Russian roulette could prove costly
Anyone who follows international events will not have been surprised when the British Government began calling for action this week over the poisoning of a Russian double agent and his daughter in London.
More than a week ago the UK Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, stood in Parliament to warn of sanctions and punishment, suggesting that British officials may snub the upcoming football World Cup and that Russia was ‘‘a malign and disruptive force’’.
So it was extremely strange that days later our own Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, an avowed Anglophile – he has called for a pan-Commonwealth free trade bloc – would go on television on Saturday and appear to question Russian involvement in other controversial events, the downing of a commercial jet over Ukraine and interference in the 2016 US election.
New Zealand, he said, was ‘‘deadly serious’’ about a free trade deal with Russia, accusing the European Union of ‘‘attacking’’ New Zealand agricultural markets.
At one point he drew comparisons between Australian expulsion of criminals with New Zealand passports and Russian activities, suggesting that if a high ground were taken in every case, a country would quickly run out of trading partners.
A logical point perhaps, but any comparison between your closest ally and an increasingly isolated power is hardly conventional diplomacy. Nor is criticising one of the world’s largest trading blocs at a time when your country is seeking to negotiate a free trade deal with it.
After calls from Britain, Peters has now condemned the nerve agent attack, which he acknowledged was ‘‘transported from Russia’’. But his position on Russia – both now and in the weeks following the formation of the Labour-led Government – has caused confusion within the diplomatic community.
Why an earth would he go there? What is driving a position which he must know is highly controversial for many of New Zealand’s trading partners? Does he represent the views of the New Zealand Government?
It is hardly unusual that the world conveniently forgets words and positions made by a politician while in opposition or on the campaign trail.
Among his many populist positions, Peters’ support for a trade deal with Russia before the 2017 election would have been forgotten if it was dropped on the eve of the election.
But the New Zealand First leader no longer has such a luxury when he is Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
This is, of course, the man who will hold New Zealand’s highest office for an extended period when Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is on maternity leave.
Peters’ comments on Russia have now had to be managed by Ardern at least twice.
First when she assured the German president during a press conference in November that a trade deal with Europe was a much higher priority than one with Russia. Then again on Monday when she said Peters was simply responding to questions he was being asked.
Ardern has used a similar explanation when defending the fact that she repeatedly talked about New Zealand’s offer to take Manus Island refugees, raising tension with the Australians: she was just answering questions being asked of her.
As an excuse it makes both the Prime Minister and now the Foreign Minister seem rather helpless in the face of the media.
Anyone who has interviewed Peters, ever, knows he is capable of steering away from questions that do not interest him.
It also appears that Labour did not appreciate how controversial it would be to publicly state that as a Government it would seek a free trade deal with Russia.
While Ardern has now repeatedly reiterated that a trade deal with the EU is the top priority, the initial moves gave greater prominence to negotiating with Moscow.
Not only was the deal mentioned in the Labour-NZ First coalition agreement, during the Speech from the Throne, but new trade opportunities with Russia were raised ahead of Europe or Britain.
While it is Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy who delivers the speech, she does so on behalf of the Prime Minister.
The episode around Peters’ Russian comments has been overshadowed by the unfolding questions over Labour’s handling of alleged sexual assaults at a Young Labour camp in February.
But Peters’ comments are more likely to do damage to New Zealand’s reputation internationally than the way Labour handled the Waihi incident, even at a time when the world is reassessing how it approaches sexual harassment.
At a time when US President Donald Trump is introducing tariffs which could spark a global trade war, New Zealand could find itself on the wrong side of a battle between Russia and the rest of Europe if Peters continues to push for the deal.
Although Russia and its allies offer significant potential as a growth market, it seems foolish to risk the opportunity to strike a deal with the EU, or Britain.