Written By:
- Date published:
9:07 am, April 8th, 2026 - 16 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, Donald Trump, International, israel, nicola willis, us politics, vanushi walters, Vanushi Walters, war -
Tags:
If you did not catch the recent interview of Vanushi Walters on Q&A can I urge you to watch it?
Her presentation of some pretty complex International Relations nuances I thought was outstanding.
The first three comments on Youtube summarised the interview well.
It was the most accomplished performance by a Foreign Affairs spokesperson that I have seen since Helen Clark.
These were for me the highlights:
From my point of view, New Zealand needs to be both principled and pragmatic, but we also need to be consistent in our foreign policy. And what that means is regardless of who’s breaching human rights or breaching the rule of law, we need to be able to call that out.
About the Government’s response to the Iranian conflict and calls for New Zealand to sign up to a joint statement with the US she said:
I think the most important thing first is that the international rules-based order matters. No one is above it. And when Israel and the US invaded Iran, the government should have called that out as a breach of the UN Charter. They didn’t. And I think in the recent statement that we’ve seen over just the last week, I mean, there are things we agree with in that statement. So we agree with the call that Iran has essentially breached international law by targeting commercial shipping vessels. The UN has said that as well. We agree for the call to a return to the international rules-based order. But the statement also says this. It says that New Zealand is ready to contribute to securing the strait. Now, that’s a very broad statement, and I don’t think we know, as New Zealanders, what that means.
She then had the chance to express the party’s position in the urgent debate in Parliament last Tuesday requested by her to debate the Government’s decision to sign up to the collective statement proposed by the US to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
She attacked the Government’s decision to sign up to the US request and said this:
[T]he Government have made a clear promise in this statement that puts New Zealand at risk in expressing New Zealand’s readiness to assist in opening the Strait of Hormuz. This promise is one that feeds expectation on the global stage, in the context of the most serious of events: a war.
The Prime Minister himself said yesterday that this was a decision made without discussion nor debate. It was also made without briefings to the Opposition, and it appears to have been made without advice about international law nor overreaching security and cost considerations. Much like the statement the Prime Minister made several weeks ago now, in terms of any action being justified in Iran, it appears that the Prime Minister is now trying to walk this statement back—just a little—but here’s the problem: the world has already taken note because the words of the statement are clear.
And if we look at US commentary, that’s what we’re hearing. With NATO Secretary Mark Rutte speaking about countries, including New Zealand, saying that countries are working, essentially, to implement Trump’s vision. That’s present tense. We’re now under a spectre of expectation. This is a further expression of the unprincipled, irresponsible, and unclear foreign policy we’ve seen expressed by the Government in recent months.
…
The Government has now placed New Zealanders in a lose-lose situation. The expectation that we are working with the [US] on the issues with the Strait carries with it serious implications for our potential complicity in breaches of international law, with the associated costs and risks of committing Defence personnel and Defence resources. A promise made on the global stage and then reneged on also has consequences. This clearly hasn’t been well-thought-through, if thought through at all.
… [T]he war began with the US and Israel breaching the UN Charter. If the US wants New Zealand to support a mission where vessels are accompanied through the Strait without the consent of Iran, they will also need to put boots on the ground on the coast. The choke point is about 34 kilometres wide, so troops would need to eliminate drone and missile risks on land. In this scenario, it could be argued that a supporting force is complicit in continuing a breach of the UN Charter.
Her speech was a textbook example of carefully crafted words to create a clear message.
Winston Peters chose to respond by attacking her in Parliament and talked about “mindless moral posturing and vacuous virtue signalling”. Judith Collins criticised her for not pronouncing an American Cabinet Minister’s name correctly. Such was the quality of the response.
For the life of me I can’t see how a Labour NZ First coalition will work. Peters is a dinosaur who has held the country back for far too long. Giving a MAGA supporting culture battle formentor a further responsible position would frankly be a joke.
As pointed out by Phil Twyford the text of the statement includes this:
We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.”
Can you imagine how Trump would respond if we did not contribute to a force to open up the strait no matter what the circumstances? His understanding of “appropriate” is “anything goes”.
Walters is right. We should keep out of this. Helen Clark would have stayed well away.
And yesterday Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis were asked about Trump’s recent statement where he said “Tuesday will be Power Plant day and Bridge day all wrapped up into one. Open the Fuckin’ strait you crazy bastards or you will be living in hell”.
Willis in response said “[w]e want to see all parties acting with restraint, moving toward a negotiated solution so the crisis can end”.
Luxon said Trump’s statement was “unhelpful” and that “[i]t is critical that the US and Iran find a way to de-escalate”. Which is funny really. Iran is the country that was attacked during negotiations to secure exactly what Trump claimed he was seeking.
Neither of them had the courage to describe Trump’s statement in the way it should have been described, a blatant threat to commit war crimes against Iranian civilians just so he can have his way.
And this is why any sort of tacit support for Trump’s actions is so dangerous and so damaging.
Walters is right.
Aotearoa New Zealand should stay out of any agreement whereby it provides even tacit support for the US commission of war crimes. Trump should not be appeased.
And all countries should unite and stand against Trump. That way maybe enough Americans will grow a backbone and invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump from office.
Should Trump go nuclear on Iran, even if it’s via Israel, I do not expect this government to condemn it.
I've been trying to do a DuckDuckGo search for info on the impact of the US/Israel nuking Iran.
Most of the responses assume I was asking about a strike on an Iranian nuclear facility. And they, including the DDG AI kept focusing on the impact on Iran.
