The foreign policy of New Zealand at the time of choosing between the West and Asia.

“Where she goes, we go; where she stops, we stop”: this is how the New Zealand prime minister expressed his loyalty to Britain in September 1939. Twenty-four years later, such a statement of allegiance carries a sense of prehistory. The considerations of special interests seem to have been replaced by blood ties. However, as demonstrated by the conflict over Malaysia, the actual changes in New Zealand’s foreign policy are not as significant as the evolution of thought in this policy might suggest. For both practical and sentimental reasons, belonging to the Commonwealth—especially the attachment to Britain—remains predominantly influential in this policy.

But what are the other, newer factors that are more notable? In fact, the prime minister’s statement was outdated when he made it; but it can be said without fear of error that from the early 20th century until 1935, there were no other elements taken into account: Britain led, New Zealand followed. But from that year, when a Labour government came to power in Wellington, a second essential element of this country’s policy emerged: adherence to the idea of collective security and the global institutions that guarantee it. Before the war, it was the League of Nations, where New Zealand often took positions different from those of Britain and other Commonwealth members on issues that it deemed morally more important or related to the authority of the global institution. This was the case, for example, when it came to Mussolini’s “fait accompli.”