“If you’re looking for trouble, you’ve come to the right place.”
The Elvis Presley lyric is a favourite of Winston Peters’, and the foreign minister found yet another opportunity to roll it out as security guards removed a lone anti-Aukus protester from his speech to the NZ Institute of International Affairs on Wednesday evening.
It was a sentiment that applied to the centrepiece of his address – a more detailed discussion about the Government’s interest in Pillar Two of the Aukus security deal, arguably the most significant debate about New Zealand’s foreign policy direction in decades.
The extent to which the Aukus ‘brand’ is tainted within the public discourse was demonstrated by how few times it was mentioned in Peters’ speech: on just five occasions, in contrast with the 23 utterances of the somewhat nebulous but more technically correct ‘Pillar Two’.
Those hoping for a definitive yea or nay were always likely to be disappointed given the still-nascent nature of talks, and so it proved.
There was “one crucial precondition and one consequential decision required” before any final decision could be made, Peters said, both of which were some way from being reached – that Aukus partners actually invite New Zealand to participate in Pillar Two, and that the country actually want to take up such an invitation if and when it arrived.
On some fundamental questions about the deal – the criteria used by existing Aukus members in accepting new members, the benefits of access to advanced technologies, and what “utilities” New Zealand might be expected to offer in return – the Government was as much in the dark as the wider public, he suggested.
Yet it would be irresponsible not to consider whether collaboration with like-minded partners was in the national interest, he said, particularly given the importance of military interoperability with our only formal ally Australia.
Taking aim at “out of date” critics who had “reject[ed] Pillar Two outright before even being in possession of the basic facts”, Peters said it was wrong to suggest New Zealand and the surrounding region faced no security threats, citing both public reports from Kiwi officials and confidential briefings received by ministers.
“Critics also possess a luxury we do not. They can paint the darkest picture of Pillar Two and make ignorant assertions about the nature of the strategic environment, liberated by not knowing what they just don’t know.”
The geopolitical picture had changed markedly compared to decades gone by, with global challenges “the worst that anyone today working in politics or foreign affairs can remember”.
In the Pacific, “remorseless pressure is being exerted … as beachheads are sought and influence peddled” – a loaded and hardly accidental turn of phrase, given concern about whether China’s efforts to sign security deals in the region will eventually lead to the establishment of military bases.
There were more specific shots across the bow of the opposition. Peters repeated previous observations that it was the Labour government that in 2023 had agreed on officials beginning talks with the Aukus partners on Pillar Two, having earlier received advice about the deal’s potential in late 2021: “Exploratory, information-gathering discussions in Canberra, London and Washington did not spontaneously occur,” as he put it.
Foreign policy bipartisanship was wielded as a cudgel, with the Government “disquieted by any potential breakdown … over Pillar Two”.
“Bipartisanship in foreign policy is not a luxury for our small state, it’s a necessary condition for advancing our sovereign interests effectively, thereby keeping New Zealanders secure and prosperous,” Peters said.
Peters’ old coalition colleague, former Labour Prime Minister and ardent Aukus critic Helen Clark, also came in for criticism, as he quoted a “former New Zealand Prime Minister” who had in 2001 “declare[d] the country existed in an ‘incredibly benign strategic environment’ even as planning was well advanced for the 9/11 terrorist attacks”.
The pugnacious nature of the speech’s Aukus elements is unlikely to convince most critics that the Government doesn’t have its eyes on a role in Pillar Two, and the information asymmetry Peters complained of isn’t going away any time soon (barring a surprise declassification of security and foreign policy briefings).
But his insistence that any final decision on New Zealand involvement is a long way away should at least provide some reassurance that an overnight deal isn’t in the works, and take some of the heat out of the debate.
The suggestion that Labour ‘hold its nerve’ and swing in behind the exploratory Aukus talks may have the opposite effect, however: talking to Newsroom after the speech, Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman David Parker argued it was the current coalition’s change of tack that had forced his party’s hand.
“If the Government has pushed harder in favour of it, it’s forced us to be a little more vigorous in our questioning of whether it’s right to do so … the questions about Aukus in Australia, as well as in New Zealand, are louder than they were a year ago.”
Parker insisted Labour’s position had not changed since its fall from power, and it remained open to “having a look” at Aukus; somewhat curiously, that means the Government and the Opposition are both suggesting it is their rivals who have shifted course on the topic while they alone remain on the same ground.
The Labour MP did believe Peters had “deliberately cooled down the language” on Pillar Two, although he was non-committal on whether that would change the party’s thinking on a final policy position regarding Aukus.
“It would be good to see Cabinet minutes and Cabinet papers and a few more notes of the discussions that have already taken place … we’re blind to how hard they’re pushing it or otherwise, so I think it’s a very proper debate.”
Whether or not Peters has indeed cooled the tone of that debate, only time – and developments beyond his control – will tell.
AUKUS will not serve our interests. We have enough ‘partnerships’ with those countries. We [finally] need to focus on what it important to us.
China ‘won’t be bullied’. Likewise the USA won’t have its hegemony compromised. New Zealand is exactly between the two, our largest trading partner and our allegiances to western democracy. We are in the perfect position as ‘celebrant’, as bridge-builder between the world’s two most influential economies. Any involvement in AUKUS would stab that celebrant in the back.
Agree, with both of you, and there should the opportunity for an informed debate across the wider community rather than this ducking and weaving rhetoric