Gordon Campbell on John Key’s performance in Peru
Image: APEC
The clip on last night’s television of George W. Bush genially patting new boy John Key on the back at the APEC
gathering in Peru was not only embarrassing to watch. It was a reminder that a change of government is not just about
policy settings. It is also about who represents New Zealand on the world stage, and how that makes us feel – because
political leaders don’t merely govern, they embody our sense of cultural identity. Well, we are all John Key now,
whether we like it or not.
Just how the new government will recognize our cultural identity - much less fund it and promote it – goes beyond its
support for the arts. New Zealand’s national identity has been shaped by its scientific, military, sporting and artistic
achievements, on the bedrock of the Treaty partnership. Luckily, we have been spared the ‘culture wars’ that have been
promoted in other countries by religious conservatives. Our own battles over abortion and gay rights were resolved by
legislation that has since made it very difficult to keep the flames of conflict alive – and the fight over scrapping
the S59 defence for violence against children is now petering out in the same civilized fashion.
I think the military/foreign policy dimension is where the change of government is most likely to put hard won aspects
of our cultural identity at risk. In a nutshell – will Key be willing to send our troops overseas to fight, without a UN
mandate ? Somehow, Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully was allowed to get through an RNZ interview last week,
without being asked whether the new government sees the UN - or our traditional allies - as the main external factor in
our decisions about foreign policy and defence.
Image: APEC
It matters. New Zealand’s sense of nationhood, so we’re always being told on Anzac Day, was forged at Gallipolli. For
decades, New Zealand sent troops overseas at the beck and call of our traditional allies. Where Britain went, or the US
and Australia went, so did we. This stance – of being a reliable ally or a doormat, depending on your perspective –
eventually got us into the Vietnam war. It would have got us into the war in Iraq as well, if a significant change in
our policy settings hadn’t occurred earlier in the decade.
The crucial document was Defence Beyond 2000, a review carried out by Derek Quigley, a former National Cabinet Minister
who was ideologically on the extreme right of the political spectrum. After surveying the neglect and rundown of New
Zealand’s defence forces by the National government during the 90s, Quigley outlined a re-building process that would be
based on realistic risk assessments.
Our limited funds, Quigley indicated, could best be used (a) to build a well equipped and deployable Army contingent for
conflict resolution and peacemaking roles overseas and (b) to invest in the means to protect the maritime exclusion zone
around New Zealand. The Quigley review signalled that we had begun to grow up, and act as an independent state.
It entailed an independent foreign policy based on priorities set by New Zealand, and not in appeasement gestures to our
friends in London, Washington or Canberra. In practice, Clark chose to deploy our troops overseas only under a United
Nations mandate – in East Timor, and in Afghanistan, and to assist UN actions against terrorism. She did not regard the
US invasion of Iraq in 2003 as having a plausible UN mandate, and stayed out.
As a result, New Zealand was spared the backlash from outraged Islamic opinion that has been destructive for Britain,
the US, and Australia. Yet safe to say - if National had won the 2002 election, New Zealand would have been involved
militarily in the Iraq debacle, with resulting damage to our domestic security and international standing.
Therefore, we need to know whether the Key government does plans to change what are now the de facto conditions of
military deployment. Will Key, like Clark, seek a UN mandate before he commits our troops and national reputation to
conflict zones? The answer is not merely of academic interest. A UN mandate does already exist for the NZ troop presence
in Afghanistan, based initially on resolutions passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Thus, early in the decade our
military contribution in Afghanistan did include special forces troops – but these days, our role is virtually limited
to the rebuilding efforts in Bamiyan province, by our Provincial Reconstruction Team.
That may change. Once Barack Obama is in the White House, the war effort in Afghanistan is likely to crank up
considerably. Though there are elusive news stories about peace talks with the Taliban, the military momentum is with
them – to the point where the Taliban now reportedly control 70 % of the country. Obama has made it clear that he wants
( and now almost has) a firm timetable for pulling US troops out of Iraq, so that he can then devote the US war effort
into reversing the tide of the conflict in Afghanistan.
That will mean more US troops, more funds for genuine reconstruction – and a bigger role for US allies. The model for
how it will happen already exists. In Iraq, the US put local Sunni tribal leaders on its payroll. It then armed them to
the teeth and used them to form the so-called Awakening Councils – which then proved relatively successful in driving
out al Qaeda foreign fighters from some regions. Obama has signalled his intention to use similar tactics in Afghanistan
under the leadership of General David Petraeus, who devised the Awakening Councils tactic in Iraq, and who is now
heading the US military effort in Afghanistan.
In a process that bears obvious similarities, the Pakistani military has already begun to recruit local maliks ( or chieftains) and their followers ( called lashkars) in order to drive out the Taliban and
al Qaeda from tribal regions known to offer safe refuge for cross border forays into Afghanistan.
It is a strategy fraught with risk. In the 1990s, the US armed the local mujahideen in a very similar way to fight the
Soviets, with disastrous effects – because the mujahideen eventually evolved into the Taliban. Currently, the lashkars
seem to be ideologically neutral players in the Afghan war – but unless there is genuine health and education reform in
their tribal regions, arming the lashkars is playing with fire. They could very easily flip to the Taliban, once the pay
cheques stop coming.
Point being, if Obama cranks up the Afghan conflict via this blueprint he is likely to come knocking next year on the
door of other countries – including America’s very, very, good friend, New Zealand - to ask us for a larger and more
active military contribution. Is Key willing to rule out saying “ Yes” to such a request – and in reaching his decision,
would he seek a fresh mandate from the UN, or would Key be more inclined to take his lead from Washington and Canberra ?
In particular, what assurances would Key be seeking from Washington about the terms of any fresh commitment – say, by
our special forces – and its duration?
And would Key be willing to make the terms of engagement publicly available, so that New Zealanders can judge for
themselves whether the risks involved in putting our troops ( and domestic security) on the line for such a cause are
justified ?
Saying “No” on Iraq proved to be one of the best and most far sighted decisions made by the Clark administration. It
would be re-assuring to think the new government had the ability to do the same, if the situation arises.
Yet watching Key on the world stage at APEC - whether it be him grinning back at Bush, or sitting awkwardly and cross
legged with Alan Garcia – has not been very re-assuring. News reports that Key has called on Brazil, India and China to
open up their markets ( to further the Doha Round) in response to the global financial crisis have also been alarming.
It appears as though a National government is willing to play the role of attack poodle once again, on such issues.
That’s us, always eager to please.
Lets get real instead. As China says, the global financial crisis began because of a lack of regulation and discipline
in US financial markets. To think that a crisis caused by a lack of regulation in financial markets can be solved by
creating even more laissez faire conditions in world trade is ridiculous – and China, India and Brazil will be treating
Key’s suggestion with the contempt it deserves.
The world has changed. The 1980s mindset on free markets is now obsolete. Financial markets need to be regulated. Trade
rules, under the Obama presidency will be more protectionist – if only because jobs at home matter, during a recession.
If John Key can’t grasp this new consensus as he represents us on the world stage ….then we’re in deep trouble. Judging
by the APEC conference, he currently looks more like an eager head prefect, than a headmaster.
ENDS