John Armstrong: Clark hedges her bets on Iraq

Richard Prebble hit the nail on the head when Parliament finally got around to debating the war with Iraq.

During Tuesday's special debate, he claimed Helen Clark was getting away with running three different policies on Iraq simultaneously.

There was the one driven by public opinion polls which, in turn, were driven by crude anti-Americanism.

There was the "Persian Gulf" policy which saw a New Zealand naval frigate on patrol at the United States' behest; a policy described by the Greens as pro-American.

Then there was New Zealand's neither-for, nor-against policy as epitomised by its stance at the United Nations.

The Act leader is prone to exaggeration. But there was a marked degree of truth in what he was saying.

While the Government's policy on Iraq has remained consistent, there have been frequent shifts in emphasis of elements of it depending on what the particular audience wants to hear.

This was evident on Tuesday. With diplomacy at the UN uttering its last gasp, Clark dropped into Newstalk ZB on her way to Parliament from Wellington Airport.

Listeners heard the blunt, direct Clark comfortably in tune with her domestic audience firmly denouncing the prospect of war as unjustified.

But something changed between Taranaki St and Molesworth St.

When Clark got to her feet in Parliament three hours later, the tone was quite different.

This was Clark talking to an international audience. Knowing her speech would be landing in the in-trays of American, British and Australian diplomats, a far more muted Clark emphasised her determination that the difference of opinion over how to get Saddam Hussein to disarm would not damage New Zealand's longstanding friendships.

As one Government MP observed during the earlier stages of the crisis, pressure to conform with the Washington line is like a dull ache: it is always there.

The risk that New Zealand will pay a price for failing to participate in the war has prompted Clark to place some insurance cover to placate the Americans.

The frigate will stay in the Gulf - and Clark has hinted New Zealand may rethink its participation if Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons and an enraged Security Council mandates military action post-facto.

In the meantime, Clark has also said New Zealand will fulfil American requests to contribute to post-war peacekeeping and reconstruction conducted under UN auspices.

All along, however, Clark's political risk minimisation strategy has been predicated on remaining on side with public opinion - a task made considerably easier by her principled advocacy of multilateral solutions to international crises being in tune with the majority public view that the Americans and the British should not have acted outside the authority of the UN.

In contrast, by backing the coalition of the willing, National and Act have put a premium on rewriting foreign policy Anzus-style.

They accept they have lost the battle for public opinion - at least for now.

A short, sharp war which ends with American troops being cheered into Baghdad as liberators will enable Prebble and Bill English to claim vindication.

A drawn-out conflict marked by high civilian casualties could embarrass them.

In the meantime, the two Opposition leaders are trying to shift the argument on to ground where they think Clark is vulnerable.

They accuse her of ratting on New Zealand's three closest traditional allies and argue New Zealand will pay a price for that. Clark counters by saying close allies of the US, such as Canada, share this country's reservations about taking unilateral military action.

English and Prebble say that without the build-up of coalition forces on the Iraq-Kuwait border, Saddam would not have complied with UN weapons inspections.

Failing to follow through on that threat because the Security Council cannot reach consensus would have handed victory to the Iraqi President.

Clark finally admitted the build-up had been "helpful" in exercising leverage.

But to then abandon UN processes because you do not get your way sets a new and dangerous precedent.

Act has long endorsed the US stance on Iraq. It was not until this week that National weighed in behind Act. And that has significant implications for New Zealand's foreign policy when the centre-right eventually returns to power.

National had initially shared the Government's view that the US and Britain be encouraged to work through the Security Council rather than going it alone. However, National parted ways with the Government in supporting the resolution promoted by the US and Britain to get a mandate for immediate military action.

The logical consequence was to express support for the coalition of the willing.

But National did not tell anyone.

Even when it did, English left open the question of whether a National-led government would have committed New Zealand troops.

This strange hesitation reflects English's insistence that National write policy as if it is actually facing the realities of governing, rather than taking knee-jerk positions.

However, while that may enhance the party's credibility long-term, the slow policy deliberation reduces National's exposure in the crowded MMP marketplace.

Act made Iraq a centrepiece of its conference last weekend; National's announcement got lost in the rush of developments in the crisis on Monday and Tuesday.

As a result, it was Prebble who squared off against Foreign Minister Phil Goff on Holmes on Tuesday night - not English or his foreign affairs spokesman Wayne Mapp.

And, for all the caution, in the end National reached the position its membership would have demanded - supporting the US.

That stance has downstream implications. National is at present reviewing its 13-year acceptance of the ban on port visits by nuclear-powered warships.

Its policy on Iraq makes much of standing staunch with traditional allies as being in New Zealand's long-term interests.

That rationale dramatically increases the pressure to change the anti-nuclear policy - the major impediment to normalising relations with traditional allies.

English is in no hurry.

But National's credibility now demands nothing less.


Herald Feature: Iraq