Since US president Donald Trump was elected for a second term, New Zealand has taken a ‘Homer in the Hedge’ approach to its foreign policy in relation to America. Like the famous meme from The Simpsons, New Zealand has tried to inch out of sight, ensuring it does nothing to draw attention to itself.
When the coalition government issued its statement on the bombing of Iran by the US and Israel on Sunday, it seemed as if it was staying as close to the hedge as possible. Diplomatic language is carefully weighed, to the last syllable, and every word chosen or omitted speaks volumes. In this case, it was notable that New Zealand chose to say “we acknowledge” the attack, rather than offer its support of condemnation.
In doing so we risked looking evasive and acting at odds with our commitment to an independent foreign policy was isn’t afraid to, politely and diplomatically, adhere to a rules-based order. But it placed us in the unremarkable middle of the spectrum of reaction to the bombings, very much in line with our recent ‘Homer in the Hedge’ strategy. On one hand you had Australia and Canada offering explicit “support” and on the other, Spain, calling it “unjustified and dangerous” and the likes of Norway and Belgium saying the strikes weren’t in accordance with international law. Our position was more in line with a joint statement from Britain, France, and Germany (the E3), who also merely acknowledged the attack and condemned Iran’s retaliatory strikes.
Handled adroitly, it could have been expressed as a cautious but tenable position. Instead, we have seen Prime Minister Christopher Luxon flailing. It was a Monday he will want to forget in a hurry, as it left the impression – fair or not – that the Prime Minister doesn’t just stick like glue to scripted lines because he’s being careful of New Zealand position, but because he doesn’t understand the nuance of what he’s saying.
On Morning Report on Monday morning, the question from Corin Dann was simple and obvious. Does New Zealand support the strikes? Luxon answered, repeatedly, that New Zealand has never supported this regime. He had a clear list of talking points – it was killing its own people, funding terrorism, pursuing a nuclear weapon programme… the regime, he kept saying, was evil. None of which, was an answer to the simple question.
That’s not to say his answer had to binary. But it had to show some understanding of the complex geopolitical issues underpinning an independent decision by two countries to attack a sovereign nation. It had to explain why New Zealand would support a strike here and now when all of things Luxon was listing have been issues for decades. It had to explain why a strike was necessary against this particular country, when you can see the same abuses being carried out in other countries. And it had to at least wrestle with whether the threat of this country was the biggest threat facing world peace right now, whether this action would lead towards more peace in the Middle East, and what precedent it set at a time when, as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said in Davos, “we’re reminded every day… that the rules based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must”.
There are any number of arguments that can be made when we look at what’s happened in Iran. You might argue that evil flourishes when good people do nothing and that, while no superpower can deal with every dictator, when the chance comes to undermine an evil regime, a targeted strike against a small group of leaders with blood on their hands and other military infrastructure is a just act. You might argue that any strike without a UN Security Council mandate raises concerns, that the full impact of the weekend’s military action won’t be seen for months or longer, so we watch and wait until we know more. Or you might argue that the rules are clear – military strikes should only occur as an act of self defence, if there’s an imminent threat, if requested by the country’s legitimate government, or if they can stop a genocide or massive human suffering. The rules-based order matters and the powerful don’t get to bomb and kill on a whim, even if they are our allies.
Luxon could have make a case for any of those positions. He could have stepped back and made a case for what the Finnish president has called “values-based realism”. Instead, Luxon kept listing his talking points and New Zealand’s acknowledgement of the attack, before blurting out “our position is the same as the Australian position”. It was a drowning man grasping for a lifeboat – agreeing with our nearest ally is the safest of options when it comes to foreign affairs.
Except it wasn’t true. Anthony Albanese has taken a more hawkish stance on the bombing, saying Australia “supports” the attacks. In this world where every syllable is weighed, “acknowledge” and “support” are absolutely not “the same” positions.
Luxon had misspoken and had all day to clear up any confusion. Instead, that afternoon he added to it. At the post cabinet press conference he was clearly still struggling to articulate a coherent position. Early on, within a few breaths, he mistakenly called Ukraine, Iran and Iran, Israel. He leant heavily on an argument made overnight by the British Defence Secretary John Healey, who said it was for the US to “set out the legal basis of the action it took”. Luxon argued that the US and Israel would have “deep intelligence” New Zealand didn’t have and had made their assessment off that. But then he continued, “all I can say zooming out, is that as New Zealand, we’ve had a long standing commitment under successive governments that any actions that stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a good thing, any action to stop them sponsoring terrorism is a good thing, any actions that stops them from killing their own people is a good thing”.
A commitment to any actions? Um, no we haven’t. Cue the question – if Iran’s misdeeds must be stopped by “any actions”, how far would he go? Carpet bombing? He started his answer several ways, “we obviously understand”… “we’re not saying that”… Ultimately, he settled for “I don’t know how I can be any clearer guys”.
In truth, it was a day when Luxon could not have been less clear. And the impression left was that of a Prime Minister who knows how to repeat supplied lines, but does not understand the arguments behind those lines. If it was a maths test, he might be able to memorise the right answer, but he couldn’t show his workings because he doesn’t understand formula. So today, Luxon had to make the walk of shame and admit that in the press conference, he “misspoke”.
That much was obvious to all. Luxon clearly did not mean New Zealand would support any action to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, sponsoring terrorism, or killing its own people. If that was true, we would have acted years ago. Or we’d be urging the US and Israel to go further.
But, in his own muddled way, Luxon has put his finger on the problem. These bombings lack a UN mandate, an imminent threat, or any of the usual requirements of a just war. Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are in effect asking the world to endorse any action they deem necessary to stop the murderous regime overseen by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for nearly 30 years.
Many say removing any tyrant makes the world a better place and are incredulous that critics can’t celebrate the fall of a regime that used torture, terror, and even tried to build a nuclear weapon, to advance its beliefs. While it’s a tempting argument in the short-term, the longer problems with it are many.
It is, in essence, an argument about ends, not means. It says the ends justify any means. That is what Luxon mistakenly said yesterday, and few, in truth, are willing to make that argument. It is a dangerous world indeed if leaders of the world’s most powerful militaries can decide who is evil and who is not and attack on a whim, even in the midst of supposed good faith negotiations, and without consultation or constraint from their own institutions, allies, or the United Nations.
If the likes of American and Israel get to decide which countries are evil enough to warrant such military strikes, who is next? Why not Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan, or Russia?
And if the ends are the justification, doesn’t that argument rely on some degree of certainty as to how this will end? The US and Israel accused Iran of destabilizing the region, yet is there a post-Khamenei plan for a more stable Middle East? Removing even a large group of leaders does not remove the regime. History suggests that, like a hydra, is one head is removed more appear. Regimes become even more oppressive, or countries splinter into chaos and even civil war. You only have to look at the bombing of Libya and the death of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 (not to mention Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria) to see how an attack like this can spark decades of unrest, chaos, even civil war. In the short term, Israel may hope to benefit from leaving an enemy in such chaos, but history teaches us that down the track such chaos only breeds more violence and a greater hunger for the bitter fruit of revenge.
After the weekend’s events, it’s clear the world is a more dangerous place and the rules-based order, as Carney warned, is at risk of rupture. These are serious times for serious people. And here in New Zealand, the coming election makes the Prime Minister’s performance over the past two days a matter of serious concern for the coalition government and New Zealand voters. The Luxon administration may be able to act like Homer Simpson in its foreign policy and try to blend into the hedge while Trump is president. But Luxon himself cannot. He has to step out, go beyond the talking points, and show a leader’s grasp of serious issues if he’s serious about leading New Zealand for a second term.