On the TilesLabour's David Parker on the state of foreign affairs
Last week, Opposition Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Hon David Parker gave a speech addressing the state of New Zealand's international relations as part of an event for Diplosphere.
Thomas chaired a Q&A after the event between Parker and the audience, and On the Tiles presents the full speech by Parker and that Q&A for this week's episode.
Hello, and welcome to on the Tiles. I'm your host Thomas Coglin. This week, We've got an interesting episode a little while ago. Last week in fact, Diplosphere, who run a lot of foreign policy events in Wellington. You can sign up on their website and and get notifications for their events, they invited me to host David Parker speech late. David Parkers obviously the foreign feer spokesperson for the Labor Party. In the Foreign and Feast portfolio, you techinically do a few big speeches every year which set out your views on foreign policy where you position yourself. It's a much more speech heavy portfolio than other portfolios. You invite members of the Diplomatic Corps and and and they kind of analyze your speech for for for hints at where you're positioning yourself in the foreign policy world. So this was was one of David Parker's big foreign policy speeches. It sets out a lot of his David Parker thought on tax on inequality, on social media, interestingly, and it packages that into a sort of foreign policy framework, which I think is very interesting because obviously inequality and social media don't necessarily fit within the Foreign appears portfolio. But David Park clearly thinks that they do. So after the speech you will hear me giving an interviewing David doing a quick Q and A, and then we take some questions from the audience. Thanks to Diplosphere for hosting the event, and thanks to David for a really interesting speech and a great Q and A. I thought next week we'll be back with a more conventional episode, but we thought we'd put this on the feed this week for your enjoyment. Thanks for listening.
Welcome to members of the Diplomatic Corps, fellow members of Parliament, the for the State, foreign Affairs experts, experts, trade tragics, ladies and gentlemen. Special thanks to diplas Fair for helping organize this event. Jenegoto gatoa Mexican poet Omeilo Aichis, wrote, there are centuries in which nothing happens, and years in which centuries pass. Feels like that now, large swaths of the eighty year old world Sorry, large swaths of the eighty year old rules based world order developed after World War II are in tatus. The dramatic withdrawal of the United States of America from the Paris Agreement, the World Health Organization the wholting of the most usaid programs are to say the least significant, the ineffective installed OECD work on the minimum taxation of multinational companies. The whirlwind of tariffs and counter tariffs which change almost daily. The war of words between neighbors in North America is unprecedented. Speed of the recent withdrawal of US support for institutions the US was pivotal in creating has shocked many. Europe already reeling from war in Ukraine and wider instability, is now deeply unsettled by recent statements and positions from the new US administration. The withdrawal of the US security Guarantee changed not just Europe, but geopolitics everywhere, including Asia and the Pacific. Tectonic shifts are rocking the world, which is markedly different from a decade ago. Multi letteral institutions have diminished an authority and effect. The slide of the United Nations and other important institutions like the World Trade Organization is obvious. The overuse of the UN's Security Council VETO and inconsistent application of international law has undermined the United Nations. Ineffectiveness feeds a cynicism and embolds disregard for international laws, treaties and institutions. The UN Secretary General was declared persona non grata in Israel. Many countries we identify with, like Canadian and European democracies, which relied on security alliances with one great power, are obviously rethinking their strategy. In stark contrast, the New Zealand government has spent the last eighteen months seeking closer alignment to the US, increasingly positioning New Zealand as being an opposition to China. We did not consider this a wise approach, but in any case, the shifting global landscape has rendered it unsound. The world is in a transition to a multi polar world, with heightened rivalry between the great powers. We could be in for a rough ride. What would a labor government do if we held the reins? How should New Zealand navigate the new world order? When should we speak out? What should when should we stay side so as not to provoke a response. I'll set out my thoughts on New Zealand's foreign affairs and defense and trade responses. How New Zealand would steer. New Zealand's independent foreign policy both transationally and I think importantly holistically. You will have seen that we share common views with the government on the likes of the Cook Islands, the militarization of the Pacific, and on Ukraine, but we differ strongly on Orcas and Gaza. This should not surprise given Labour's record, which we're proud to stand by. The Labour led government stayed out of the illegal invasion of Iraq after Ewan inspector hahns Blix found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. National said New Zealand should have joined that war, which made the Middle East less secure and undermine the rules based order. An earlier Labor government established New Zealand's nuclear free status, which National opposed. Labour sent peacekeeping reconstruction forces to Teamo Leste in Afghanistan. We provided money for arms to Ukraine via the NATO Fund, humanitarian aid, air transport in