The swathe of mysterious Belt and Road agreements

China claims to have signed a swathe of Belt and Road agreements with New Zealand, in a move that directly contradicts New Zealand’s foreign policy. 

But no one seems to know who signed the agreements, or what they include.

Last month, at a conference in Auckland, representatives from New Zealand and Sichuan Province signed agreements covering economy, trade, education, and science and technology, according to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). 

The state press release categorised the cooperation agreements as part of its project to expand its Belt and Road construction.

“It is a key cooperation area for Sichuan to deepen its southward opening-up cooperation, actively integrate into the ‘Belt and Road’ construction and expand economic cooperation with RCEP countries,” the Chinese-language version of the statement said (translated).

It also referred to a joint kiwifruit laboratory, and the resumption of direct flights between Auckland and Chengdu, in Sichuan.

The English-language statement on the Sichuan-New Zealand Economic, Trade and Cultural Promotion Conference did not include any mentions of President Xi Jinping’s flagship soft power Belt and Road Initiative. It merely said eight agreements were signed.

Though the New Zealand Government had a current “memorandum of arrangement” with China on the Belt and Road Initiative, central government was not actively pursuing it. Meanwhile, local government representatives around the country have been told not to progress BRI agreements or personnel exchanges.

Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, who met the CCP’s Sichuan representative, Huang Qiang, said he did not sign any agreements and was not involved in the conference where the agreements were allegedly signed.

“Yes, he met with Huang Qiang outside of the conference in his capacity as the Mayor of Auckland, he welcomes many delegations throughout the year, and he is pleased to also welcome the arrival of Sichuan Airways to Auckland,” a spokesperson for the mayor’s office said in a statement.

“The B&R was not discussed.”

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Auckland Council said no Belt and Road agreements had been signed by the wider council or council-controlled organisations.

Tātaki Auckland Unlimited participated in these types of events to promote Auckland as a tourism and cultural destination, but that was it, the spokesperson said.

A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Auckland Airport, China Southern and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited during the same week, which may have been the cause of the confusion, he said. The agreement was to grow Auckland as a destination for Chinese business travellers.

No one from local government seemed to be aware of any BRI agreements being signed during the conference last month, and neither were central government officials.

In a statement, a foreign ministry spokesperson said the Government’s position on BRI was unchanged.

“The New Zealand Government is not considering any BRI projects,” they said.

“How initiatives from the Sichuan-New Zealand Economic, Trade and Cultural Promotion and Exchange Conference are described by Chinese media is a matter for relevant businesses that entered into them.”

The foreign ministry did not provide any advice to businesses or Auckland council, regarding these agreements, they said.

In March 2017, the National government signed a “memorandum of arrangement” with Chinese premier Li Keqiang outlining a proposal for the two countries to work together on the BRI.

Launched by Xi in 2013, the trillion-dollar initiative is focused on developing Chinese-led infrastructure projects and other economic initiatives throughout the world, on ancient land and sea routes which formed part of the Silk Road.

The agreement required the two countries to develop a Belt and Road workplan within 18 months of its signing, but the plans slowed when the Labour-led government took power at the end of 2017, as foreign affairs minister Winston Peters shared his reservations about the project.

The agreement auto-renewed in March 2022 for a period of five years. But New Zealand was not pursuing any projects, or raising the BRI in discussions with Chinese counterparts.

University of Canterbury China expert Professor Anne-Marie Brady said that though New Zealand had stopped progressing work on the BRI, Mfat’s language on the controversial united front work programme strategy was purposefully vague.

“New Zealand, being a small state, we’re not going to come out and blatantly say we’re not doing any more BRI … that would be counterproductive.

“It’s better for New Zealand to just say nothing and do nothing,” she said.

New Zealand had an agreement to talk about the BRI (the MoA) not to do anything about it (an MoU). Some didn’t recognise that distinction, Brady said.

Councils and local mayors had received briefings from the foreign ministry and Security Intelligence Service (SIS) regarding China’s foreign interference strategies. And they had been told not to progress these types of agreements or personnel exchanges.

But this ambiguity led to confusion, and left room for China to make claims regarding New Zealand’s involvement in its BRI. It also meant there was the possibility private business and local government would continue to pursue BRI agreements.

Brady said China had a deliberate strategy of targeting local government for BRI projects when central government shut the door on its flagship expansion plan.

When this happened in Australia, the federal government was forced to tear up an agreement signed by the Victorian state government because of its inconsistency with the country’s foreign policy.

Though Auckland council says it did not sign any BRI agreements, despite reporting by Chinese media and the CCP press releases, New Zealand does have at least one current BRI agreement.

The “China-New Zealand Kiwi ‘Belt and Road’ Joint Laboratory” was officially opened in Chengdu, Sichuan in 2014. At the time, it didn’t have the BRI status, but was upgraded in 2018.

And late last year, China and New Zealand renewed the “China-New Zealand Kiwi Fruit ‘One Belt and One Road’ Joint Laboratory Agreement” in order to “further deepen cooperation between the two parties in the fields of kiwifruit variety optimisation, scientific research personnel exchanges and industrial upgrading”, according to Chinese-language media.

Plant & Food Research (PFR) chief scientist Richard Newcomb said the lab was built on “a very long-standing relationship”.

In 2014, soon after Xi launched the Belt and Road Initiative, PFR’s Chinese counterparts applied for the BRI name, as a way to secure more funding and gravitas.

“From their end it’s status, and allows them access to more resources,” Newcomb said.

The lab was mutually beneficial and gave New Zealand access to important biosecurity information, he said.

“The relationship is more important than the branding.”

When asked whether the name could be changed, to remove the BRI branding, should PFR be asked to do so by the Government, Newcomb said, “I think we can arrange that”.

“Even the Chinese partners that we have realise that not all of the countries around the world that might interact with them necessarily think that the Belt and Road is a fantastic thing. So there’s a level of awareness at their end as well.”

But PFR business manager for greater China Liverpool Zhang said their partners in China needed the BRI name and branding in order to achieve status and access funding. It also signalled the laboratory’s political standing and research capability in China, he said.

“We really cannot interfere with that.”

PFR is a Crown research institute, which operates at arm’s length to the Government and runs as a limited liability company. It is owned by two ministers: Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins and the Finance Minister, Nicola Willis.

In a submission to Parliament’s Justice Select Committee on foreign interference in elections, Brady recommended New Zealand take a more explicit stance on the BRI.

Ministers “should make it explicit that New Zealand will not be taking on any Belt and Road Initiative contracts”, she said.

“The continuance of the current policy of ‘saying but not doing’ is causing confusion and risks local governments acting against national interests. The MoA signed with China is simply an agreement to discuss, and nothing more.”