KEY POINTS:
Writing a report card on MFAT - New Zealand's foreign affairs and trade ministry - is a risky affair.
Not just because the diplomatic successes of Foreign Minister Winston Peters are frequently buried by stories about his prickliness over criticism. Or even because Trade Minister Phil Goff has
undershot, particularly with Japan where New Zealand's agricultural exporters now risk being eclipsed by their Australian competitors.
It's because the ministry's muddled description of its role requires it to recognise and understand international trends, opportunities and risks that affect New Zealand, and to offer the Government advice on how to protect and advance our well-being.
In this way, states the ministry, "it contributes to the Government's overall objective of transforming New Zealand into a dynamic, knowledge-based economy and society, under-pinned by the values of fairness, opportunity and security for all."
Compare this with the simple mission statement of Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and you will get a quick insight into why New Zealand's foreign affairs elite sometimes appear more like supplicants than pro-active diplomats on our behalf.
DFAT's simple aim is to advance the interests of Australia and Australians internationally. This one-line statement compels Australia's diplomats to actively engage in pursing its international interests, unlike New Zealand which has an emphasis on the advisory aspect.
So when it comes to assessing New Zealand's foreign, economic and aid policies who gets the blame for the serious instability that has been allowed to happen in the Solomon Islands, Tonga and Fiji? Is it our on-the-ground diplomats with their information-gathering emphasis? The ministry chiefs who advise their ministers, or the ministers who make the decisions and lead action in our patch?
Logically, neither Peters, who has made great play of his decision to put the Pacific foremost on his own political agenda, nor the ministry itself, can be held responsible for the troubles that have erupted. But how good was our diplomatic intelligence? Did our officials use their influence with local governments and regional agencies to try and sort out burning issues before the cauldrons blew?
Were Prime Minister Helen Clark and Peters right to offer unquestioned support to Fiji's former prime minister Laisenia Qarase, given mounting evidence which suggests his Government was corrupt? Why did Duty Minister Ruth Dyson dump on the head of the Fiji Human Rights Commission who alleged the Qarase Government has been involved in massive violations of human rights and had made serious attempts to impose ethnic cleansing tactics?
Commission head Shaista Shameem's allegations are serious ones and deserve to be treated with a bit more respect. Surely there is a role for us to spearhead an internationally-led inquiry. But rather like our position vis-à-vis the Tongan monarchy which has held back the progress of local democracy, are we simply boxing ourselves into corners by appearing to give unquestioned support for incumbents? Before anyone blows a gasket, let's state that New Zealand's recent intervention in Tonga was necessary to quell violence. It's what comes next that counts.
Clark and Peters have made the right noises on hot issues like North Korea. But there is no public sign we had advance warning about North Korea's nuclear test, or prior intelligence about the Thailand coup.
Our foreign affairs and trade ministry probably deserves a fail mark as far as these wider regional security issues are concerned.
Where Peters and MFAT deserve praise is the bilateral relationship with the United States which is deepening as the nuclear stoush recedes.
On the trade front there has been varying success. The collapse of the World Trade Organisation negotiations are a major setback.And New Zealand dropped the ball with the European Union where the initial loss of Fonterra's monopoly import rights had to rank as outright failure.
Clark might want to rethink whether the time is right for ministry officials to take a more proactive role.