Europe, and New Zealand personnel to help train Ukrainian soldiers in the UK. These are all examples of the New Zealand Labor Party and Government applying our independent foreign policy making decisions according to our assessment of New Zealand's long term national interests. New Zealand is not non aligned and works closely with local minded countries which share our values. Australia is by far our most important relationship. We are internationalists, not isolationists, and a reliable supporter of international institutions. We understand communication between nations on sensitive issues benefits from diplomacy, whether via the United Nations or other multilateral for or bilaterally. We must be able to talk our differences. Sorry, we must be able to talk about it, differences between our country and others. Hegemony is taken too far if we cannot not. All statements can be in public, but some should be Sometimes, as now, there is a desire not to offend for fear of retaliation at times of sensitivity. The wisdom of former prime ministers on both sides of the Tasman can be helpful. They can say what needs to be said. Paul Keating is well known for his pithy comments. He recently described the fairer attributes of Australian society compare with US societal settings. He listed cradle to the grave healthcare for everyone, a sustainable retirement savings and superannuation system, an Australian economy which delivers substantial income increases for working people, high rates of Australian participation in education and effective gun control. Keating's purpose was to emphasize that we shouldn't be subservient nor sed moral authority to others, including the US, when choosing our approach to the world. Malcolm Turnbull has spoken out against US tariffs, noting their random use against Australia is not justified by a trade and balance. John Key has quietly but importantly emphasized that we should be careful not to ruin our relationship with China. Helen Clark described the pitfalls of aucust Pillar two and has been critical of loose language, resurrecting the defunct Ansis Pact, or using the Five Eyes Intelligent Network as a foreign affairs construct. She put it succinctly and well. New Zealand needs a clear eyed vision for courteous relationships with the US and China, close dialogue with the Pacific Rim, Pacific Island and European friends. Just because great power politics has shifted does not mean aye Tero should drop our long standing commitment to human rights, open trade, multi letteral institutions and the rights of small states. Obviously, we understand diplomacy is required, but that should not silence our ability to speak up and advocate what we believe in. We raise concerns about freedom and expression and the treatment of minorities in China, and about foreign interference. Some of this is behind closed doors, but some are very public. When the Chinese government, via its New Zealand embassy, criticized New Zealand media for reports alleging foreign interference in labour, we quickly and publicly stood up for the rights of the New Zealand media and criticized the Chinese intervention. The New Zealand Labour parties view is that if we don't stand up for what we believe in, we undermine our ability to do so in future. We also undermine our reputation for fairness and foreign affairs, built up over decades, which in turn undermines our influence. The same principles apply to our relationship with the US. We have acknowledged that the current govern it's desire not to unnecessarily provoke a response from the US when things are so volatile, but the government's seeming unwillingness to criticize anything pertaining to the US concerns US. Even when the US went so far as to sanction others for participation in international institutions we support. For example, New Zealand is a member of the International Criminal Court the US is not. That is their right, but for the US to sanction those assisting the ICC is wrong. Yet the current government chose not to stand with sixty nine other countries, including Switzerland, France, Canada, UK, Germany, Sweden, countries we share values with. This was an unfortunate break with New Zealand's proud tradition and independently standing for what we believe in. If we want countries to support the international rule of law, we should apply it consistently. Many countries think the West is inconsistent in its application of international law. In the Middle East, the sympathy most New Zealand has felt for Israel and those who settled there following the Holocaust has severely eroded. We condemned the killings and hostage taking by Hamas on seventeen October twenty twenty three, but seventy years after the nineteen sixty seven war, the blatant lack of rights of Palestinian people, the endless death and carnage in Gaza, and the lack of progress towards a two state solution or a single state alternative is intolerable. That's why we have said New Zealand should be assisting the International Court of Justice when considering whether the State of Israel is acting illegally, as we did in respect of Rwanda and Ukraine, and be clear that individuals and breach of international law should face consequences in the International Criminal Court and via in New Zealand sanctions regime. We have limited power and we can't always get our way. We try to use our values and reap mutation to influence better outcomes. We get the real politic of superpower. We are long term observers of superpower behavior. We are not surprised China has become more assertive as it has become a superpower. The UK used to be so with France and Spain and Esli back in the day. The USA has long used its power in Central America and beyond to influence outcomes, and is currently pressuring Panama to limit Chinese influence. Russia's mister Putin has