Still described as "a small, neutral country seen by the Arab world as sympathetic"(1), occupied Aotearoa (New Zealand) has nonetheless blown its cover as a "neutral" country by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq(2). As the united $tates continues to encourage countries from Italy to Moldova to participate in militarism against Third World peoples under the pretext of providing humynitarian assistance, it is important to investigate the political economy of small imperialist countries so that there's no illusion as to the true nature of the bullets lodged in the bodies of exploited and oppressed people. Countries such as New Zealand must not be allowed to provide a cover, military or ideological, for imperialism.

That the settler Europeans in New Zealand (NZ) do not constitute an oppressed nation is no longer controversial among communists. However, the fact that the less dominant section of the European bourgeoisie in NZ do not behave like an anti-imperialist national bourgeoisie, such as the changing national bourgeoisie during the Chinese revolution, does not by itself make NZ an imperialist country. This is important to understand in order to prevent idealism from creeping into the Maoist analysis of a country's actual class structure.

Just by looking at average wage rates in the productive sector and the legal minimum wages in NZ(3), all of which greatly exceed estimates of the monetized value of labor(4), NZ is not an exploited region. The actual wage rates and occupations of the different strata in NZ, including the Maoris whose incarceration, unemployment and unskilled-occupation rates are multiples of the average, must be determined in order to objectively describe the class structure of NZ. However, it is clear that New Zealand, as a whole, is a net beneficiary of imperialism. As for the size of the productive sector, it includes about 40% of the country's work force, compared to about 25% for the u.k., and 90% for the Third World Nepal.

NZ's position in the chain of imperialist countries is unusual in comparison to many other imperialist countries. NZ does have a large financial sector, including banking and insurance, but no New Zealand imperialist bourgeoisie appears to be dominant here. Instead, the largest banks are subsidiaries of Australian and British companies(5). "Around 99% of the assets of the New Zealand banking system were under the ownership of a foreign bank parent"(6). Because there is no evidence of a New Zealand banking sector other than the central bank (which exists in all countries), we will not say that New Zealand is imperialist in its own right. Ironically, as an appendage or extension of Anglo-Saxon imperialism, it is much better off than Russia. At the same time there is a degree of separation from the classic majority-exploiter countries like the united $tates, Japan, England, France, Beligium, Italy, Germany, Switzerland & the Netherlands.

NZ has a non-exploited productive sector, but its exports consist mainly of low-order goods such as agricultural and forestry products (largest exporter of dairy products), which go to other imperialist countries, including Australia, Japan, the u.k., and the u.$. According to GDP statistics, in fact, a majority of New Zealand's economy is in the productive sectors of industry and agriculture. At the same time, NZ is dependent on other imperialist countries for machinery and other equipment. This again is a fact that points to New Zealand's not being a typical imperialist country. As such, further study of New Zealand may yet reveal quite a bit about the nature of imperialism today. In particular, it appears that the Anglo-Saxon world exported its common notion of labor aristocracy to New Zealand, but conditions have not allowed New Zealand to mirror England as much as France does for instance. The basic reason that New Zealand did not become a super-exploited country is that Europeans would have had English citizenship rights before 1947. Obviously, the imperialists could not offer the New Zealand Europeans much worse of a deal than they would receive in other imperialist countries, or those Europeans would simply depart.

NZ's government has opened NZ's economy up to foreign investment in a way that has led the New Zealand labor aristocracy to describe NZ as "a mere branch office of transnational corporations"(7). In fact, important natural resources in NZ are subject to foreign control, including petroleum and plantation forests. Even then, "the finance and insurance industry holds most of New Zealand's international assets, and receives the most foreign investment"(8). In this context, NZ has the characteristics of an appendage of a larger imperialist-country economy since even the lowest legal wages in NZ indicate net parasitism. Without being too crude, we may compare the situation in NZ to the situation in the u.$. State of Hawai'i, distant and separated from the geographic centers of imperialist countries, but still integrated with the economy of the imperialist u.$. (and Japan, Hawai'i's largest foreign investment and trading partner).

