Good Start – More Needed
As he prepared to take over from John Key as Prime Minister, Bill English made a candid – and disarming – admission. He felt that there was an important part of his new responsibilities where his knowledge was deficient and he needed to learn fast. The deficiency was, he felt, in international relations.
His admission was a welcome sign of humility and a refreshing change from the hubris of his predecessor. So, it is somewhat surprising that, so early in his premiership, he appears to have authorised a foreign policy initiative that could not help but be controversial.
New Zealand’s joint sponsorship of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s decision to promote new Israeli settlements in the disputed territories occupied by Israel following their victory in the Six-Day War in 1967 was bound to create repercussions.
It was President Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, who were the main targets of Israeli anger – they had failed for the first time to use the US veto to protect the Israeli position and did so on the stated ground that they feared that any other decision would jeopardise what is often described as the “two-state solution” to the Arab-Israeli dispute – but it is not surprising that New Zealand’s role, too, did not pass unnoticed.
It is not my intention to venture into what is an extremely complex issue. But what is, I think, worth noting about the New Zealand action on this occasion is what it tells us, if we are lucky, about the readiness of Bill English and his new government to think for themselves and to act accordingly.
New Zealand successfully promoted our candidature for Security Council membership on the ground that we were beholden to no one, and that we would look at each issue on its merits. The decision to promote the resolution concerning the Israeli settlements was a signal that we remain true to those undertakings.
It is also of course a reaffirmation of our belief in the importance and value of the United Nations (pace President-elect Trump) and of our respect for international law. The resolution we sponsored was remarkable only for the fact that it was passed, when its many predecessors had always fallen victim to the use of the American veto.
Its terms have been supported by the great majority of UN members and are confirmed by most international lawyers. But, from a New Zealand viewpoint, its significance goes beyond the detail of the particular issue, important though it is, because it augurs well for our readiness to stick to our guns and to face down, when appropriate, disapproval from our friends as well as our (hopefully few) enemies.
What we need, however, is not just a promising start but a consistent and steadfast determination to stand up for what we think is right and not to be bullied. The challenges to this stance will, after all, keep on coming.
And, sure enough, the next one is already upon us – this time in the field of international trade rather than politics. But this time, the omens are not so promising.
There is every reason, it seems, to take seriously the complaints of our domestic steel industry that they are being seriously disadvantaged by Chinese dumping of steel in our market, at a price below, by virtue of export subsidies, the domestic Chinese price; many other countries have had cause to make similar complaints.
Our government’s predictable and legitimate response was to launch an inquiry as a prelude to action being taken by the World Trade Organisation – but that response was immediately met by a Chinese warning of trade retaliation.
The government – Bill English’s new government – has now produced legislation to extend the conditions that must be met in order to prove dumping, in an apparent attempt to water down the protections that our steel industry is entitled to expect. That legislation, which the Opposition has declined to support, is for the time being stalemated in the commerce select committee.
What we need now, in the face of threats from a powerful friend, is more of the spirit shown at the United Nations, and less of the cravenness shown by the Key government over, for example, the Saudi sheep deal. The new government has more to do if it is to earn its spurs.
Bryan Gould
31 December 2016
Democracy is the Missing Element
Simon Wren-Lewis, with whom I usually have little difficulty in agreeing, has published a blog in recent days in which he explains why, in his (and others’) views, it is impossible to play a full part in the global economy – in other words, to enjoy free trade – while maintaining the full powers of self-government that one would usually expect in a mature and democratic nation state.
He links this point to the Brexit vote, in order to suggest that the obligations that must be accepted in return for free trade (or – in the Brexit case – access to the single market) must necessarily entail a diminution in the powers of self-government.
He is of course right to say that free trade often requires individual governments to make concessions concerning domestic policy, if only because the maintenance of various non-tariff barriers, such as subsidies and other preferences given to domestic producers, will run counter to the goals that are sought through free trade. But such concessions are a fairly normal incident of trade relations and would not usually be considered, when approved by a democratically elected government, as implying a substantial derogation from national sovereignty.
It should be conceded straightaway that there are modern versions of supposed free trade that do indeed collide rather directly with the normal concept of self-government. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and its Asia-Pacific equivalent (the TPPA) both masquerade as free trade deals but represent in fact major additions to the powers of international corporations at the expense of elected governments.
That is why they have been opposed by so many – and Simon Wren-Lewis is right to signal, by implication at least, the incompatibility between such arrangements and the usual principles of democratic self-government. Faced with that choice, most informed citizens seem so far to prefer self-government.
But are the concessions negotiated as a matter of course between sovereign governments really incompatible with the concept of self-government? National governments, even the most powerful, are of course necessarily constrained by all kinds of limitations, including the demands made by other countries. That is the nature of the real world.
But there is a world of difference between that situation – analogous, as Wren-Lewis points out, to how relations between individuals are managed – and the proposition that governments should not just negotiate (after careful consideration of their own interests, as individuals would do), but should hand over in its entirety to a completely different (and unelected) authority the power to decide for them, in advance and en bloc, what concessions should be made, and what interests should be sacrificed to those concessions.
It is the by-passing of elected governments that is, after all, at the heart of the objections to the TTIP and the TPPA – and it is clear that voters in Britain (and in other countries like New Zealand) are in no doubt that the power to decide what concessions should be made, in return for what benefits, should remain with their elected governments and should be exercised on a case-by-case basis.
It is also clear that the same distinction was an important factor when voters came to make up their minds as to whether they were happy to see the EU exercise the powers that had hitherto been exercised by their own elected governments. The issue was not, in other words, whether or not concessions should be made in return for free trade, but who should make them and whose interests should they represent. Would the decision-makers, above all, consult and reflect the views of voters who had been confident in their belief that they had elected governments to protect their interests?