A statement allegedly by the Iranian foreign minister says a hit on an Iranian nuclear facility
France24 says Trump's latest rhetoric does not mean the US would use the nuclear option, and that scenario is highly unlikely based on Whitehouse responses.
The TrendMask website (whatever that is) claims that,
Then goes on to be a bit more specific about each factor.
My pick would be "dirty bombs" everywhere they can set 'em off. Not nukes: just conventional bombs filled with radioactive materials. Only component needing to be imported would be the radioactive matter. Likely to cause massive and often ongoing disruption wherever they're deployed.
A lot of the better-known modelling work has focused on large-scale exchanges between nuclear powers, or at least regional wars involving multiple weapons, rather than the limited use of a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear state. That makes precise forecasting difficult.
But the likely human, environmental, economic, and political consequences would still be catastrophic for Iran and the wider region, not only because of possible radioactive contamination, but because it would introduce enormous uncertainty, escalation risk, and the terrifying prospect of nuclear use becoming thinkable again.
Iran, and many Gulf states, are acutely vulnerable to water disruption. Even one weapon could be enough to put millions at risk if fallout or radiological contamination entered river systems, affected the Zagros snowpack, polluted coastal waters, or seeped into aquifers.
SG Rutte should have said nothing, even if the IP4 are NATO partners.
The group formed to be an party independent of the war.
His job was to say, NATO was a defensive alliance and was not a party to the war.
He tried to fudge that to maintain his own relationship with POTUS (his new Amsterdam daddy figure).
Peters could have clarified matters, but had a meeting with Rubio, to pose as Brown's South Pacific cousin bro hero.
Now RNZ is reporting that Trump has agreed to a 2 week ceasefire on Iran.
"Trump agrees to two-week ceasefire with Iran, subject to Strait of Hormuz opening"
I guess that all depends on if US and Israel really do respect the ceasefire and do sincerely mean to complete negotiations.
Or maybe it's a Trump backdown.
I went to RNZ to read this article about Peters asking Rubio for a de-escalation of the conflict. Was Peters notified that the Trump regime was going to announce a ceasefire?
Or it was more sharemarket manipulation. And it's going to be repeated if the trick still works. Maybe Trump is best understood as primarily being a crook.
A worthwhile view thankyou Mickey.
It's a measure of the height of public discourse that I am grateful for people who can speak in whole paragraphs.
Really appreciate her emphasis on consistency in New Zealand positions, as well as calling out historic NZ Labour leaders who for a more positive and peaseceful world.
Also great to hear her underscoring that New Zealand has no option but to build and rebuild a rules based order, and that it will always be in our interests.
I think Vanushi Walters is basically right that New Zealand needs a foreign policy that is principled, pragmatic, and consistent. If we care about international law, we need to apply that standard consistently, not selectively. And I think she’s also right to be cautious about broad statements that could create expectations of New Zealand involvement without clear public debate.
Where I’d be a bit more careful is in how far we push some of the conclusions. It’s fair to say the our current government’s position looks muddled, overly deferential, or insufficiently clear on international law.
But once we start expanding the argument into broader moral framing about the US, Israel, or global politics, we risk losing some of the clarity and practical focus that makes her position something a future Labour-led government could realistically adopt.
This feels like a more viable, practical articulation of foreign policy than we often hear on the left.
"Principled, pragmatic and consistent"
I doubt that all three are simultaneously possible – or at least, simultaneously possible in equal measure. It might be a hierarchy: if so, my sense is that traditionally NZ foreign policy has placed pragmatism (trade etc.) first, principle (international law etc.) second, and has not worried too much if that ranking sounds incoherent at times (consistency third). I'm not convinced that any country can do anything else, unless it is the USA.
I think in the end the perception of any difference in approach may come down largely to tone – it is possible to sound either despicably craven or courageously dignified even when the meaning of the words uttered is on closer examination much the same. Being smart and rhetorically accomplished like Vanushi Walters clearly helps, whereas Mr Luxon lacks those gifts.
Touche. It helps when your messenger can actually communicate a position coherently, rather than retreating into corporate jargon and empty phraseology.
Diplomacy has its own boilerplate, sure. But there’s usually a meaning underneath it you can actually parse: assuming the messenger has the nuance to carry it.
…. and the recipient is able to pick up on those nuances.
Able and willing
New Zealand does have an independent foreign policy.
The Finance Minister's policy is independent from the Foreign Minister. The Foreign Minister's policy is independent from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's policy is independent from reality.
They're all independent from each other.
(if anyone thinks that's an exaggeration, please try and find the government's actual position from their statements below …)
'Alarming for whole world': Willis reacts to Trump Iran threat | RNZ News
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/04/08/trump-agrees-to-two-week-ceasefire-conditional-on-iran-restoring-oil-flow/
The Government’s position always has been quite clear from what it has and has not stated. Mind you, he was in Washington DC, at the epicentre of Epic Fury.
Of course…if we had the guts to go neutral and pull out of five eyes and the other warmonger assets the U.S have…as we should have in 2003, we wouldn't have to be reduced to corporate non-speak on our country. Clark should have gone the whole way and swedened them. sorry guys…the real threat on this planet have been revealed (many on here always knew since oct1962) not china or putin or someother brainwashed narrative. The BS claim that their navy "protects trade routes" has also been fully revealed…just another sea based threat to pursue U.S Interests…see venezuela… just like NATO is a "defensive alliance" LOL. Only true neutrality will see us actually open our eyes to who threatens who. Money on "defense"..lets actually define what the threat is…then evaluate the spending. meanwhile..Luxon sends another $$$ of my taxpayer money to Zelensky for another Golden toilet in his Polish bunker. (ok ..that last sentence is showing my frustration)