Speech: Making a Difference - New Zealand's Role in the World

SPEECH TO THE WELLINGTON BRANCH, NZ INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

16 October 2012

Lecture Theatre One

Old Government Buildings

Mr Chairman, Members of the Diplomatic Corps, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Thanks for being here tonight.  My topic is New Zealand’s role in the world and how a small country can make a difference.

I want to look first at the things that define our place in the world.  On that basis I want to consider how we have responded in the past to events internationally and the role that we can play as a small nation to pursue our values and interests.

New Zealand’s first and obvious defining characteristic is our size.  With 4.3 million people, we are roughly a third the size of cities like Delhi, Moscow and Sao Paulo, and one eighth the population of China’s Chongqing Municipality.

We are neither a big power nor a middle level power such as Australia would define itself.   But our smallness is something we share in common with over half of the member states of the United Nations.

Half of the world’s countries have a shared interest in working to ensure that global decision making occurs within a framework that takes account of their interests and needs and not simply those of large and powerful countries.  That leads us to focus on and promote multilateralism and entrenching an international rules-based system.

New Zealand’s second defining characteristic is our relative geographic isolation.  We are, as David Lange once quipped, ‘a strategic dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica’!

Isolation has at times been helpful.  It has protected us against invasion.  It has kept us free from territorial disputes with our closest neighbours Australia and Pacific Island countries are three or more hours away by air, Peru and Chile eleven hours distant and South Africa fifteen hours.  It has helped protect us against biosecurity threats, people smuggling and international crime though globalisation and modern transport and communications today diminish that protection.

The major disadvantage of distance is that we are a long way from our markets, which explains our enthusiasm for free trade agreements to secure access for our exports.

Notwithstanding our isolation, New Zealand has never been isolationist in its outlook or its policies.

The downside of that is that we have been drawn into the major international conflicts of the 20th century.

Last Friday we commemorated the 95th Anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele on 12 October 1917.  In the first four hours 846 young New Zealanders were killed and by the end there were 2700 New Zealanders killed or wounded.

The commemoration was held in Auckland War Memorial Museum’s Hall of Memories.   The names of over 18,000 killed in the First World War are inscribed on the walls.  For a country of then barely one million people this is a huge casualty rate.  We sent 100,000 soldiers to fight in a war which served no good purpose.  Far from being a war to end all wars, it succeeded only in planting the seeds of a second world war just 21 years later.

The speeches given at the Passchendaele commemoration, by two retired Colonels, paid tribute to the courage and self-sacrifice of those who gave their lives but did not glorify war.   They talked of its horror.  While monuments are often dedicated to ‘The Glorious Dead’, there was no glory in the manner of their deaths.

From those experiences, it is natural that we should today be strongly committed to a stable, secure and peaceful world.

Peter Fraser, our wartime Labour Prime Minister, took that commitment to San Francisco in 1945 where victor nations met to devise a post-war architecture to avoid a repeat of the world wars that had twice ravaged the world.

There is irony of Peter Fraser being jailed for conscientious objection in the First World War and conscripting men to fight in the Second.

But the circumstances were quite different and post 1945 we set out to avoid the mistakes made in 1918.  We can be proud of the role Fraser and New Zealand played as a founding member of the United Nations and its Charter.

Fraser fought hard against the principle of the five permanent big country members on the United Nations Security Council having a veto over collective action by the Council, a stance we have maintained ever since.

That power has been used on various occasions by countries acting in their self-interest rather than the interest of the wider international community.

Most recently Russia and China blocked a collective response to the conflict in Syria where over a thousand people a month, mainly civilians, are being killed.  Lack of united international commitment made Kofi Annan’s mission impossible and will be a huge obstacle to Lakhdar Brahimi’s efforts to end the conflict.

Syria highlights the shortcomings of multilateralism and the need for reform of the United Nations.

New Zealand supports reform to ensure that a multilateralist and rules-based international system can achieve a peaceful, socially just and environmentally sustainable world.

Structures and working methods can undoubtedly be improved.  However the fundamental weaknesses in the UN system lie in the lack of will and commitment among member states to reach agreement on solutions and to implement them.

New Zealand can best support multilateralism through promoting a values and an evidence-based approach to the problems the world confronts.

Without the size, the resources and the military and economic clout of larger nations, New Zealand’s path to exercise influence must be through the strength and logic of our arguments, and the values and principles behind them.

A critical prerequisite of that is being seen to be fair and independent in the positions we take and not being seen to simply echo the views of any other country.

