Political review: Walking the tightrope of war

The war drums beat ever louder. But will the New Zealand military be whistling Yankee Doodle Dandy on the road to Baghdad?

At the end of a week in which - by the Prime Minister's assessment - the likelihood of war increased exponentially, the odds on New Zealand participating in an invasion of Iraq at once shortened and lengthened.

Shortened because Helen Clark confirmed New Zealand will join an (inevitably) American-led multinational coalition acting under United Nations auspices.

Lengthened because Clark believes the Americans will attack Iraq before the UN actually gets around to sanctioning military force.

Given the Government's constantly stated position that the use of force against Iraq must first be sanctioned by the UN, that rules New Zealand out.

Until this week, the Government's stance had been slightly ambiguous. Deliberately so.

From the onset of the crisis, it could have adopted one of four positions.

The first was to support a go-it-alone, unilateral strike on Iraq.

The second was to support the use of force if sanctioned by the UN - and to contribute militarily.

The third category was to support the use of a UN-sanctioned force - but not contribute.

The final option was to oppose the use of force regardless.

The official line was New Zealand would "consider" contributing to a UN-sanctioned force.

This wording allowed Clark to have a foot in both the second and third camps.

New Zealand might go to war.

It might not.

In effect, this allowed her to send one message to Washington and another to a war-sceptical New Zealand public.

That changed this week as Secretary of State Colin Powell and President Bush ratcheted up the likelihood of a US strike into almost certainty, and chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix delivered a more damning than expected report on Baghdad's failure to fully disclose its arms programmes.

Clark's position firmed, placing New Zealand squarely in the second category. New Zealand would contribute to an American-led operation conducted under UN auspices.

Moreover, she would not be criticising the United States, Britain or Australia if those countries acted unilaterally against Saddam Hussein.

New Zealand would instead "focus" on providing help for the postwar reconstruction of Iraq - an acceptance that cruise missiles will be raining on Baghdad whether they carry a UN licence or not.

Given that Clark has limited room for manoeuvre in balancing pressure from Washington against anti-war feeling at home, it was a significant shift in favour of the former.

With war looming, Clark argues, however, that it is time to inject some reality into the national debate. Should the Security Council sanction military action, then, in Clark's view, New Zealand must fulfil its UN obligations and offer assistance.

She has already talked to Defence Force chiefs about readying a medical team for deployment.

The National Party says the Blix report flushed Clark out and she had to start softening up the public to the possibility of such a mission.

National, however, sees no point in picking a fight over Iraq as both major parties are largely in agreement.

Instead, National, which argues New Zealand should work with the US and Britain to secure a UN mandate, plans to stay comparatively silent in hopeful anticipation of Clark's war-talk opening up cracks with her governing partner, Jim Anderton's Progressive Coalition, and within the wider Labour Party itself.

Clark is certainly doing all the talking. Even the effusive Foreign Minister Phil Goff has been muted to ensure there is no chance of mixed messages filtering back to Washington and Canberra or comments being misinterpreted back home.

It is all very tricky.

Clark intends to undertake another mission to the US to promote investment opportunities in New Zealand, during which she will want to push New Zealand's case for a free-trade agreement.

Not easy if New Zealand has not run up its flag as a member of the coalition of the willing.

Likewise, Clark will not want the March visit by her Australian counterpart, John Howard, dominated by differences over Iraq.

On the home front, however, Clark has to contend with intense suspicion of American motives, especially on her left, which could grow into a vocal anti-war lobby.

Even closer to home, the other Progressive Coalition MP, Matt Robson, is describing the Government's acceptance of war as "supine" and wants his party to press Clark to speak out.

Iraq does not look like a coalition-breaker.

Clark is confident Anderton shares her view that if the UN mandates action, New Zealand must follow.

The danger is that in steering a path through conflicting foreign and domestic pressures, the Prime Minister satisfies no one.

The answer is to appease everyone.

As insurance against American antagonism at New Zealand's absence from unilateral action, she dispatched a frigate to the Gulf to reconfirm New Zealand's commitment to the American-led "war on terrorism".

To stifle criticism back home, nothing more dangerous than a medical team will go to Iraq.

Overall, she has bulwarked her position by reaffirming New Zealand's adherence to multilateralism - the belief that the interests of small states are best protected by military action only being taken on the basis of collective agreement through the UN.

This is a point of principle with Clark - but also politically convenient.

So far, Clark has managed the policy dilemmas posed by Iraq with characteristic finesse.

But as the drift to war becomes a headlong rush, she must shudder at one thought, however.

Could this be her Vietnam?


Herald feature: Iraq