a history of invading and destabilizing other countries. He's unlikely to stop, in part because his internal political position, including his life and retention of his billions may rely on continued international aggression. This is why we support consideration by the New Zealand government of support for multinational peacekeeping efforts in Ukraine AUCUST Pillar two. The New Zealand Labor Party does not support joining AUCUST Pillar two, which the prior US administration described as a China containment strategy. There was a change of language from the New Zealand government after the twenty twenty three election. New Zealand was described as a force multiplier for the US. Long redundant US language was resurrected. The government said there were strong reasons in favor of Pillar two. It appeared to us in Labour that the public were being softened up to join. We engage the public in a debate. This include well attended public events. Voices four and AUCUST Pillar two were active. The media delved into the issue. Neither interoperability nor access to technology rely upon ORCUS, two of the main arguments put in its favor. Cooperation with other countries in Asia like Japan, Indonesia, Singapore or South Korea does not rely upon ORCUS and could be hindered if these countries do not like the anti China ORCUST positioning. We concluded that Aucust Pilar two is not in New Zealand's interests. Our decision was not influenced by the election outcome or the new administration in the US, although for some this will be relevant. It's pleasing that senior, former National and act politicians have voiced their opposition to Interestingly, the rhetoric from the government has toned down on orcus that said language in India last week, instead of emphasizing the need to navigate a multi polar world, clumsily positioned in New Zealand is making binary choices between India and China. Being unsurprised that arising China is more assertive in its nearby region does not mean we are comfortable with all steps in the Pacific. Being situated at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, distant from neighbours has trade in other disadvantages, but that physical isolation and low levels of militarization in the vast Pacific are our greatest defensive attributes. Changes to that status quo concern us. We are perturbed by the recent agreements between the Cook Islands and China, labeled as a comprehensive strategic partnership. The agreement commits the Cook Islands to supporting China in multilateral forums, to support candidates during elections of various boards and committees. We agree with the current New Zealand government the process which preceded these commitments and their substance breach arrangements with the Cook Islands operate, which referred to in the Joint Centennial Declaration of two thousand and one. The Cook Islands are part of the realm of New Zealand. Cook Islanders carry New Zealand passports. The advantages this carries are the primary reason Cook Island's per capita GDP is a remarkable four times that of Fiji and fine times that of Togga and Samoa. Advantages include the ability to work in New Zealand and through New Zealand Australia, access to New Zealand health care and education, and superannuation portability Consultation. Obligations are not some perfunctory commitment of little importance. They are to ensure the Cook Island's government neither deliberately nor unwittingly takes foreign affairs steps deleterious to the Cook Islands or to New Zealand and to our relationship. It is of course open to Cook Islanders to change their relationship with New Zealand and give up their New Zealand passports. I doubt this will occur, as Cook Islanders know their standard of living would slump. Security issues for the Cook Islands could deteriorate over time too, in terms of seabed mining. It is within the sovereign power of the Cook Islands to pursue this if their government desires. New Zealand's experience with hundreds of millions of dollars of clean up costs left behind by overseas oil companies makes us very weary. Nevertheless, if the Cook Islands so well, New Zealand should assist them to manage the opportunities and risks, including with international participants. The prosperity and peacefulness of the Pacific Islands is of fundamental importance to New Zealand. The withdrawal of USA does not help New Zealand with partners like Australia must step up. We need to do more to help Pacific countries with affordable banking services, digital telecommunications, renewable electricity, sustainable resource utilization, especially them helping them maximize value from their eased fisheries and climate adaptation, better educational health and civil society outcomes are good for us. All labor mobility can also help, although care is needed given sensitivities for some about depopulation. New Zealand can help Pacific populations displaced by sea level rise. Reciprocity is the key to prosperity and the shared desire to avoid militarizer of the Pacific. What should we do next? Labour would like to discuss a Pacific peace zone with other Pacific island countries and surrounding superpowers. Phil Tweford will detail how this measures with our historic commitments to denuclearization and peace on another day. We are continuing to work on our labor on our Pacific priorities within LABOUR, but one thing is already clear. The decline in New Zealand government spending on soft and hard power must be reversed. The split between hard power expenditure on military personnel and hardware and soft power spending and development assistance and diplomacy will need to be worked through, but in our view increases to both are needed. A good principle to start with would be that every extra dollar spent on the military will be matched with an equivalent