The Nation: Lisa Owen interviews Gerry Brownlee
On The Nation: Lisa Owen interviews Gerry
Brownlee
Headlines:
Foreign
Affairs Minister Gerry Brownlee says his meeting with US
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this week will focus on
trading relations, the war on terrorism and relative
positions on climate
change.
Despite US
President Donald Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement on
climate change, the door has been left open for
negotiations. He also says business will continue to comply:
“A lot of the business entities in the United States that
have signed up to reducing their emissions have reaffirmed
those positions in the last couple of days, so I don’t
think we’re seeing a turning back of the clock to any
particularly bad
position.”
Brownlee
says discussions with Israel over our diplomatic relations
are ongoing. They are currently suspended, which Brownlee
describes as “not a happy place to be”. But he says
he’s “very, very confident that we’ll be able to get
back to a good position on that in the near
future.”
Lisa
Owen: The US president is never far from our TV screens at
the moment, and he’ll be on the agenda for Foreign Affairs
Minister Gerry Brownlee next week. Brownlee will meet with
Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, on Tuesday to
talk terrorism and trade. Gerry Brownlee joins me now from
our Wellington studio. Good morning, Minister. How long will
that meeting be? How long will Rex Tillerson be on the
ground in New
Zealand?
Well, it’s only
a matter of hours. I’m not sure exactly how many
hours—
Three hours? Does that sound about
right?
Could be that. Could
be a bit more. But it’s certainly enough time to have a
very good bilateral meeting and to discuss the things that
are mutually important to us.
Well, given
you’ve got a short window of opportunity, what’s going
to be your number one priority for that
meeting?
Well, look, a lot
of that discussion will be organised over the next couple of
days as we head towards that meeting, but we’ll obviously
want to canvass trading relations. We’ll reaffirm the
various commitments that we have internationally toward the
defeat of terrorism. And I’d also expect that, given the
current, or most recent, decision from the US, that there
will be some discussion about relative positions on climate
change. But in the end, it is the trading relationship but
also the people-to-people relationship with the United
States, including our involvement in the Antarctic, for
example, that are pretty important to
us.
Okay, well, on that note, the Prime
Minister has expressed some concern that Washington might be
a little bit distracted by Trump’s unpredictability and
that the nature of that president may be distracting them
from things like economic stability and trade and economic
growth in the region. Are you going to raise that with Rex
Tillerson?
I don’t think
we’ll be raising the issues of US political stability.
That’s something for the US, not for New Zealand, to
comment on.
But insomuch as it impacts on us
– the broader
issues.
Well, I think the
things that impact on us are the decision around TPP.
We’ll update him on where we see the TPP 11 progressing,
and we’ll try and get a sense of what reservations might
be overcome that might change the US position. But in the
end, you’ve got an administration there that has won the
presidency and is keeping faith with the people who elected
them. And I think beyond that, we don’t have any
comment.
Well, Donald Trump said that he was
keeping the faith with the people that had elected him when
he pulled out of the Paris Accord this week. Was that the
right decision – for him to pull the pin on
that?
Well, I can’t
comment on what was right or wrong for Mr Trump. What I can
say is that the door has been left a little bit open about,
perhaps, their rejoining. And I think when you consider that
the Paris Agreement’s signed up to by 194 countries, 147
countries have ratified that agreement, and then, of course,
the G7 most recently reaffirmed their position as far as
climate change is concerned.
But the thing is
the US pulling out of
it—
So I think the
door’s not totally closed.
…the US pulling
out of this, Minister, it does affect us, because there’s
suggestions that unless they comply, that there will be a
0.3 degree Celsius temperature rise. You can’t ring-fence
greenhouse gases. That’s us; we’re included in this. So
do they not have a moral obligation to be part of
this?
Well, the reason why
we have signed up is because it does have a direct effect on
us, as it does on all citizens of the world. I think the
important thing to recognise in the announcement this week
is that the door is not completely closed, and we stand
ready to do our part in any negotiation that might see the
US take a different position. But I’ll also say
this—
But do you really think he’s going
to come back into the fold on
this?
Well, I’m not going
to comment on that, because I think the situation
domestically in the US is something for Mr Trump to deal
with. But what I do note is that a lot of the business
entities in the United States that have signed up to
reducing their emissions have reaffirmed those positions in
the last couple of days, so I don’t think we’re seeing a
turning back of the clock to any particularly bad position.
I think what we’re seeing is a desire by Mr Trump to keep
faith with the people who elected him, having said that he
would pull out, but noting that the door is still open for
some negotiation, and whatever we are required to do in that
negotiation, we’d be interested in.
Well,
you say that the door is still open for negotiation and for
him coming back to the table, but he says a lot of climate
change is just made up. Do you have some sympathy with that
view?
No. I think if you
consider, for example, how many fossil-fuel-powered vehicles
will be travelling quite a distance in the next 24-hour
period across the world and you imagine all of that volume
of fossil fuel as one single big fire, then you can start to
see that the emission profile from fossil fuels alone is
very considerable, and…
So is
the--?
…the world’s
never seen anything like this before, and it has accumulated
over the last few decades, and it would be unreasonable to
think it might not have some effect on our
climate.
Well, if it would be unreasonable to
not appreciate what you’ve just explained, is the US
president being wilfully ignorant, or is he just
grandstanding
politically?
I think he has
made a statement to people in the United States who elected
him and he’s sticking to that. But, as I said, that’s
not stopping businesses and others in the United States
considering their emissions profile.
So is he
just playing to his voters? Is that what you’re
saying?
