Foreign Minister Winston Peters during a Pacific Mission in 2020. Photo/ Michael Craig
Winston Peters and Mark Brown are not the people best suited to sorting out the constitutional crisis between New Zealand and the Cook Islands over the Cooks’ “comprehensive strategic partnership” with China.
There is too much of the old bull-young bull dynamic at play for any good to come of them getting in a room together to sort it out, as suggested last week by former long-serving Cooks Prime Minister Henry Puna.
Brown has humiliated New Zealand, and by implication, Peters, to such an extent that trust will be difficult to regain.
Peters hinted at that in a statement last week to the Cook Islands News when he said through a spokesman: “With each mischaracterisation of the New Zealand approach, Prime Minister Brown makes it harder to restore trust in the New Zealand-Cook Islands relationship.”
In Peters, you’ve got the old bull who thinks he knows it all - and who actually does a lot of the time.
He is the elder statesman Foreign Minister who committed New Zealand to the “Pacific Reset” in 2018, reorienting New Zealand’s foreign policy and budget towards the Pacific, who distanced himself from China and got closer to traditional partners, urging them to get more active in the region to head off the ambitions of China.
Like other Five Eyes partners, he has reason to believe China’s long-term ambitions in the Pacific include maritime enterprises and infrastructure projects that could evolve into supporting visits or even bases for its burgeoning naval fleet, the largest in the world.
In Brown, you’ve got the younger bull who seemed like a breath of fresh air when he took over as Prime Minister from Puna in 2020.
Brown went to school in Gisborne and Massey University, studied business, was entrepreneurial, had ideas for how to develop the Cook Islands economy and make it less dependent on aid.
He took to the international stage, representing the Cooks at summits, conferences and events, including the Queen’s funeral. He thinks big. He was active in promoting the potential of mining its own cobalt-rich nodules on the sea floor in its extensive EEZ.
He signed a five-year deal with China in February, informing New Zealand about it, not consulting it, on the basis that it was not a defence or security arrangement.
It was a face-palm moment for New Zealand. Peters clearly takes the broader view that any such partnership will impact on New Zealand’s security interests in the region and it should clearly have been consulted.
Pivotal to New Zealand’s reputation globally is its influence and relationships within the Pacific. To have the leader of your closest Pacific partner thumb his nose at New Zealand was not just a disagreement; it was a humiliation. It undermines New Zealand’s standing.
The fact that there is such a gulf between the countries over respective obligations is confirmation that the existing arrangements are not fit for purpose. They are not clear enough.
It is a crisis of such importance to New Zealand’s interests that it needs greater attention than it has had in the past six months – and a bit of mediation help.
That needs to happen just as soon as the last guest leaves the magnificent party in Rarotonga they’ve been holding to mark 60 years of self-government in free association with New Zealand, also called Constitution Day celebrations, or Te Maeva Nui, held annually.
It was perfectly in order for Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to boycott the celebrations this year and send the Governor-General to represent New Zealand.
After all, the very understanding of what “self-government in free association with New Zealand” means in practice is at the heart of the dispute between the Cooks and New Zealand.
It means some involvement by New Zealand in the Cooks, but when, why and how needs greater clarity, as it did in 1973 between Norman Kirk and Albert Henry and in 2001 between Helen Clark and Terepai Maoate when questions arose about the Cooks’ evolving nationhood.
The boycott was all the more evident with Luxon’s attendance at Papua New Guinea’s 50th anniversary of independence this week. Speeches about the Cooks by Peters and Cooks’ consul general Keu Mataroa in Auckland on Monday, and Dame Cindy yesterday in the Cooks itself were positive enough about the relationship. It would have served no purpose to be otherwise.
What support Brown has within the Cook Islands population for the China partnership is subject to conjecture. He faced a no-confidence vote by an Opposition party in February, by 13 votes to nine. The Cooks’ own version of waka jumping legislation of 2007 is a disincentive for any MP to vote no-confidence in the party under which they were elected – they can have their seat declared vacant.
Progress to address the differences has been so slow that New Zealand has withheld about $20 million in aid. That was characterised by Brown as paternalistic and by others as bullying. If that riles New Zealand, Peters’ own characterisation of the issues irks Brown. Peters has often characterised it as a dispute that involves a choice of the Cooks keeping New Zealand citizenship or not, and he has challenged Brown to put it to a referendum.
New Zealand could be tempted to drag out any resolution, perhaps believing that the Cook Islands election in August 2026 will serve as a de facto referendum on the issue and that Brown will be roundly beaten.
But there are dangers in that. Peters, more than most, knows the potency of nationalism at the hands of a skilful politician. The relationship is too vital to be left to the whims of an election campaign.
The Cooks and New Zealand need help in mediating this dispute. There are no doubt friends on the ground in the Cook Islands who are trying to help repair the damage. But it needs outside, high-level and focused help.
Two names spring to mind. Sir Don McKinnon, who has experience in bringing parties together (Bougainville) and has sensitivities to small island states, both as his time as former Foreign Minister and as the former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth.
The other is Murray McCully, also a former Foreign Minister of New Zealand and an honorary resident of the Cook Islands, such is his long and close association with the country. There could well be others in the Pacific who would fit the bill.
Of course, no mediator could be imposed on the Cook Islands. Both parties would need to agree to their assistance, but this impasse needs a kickstart. It would not be a sign of failure by Peters if he agreed to it. It would be a sign that he was actually motivated to make progress.
Whatever was happening before isn’t working.