lift in our development aid to the Pacific. Today's not the day to defense procurement plan, but some high level statements are appropriate. I make three points. One, I should say one to wake people up, it's been a bit long one and coalition with others. Labour recently replaced the rions with pights and replace the Hercules and earlier Labor Government bought the current frigates which are now ending our near ending of near end of life. While will never be a substantial military power, we need naval vessels to respond to disasters in the Pacific and it is reasonable for our partners to expect they will have military capabilities. Right Honorable Chris Hipkins has acknowledged this requires cooperation across governments and election cycles. Two. Our most effective fighting force is our sas they should be well paid and well equipped. They like to deploy their and to polish their renowned skills. Consideration should be given to their deployment in Ukraine and supportive peace. Three. The war in Ukraine has proven quantities of small drones are important. Ukrainian drones have effectively controlled the Black Sea against an invading nuclear power. They are affordable. We are home to rocket Lab Hamilton Jet and very sophisticated drone companies delivering leading edge services to our world leading agricultural sector. Australia has drone capabilities and is ahead of US in some areas to use Sam Rogobin's analogy, and has booked the Echidneys strategy. In defense, we should be a prickly adversary. New Zealand should prioritize working with Australia on defensive marine and air drones and commit significant resources to the task. Our defense spokesperson Penn Hennada is engaged in these issues. On our turn to trade, A lack of cooperation and compromises block progress at the WOD over many years. This is not a dig at the US. Many US complaints about trade and balance has caused by existing tariff's, non trade barriers, states, subsidized over capacity, and dumping are valid. That said, other distortions and unfairness caused by tax arbitrage substantially benefit the US, especially in services like e commerce. So does the US dollar reserve currency status, which in effect outsources much of the cost of US government deficits and debts. Clearly, these are complex issues. As Trade minister during the last Trump administration. I had frequent dealings with then U S Trade representative Robert Letheiser.
I liked them.
He criticized private equity purchases of US manufacturing, outsourcing manufacturing to labour cost countries to shave off the last few percent of labor costs the owner's banked increases in capital values at the cost of US workers. He wrote about this in his book. He understood that the standards of living of working New Zealand working middle class citizens were essential to depending both the long term health of the US economy and democracy. Without a strong middle class, working, producing, saving, and consuming, the economy and society weakens. There are ironies the current system has worked for the US in terms of its GDP per capita, which is amongst the highest in the world. The fact is referred to by Paul Keating, together with the parallel concentration of wealth at the very top, are not primarily caused by other countries, but rather by the USA's internal settings. Unfairness in trade settings is not new for New Zealand. New Zealand and Australia both play much fairer in global trade than most other countries, but are still caught up in the Maelstrom. Sitting as we do at the bottom of the Pacific. New Zealand responded to protectionist measures in Europe and the Americas by building trade and foreign affairs relationships in Asia. Some of those strategies have been phenomenally successful for a little country the China FTA Ansfitter CPTPP, which includes Japan, Canada, Mexico and Chillery. Then we circled back to the UK and Europe. The current government has closed the golf deal in pursuing India. Labour's record in trade is second to none, So how do we protect our trade interests? Now? We're as well placed as any distant small country can be. Our diversity of sales channels will help us to minimize the first round effects of the trade war. Risks to compliance with trade agreements, and the second round effects in terms of the risks of an international economic slowdown are impossible to model accurately. I certainly do not recommend tit for tat tariffs. Where might a new order emerge? I'll mention one idea. Damon O'Connor and I have discussed it's at least possible that some of the barriers to trade between Europe and the US will soon be reduced for both security and economic reasons. I hope they are. What happens, then maybe CPTPP could then be a sensible choice for Europe. The UK is already in it. If this happens, CPTPP, which has already overtaken the stagnant WTO, could become the de facto international standard for trade. This possibility should be pursued by our excellent trade officials. I want to end by lifting our thoughts to the underlying drivers of polarization afflicting the world. Polarization has increased between and within countries. There are many causes. Some are geopolitical, some economic, and some technological, Like the role social media plays and carrying lies misinformation, violence and death threats without consequence for those lying or those profiting from them. People feel less secure. Whatever the cause, this has political, economic, social, and security implications. Many foreign affairs responses are transactional, but the big shifts post World War II were holistic. There was a broad acceptance that the extremes of fascism, revolution and wars had been caused by depressions and inequality, in turn partly caused by unaffordable reparations. The New World Order after World War II was intended to