Written By:
- Date published:
1:58 pm, May 1st, 2026 - 6 comments
Categories: China, Christopher Luxon, coalition of chaos, Diplomacy, election 2026, International, Iran, israel, law, military, Peace, Peace, Teanau Tuiono, trade, us politics, Vanushi Walters, war, winston peters -
Tags:
When Ambassador Chen Mingming sent Zhang Wei in 2005 to ask me whether Winston Peters would follow government policy, I said I didn’t know but would ask. I did, and he did.
I was the Labour Party Secretary at the time. We had been in government for two terms under Helen Clark who had negotiated the very successful first free trade agreement with China. We had just unexpectedly won a third term in government and Winston Peters had been appointed as Foreign Minister outside cabinet.
Our Party to Party relationships were also good as the government had hosted a number of Chinese Standing Committee members, as a result of which we were invited to send a delegation to Beijing. We also received CPC delegations at a number of our conferences.
I spoke to Phil Goff who had been our Foreign Minister in the previous terms, and he assured me that Peters would follow government policy and I so replied to Zhang Wei. Helen Clark was also Prime Minister so it was no contest and no question – he did.
So it was disappointing to hear Winston Peters yesterday add insult to obfuscation when under questioning from Vanushi Walters and Teanau Tuiono about whether he or Prime Minister Luxon ran our foreign policy, he said that he did. He then asked rhetorically if Labour’s policy was run by Helen Clark and Phil Goff. He thought that was an insult.
Peters was at his patronising worst, but that didn’t unsettle Vanushi’s persistence. Ironically and perhaps perceptively, at one stage Speaker Gerry Brownlee referred to her as the Honourable Vanushi Walters! Of course she will be getting advice from Helen and Phil and thank the Lord for that.
When it comes to the difference between the Ministers Prime and Foreign on how to treat the unprovoked attack by Israel and the United States on Iran, Peters’ stance is only marginally less grovelling than Luxon’s. He wants to wait for “reasons”, and states that international law only counts when it is enforced. Trump and Rubio have made their reasons for going to war absolutely clear, and they speak nonsense. International law is being enforced here by Iran with considerable success it would seem.
This unjustified war is causing immense damage all around the world. Regardless of who thinks they are running it, our government’s leadership on the issue is appallingly bad.
Perhaps that is because it’s really just about a storm in a teacup, not about who is in charge of foreign policy in relation to unjustified war but about who will lead the next right-wing government? Perhaps vanity has finally got the better of Winston, and he’s become another old man dreaming dreams?
Post Biden and Trump, the last thing we need.
Easy to forget Labour are the pathfinder in NZ foreign policy for 90 years now.
I look on the Clark years in wonder and happiness.
I very much doubt Clark's government would have allowed the depth of interdependence and interoperability with the Australian+US military while now relying so deeply in our economy with China.
Peters is a carbuncle.
Kinda like a drunk (on power) uncle.
No more a carbuncle than Jones.
It is attacking nations that have not attacked it.
It's armed proxy in Lebanon is acting without the consent of its government.
Its blockade on oil from nations and to nations not involved in the war is not sanctioned by the UN.
When the war with Iran broke out 8 weeks ago, Luxon was asked by the media where did NZ stand on it? I distinctly remember him replying to the effect that 'we stood with the US'. A couple of days later he walked it back claiming he didn't mean he supported the war. It was exactly what he meant. Much as I can't stand the bastard, Winston was nevertheless bang on with Luxon's response. So he didn't "mischaracterise anything.
Mike, the anecdote is interesting, but it’s answering the wrong question.
Of course a Foreign Minister should follow Cabinet and the Prime Minister. That was true under Helen Clark and it’s true now under Christopher Luxon. Whether Winston Peters is freelancing or not is ultimately secondary.
The real problem is that the government doesn’t appear to be clearly articulating a defensible foreign policy position on this.
What principle is New Zealand actually applying to the use of force here?
Opposition to nuclear proliferation? Fine.
Support for international law? Also fine.
Support for allies? Understandable.
But those only mean something if they still hold when they come into conflict.
If we say we support a rules-based order, then that has to apply when the United States or Israel act, not just when Iran or Russia do. Otherwise it isn’t a rule, it’s a preference.
That’s why the government sounds evasive. It’s trying to hold multiple positions at once without stating how they are reconciled. “Waiting for reasons” or calling for “de-escalation” reads as hedging in the absence of a clear standard.
It may well be that MFAT has made a pragmatic call not to escalate with Washington, given the limited leverage New Zealand has. That’s a defensible position. But if that’s the judgement, it should be explained as such.
The credibility problem isn’t the policy itself. It’s the execution: the failure to clearly state the trade-offs and apply a consistent, pragmatic standard, even when it’s uncomfortable.