I had always thought of John Key as more Neil Diamond than John Lennon, but after declaring “War is Over”, there might be some newfound peacenik credentials hidden in there. At the end of a terrible fortnight for the Nats, this foreign policy gaffe is in many ways the worst offence. It shows in one moment of glibness how ill-prepared John Key is to lead New Zealand, and why the National Party is so determined to neutralise (or to use the favourite phrase of the Hollow Men, innoculate) foreign policy as an issue.

While it is conventional wisdom that foreign policy does not decide elections, it is an important issue for New Zealand and New Zealanders, and significantly it is an area where a leader’s character is often tested. Making calls on committing troops, resolving diplomatic disputes or taking positions in global negotiations are critical decisions. How you articulate your view is also important.  New Zealand gets precious few chances to influence world events.  It is no place for glibness or shallow populism.

National’s foreign policy discussion document released this week is a skate over some critical issues, with the fingerprints of the ‘master’ strategist Murray McCully all over it. McCully knows, as the strategist for the last failed National leader, how bad foreign affairs was for National in 2005.  Don Brash could not shake concerns about Iraq or nuclear ships, and in turn his response to those concerns made him look evasive.

Thus National have unilaterally declared a bipartisan consensus on foreign policy in the hope that no one will raise it in election year.  The notion of some consistency in our foreign policy is good, as it is that National have decided to adopt much of Labour’s foreign policy. However the discussion document leaves me with questions as to whether this actually is the basis of a bipartisan consensus.  

Where is any reference to disarmament, long a cornerstone of Labour’s foreign policy, and something for which our work internationally is highly respected? Is National’s committment to the nuclear free legislation based on anything more than fear of public backlash? 

The committment to multilateralism, another cornerstone of Labour’s foreign policy, is very light in National’s document. The phrase United Nations is not mentioned in the section of the document on multilateralism.  The deep suspicion of the institution will not go away from National, particularly with sceptics like John Hayes on board.

There is also a patronising tone to the references to the Pacific. Once again while it is welcome that National now see the Pacific as our number one priority, the description of it as a our ‘backyard’ misses the point.  It is not our backyard, it is the environment and context in which we live.  We are part of the Pacific, and until that is understood by National their policy responses will be off the mark.  Fiji does not get a mention in the document. Nor any specific country in the Pacific.   Once again, lightweight.

The doucment includes some populist nonsense about how MFAT has to be more efficient, including the need, in Asia, for representatives to be more focused in places that matter to us.  I am not sure what posts are being targeted here, but it is silly to set your posts on the basis of a country that might be flavour of the month.

We can be rightly proud of our foreign policy achievements and stance under Labour, and of the way we continue to present ourselves around the globe. This pride is built on a principled policy of independence within an interdependent world. The PMs speech at the Oxford Union this week spells this out.

Overall I am simply not convinced by National’s discussion document.  It stinks to me of a document designed for the political purpose of neutralising a difficult area of policy than any great contribution to New Zealand’s future, and by what it does not say gives lie to their committment to a bipartisan approach.