I’m saying that
his domestic politics are one thing and for him to work
through and for the US to work through. We will, of course,
be interested in negotiating any changes that they might
want that might bring them back to the table. But in the
end, you’re going to see, I think, a lot of businesses in
the US stick with the plans that they had to reduce their
emission profile, so it’s not all bad.
So
then how worried are you that this is a signal of just how
isolationist and protectionist he is prepared to
be?
I’m not terribly
worried about it, because I’m also very, very optimistic
about the technological changes that are coming to the
world. If I think back just eight years ago, we made a
decision in New Zealand that we would not require
registration fees off electric vehicles. And at the time, I
think I’m right in saying there were less than 50 vehicles
on the road that were affected. Now there are hundreds, and
in the years to come, that will be tens of thousands and
hundreds of thousands, and that alone makes a difference, so
you also look at all the other developments of renewable
technologies around the world and you can see that just
because of the advance of technological and scientific
knowledge, you’re going to see a reduction in those
emissions,…
Okay.
…so
we have some time still to get to a position where there is
the full commitment to that from, obviously a big economy
like the US.
Let’s move on to a different
topic – Afghanistan. Is it continues to deteriorate there,
are you prepared to contribute troops in any great numbers
in the US ask for
that?
Well, it’s not an
ask that’s on the table at the moment, and I think we’ve
got to see it in the light of Afghanistan being a country
that has 34 million people.
But you’re not
ruling it out if they ask? You’re not ruling it out at
this point?
I’m just
trying to set the scene for how we would go about our
considerations. So those 34 million people, the vast
majority of them want to live peaceful lives. You only have
to have a few, as I've said so many times, inside a big
population like that that can cause a huge amount of
problems. The bombing last week was very, very concerning in
that regard. But I think it's worth noting that over the 12
years from 2001 up to 2013, New Zealand had over 3500
Defence Force personnel and Police Force personnel in
Afghanistan over that period.
But, Minister,
what I'm asking you, bottom
line—
Yeah, I'm just
coming to it.
What I'm asking you, bottom
line, is if you would be comfortable committing our troops
to an operation with a heavy US involvement when you've got
a president who has passed on classified information, his
agencies are leaking intel about the Manchester terrorism
attack, and he's conducting foreign policy on Twitter. Would
you be prepared to gamble just one Kiwi life on
that?
I think what I want
to say is that New Zealanders have invested over 100 million
since 2001 in stability in Afghanistan. You have a mission
there at the moment, Resolute Support, that is run by NATO.
And the most recent request to New Zealand has been to
contribute more to that. It's a non-combat mission, and it's
about strengthening both the capability of security forces
there and civil society.
But the question is
whether you would be comfortable committing more troops to
an operation with heavy US involvement, given the factors
I've just outlined. Would you be comfortable with
that?
Well, what I'm trying
to say is that that's a hypothetical question, and we would
make a decision about that once something was on the table
and there was a clear need for it.
So you're
not ruling it out? You're not ruling it
out?
Well, I'm not ruling
it in, either. The reality is, as I said before, we've had a
large number of Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan,
we've invested a lot in the security of that country, it is
a very small part of the population there that causes the
problem, and it is – just like Iraq – the Afghan
Government of the day that wants to sort things out as much
as they can.
Okay, well, let's move on to
Israel, then. You want to reboot that relationship with
Israel. So I'm wondering is it okay for Israel to build
settlements on Palestinian land – illegal settlements on
Palestinian land – despite international condemnation? Are
you okay with that?
Well,
that's not the question that we're facing at the
moment.
It's the question I'm asking you, Mr
Brownlee.
I know it is. But
the question that I'm addressing is our ability to speak
with Israel in a very free and frank manner that you are
able to do when you have solid diplomatic relations, which
at the moment are suspended. I'm very, very confident that
we'll be able to get back to a good position on that in the
near future.
Have they written back to you?
Have they written back to you, and what have they
said?
Well, those are
discussions that are ongoing, and we would expect to have
some announcement on that in the very near
future.
So, what, we're renewing official
ties, are we?
Oh, well,
look, those are discussions that we've obviously said that
we want to do that. Remember that in the whole of the Middle
East—
But what have they said back to you?
What have they said back to you,
Minister?
They've said that
they have received our letter and they're considering that.
Look, these things take a little bit of time. The point is,
though, that Israel has a democratically elected government.
That government changes periodically, as always happens in a
democracy, and it does so with virtually no problem at all.
And I think for us not to have a relationship with a
democratically elected government in the Middle East is not
a happy place for us to be. So we are pursuing that. Those
issues that you raise about settlement and other such are
the sort of matters that you get to discuss when you do have
those democratic relations. But I do think also that there
is a bit of a general lack of understanding about what a
two-state system might mean in Israel. And in the end, it
does have to be the parties to that that reach an agreeable
position.
All right, well, just before we go,
I want to know, are you prepared to give up your foreign
affairs portfolio in order to form a coalition arrangement
with New Zealand First after the
election?
Well, that's not
really my choice; that's the choice of the New Zealand
voter. And I think if you go into this—
But
if it comes to it, Mr Brownlee, are you prepared to take one
for the team?
Well, I don't
get that choice. That is the choice of the Prime Minister,
the group of ministers who will be involved in any coalition
negotiations. But, ultimately, it is the New Zealand voter
who will determine which party is going to be the most
central party in government beyond the 23rd of September. So
we're out there as a party, not only campaigning on our
record but also laying out where we think the future of New
Zealand can be, and it's a pretty bright future, because New
Zealanders have worked hard for it.
We'll cut
off the campaign message there, Mr Brownlee. Thank you so
much for joining us this
morning.
Transcript provided by Able. www.able.co.nz