enable all countries to succeed by encouraging international trade, access to resources, better health, and international cooperation. The decades that followed saw enormous progress in most parts of the world, with complementary progressive measures within countries assisting to lift outcomes for billions of people. Now the underlying consensus has frayed to the point of dysfunction. I believe the current turmoil will need a holistic response, and for that to be agreed a substantial subset of the international community. We'll need to find common ground about the main underlying causes of current worrisome trends. I've reached the stage of career that I know what I believe to be important, and for me, there are two main themes. First I've already touched on is gross wealth inequality, especially when this becomes intergenerational and sections of the population stagnate. This drives instability. I won't say more about that in this speech, but history shows time and again that gross inequality ends in tears. The second is the breakdown of trust, which happens when lies and misinformation prevail over facts. A cornerstone of the emergence of the nation state and the spread of liberal democracy was the Enlightenment. There are rational facts, there are truths and untruths. The scourge of irresponsible social media, megular maniacal tax avoiding tech barons and irresponsible Internet service providers is on my list of the importance. I have a view that we in the West have made a fundamental error in providing what is in effect and exclusion of liability for third party content. We have wrongly taken upon the shoulders of government the burden of regulating against what is harmful. I doubt this will ever work in practice. It also puts the burden on the harm citizen or government agencies to respond after harm is cause. The exclusion of liability was conferred when providers were more akin to a postal service, which has no liability for the content of a letter. Those providers morphed into publishers, yet are protected from the legal remedies which apply to the traditional media they undermine. This mistake is at the core of the problem. I'm convinced it is better to remove the exclusion of liability excluding those selling a harmful prople product to liability for the ordinary people that their products harm and it is a harmful product, be it damage to young people, foreign interference, defamation, theft of other people's content, the enabling of small but extreme groups of evildoers who find each other online, online sexual abuse, online streaming of derorism, or the regular unpunished threats of death and injury. Lies and information abound. A recent senior banker recently complained to me that the Internet investment scams are more common the legitimate products, and that the Internet companies refuse to control them. Worse, they take advertising revenue from the services they provide to the fraudsters. Much of this harm is from anonymous sources, were some deliberately aimed at demining our democratic way of life and freedoms, enabling private remedies for our citizens against those profiting from selling those harmful products, incruding through low cost for such as disputes tribournal a small claims court seems to me to be proper. Leave it to the courts to work out the balance between freedom of expression and the duty not to sell a harmful product. There are ways to introduce safeguards, such as the liability limits or safe arbors for media content or for platforms that take up for active steps to prevent scams, but allowing the current situation to continue, where the burden falls almost entirely on individuals while social media giants profit is untenable. The seth Jest approach does not make the government a sensor, and better avoids the risks of state suppression of freedom expression. Left unchecked, the current ills will be made worse by those malevolently using AI to make the harms they are already causing worse. Left unchecked, the oligarch owners of these platforms will increasingly use them for their own political ends, as we already see from some platforms. Fixing this would not ruin the Internet. Point to point communications would still be protected, email commerce would endure, massive quantities of information will remain. I feel fair that if this is not addressed, polarization and dema magoggery will prevail, but I'm by nature an optimist. Opportunities arise from adversity. Digital services taxes sprouted at the end of the last Trump presidency, and I predict pressure for change will continue to mount because so many people in the world are fed up with these selfish tech giants. We should work with other countries to fix this. The holistic changes after World War II had the betterment of people at their heart. Labour under then Prime Minister Peter Savage helped ensure the United Nations apply to human rights approach for the benefit of people in countries large and small. New Zealand now needs a clear eyed vision for courteous relations with the US and China, close dialogue with the Pacific, Pacific Island and European friends. Everyone in this room has a role to play. It has never been more important to stand up for New Zealand's independent foreign policy and we all should thank you.
Thanks for that, David. I think you're quite right. We do seem to be living in an era of accelerated time. I was reminded somehow that John Key once led to Helen Clark by saying that she led a workman government in an iPod age in two thousand and seven. It was that was deemed to be very funny. It hasn't. It hasn't been a decade since john Key actually last stepped onto this very stage. And yet we learned this week that military strikes are being coordinated via group chat on iPhone apps and celebrated by a string of emojis.
The Keystone Cops.
