Labour's foreign affairs spokesman David Parker. Photo / RNZ
At the end of last year, as Labour commenced its mandatory post-loss soul searching, the party’s new foreign affairs spokesman David Parker took a note to caucus seeking agreement on the party’s foreign policy stance.
The result, agreed by caucus, is what you would expect. Speaking to the Herald about what the note meant, Parker acknowledged the party was not radically changing its existing foreign policy positions, like the commitment to New Zealand’s “independent” foreign policy.
Instead, Parker sought to apply Labour thinking to contemporary foreign policy challenges, like the Aukus deal, the war in Gaza, and the growing rift between the United States and China.
The note comes all three issues force observers to pose the question of whether the red and blue teams are still committed to the historically independent foreign policy, and whether an independent policy is possible to sustain in an increasingly polarised world.
Parker insists that Labour is still committed to that historic independent foreign policy stance. He says independence does not mean non-aligned or neutral. New Zealand is “clearly” a western country, with a good relationship with the likes of the US, but this does not position us as firmly in the American camp. A clear example of this is that unlike Nato members or other US allies, New Zealand does not want to be defended by nuclear weapons.
Parker said that the difference between Labour and the Government’s foreign policy is already showing, citing the decision to deploy Defence Force personnel to the Red Sea to support US-led strikes on Houthis, and Labour’s call, in November last year, for a ceasefire in the conflict in Gaza.
“Since we made that call, things seem to have been playing out in the way we feared rather than in the way the National Party may have hoped in terms of the... intransigence of some in Israel, including [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” Parker said.
Parker said he rejected the idea that polarisation was leading to a new Cold War, which played out in the form of violent proxy wars fought across the world.
“I think we have to be careful not to say that this is just going back to what it was like before and we’ve got to be careful that we don’t make it that way,” Parker said.
The current arrangement between the US and China is different. There are wars, there are even proxy wars, but these are not easily labelled US v. China proxy wars. Another power, usually Russia or Iran, stands in between.
Another difference is the degree of economic integration with China, our most valuable trading partner, a position never occupied by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
“We don’t want to position China as a foe. We’ve got a good relationship with them. We don’t agree with them on everything and there are some things that we have quite different values on, including the rights of minorities, for example,” Parker said.
He said that it is not unexpected that China would become more assertive than it had been in the past, as the country grew wealthier. He said this growing assertiveness did not automatically make China a military threat.
Labour’s appears to be hardening its position against having an association with the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine deal. New Zealand’s nuclear-free stance (and, if we are honest, our parsimonious attitude to defence spending) prevent New Zealand from joining up to the main agreement, but Kurt Campbell, the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific Czar hinted that there might be a place in pillar 2 of the pact, which involved sharing non-nuclear technology in areas like cyber security and hypersonic.
The new Government sounds keen, at least keener than Labour, which appeared to have several views on the deal last term, ranging from then-Defence Minister Andrew Little who seemed relatively enthusiastic, to then-Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta, who was less so.
Parker said Labour is “unconvinced” that Aukus pillar 2 offered New Zealand anything it does not already get through existing relationships.
Though Parker did not list these relationships, they likely include things like Five Eyes, which also provides an avenue for technology sharing.
He said this does not make Labour isolationist - it is “internationalist”, Parker said.
With the new Government appearing to position New Zealand as far more keen on Aukus, this is potentially the biggest and biggest foreign policy point of contention between Labour and the new Government.
Parker said that going back to the Clark Government, New Zealand had rightly increased its focus on the Pacific.
He said New Zealand needed to support the Pacific in issues like climate change mitigation and adaptation, and look to tackle the issue of relocating people whose nations had been flooded by climate change.
Australia recently inked a controversial agreement with Tuvalu that allowed relocation visas for some of its citizens in exchange for an effective Australian veto right over any defence deal Tuvalu would sign with another nation.
Parker said it was an issue New Zealand would need to grapple with “over time”.
“The numbers of people that are involved are small. It is not something that should worry New Zealand,” Parker said.
Thomas Coughlan is deputy political editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the press gallery since 2018.