The unusual elements of NZ's economy are likely a consequence of NZ's status as a former British colony, geographic isolation and size, and comparatively small population (4 million, 3.2 million of whom are European). This raises the question: given that NZ is a parasitic country swamped with imperialist super-profits, what is its principal national origin? Is it still British, or just a faction of British imperialism? Is it Euro-Australian, Australia being "New Zealand's single most important source and destination of direct investment"(9)? Euro-Amerikan with the u.$.'s growth, relative to the u.k., as an investment and trading partner of NZ since the 1951 ANZUS Treaty(10)? Is it an independent New Zealand imperialism, NZ having shown both divergence and initiative with respect to militarist foreign policy(11)?

If NZ were a semi-colony, NZ's government's support for different imperialist powers would indicate a New Zealand European comprador bourgeoisie in power in NZ. Since NZ is not a semi-colony, its economy and politics must be viewed as an artifact of NZ's inability to develop as a large imperialist power. As an alternative to trying to compete with larger imperialist countries in the division of the world and the looting of oppressed nations, the dominant New Zealand European bourgeoisie have established NZ as an appendage of other imperialist countries' economies. If there is an independent New Zealand imperialist bourgeoisie, it has decided to cooperate with Australia, the u.k., and the u.$., within the framework of keeping NZ a parasitic country, and in order to keep NZ a parasitic country. Incoming foreign investment is permitted and sought in accordance with "national interest"(12). The Reserve Bank of New Zealand, owned by the government, sets monetary policy in accordance with this objective and independently of the u.k. "Monetary policy in New Zealand is currently entirely consistent with the best international practice"(13), which, in the context of the national-interest objective, means best in the long run from NZ's viewpoint. Foreign investment and trade support NZ parasitism.

Despite their colonial history, the settler Europeans in New Zealand (Aotearoa) are not an oppressed nation. The only possible oppressed nation among the Polynesian nationalities in NZ are the Maoris. Another basis for there being an independent New Zealand European imperialist bourgeoisie is the possible net transfer of value from Maoris to European New Zealanders, Maoris being disproportionately represented in the unskilled productive sector, and there being a significant discrepancy between European and Maori lifespans(14).

Miscellaneous statistics on the national origin of assets in NZ

In 2003 February, there were 294,954 "non-farming enterprises"(15), involving an equivalent of 1.5 million full-time contractors/employees. That is 5.1 FTE persons per non-farming enterprise (5.1).

At the same time, there were 6,850 non-farming enterprises with 1% or more foreign ownership, involving 303,000 FTE persons, or 44.2 FTE persons per non-farming enterprise with 1% or more foreign ownership (44.2).

At the same time, there were 5,450 non-farming enterprises with 50% of more foreign ownership, involving 237,200 FTE persons, or 43.5 FTE persons per non-farming enterprise with 50% or more foreign ownership (43.5).

The imputed ratio of FTE persons to non-farming enterprise with less than 1% foreign ownership is 4.2 FTE persons per non-farming enterprise with less than 1% foreign ownership (4.2).

Official foreign-owned enterprises appear to be more concentrated than other enterprises in terms of FTE persons per enterprise.

In 2002, the total "operating surplus before income tax" was NZ$42,409 million(16). In 2003, foreign investment in NZ was NZ$6,104 million, while income from foreign investment in NZ was NZ$8,962 million, the difference being NZ$2,858 million. In pure monetary, non-value terms, it appears that most earnings in NZ go back to NZ citizens.

"In 1993 the [u.$.], the [u.k.] and Australia contributed in total 74 percent of foreign direct investment in New Zealand. At the same time, Australia and the [u.k.] were the destinations for 76 percent of New Zealand's direct investment abroad"(17).

NZ and the collectivity of Australia, the u.k., and the u.$., are major mutual investment partners. This relationship continues to intensify.

"Comparing March 2001 with March 2003, the value of foreign investment in New Zealand from these three countries rose 16 percent. In contrast, the value of total foreign investment in New Zealand from all countries rose by 5 percent"(17).

In 2003, Australia was the source of 23% of foreign investment in NZ; the u.k., 23%; the u.$., 15%. The proportion for the u.$. decreased from 16% in 2001 March. Much of this decrease resulted from a decrease in the u.$.'s direct investment in NZ (rather than portfolio investment).

"As destinations for New Zealand investment abroad at the total level, Australia and the [u.k.] have decreased, while the [u.$.] has increased. However, the opposite is true for sources of foreign investment in New Zealand the [u.$.] has declined while the [u.k.] and Australia have both increased"(17).