And then celebrated by a by a string of emojis and that. So thank you for thank you for your comments around around change and around around tech. One of the innovations I thought, and what you said was how interconnected foreign affairs and domestic policy is. Now we we see you your remarks about Paul Keating's criticism of US domestic policy and the fact that US domestic policy settings having have an impact on US foreign policy, and and and your remarks around tech regulation and the fact that the regulational lack of regulation of large US tech companies is having an impact both in foreign affairs and in other countries domestic policies. So I think your your your problem diagnosis is really is really astute there. But but one of the challenges clearly is that while these are domestic US problems that are having an impact in foreign affairs and in our domestic policy, our tools for dealing with them are very much anchored in the twentieth century. My question, I guess is what ability does a New Zealand foreign policy and in New Zealand's foreign policy settings, what ability do we have to have some control over our own over our own affairs, lead alone foreign affairs when the settings that dictate them, as you quite rightly say, are American foreign policy settings, but also American domestic policy, the settings we haven't ventured in the past.
Look, I think the individual nation state still has a huge amount of power actually to change the future. Let's take let's take immigration. I think there's now increasing agreement, even in parts of Europe where these issues have been difficult, that the nation state has the right to control its own borders in respective population flows. And we can have different views as to how many exceptions should be allowed by a government for humanitarian immigration or economic migration. But there's I think now an understanding, at least in this part of the world, that the nation state has the right to control its borders. The nation state also has sovereignty and respect of some of these other issues. Now to cure them, like to cure the international flows of people that are coming out of some disrupted parts of the world, international cooperation is needed beyond border. But the power of countries to make good decisions internally, including with affect things that affect external influences, remains real. In respect of the social media issue, I'm actually not calling for regulation. I'm actually calling for removal of the exclusion of liability. It's just about the only thing you need to do, and we can do that. Now. Could we do that alone? We could do that with other countries. You know. I met with Baroness Bidron, Baroness Bebn Kidron in the UK recently. She gave up successful career as a film director to go to the cross benches in the House of Lords and her gig is protecting young people from harm on social media and she's had some success in agreeing codes. And I went to see her because I said to her, it's not going to work. She essentially agreed, and then she said, you know, David, I've given up my career to do what is good for people, and I get death threats.
I wanted to pull together a few other strengths of your speech. You offered a critique of the Coalition's foreign policy, the brutal real politique when it comes to Israel in the United States and sticking up for New Zealand stance on the I double C when it comes to China. The Coalition. I think one of the interesting things about the Coalition is that It's often criticized as a fourth term key English government. But one area where where that is clearly not true is the way it waits the benefit the trade benefits of the China relationship with the security benefits of the U. S relationship. It seems to be rebalancing or readjusting those seatings and those two relationships quite significantly. I was wondering whether whether you could sort of whether you could outline what you think their foreign policy is and and the waves in which it's different from the governments it's come after.
I think it is a question of weight, as you say, and I think you are correct to observe that there has been a change of weight. It's not the status quo being caring forward. There has been a deliberate change of weight, and history, even though it's only a year and a half into their term, already shows they're on the wrong side of that decision making Framely.
Could you describe Lave that the specific peace zone that you alluded to said Fil five produce here will will be putting some announcement or some meat on the bones of that in the future.
Well, I think in order to make progress in an honor sues you sometimes just have to have a new construct to work around. The phrase specific peace zone didn't come from me, It was appropriated by me from someone else. It was actually Arna that mentioned that she probably stole it from someone else too. But you know, it's a nice fresh language, and I think it really catches something that most specific countries would want. We've already got treaties relating to non nuclearization of the Pacific. You can see that that I think that development of the Pacific is an important part of achieving that peaceful outcome and the continuation of relative demilitarization of the area. So I thought in my colleagues and the Labor Party thought it's a good thing to give it, give it a name, and use it as a as a project to organize around.
So it takes forward the existing specific demilitarization and I guess reemphasizes it, restrengthens that give it gives it a unified kind of.
It does, but it should also be seen in concert with what I said about assistance into the Pacific to allow them to achieve their development objectives. I thought what I've said in respect of Cook Islands is strong language. But you'll see also there that in respect of the deep sea mining issues which seem to be important to the Cook Islands, that we're actually acknowledging their development aspirations. You know. To be honest, I don't think there's many people in New Zealand want to see deep sea mining happen off the Cook Islands, and I'm certainly not a proponent of it, But if that is their choice, we should be helping them do it, and we should be helping them minimize the risks so as to achieve development outcomes. And that goes for every other part of the Pacific, and those areas of development that I listed the essentials to the development of every part of the Pacific Islands, and that is essentially the key to New Zealand, Australian and Japanese and other influence in the Pacific, which is the best way to avoid its militarization.