For the first 100 years of our existence as a country, we followed Britain, epitomised by Prime Minister, Michael Joseph Savage’s speech in declaring war on Germany, ‘where Britain goes, we go.  Where she stands, we stand’.   Notwithstanding this, New Zealand had in fact already begun to mark out more independence in its thinking, being one of a small minority of countries which in the League of Nations opposed Italian aggression against Abyssinia.

When Britain was unable to provide protection against the Japanese invasion of South East Asia and the Pacific, New Zealand transferred its reliance to the United States.  We pressed hard for the formation of the Anzus Alliance in 1951.  Alliances create obligations and Anzus subsequently led us into the Vietnam conflict.  It was, in Labour’s judgement, an ill-conceived and unnecessary war.

Our effective participation in Anzus ended in 1985 when our commitment to New Zealand being nuclear free in practice as well as in principle clashed with the desire of the United States not to confirm or deny whether its naval ships wishing to visit this country were nuclear armed.

Labour’s policy is that New Zealand should not seek to reactivate its involvement with Anzus or any other alliance which might prescribe New Zealand’s future position and action on international issues.

Nor would Labour invite the troops of any another country to be permanently stationed on New Zealand soil, for the same reason.

Labour supports training and exercising along side other countries.  Where the UN supports collective action we would be prepared to commit peacekeeping or combat troops in situations where New Zealand judges this to be necessary.  We will make our own decisions on the merits of each case, and according to our values and principles.

We made the decision to deploy in Timor Leste and the Solomons, alongside Australia, in a way that we believed was appropriate.  We made the decision to deploy to Afghanistan in the face of Al Qaeda’s using that country as a base to launch international terrorist attacks.  Likewise when the commitment of the SAS and the Provincial Reconstruction Team should be ended is a judgement for New Zealand to make.  When a deployment ceases to be able to realise achievable objectives, as is the case in Afghanistan today, we would end it.

Labour decided against becoming involved in the invasion of Iraq, because we believed that it was not justified and would not achieve what was claimed. We were right. National would have taken a different position.

We welcome the removal of restrictions by the United States on bilateral cooperation at all levels.  It is natural that we should have a warm relationship with a country with which we have a shared history and shared commitment to democracy and freedoms.  But that does not require us to surrender our decision-making to its judgements.

That applies also to Australia. We do a lot and have a lot in common with Australia. We will continue to place priority on cooperating with it in our region and in our bilateral relationship to the development of a single economic market.

But decisions on New Zealand’s positions internationally will reflect judgements made in Wellington not Canberra.

I should add that a single Australasian economic and labour market means that a national from either side of the Tasman working in the other country and paying taxes should have the same rights as other permanent residents in that country.  That includes a social safety net and the right to representation.  Australians living permanently in New Zealand have these rights but since 2001 New Zealanders living permanently in Australia do not.  A position where people pay taxes for years but are denied the safety net of income support when needed for example in the case of serious illness or redundancy is unfair and unsustainable.  They have paid for that support through their taxes.

Our relationship with China has grown comprehensively and deepened over recent decades.

However China continues to have a system of governance which does not reflect the democratic and human rights which are fundamental to our values.  We need to be honest about our differences.  As Foreign Minister I raised issues such as human rights on a regular basis in talks with my counterparts.  We should continue to do so.

We should also continue to seek closer engagement with China on the raft of issues where we have mutual interests and concerns.

As with other countries, we will reserve our right to make our judgements on international issues independent of influence or pressure from China.

China and the US are both powers with enormous economic influence in our Asia Pacific region.

It is in the region’s interest and in our interests that the two countries cooperate to the maximum extent to ensure peace and stability, and growing prosperity which depends on that.

It is vital that resolution of issues such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the relationship between China and Taiwan be resolved peacefully rather than by conflict.

In the time remaining I want to talk about some specific roles New Zealand can play to influence and make a difference in the world.

The first is in our continuing contribution to disarmament and non-proliferation.

In respect to weapons of mass destruction, the two are of course inter-related.

Nuclear armed nations have no moral high ground in calling for non-proliferation, unless they are willing themselves to commit to relinquishing their nuclear weapons and act on that commitment.

New Zealand has a strong track record on opposing nuclear testing, proliferation and possession of nuclear weapons.

While the Geneva Conference on Disarmament has stagnated, the most recent Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Process made better progress.

As Disarmament Minister, I pressed at the United Nations for nuclear weapons to be taken off high alert.  That is now achieving wide support.

I also worked actively to ensure progress on a Convention against Cluster Munitions which resulted in the Oslo Convention outlawing possession and use of these weapons.  A majority of countries have now signed this Convention and more have committed to it.

The Syrian government is reported to be currently using cluster munitions, in defiance of the wider consensus.   Questions should be asked of countries supplying it with these weapons.

