing the leverage that enables coercion”.
He ended his speech by saying: “The powerful have their power. But we have something too – the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together. That is Canada's path. We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.”
I’m sure we would love to take that path but not just yet.