John Armstrong: Brash makes the right call

It is like the proverbial elephant asleep in the living room. No one can ignore its presence. But everyone is wary of disturbing it.

Tempting though it might have been for Opposition parties to exploit the resentment towards Muslims, which has no doubt hardened following the furore over the publication of cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, there was just too much risk of it backfiring.

That was especially so for National. There is clearly disappointment in that party that Don Brash, having just used his landmark Orewa speech to question the wisdom of New Zealand accepting large numbers of migrants from Muslim countries, should so meekly fall into line behind the Government only days later.

By taking a stronger stand on freedom of expression, Brash would have won applause not only from conservatives within his own party, but also from those in Labour's ranks fed up with the Government appeasing Muslims.

Brash has, however, done the right thing. This was not the time to be sending in the "political correctness" eradicator.

It would have been different had the firestorm over the cartoons been confined to a theoretical argument about rights of free speech versus the responsibility to respect others' religious beliefs.

But this was a conflagration which quickly spread beyond the theoretical to the nub of New Zealand's national interest - the conduct of foreign policy, the preservation of hard-won export markets and, with the threat of trade bans, company profits, people's livelihood and, potentially, even jobs.

The major Opposition party could not ignore those considerations and still expect to be treated seriously as a Government-in-waiting - the image National wants to project.

National has to prove it is cognisant of the responsibilities of Government. The political imperative for Labour in this case was to show it is not totally consumed by the responsibilities of office. As Murray McCully, National's foreign affairs spokesman, put it, this week was all about drawing "fine lines".

While angry that some media had dragged New Zealand into someone else's argument, Labour had to strike a careful balance between slamming those media and at the same time upholding their ultimate right to publish the cartoons.

That made the diplomacy more difficult, but Labour could not ignore a domestic audience ready to castigate any Government being too apologetic to intolerant Muslim states.

The Prime Minister keenly watched the direction the public mood might be shifting. Her initial remarks last Sunday criticising the judgment of offending media were strong. Speaking after Tuesday's Cabinet meeting - by which time it was clear the country was safely split on the issue - she was more scathing.

However, the Government was also conscious that too much noise risked drawing even more attention to New Zealand.

For that reason, the diplomacy was kept low-level. For example, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Middle East division - rather than Trade Minister Phil Goff - was tasked with soothing the Iranian ambassador.

However, while the Beehive was pulling out the stops on a government-to-government level to avert damage to the country's $1.1 billion export trade to the Middle East, ministers would have found it harder to deal with a media-driven consumer boycott in the region resulting from New Zealand being lumped alongside those Scandinavian countries taking the heat for publishing the cartoons.

That has not happened. But the fury in Islamic countries was also reason for National to take a deep breath before saying something inflammatory.

The last thing National needed was to put itself in a position where Labour could blame it for any consumer backlash against New Zealand products or a company like Fonterra losing lucrative export contracts - especially when Brash has placed so much store in painting Labour as the economic incompetent.

Neither has it escaped National's attention that the two newspapers which published the cartoons have ended up apologising to the local Muslim community, thereby undermining their own stand on press freedom.

But there is still a feeling within National that Brash did Labour too big a favour.

This appears to have prompted McCully to intervene in his foreign affairs role to reach a more balanced position which puts some distance between National and Labour while not contradicting his leader.

He talked of there being a fine line between showing respect for other cultures and pandering to them. He left it pretty much at that. But without saying so, he was implying the Government had crossed that line, especially in relation to Iran, given that country's call for the destruction of Israel, its nuclear programme and dodgy human rights record.

McCully was clearly concerned that Brash likewise risked being seen to be pandering to Muslims and thus undermining his own call for a debate on Muslim immigration.

It has been quickly forgotten that less than two weeks ago, Brash was flagging immigration policy as one of his priorities, citing the numbers of Muslim migrants as the reason.

He put it more delicately than that, of course. But his reference to some immigrants potentially undermining New Zealand's "liberal, tolerant and secular" society meant there was no mistaking whom he was singling out.

Less than 45,000 in number, the Muslim community is too small to be a force under MMP. But it is large enough for politicians to weave scare campaigns around - as Winston Peters demonstrated last year.

As Foreign Minister, Peters is now constrained as to how far he can take his anti-immigration rhetoric. He will be seen as attacking immigrants - and, by implication, the countries they come from.

Even though Brash's wife is an immigrant, National now intends to fill the gap vacated by Peters or, if he refuses to budge, force him to match National in ways which cause Labour to shudder with embarrassment.

However, the events of the last week have made things far more complicated for National. At a minimum, there will have to be a lapse of time before Brash mounts a serious attack on immigration policy.

And he may have to couch things even more carefully. This week has demonstrated one thing: the local Muslim community may be small, but the West is now on notice in the wider Muslim world as to how such communities are treated.

To ignite a debate about Muslim immigration may be more a case of pouring petrol on an already raging fire. It is an invitation to self-immolation.