Australia contributes the most to foreign direct investment in NZ, but the u.k. contributes the most to foreign portfolio investment in NZ.

The statement that "whereas up to World War II New Zealand had clearly been an economic dependency of Great Britain's, such was the relative decline of Britain between 1940 and 1950 that the [united $tates] had by then taken over from Britain in the military and the political spheres, although less so in the economic field"(4) may hold true today.

1. "Why Mossad might be interested in New Zealand."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm? storyID=3562376&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

2. "New Zealand military to join occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/newz-j21.shtml

3. "Migrate to New Zealand."http://www.movetonz.govt.nz/Bml/away/doing-business/sub- regulation.htm#wage ; "Economy - Statistics New Zealand."http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/htmldocs/Economy

4. This is the wage, in appropriate monetary terms and calculated on an hourly basis, that a productive worker laboring at the average intensity would get if they weren't exploited in the labor-theory-of-value sense. A way to estimate this quantity is to take the total price of the final goods produced by the export sector of the Third World, add this to the total price of the final goods produced in the productive sector of imperialist countries, and divide this sum by the number of productive-work hours in these sectors. The only workers in the Third World who are considered are those directly affecting the social value of commodities produced in imperialist countries, and adjustments are made for real exchange rates and other indicators of cost of living. This author's method (detailed in a paper to come) is inspired by the analysis in "Imperialism and its Class Structure in 1997" (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/imp97/). By almost all definitions of "productive," "goods," etc., the estimate of the monetized value of labor is significantly below the minimum wages in several imperialist countries, including NZ. This is not unanticipated since the average hourly earnings in the Third World is about US$0.50/hr. Quadrupling this to account for ridiculous imaginary cost-of-living differences would bring this to amount to US$2.00/hr, not even half as much as the lowest legal minimum wage in New Zealand, US$4.30/hr.

5. "Foreign-owned banks: implications for New Zealand's financial
stability." http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/discusspapers/dp02_05.pdf

6. "New Zealand : Banking and finance : SYBWorld."
http://www.sybworld.com/views/entrytext/nz/Banking_and_Finance

7. "Fletcher Challenge Ltd now foreign owned."
http://www.embassy.org.nz/news/fcnotnz.htm

8. "Balance of payments and international investment position : Year ended March 2001."http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/0/4c2567ef 00247c6acc256aae00014a31?OpenDocument

9. "Balance of payments and international investment position (additional information on investment by country) (year ended 31 March 2003) - media release."
http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/0/4c2567ef00247c 6acc256d9d0011abb4?OpenDocument

10. "New Zealand is one of America's strongest allies in international trade liberalization. No country has consistently worked more closely with the United States in trade forums, such as the WTO and APEC, than has New Zealand"
(http://www.amcham.org.hk/pr/issues/US-New_Zealand_free_trade_coalition.pdf). Signed by several Fortune 100 companies.

11. "New Zealand imperialism in the Pacific: a sorry business."
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/wpnz/jun9-02samoa.htm ; "New Zealand companies have an economic stake in maintaining the apartheid regime in South Africa under which black workers are exploited and basic trade union rights are denied" (http://www.union.org.nz/policy/10783764925376.html).

12. "Foreign Relations - New Zealand Economic & Financial Overview 2000 - The Treasury." http://www.treasury.govt.nz/nzefo/2000/foreign.asp

13. "Independent review of the operation of monetary policy in New Zealand." http://ideas.repec.org/a/nzb/nzbbul/march20011.html

14. "Cardiovascular health in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people - a need for action."
http://www.heartfoundation.com.au/downloads/RRAP_CV_Health_Indigenous_Austral ians.pdf

15. "New Zealand business demographic statistics (as at February 2003) - hot off the press."
http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/web/Hot+Off+The+ Press+New+Zealand+Business+Demographic+Statistics+As+at+February+2003?open

16. "Annual Enterprise Survey : 2002 financial year (provisional)."
http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/7cf46ae26dcb6800 cc256a62000a2248/4c2567ef00247c6acc256ea200101989?OpenDocument

17. "New Zealand's investment relationship with selected countries - article."
http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/htmldocs/New+Zeala nd's+investment+relationship+with+selected+countries+-+article

18. "Fossil energy : International : New Zealand."
http://www.fe.doe.gov/international/newzealand.html

19. "Negotiating with New Zealand."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/WM89.cfm