The week Aukus turned awkward

In a big week for foreign policy speeches and warnings of war, it may turn out that the hottest war is an unexpected one between New Zealand and Australia, or at least two of their leading politicians. We won’t go into Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ remarks about senior Australian politician Bob Carr, except to say that the incident has been an unfortunate blemish on Peters otherwise doing what he does best. Like Jekyll and Hyde, there are two versions of Peters. One is a populist campaigner and the other is a dignified international statesman. He should take care to keep these versions of himself apart.

Aukus turned awkward this week, and discussion was sidetracked by politicking. Which is a pity because there are very serious issues at stake.

Aukus was announced three years ago as a pact between the US, the UK and Australia that would see Australia armed with expensive nuclear-powered submarines. The geographical positioning was obvious given US rhetoric about the reach of a rising China in the Pacific.

The submarine deal is known as pillar one of Aukus, but a second pillar has also been discussed. It would involve the sharing of highly advanced military technology with friendly countries outside the pact. New Zealand might be one of them, along with South Korea and Japan.

While he was in the US, Peters said there are “powerful reasons” for New Zealand to align itself with pillar two. He attempted to moderate that view during a speech at Parliament on Wednesday night that seemed to leave many present none the wiser.

There are big questions posed by Aukus. Will it risk New Zealand’s long-held nuclear-free policy, given that nuclear submarines are the point of pillar one? Is pillar two really as distinct from pillar one as its champions claim? Is China a military threat to us and, if not, are there dangers in exaggerating a threat?

These and other questions suggest Aukus is an issue that needs the sunlight of public discussion rather than lurking in the shadows.

In the meantime, former prime minister Helen Clark has emerged as the unofficial leader of the opposition on foreign affairs issues. She and former National leader Don Brash even found common cause when they co-wrote an open letter that warned we might be abandoning our independent foreign policy in favour of throwing in our lot with US attempts to “slow China’s economic rise and keep it tightly hemmed in” by US forces. Clark thinks the China threat has been “hyped up”.

Yet it has also been reported that the previous government began looking at whether we could have a role in Aukus.

It has become a truism of New Zealand foreign policy that we must tread carefully when it comes to China, such is its importance as a trading partner.

But that is a self-serving way of picturing it, one that is limited to the economic bottom line. There is also a moral dimension to foreign policy, as New Zealand showed in the 1980s when it took a nuclear-free position during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the US. It is a position New Zealanders still value.

What would a similar stance look like now? Can we be an independent broker in the Pacific that stresses diplomacy over conflict? It has only been a week since Peters spoke at Gallipoli and cited Winston Churchill to say it is better to talk than fight.

Yet it is also, as he said at Gallipoli, “a troubled world” and that might explain the mixed messages. Peters talks pointedly about a malign strategic environment now, rather than the benign one that Clark saw two decades ago.

A second Peters speech elaborated on that. Delivered to the New Zealand China Council on Friday, it expressed concerns about Chinese cyber-attacks on New Zealand and China’s use of water cannons on Filipino vessels, and urged China not to support and arm Russia in its unlawful war in Ukraine.

He said that while “China has a long-standing presence in the Pacific, we are seriously concerned by increased engagement in Pacific security sectors”. He added that “we do not want to see developments that destabilise the institutions and arrangements that have long underpinned our region’s security”.

In light of these and other messages about the potential for conflict on our doorstep, it is surely time to start talking more openly and reasonably about how New Zealand sees its defence role in this decade and beyond.

There is also a moral dimension to foreign policy, as New Zealand showed in the 1980s when it took a nuclear-free position during the Cold War ...