They may only be words, but words count
Sunday, 14 April 2024
Vernon Small is a journalist and former advisor to the Labour government.
OPINION: Something serious is going on with New Zealand’s foreign policy, but you would be forgiven for missing the smoke signals.
The standard language of diplomacy is so formal and formulaic that it‘s all but disconnected from what normal people call “meaning”.
It can be hard to know if anything is being said at all. Sometimes it isn’t, but usually it is.
It has a lot in common with the way professional wrestlers extravagantly pound the canvas to denote excruciating agony in the absence of genuine pain.
Except in the case of diplo-dialogue, you never mention the pain.
But through the linguistic fog the early signs of significant change are discernible both in our foreign relations and to the relative stances of our two main parties.
It suggests National and Labour are diverging from the relatively bipartisan position since National affirmed New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy under John Key.
The most telling split is around New Zealand’s possible accession to Pillar 2 of AUKUS – the non-nuclear arm of the Australia-United Kingdom-United States pact. Under Pillar 1 Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
As Foreign Minister Winston Peters is fond of saying, words count. His joint communiqué with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week noted our two countries agree that arrangements such as AUKUS contribute to peace, security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific, and that we “see powerful reasons for New Zealand engaging practically with them, as and when all parties deem it appropriate”.
Their communiqué also noted that the“most challenging strategic environment in decades requires us to do more together”.
It is worth remembering on that score that despite our common values, and Peters’ best efforts over the years, the US still hasn’t done a free trade deal with NZ.
But the language served to intensify the sense that this government is straying from the nuanced middle way between our trade interests (in other words, keeping China sweet) and the military and strategic links we have through the Five Eyes spook network and with the US.
It is not a surprising shift, given the polarisation that has intensified since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine between the “authoritarian” regimes; China, Russia, North Korea and Iran; and the US and NATO-aligned countries.
That phrase “the most challenging strategic environment in decades” is becoming a fixture in our joint statements with “like-minded countries”. So too is the acknowledgement of AUKUS’ contribution to peace, security and prosperity in the region. No mention of China of course, but that view is sharply at odds with China’s take on AUKUS.
At home, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is enthusiastic about joining Pillar 2, which could in time include Japan, Canada and South Korea, and he has suggested he is following on from Labour’s interest in the pact.
But that is overstated.
It’s true that then defence minister Andrew Little said he was willing to examine joining the non-nuclear Pillar 2, with its focus on high-tech and intelligence cooperation. But his PM, Chris Hipkins, was less enthusiastic, questioning whether there was enough detail on the table to risk the political fall-out – a scepticism that may have strengthened in opposition.
Labour’s view will get an airing on Thursday at an event in Parliament, hosted by veteran MPs David Parker and Phil Twyford, to discuss Pillar 2. Former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr, an AUKUS sceptic, will join former prime ministers Helen Clark and Enele Sopoaga, from Tuvalu, at the seminar.
Former Aussie PM Scott Morrison played his part in the proxy debate this week, telling Stuff that New Zealand wants to get into Pillar 2 - and will. Peters has denied any decision has been made.
Clark will no doubt reprise her attacks on a “lurch” away from an independent foreign policy to one more closely aligned with the US and its China containment doctrine.
It is a lurch that was not aired during the 2023 election campaign, and one that goes beyond AUKUS to the reheating of the ANZUS (Australia-New Zealand-US) pact.
We were effectively kicked out of ANZUS – “suspended” in diplomatic speak – after passing the anti-nuclear law 38 years ago.
That was the end point of a process that started 51 years back – almost a lifetime for Luxon – when then PM Norman Kirk sent frigates to Mururoa Atoll to oppose France’s nuclear tests.
As a result, ANZUS has been seen on this side of the Tasman as largely a legacy pact. As Hipkins put it this week, 'ANZUS is not an active part of our foreign policy and hasn't been for a long time'.
Instead, our military links with Australia were defined by shared history and other agreements – such as the WW2-era Canberra Pact and the Closer Defence Relations agreement of 1991.
That changed from NZ’s perspective in February this year, when Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins, in a joint communiqué with their Australian counterparts, described “the enduring nature of the ANZUS Treaty, which continues to underpin the strategic relationship between the two countries, 72 years after it was signed, and formalises the commitments we have to each other as allies”.
Luxon echoed that statement in his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday and has since “reasserted our belief in ANZUS”.
It begs the question, why?
Could New Zealand’s accession to AUKUS Pillar 2, in combination with the enhanced status of ANZUS, increase pressure on us militarily? Might we see a renewed push for a watering down of the nuclear-free law, to allow Australia’s new nuclear-propelled subs to enter NZ waters?
When opposition leader Don Brash in 2004 reportedly promised to dump the ships ban “by lunchtime” if National won power, he quickly learned how strongly the public supported the whole nuclear-free policy.
Even in these “strategically challenging times”, such a pivot would require more than fancy diplomatic language to get the public on side.
What do you think? Email sundayletters@stuff.co.nz.