High road on the drug war
We could say that this week offered a contrast in leadership styles except that only one of the two examples actually counted as leadership. The second was an example of following.
Leadership was demonstrated by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern when she said New Zealand will not be signing US President Donald Trump’s Global Call to Action on the World Drug Problem, which was signed by 130 countries in New York this week and calls for tougher border controls among other measures. Other countries to opt out include the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Germany and Brazil.
Ardern’s explanation put her on the world stage. Coverage in the Washington Post referred to it as ‘‘the clearest answer from a head of government’’. Noting that the
US is focused on a massive opioid crisis, Ardern said New Zealand has a number of quite specific challenges, but also prefers an evidencebased health approach to the problem of drug use.
Generally speaking, there are two competing schools of thought on tackling drugs. One is to treat them as a worldwide criminal problem, the dominant approach since former US president Richard Nixon launched a war on drugs in the 1970s. The other is to see them as a health issue.
Ardern’s comments did not come out of the blue for those who work in the sector in New Zealand. Former associate health minister Peter Dunne pointed out that she reiterated the approach outlined in the National Drug Policy in 2015. Dunne characterised it as a rejection of war-ondrugs rhetoric in favour of a more compassionate, health-centred approach.
After some debate, Cabinet agreed on a policy driven, as Dunne said at the time, by innovation, proportion and compassion, three qualities missing from Opposition leader Simon Bridges’ response. Bridges claimed Ardern ‘‘risks making New Zealand an easy target and [is] sending the message that her Government is soft on crime and drug dealers’’. He would have happily signed Trump’s document.
Bridges’ criticism of Ardern is also a U-turn for National that points to a deeper malaise within the party. Under John Key and Bill English, it cemented a position as a moderate, sensible, modern political party that could accommodate extremes but not be dominated by them. But it now seems to have rediscovered a fondness for alarmist ‘‘tough on crime’’ rhetoric as Bridges’ worrying use of the phrase ‘‘meth crooks’’ demonstrated, during what could have been a civil discussion about compensation for evicted Housing New Zealand tenants.
Ardern is not the only New Zealand politician to make international news over the war on drugs. Former prime minister Helen Clark was in Mexico City this week in her role as a commissioner of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which also favours a more liberal view.
The commission noted many of the countries signing up to Trump’s war have already moved from criminalisation towards regulation. Commissioner Maria Cattaui called them ‘‘hypocritical’’ and ‘‘pathetic’’ in ‘‘sucking up to Trump’’. Clark also demonstrated the freedom that comes with post-political life when she said signing up was ‘‘giving in to bullying and extortion’’.
In different ways, Ardern and Clark demonstrated the independence we like to see New Zealand exhibit at a global level. Bridges did the opposite.
‘‘Ardern’s comments did not come out of the blue for those who work in the sector in New Zealand.’’