New Zealand’s foreign policy, what does ‘independence’ mean anyway?

The bill included more exes than your average Taylor Swift album, and almost as many air miles. Two ex-ambassadors to the United States, one ex-ambassador to China, and an ex-trade minister joined a panel assembled by Diplosphere, the (relatively) new international affairs-focused organisation in Wellington to ask the question “God Defend New Zealand - From What?”

Advertised as a korero on everything from Aukus to Ukraine, the event was given added urgency when another global conflict broke out while tickets were still being sold, this time in Gaza.

As is so often the case with these diplomatic events, the question morphed from what threats we face, to whose side are we on, a question which a room full of diplomats will quickly turn into a discussion of New Zealand’s so-called independent foreign policy.

Rosemary Banks, whose packed CV includes stints as ambassador to the United States, France and Portugal and as New Zealand’s permanent representative to the United Nations, said that “no one defines our independent foreign policy… we only define it by what it isn’t.

“Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, in one of her foreign policy speeches, said our independent foreign policy has never meant that we pursue our objectives on our own.

“Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta had another crack at it in May this year, and she said being independent does not mean acting independently - so what does it mean?” Banks said, before seizing on a definition of her own.

“That we base our foreign policy decisions on international law, on UN charter, on our national values of fairness and equity that we assess every situation objectively and weigh up all the policy options, that we are open to the case of others to protect their interest and that we act consistently as a reliable partner,” she said.

Former Trade Minister Tim Groser. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Foreign diplomats posted to Wellington tend to cringe at Kiwis tub-thumping the independent foreign policy. New Zealand’s assertion that its history and dearth of formal military allies (bar one) lays a claim to a higher level of independence can be equally bemusing and galling. Nearly all countries have an independent foreign policy to a greater or lesser extent and its not always clear what there is about New Zealand’s foreign policy that would allow us to lay claim to being significantly more independent than anyone else.

Banks appeared to have some sympathy for this confusion.

“There’s always a tendency for a small island country… to retreat into a self-satisfied and self-deluding mindset,” she said.

“I think there are strains of that self-delusion in our insistence on our independent foreign policy.

“It’s become a mantra [and] been a mantra for such a long time but what does it really mean and how is it different from any other country putting its national interest first?” Banks said.

Former ambassador to China, John McKinnon spoke of the importance of speaking clearly to China, and other states, about the issues on which we disagree - and the importance of listening to what those countries had to say for themselves.

He too reckoned the independent foreign policy had become something of a “mantra”, which “can cover almost any meaning that you would like to give it.

“One of the meanings it has for me is to say we should be doing this for ourselves, we have to figure things out for ourselves,” he said.

Tim Groser, Trade Minister in the last National government, and a former Ambassador to Washington, said he had recently discussed the meaning of the independent foreign policy with former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark.

“I put to her the view that there were two different meanings in the last 15-20 years to the term ‘independent foreign policy’:

“One is on the extreme left, which is a synonym for anti-Americanism, and the other shared, I believe by the centre-left and centre-right of New Zealand thinking, is on a major, major issue, we will look independently at the reality of the issues we see before us,” Groser said.

“We will look independently at the situation and try to calculate as a small country with our own interests,” he said.

In reality, Groser said, in “95 per cent, metaphorically speaking, of such cases, we would go with our traditional friends because we tend to see the issue from the same perspective, but maybe on one or two issues we may nuance it in a different way.”

He said that one such issue was with respect to China, where New Zealand was coming under “massive pressure” to adopt an us-versus-them approach.

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.