You mentioned the I'm glad you brought up the Cooks this year. The coalition aims to, I guess, reset relations with the Cooks after what hapen earlier this year. I think that King to use these as the sixtieth anniversary of Cock Island self government as an opportunity to reset those relations and perhaps assure new declaration along the lines I think of the two thousand and one declaration from the Clerk government, with a view to probably better codifying these these consultation aspects of the relationship that teens have failed this year. Would you support that? Well? How would you? How would you? How would you be keen I suppose yourself to reset those relations.
If you were to do that, you know, we're very supportive of that, and we also reject suggestions that are made that this is some personality difficulty between the right Honorable Winston Peters and leaders of the Cook Islands and now I and many of my other colleagues, and we have just about all of the Pacific are MP's in Parliament and the Labor Party. We travel periodically with the with right on with Winston Peters to the Pacific. We see how he operates. He is polite, he is professional, so are trade officials. They're not paternalistic. They endeavor to do the right thing. Now, I'm sure we make mistakes at time, but the idea that there is some sort of personality or process mistake by the Minister of Foreign Affairs is something that we reject. We back him in this and so we wish him success in finding a route through.
I'm just gonna look at my timekeepers time to open to awesome. I keep an eye on the time. So look, I'm I'd like to open to the floor for questions. I have to remind everyone questions please, not statements. Statements will get you ejected from the group. Chat up the back and you were first. We've got some roving microhones or okay, just as.
Well, mister Parker.
I'm wondering if you would like to review your position of Ukraine and blaming Russia's President Putent, because there is a remarkable lot of evidence coming from sources that you can't really disagree with. They know a lot about it from it in America that the war in Ukraine was thoroughly provoked by the United States.
And several EU countries.
First bar with the coup in Ukraine, which US diplomats organized. There's a famous comment coming from the foremost so called US diplomat, Victorian new Land, say fuck the EU.
This was because.
They had a disagreement with some EU country in France about who should take over the government that they were displacing through a violent Now, this is all very well documented, yet it is not within the purview of the government. I'm very so worry about that because it is something that the Labor government should be aware now, Jeffrey.
Sachs is one of.
Very long question answer that, just.
Would I care to review the position that the Labor government and the current government takes with just about the whole of the world to find that it was a cross border aggression by Russia that invaded Ukraine. No, we're going to have to just agree to disagree on that one. We we don't agree with that.
How are you feeling just on that? About New Zealand's involvement with the i P four That's been a long standing thing, but it you know, it's it's it seems to be that that grouping and the way that New Zealand relates to NATO, it seems to have been of elevated importance since the invasion of Ukraine.
Look, I was talking to someone from a number of people from Europe recently about the idea that NATO would have some presence in the in the Indo Pacific. They because I was a little taken a bag that given that NATO doesn't seem to be able to I quite get what it needs in Europe, that it might spread its wings to save us in the South Pacific. To be honest, they said it was laughable and that it was a a thing that was being done to plicate others.
Interesting another, I'm going on the front.
There was a yes, yes, I need a microphone, jolly good, okay. In the introductory marks from Paris, the abandonment of the climate crisis was raised. I was somewhat dismayed that you, sir, did not mention the climate crisis at all in your address, which maybe says says it all.
You described yourself as an optimist.
How how now are you optimistic about the future of.
Man Hi, given that, whereas all of the problems you raise are very serious, if we don't fix the climate crisis, then we can't fix any of those.
That's probably a fair criticism of my speech. I did mention sea level rise and they need to repopulate people in the Pacific, which is a terrible thing, given that if that future and folds as it is, civilizations in the Pacific will be lost. So I absolutely agree with you. You're quite right to despair at the poor international negotiations and respect of climate. I would say it's not just this year. I've been a bit surprised that the unf Triple C has chosen to base some of the recent conference conferences and areas that are to be promoting fossil fuels in a way that the world cannot sustain if we're to overcome the climate crisis.
On that. I was at Winston Peter's State of the Nation speech in christ Church over the weekend. Obviously he was wearing his New Zealand first hat at the time, but he is Even after David Seymour has rolled back some of his criticism of the Paris Agreement in New Zealand's involvement in it, he is still very critical of the Paris Agreement and what it's doing to New Zealand's economy. Not saying I don't think that he will he would like to see New Zealand withdraw and he's not saying that, but he's still incredibly critical of it. Do you think his party position and is undermining his standing as foreim and is still with that criticism.
