Winston Peters, Donald Trump: A New Reality for NZ Foreign Policy

We flatter ourselves that we have an “independent foreign policy” because we are nuclear-free. In reality, apart from being excluded from Anzus – a treaty never invoked – New Zealand has paid little price. Australia maintained its defence arrangements with us. The United States continued to trade. The Pacific remained, thanks to American power, an American ocean. That complacency is a luxury not enjoyed by countries that live beside hostile neighbours. There, foreign affairs are a matter of survival. Their Foreign Ministers are chosen not for ideological purity, but for charm, cunning and judgment. Which is why it was extraordinary that under the last Labour Government, the Minister of Local Government also held the Foreign Affairs portfolio. Presumably, Labour thought the skills needed for local government were the same skills needed for dealing with foreign governments. Contrast that with Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord. He served as France’s Foreign Minister to the Directorate, then Napoleon, and then to the restored Bourbon monarchy under Louis XVIII. Talleyrand persuaded the victorious allies at Vienna that France was not the aggressor in the Napoleonic wars, but Napoleon’s first victim. Defeated France was restored as a great power. It was one of history’s great diplomatic performances. New Zealand, too, has a Foreign Minister who has served seamlessly across governments of left and right. Winston Peters is our own Talleyrand. Better still, Peters founded New Zealand First while Donald Trump was still a property developer. Trump remains a mystery to most New Zealand politicians. Peters, by contrast, seems to understand him instinctively. When Trump announced a sweeping round of tariffs against friends and foes alike, the Prime Minister offered to lead a campaign defending free trade. The gesture earned polite applause in Europe – but it was also reckless. Peters immediately slapped the Prime Minister down in public. Trump’s attacks on the independence of the US Federal Reserve pose a far greater threat than tariffs. Central banks do far more than set interest rates. They supervise banks, underpin international settlements and quietly stabilise economies in crisis – including ours. When New Zealand went nuclear-free, the United States did not retaliate economically because the Federal Reserve does not take instructions from the President. Had it done so – had New Zealand been excluded from international banking systems – the consequences would have been immediate and disastrous. The Trump Administration’s threats against the Federal Reserve are therefore a threat to global economic stability. Our new Reserve Bank Governor Dr Anna Breman was right to sign the joint statement defending central-bank independence. Peters was equally right to ensure the response did not escalate into a direct challenge to Trump himself. Presidents come and go. Central banks endure. This was diplomacy in the classical tradition – aligning New Zealand with global institutions while avoiding unnecessary provocation. It is the sort of manoeuvre Talleyrand would have admired. It is important not to exaggerate Trump’s threat to world order. International law still governs trade, shipping, aviation and finance. The United States still anchors the Pacific. No American President could abandon the Pacific. Our task is not to confront Trump, but to outlast him. I can think of no New Zealand politician better suited to that task than Peters. But how to explain Peters’ opposition to the free trade agreement with India? The New Zealand First manifesto promises to “launch closer Commonwealth economic relations” with the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei, and to invite India and other suitable Commonwealth states to join. An India free trade agreement fits squarely within Peters’ long-standing advocacy of doing business with Commonwealth countries. New Zealand First also speaks for voters who feel threatened by globalisation. It may be that Peters judges Labour, having itself negotiated for an India agreement, cannot credibly oppose it. New Zealand First can claim the sceptics, while National and Act carry the pro-trade vote – delivering the coalition a commanding majority. If so, it would be a manoeuvre of classic Talleyrand cunning. In contrast, Chris Hipkins has said the Government should be “speaking up for New Zealand”. Chlöe Swarbrick has gone further. Small nations face a choice between practical policies and moral posturing.