New Zealand has contributed money and military hardware to Nato's support of Ukraine. That we chose to work through Nato rather than offer independent assistance to the people of Ukraine is telling.
Statements against China have also become noticeably stronger.
After the Prime Minister's sit-down meeting with US President Joe Biden, a joint statement was released that was highly critical of China.
Ardern also agreed to New Zealand engaging in closer military co-operation with the US to counter the "threat" posed by China in the Pacific.
Nato, in turn, has promised more support to Australia and New Zealand in the Pacific to help combat "China's growing influence".
The foundations of our increasingly close relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation goes back to 2001, when New Zealand became one of Nato's "partners across the globe".
It was in December 2020, however, that a more decisive shift in our relationship with Nato was heralded.
Little discussed at the time, New Zealand participated in a Nato foreign ministers meeting, along with Australia, Finland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden and high-level representatives of the European Union. The topic of discussion was "the shift in the global balance of power and the rise of China".
In light of our attendance at that meeting, our stronger Nato-aligned statements against China make sense.
Still, it remains curious because of the not-insignificant detail of $20 billion worth of trade with China. They're our biggest trading partner.
The Government is provoking the displeasure of China's rulers with the stronger diplomatic language. Less over-the-top than what's been coming out of Australia, but in a similar vein.
Fonterra and many other companies with a big interest in having continued access to the Chinese market might be nervous of NZ-China diplomatic relations going south.
It's interesting that former prime minister John Key has cautioned against antagonising China too much.
He had a not-unreasonable suggestion. New Zealand should partner up with China to assist Pacific island countries in a co-operative manner.
That's a better idea than giving more to Pacific island countries simply to block Chinese influence.
Key's assumption, not hard to deduce, is that China is a big and wealthy country, and keeping it out of the Pacific was impossible.
Key's moderate position will probably echo concerns expressed in corporate boardrooms about not wanting to provoke China's rulers in Beijing. He would be picking up on that mood through his role on the board of directors of ANZ.
How, then, to explain the risks the Government is taking with Nato-aligned statements against China?
I don't think it's about security concerns only.
As ever in world politics, military and economic matters are entwined.
It's no accident that the Government's strengthening relationship with Nato is occurring simultaneously with negotiations for a free-trade deal with the European Union.
The Government would also like the US to be part of a trade agreement that includes New Zealand. Something that Ardern specifically raised with Biden at her meeting.
A closer military relationship with Nato is surely part of a strategy that might secure more favourable trade deals with our "friends" in Europe and North America.
There's some irony, of course, that the country we're aligned against in the military sphere is the one with which New Zealand already has a comprehensive free-trade deal. New Zealand was the first Western country to sign a free-trade agreement with China, in 2008.
While it's doubtful Washington will ever let unrestricted access for New Zealand's primary products into the US market. The same is probably true of the European Union.
The Government's closer alignment with Nato has meant we've suddenly found our voice to criticise China's domestic and international actions. The possibility of trade agreements with Nato members that favour New Zealand's primary producers is undoubtedly the carrot that's been dangled.
For myself, I'd prefer to forgo the carrot and have us pursue a truly independent foreign policy. Becoming a member of Nato in all but name won't allow that.
