Fran O'Sullivan: Consensus on foreign issues wavers

Faultlines are emerging in the foreign policy consensus that has sustained New Zealand since the mid-1980s.

Labour's record shows it has adopted outward-looking policies since taking power in 1999, despite occasional National Party charges that it is still in thrall to the Cold War era on the nuclear issue.

Labour's obvious distinguishing point is that it is a strong "multilateralist".

This is the brand that Foreign Affairs Minister Phil Goff, in particular, plays up when pressing for New Zealand to be strongly involved in reform at the United Nations, or taking a lead in negotiations to reduce or eliminate the stockpiling of nuclear weapons.

But the brand Mr Goff prefers to retail internally is that of a strongly independent country prepared to stand up to big-power bullying.

Mr Goff argues that Labour and National do have fundamentally different approaches to foreign policy, notwithstanding a claim by National's Gerry Brownlee that the two parties are basically on the same page.

"The difference is one of commitment to reflecting our own value and policies as a country."

The Foreign Minister claims his key opponents all too often exhibit symptoms of a "21st century version of colonial cringe".

He maintains the cringe factor came into play when National leader Don Brash said he would talk to the Americans ahead of New Zealanders over proposed changes to the anti-nuclear legislation.

Or when former National defence spokesman Simon Power suggested New Zealand should follow Britain, the US and Australia into Iraq.

"It's like the Privy Council argument ... the notion we should have to rely on bigger and more powerful friends and should subordinate ourselves to them in order that they treat us more kindly."

Prime Minister Helen Clark - who dominates bilateral and regional engagements - promotes this country as an "active and engaged" foreign policy player. In her nearly six years as Prime Minister she has become a frequent presence at forums ranging from the Apec leaders' summit to the left-leaning Progressive Governance Group.

Helen Clark has gained a measure of respect for her successful chairing of the OECD annual ministerial meeting in Paris - which internationalists say will be to her advantage if she chooses to move beyond national politics.

Iraq, the nuclear debate and international terrorism are the glamour points in the foreign affairs debate. In each of these areas Helen Clark has taken a strong stance.

But the distinguishing mark of her two terms as Prime Minister is likely to be remembered as the successful negotiation of New Zealand's acceptance into the new Asian bloc.

Helen Clark - urged by luminaries such as Asia New Zealand chairman Sir Dryden Spring - began forging stronger links with Asia after it became clear that New Zealand was unlikely to follow Australia into negotiations for a free trade deal with the US.

The Government - in conjunction with business - launched a "Seriously Asia" initiative to strengthen regional ties and ensure New Zealand's admittance to regional dialogues.

Two years on, her strategy has more than paid dividends.

New Zealand is negotiating a free trade deal with China - the first Western developed nation to open talks. It has launched single-market discussions to draw New Zealand and Australia closer together.

After assiduous lobbying of a number of visiting Asian political leaders, Helen Clark has received an invitation to attend the inaugural East Asian Summit this year.

It is this move more than any other which has the potential to redefine our future.

The main thorn in Labour's foreign affairs armour remains the relationship with the US. Former US Ambassador Charles Swindells said the US would like to "have a conversation" with New Zealand after the election to try to forge new bonds to overcome the Anzus debacle.

But Helen Clark's public response has been half-hearted. She says Labour is not prepared to countenance any watering down of the nuclear issue but softens that by saying New Zealand is prepared to welcome a ship visit along the lines of those made by the French (ie, not nuclear-propelled).

National says Labour's "independence" can be seen as isolationism.

But its charge lacks credibility given its refusal to enunciate a clear policy of its own to forge stronger bonds with the US.

Despite the imbroglio over the nuclear stance strong elements of commonality emerge on some issues.

Helen Clark briefed Dr Brash on the Ahmed Zaoui issue, the Mossad agents affair and also on the proposal for New Zealand to sign a regional non-aggression pact before gaining admittance to the East Asia summit. They all became political no-go areas.

Dr Brash's ongoing foreign policy gaffes have cost him political ground and helped make this a vital defining issue for the election.

The details of National's foreign policy have yet to be released.

But a sense of what the party stands for can be gleaned from its defence and security statement.

It says the primary duty of government is to protect the state "to keep our country, its infrastructure and its citizens safe".

"In recent years, the threat of global war has been replaced by threats from terrorism, and from rogue and failing states ... these are threats to the freedom and prosperity of all nations and peoples."

Like Labour, National is committed to multilateralism.

But it would appear its key plank will be its emphasis on enhancing New Zealand's relationship with traditional allies - such as the US, UK and Australia - on a "mutual interest" basis.

"In the event of any crisis - whether it be international military conflict, a need for peacekeeping operations, or a natural disaster - it is clear that New Zealand will be acting together with like-minded countries."

It is clear that National has talked privately with the US and Australia over ways to reactivate the Anzus defence alliance which was suspended after the Lange Labour Government introduced the anti-nuclear legislation.

But in public it has equivocated rather than mounted a strong campaign for a reversal.

Until National spells out what price it will pay for New Zealand to rejoin the club, it will remain the loser in the foreign policy arena.