Time to bring foreign policy debates out of the shadows
In recent times international affairs, and New Zealand’s role in the world, have been the focus of more public conversation than is usual. There was noticeable public outcry after Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced abruptly in January he would commit a small number of New Zealand Defence Force troops to support United States and United Kingdom bombardments of Houthi rebels in Yemen. The rebels had been attacking commercial ships on the grounds that they were intervening to prevent genocide in Gaza.
For over six months there have been significant weekly protests in New Zealand’s major urban centres, protesting Israel’s onslaught on Gaza following the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israel’s longstanding occupation of Palestine.
Those protests have focused on Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law – including, most recently, the discovery of mass graves under two hospitals raided by Israel – and the urgent need for a ceasefire. There have been significant voices at these rallies, too, calling for New Zealand to do more to press for a ceasefire, hold Israel to account, or support South Africa’s case against Israel under the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice.
Then, in the last few months, opposition to New Zealand’s involvement in Aukus – the Australia-UK-US military pact – has become more vocal.
Aukus was originally announced as a deal for Australia to acquire nuclearpowered submarines in 2021. In 2023 a “pillar two” began to be publicly discussed, supposedly involving technology sharing among a wider group of states, including New Zealand.
Opponents and activists had raised concerns about closer alignment with the US through 2023. In February, Helen Clark and Don Brash penned a bipartisan opinion piece raising concerns about what involvement in Aukus would mean for our independent foreign policy and relationship with China, given Aukus is transparently an effort to bulk up military forces to contain China.
In mid-April a Labour Party-hosted conference was held in Parliament, where further concerns were raised about involvement in Aukus. Former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr slammed the costliness of Aukus Pillar One, and former Tuvalu prime minister Enele Sopoaga explained how it detracted from Pacific priorities such as climate action.
Further analysis by Marco de Jong and Emma Shortis in early May, drawing on documents released under the Official Information Act, showed New Zealand officials were considering involvement in Aukus as early as 2021, in previously undisclosed meetings.
De Jong and Shortis noted that the documents suggest it is artificial to claim “pillar one”, with its nuclear dimension, and “pillar two” are completely disconnected. They raised the concern that New Zealand’s nuclear disarmament advocacy could be compromised by Aukus involvement if pillars one and two, in reality, form part of a single integrated agreement.
On all these issues – war in Yemen, Israel’s onslaught on Gaza, and New Zealand’s involvement in Aukus – it is activists and citizens who have helped force them onto the public agenda. Should it take such sustained activism to bring foreign policy debates into the open, to allow for greater policy scrutiny? Arcane “prerogative” legal powers still allow the Government to make decisions to go to war without parliamentary debate.
Much of New Zealand’s involvement in the Five Eyes security and intelligence network (with the UK, the US, Australia and Canada) is, perhaps understandably, shrouded in secrecy. But the Government has not made clear, for example, that no intelligence it has gathered has contributed (via US and UK Five Eyes partners) to Israel’s onslaught in Gaza.
We still have no clear picture of Aukus “pillar two”, beyond broad references to technology sharing. On May 1, Foreign Minister Winston Peters gave a speech on Aukus and foreign policy. Some commentators had hoped this might provide more detail on New Zealand’s involvement. But Peters – who deserves credit for principled action in calling for a Gaza ceasefire and United Nations Security Council reform at the UN in April – spent the bulk of the speech shadowboxing with unnamed critics, accusing them of possessing limited information or acting out of anti-American sentiment.
He didn’t say much about the content of pillar two, other than observing that New Zealand would only participate with the support and invitation of other partners. Foreign policy should not be conducted only via opinion columns and occasional speeches. That isn’t full public debate. It needs proper democratic oversight.
New Zealand could pass a War Powers Act requiring parliamentary debate before any decision to go to war. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Foreign Minister, could do more to encourage public engagement with international affairs, and gauge public opinion on key issues. Much more could be done to support Māori engagement in foreign policy, consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi: an area of long-standing neglect by successive governments, as the Waitangi Tribunal has said.
These are small steps that would begin to bring foreign policy into the light.