I believe the next step by New Zealand should be the promotion of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, banning nuclear weapons entirely.

I don’t under estimate the challenges involved, but we should tackle those challenges.  We cannot be complacent about the fact that humans for the first time in history have the ability to destroy our planet.

We cannot ignore the risks of nuclear weapons being used either by political misjudgement or miscalculation, by accident or by terrorists who are seeking to acquire and may gain access to such weapons.

While the National Government is currently reluctant to actively support a Nuclear Weapons Convention, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee recently endorsed a proactive stance by New Zealand in pursuing a Convention, working alongside other small and like-minded countries to achieve this. Labour promoted that position.

Labour also endorses New Zealand actively supporting the conclusion of the Arms Trade Treaty.  The international community must stop the supply of weapons to groups and states where they are likely to be misused in exacerbating conflict.

Secondly, Labour will be looking to expand New Zealand’s role in conflict prevention and resolution.

While war between states has declined dramatically since World War II, millions of lives have been lost in intra-state conflicts.

The international community has sent peacekeepers in post-conflict situations, but much more effort could be applied in preventing the outbreak of violence by helping resolve conflict at an earlier stage.

As a small and non-threatening country, with a reputation for integrity, New Zealand could be playing a more active role.

Our potential to make a real difference can be seen in our record in Bougainville, East Timor and the Solomon Islands.  Our Police Force and Defence Force have demonstrated their ability to win confidence through their professionalism and willingness to respect the local people they work with.

Individual New Zealanders such as David Harland who is working for the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in Geneva, Andrew Ladley at Victoria University who distinguished himself in East Timor and David Shearer who did great work for OCHA reflect our capacity to  handle such roles, together with very talented people both in our NGOs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

As we end our commitments over the next six months in Afghanistan, Timor Leste and the Solomon Islands, we should look at putting our effort, skills and resources into playing a greater role in mediation and conciliation aimed at preventing conflict and resolving differences.  Our initial focus should be in the South Pacific.

Thirdly, Labour will be actively supporting New Zealand’s bid for election to a non-permanent seat on the Security Council in 2014.  We will be watching with great interest to see the outcome of Australia’s bid for the UNSC later this week.

New Zealand hasn’t been on the Council for 20 years.  I believe in our last term on it we played a constructive and useful role.  That won us respect and gave us valuable experience and contacts in the multilateral arena.

Our strengths are the ability to provide competent and professional analysis of issues, an independent and impartial perspective, and our own experience as a multicultural society drawing from our Mãori, European, Pasifika and Asian heritage.

New Zealand has played an active role in the United Nations.  It has been, in Kofi Annan’s words to me when I was Foreign Minister ‘an exemplary international citizen and contributor’.

Fourthly, Labour is committed to rebuilding the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, after the Government’s unfortunate experiment in trying to corporatise the Ministry. This has resulted in a plunging of morale and professional commitment and a loss of competent and expert personnel.

The savings the Government will make are small compared to both the short and long-term costs incurred.  We have also given the wrong impression to our European friends that in building up our presence in Asia we were downgrading the importance placed on our long-term relationships with Europe, with whom we have cooperated closely.

When you have neither vast resources nor military strength, the professionalism and skills of our people in Foreign Affairs are critical to the influence we can exert.

Finally, New Zealand needs to build on the leadership and influence it can exercise through its active involvement in areas such as climate change, securing a long overdue outcome through the World Trade Organisation Doha Round and through the quality of its international development assistance. 

New Zealand’s relinquishing of a leadership role in combatting climate warming is disappointing as is the international community’s failure to achieve consensus around remedial action.

Labour would recommit to the objective of being at the forefront of actions to address climate change.

Likewise while New Zealand has been successful in negotiating bilateral trading agreements such as the China Free Trade Agreement I signed in 2008 which has seen a trebling of our exports to that country, there is no substitute for a comprehensive multilateral agreement.

The Doha Round was focused on the needs of developing countries.  It is also the only way to deal with subsidies that distort world trade and undermine environmental sustainability, and to ensure a coherent international trading system.

Neither bilateral agreements nor the Trans Pacific Partnership can compensate for the lack of a comprehensive and coherent agreement through the WTO which takes the interests of all countries into account.

On Development Assistance, Labour would restore the overarching goal of poverty elimination which includes good governance, equity and sustainable development.  We would also commit to reversing the decline in the level of our assistance as a proportion of GDP.

Our future as a nation is closely bound to the global community of which we are a part – in respect to peace, security, stability and economic, social and environmental well-being.

Building on past achievements, we can ensure that we are in a position to help shape that world.

Thanks for your invitation to be here tonight. I would welcome any questions.