Look a year and a half and it feels like people are already electioneering. We've got their missions trading scheme because Whinston Peter's voted for it, so that imperfect, though an instrument, has become.
So campaigning and campaigning and purchasing in governing and pros even when campaigns are lasting the whole three year election cycle and any other questions, will.
Labor commit to developing a unilateral sanctions regime in government and sanctioning.
The Israeli governments we have in respect of the Israeli situation, whether we will have a broader autonomous sanction regimes not a decision that we've finally taken.
On on that. So the the sanction reference in your speech, that is because the now I'm really venturing beyond my knowledge of international law, which is very limited year. But the the the the the New Zealand's being a party to the I Double c allows us to implement sanctions in relation to people in breach of their What.
What we've said in respective of the Gaza and West Bank situation of the occupied territories is that we agree with the bill that Greens are brought forward, which is essentially repetition of the sanctions regime that we've already got on the books for Russia.
Right, would it make sense to use that as a basis for an autonomous sanctions regime.
More broaden well, I think that legislation probably was based on the autonomous sanctions legislation that had already been drafted I think originally under Jerry Brownlee under the last National government.
Thank you, honorable David Bucker.
It was a fairly sumon Algeri rulla from Fiji think tank and arch of Malalynesians scholars and gratuates. Just a question, two questions short, one on New Zealand's position on Israel's being taken to sec and the other is the checkbook diplomacy that's happening within the Pacific Islands in Aungineer.
Firstly, on a lot of our irelands are Christian.
Based and so they're voted in favor of Israel.
So it shifted from New Zealand's position. How would New Zealand scateadize there to continue with the with other matters when they divergence in that position? And the second question is that checkbook and cultural diplomacy is quite what the people in the Alids are going before.
Now, what's your comment in respect of the ICJ issue? There is a proceeding before the ICJ concerning the War Gaza, where the allegation is being made that the State of Israel is in breach of the Convention against Genocide. The Convention against Genocide also condition or tries to stop not just the absolute decimation of the people, but also language and actions that are on that spectrum. And we have said that New Zealand, as a member of the ICJ, should intervene in that litigation. That's the legal phrase that's used in order to assist the court, not to gather facts. We haven't got a fact raise, effect, proving or investigative role, but we do well understand the Convention because New Zealand on a number of occasions has intervened in prior ICJ considerations of the Convention, and so we think New Zealand should be there to assist the Court in respect of the debt, diplomacy and other issues in the Pacific. I think we have to be a bit careful not to demonize others. I do think that some of the debt left behind for some infrastructure in the likes of Tonga is proving to be a long term problem for Tonga, but I haven't seen recent evidence of that problem getting worse and it could be that some other countries have heard those messages and are not pursuing that debt diplomacy in the same way. It is of course true that there is strategic competition influence influence within the Pacific, and I've already outlined how we would address that.
We've got time for one more question than really lived at the side of the room.
Yeah, in your speech, you've made reference to Israel and the occupied territories and the need to pursue international or either through a two steps solution or a one state alternative you touched on. I found that interesting that my question to you is would there be a basis under international law for something like No.
What I was really saying, we in the Labor Party still consider that the two state solution is desirable. It's hard to see a one state solution working. But on the other hand, I was really saying that if you don't have a two state solution, you can't deprive people who live in effectively one country, if it's effectively been taken over by Israel, you can't deprive them of all of the rights that other citizens have. I wasn't advocating for an outcome. I was observing that no progress has been made in a two state solution and in the meantime people have got no rights under the current status quo.
Run out well, thank you very much for your questions. We've run out of times. Thank you very much David for answering them, and I'm heading over to Mahan now in Paris.
Thank you very much to all of you for joining us this morning. An important takeaway is that all foreign policy starts at home. That resonates strongly with develop fair. A special thank you again to Honorable David Parker for his insights and balance the speech, to Thomas for leading a thought well an engaging conversation. Also to David Parker's office, a B team, deplosas youth leaders and the helpers from Victoria International Leadership Program. If you would like to keep thinking with us, follow Deplo sware on our subseat platform Stack, where we continue our independent conversations on foreign affairs, duo politics, and global change. Enjoys the rest of the day and take off.
Thank you. That was on the tiles for another week. Thanks to Diblosphere for hosting that event and forgiving us the audio so that we could share it on our podcast platform. Ethan Stills as always as the producer, and you can listen to us on our Heart radio or wherever you get your podcasts. We'll be back next week with more on the tiles. Thank you very much for listening.
