No need to slavishly follow Five Eyes partners

‘Accepting’ strikes fair summation of NZ’s stance in thorny situation

As overseas trips go, there won’t be a photo album quite like the one from the Prime Minister’s trip to Europe and Britain over the past week.

When things get grim for Jacinda Ardern, as they will at some time, it will be the album to be pulled out to remind her of happier times.

The time given to Ardern by the leaders of France and Germany before Chogm began in London was priceless — though not for the first time.

A combination of factors has drawn New Zealand closer to Europe: the fact that Nato took the lead role in the international effort in Afghanistan, New Zealand’s bid for a seat on the Security Council, its bid to get a free trade deal, the growing importance of the biggest economic bloc in the world, and the EU’s own efforts to have an active role in the Pacific.

In the latter stages of John Key’s prime ministership, he assiduously fostered New Zealand’s relationships with Europe’s heavyweights, having spent the early years more focused on Asia and the Americas.

Ardern’s visit built on that work although there could be no competing with the optics of the young woman from New Zealand with the young President from France, or the young woman from New Zealand with the experienced woman from Germany.

What others think of us matters a lot. It is part of our national character and a reflection of our size. Hence the TV1 reporter asking Angela Merkel at their joint press conference if she actually liked Jacinda Ardern — a question so puzzling to Merkel that it had to be explained to her by Ardern herself (and yes, she did like her).

The notion that New Zealand is so small that it doesn’t matter is used inconsistently by politicians.

It was wheeled out by opponents of New Zealand playing a constructive training role in international efforts to help Iraq rid itself of Isis — the contribution would be so small it would make no difference, they argued.

But the same argument was put back in the cupboard for discussion about acting on climate change.

The fact is what New Zealand does always matters — even when it is simply issuing statements of support of opposition — or something in between.

The one issue which caused Ardern grimaces rather than grins was New Zealand’s position on the air strikes in Syria a week ago, about which she was nagged.

The bombings were undertaken by the United States, Britain and France in response to what was presumed to be yet another chemical attack against civilians by the Bashar al-Assad regime.

New Zealand took a perfectly acceptable position on the strikes. Ardern’s statement said New Zealand “accepts” why they responded to the grave violation of international law, and the abhorrent use of chemical weapons against civilians.

That is not sitting on the fence. It is not a statement of neutrality. It is a statement of acceptance — perhaps implying reluctant support from a country that has consistently held that such actions should be authorised by the Security Council.

Context is important. For a country that lectures others about the rule of law and international rulesbased order, New Zealand is careful about endorsing actions if the legality of them is not clear.

But reading between the lines of New Zealand’s statement, it is essentially saying that even if the legality of the strike against Syria is not clear, New Zealand accepts it.

Yes, it fell short of the unconditional “support” of other Five Eyes partners but there is no reason New Zealand should simply follow them because it’s them.

The Five Eyes alliance is not a security alliance. Every Five Eyes partner except New Zealand is in a security pact with the US.

Australia is through Anzus, as is Canada through its membership of Nato, along with Britain.

New Zealand need not be pressured to “support” actions simply on the basis that our friends do.

We can know who our best friends are and whose side we are on without having to slavishly follow them. There is no point in having an independent foreign policy if it is never exercised.

These volatile times, when you run the risk of getting whiplash by following US foreign policy, is not the time to lend unconditional support to anybody.

National leader Simon Bridges back in New Zealand unhelpfully weighed in to criticise Ardern.

Inexplicably, he did that after his

The fact is what New Zealand does always matters.

own foreign affairs spokesman, Todd McClay, had said “the Government has made a strong statement and the National Party supports that.”

In fact Ardern’s statement on Syria went further than the former National Government has on two occasions.

Bill English’s Prime Ministerial statement after the US unilateral strike on a Syrian airfield a year ago said New Zealand “understood” the reason for it; and in 2013 the National Government said it supported G20 statements and that the international community needed to take appropriate steps to ensure there can be no further use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Leaders of the Opposition need to be discerning when criticising prime ministers working abroad on New Zealand’s behalf.

It should be done only in exceptional circumstances and arguing the difference between “acceptance” and “support” did not cut it.

After the fact, the British Parliament approved last week’s actions by 317 votes to 256.

In 2013, with the Iraq experience front of mind, the Parliament blocked proposed military action after a chemical weapons attack by the regime, and Barack Obama was not prepared for the United States to act alone.

During that time millions more Syrians have been displaced and more than 500,000 have been killed, and many more chemical weapons attacks carried out.

Words matter. Actions matter more. But sometimes inaction matters most.