The intensification of the US–China rivalry has placed a great deal of attention on how the small states caught in the middle are managing their relationships with these two great powers. The most intense glare is cast on countries in the Asia-Pacific as China is the resident regional power while the United States, though not a resident power, has a history of long engagement with the countries in this region. Earlier studies have shown how small states choose to balance, bandwagon, or hedge their external relations when faced with a rising threat from a much stronger state. However, many similarly situated states do not act similarly. New Zealand offers one example. As a member of the Five Eyes, it has not always acted in concert with its partners (the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada) in its criticism of China’s appalling human rights record. When Australia clearly moved to balance against China by initiating AUKUS, promoting the QUAD, and expanding its security engagement with Japan, South Korea, and Southeast Asia, New Zealand did not go along but instead asserted its own independent foreign policy by continuing a hedging strategy. Why does New Zealand choose a different path?