No country is more experienced than the UK in negotiating the unavoidable give-and-take of international diplomacy and economic relations. We do not need reminding that such negotiations require commitment and careful judgment. That is why the constant efforts from some quarters to undermine our negotiating position in the forthcoming Brexit talks by urging that it should be abandoned or reversed give comfort to those we are to negotiate with and are potentially so damaging to our interests.
Simon Wren-Lewis has done us a favour – perhaps inadvertently – by reminding us that the important decisions that have to be made if we are to secure our objectives – in trade, as in other spheres – could be inimical to democracy and self-government, unless decided by a government elected for the task.
He may not quite have grasped, however, that those who voted for Brexit got there before him. The import of their decision is that important issues need to be decided by democratic institutions – and in particular by elected governments. The first requirement is, in other words, that the proper democratic framework exists; it is only when that democratic process is in place that we can use it to consider and approve the concessions that might be made to other interests in our name.
We don’t resolve these issues by first conceding to undemocratic institutions, like the EU, the power to decide issues which are properly the preserve of elected governments. The democratic process should not be seen as an inevitable and acceptable casualty of free trade arrangements but as the only mechanism by which the concessions needed to secure them are made acceptable.
Bryan Gould
21 December 2016
Closing the Gap at Christmas
When my friend, Gary Ware, and I left Tauranga Primary School in 1951 to go on to what was then Tauranga College, it was an open question as to which of us would be the smallest boy in the school. We have both grown a bit since then – and it is one of the pleasing things for me about coming back to the Bay of Plenty to find that I can pick up with old friends, and even more pleasing to find that we still have much in common.
Today, Gary is the motive force behind the Tauranga College Reunion Committee, and has helped to keep many former pupils in touch with each other. Even more importantly, he and his wife Marlene have been active in promoting a range of good causes – Amnesty International, for example – and they have also been leading members of Closing the Gap, a voluntary body with a strong local branch in Tauranga, dedicated to raising awareness of, and adopting measures to counter, the growing divide between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in our society.
As Christmas approaches, it is perhaps more important than at any other time to remind ourselves that too many of our fellow-citizens will not enjoy the festive season in the way that most of us take for granted. The unacceptable aspect of the “gap” that causes concern to many of us is that – on one side of that gap – there are far too many families (and children in particular) living in poverty, and that in a country that is blessed in so many ways, as we are, this is inexcusable.
An American friend once told me that her relatives could not understand why she had come to live in New Zealand and that she had explained her decision by saying that “in New Zealand, there is enough for everybody”. And so there is; people – and children – go without, only because we do not care enough to make sure that there is enough for them.
The “gap” might seem to occur for reasons we can do nothing about, a consequence of inexorable economic forces, but that would be a mistake. People are left behind, without the resources to bring up their families at a decent level, because we are too selfish to be bothered.
Christmas is not of course just an opportunity to have a good time. For many, it is a time to recognise and proclaim the Christian message. Even for the non-religious, like me, it is a time to reflect on the strength and meaning of Jesus Christ’s central injunction to “love thy neighbour”.
We may not, in every case at any rate, feel like “loving” our neighbours, but what Jesus meant (if I may presume to interpret him) is that we should be kind to each other, that we should think of others, that we should be generous in our dealings with each other, that we should not ignore the need for our help when we see it.
Concern about the rising level of poverty in our country is not, in other words, a sterile matter of economic statistics, or forces that we cannot influence. It is about how we treat each other. It is about ensuring that, as a society, we organise ourselves so that everyone has enough and that those who cannot provide for themselves are not left destitute and their children are not left to suffer.
Some will offer an excuse for inaction – we don’t have the time or resources, they will say, to help every waif or stray. But that is what we have a government for – to act in our name, and in a democracy we can make it clear to government what it is that we expect of them.
And what better time than Christmas, to heed Jesus’s message, both in our own personal interactions with each other and in the actions and policies that are undertaken in our name?
Closing the gap is a goal we should all set ourselves – individually and collectively. The gap –as Gary Ware and I both agree – is a blot on our fair country. It will continue and grow only if we let it.
Bryan Gould
18 December 2016
What Lies Behind the Brexit Vote?
I am proud to be a sixth-generation New Zealander. But I am also gratefully aware of my British heritage.
All eight of the families of my great grandparents came to New Zealand, from England, Scotland and Wales, and had settled here by the mid-nineteenth century. I had the pleasure of returning to the UK as a student and spending a substantial part of my working life there.
My involvement in British politics meant that I took more than a passing interest in the referendum on whether the UK should remain in the European Un ion. I was surprised, but pleased, at the result, but I have been even more surprised – and less pleased – at the reaction to that result, not least the reaction of some prestigious organs of opinion whose opinions I normally respect.
To hear it the way they tell it, one would think that the vote in favour of Brexit was a calamity brought about as the consequence of the bigotry (not to say racism) and ignorance of those who knew no better. Their task now, it seems, is to show them the error of their ways, and find some way of reversing or overriding what was a democratic decision.
There is no recognition of the perfectly rational considerations that might have led many voters to say of the EU “enough is enough”. For many citizens, British and European, membership of the EU has meant joining an economic zone specifically created to allow powerful corporations to bypass elected governments and to achieve what they want by dealing directly with unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
For Britain specifically, it has meant a massive trade deficit, particularly in manufactured goods – a deficit that has decimated British manufacturing, destroyed jobs, especially in the regions, and made it impossible for the British economy to grow for fear that the deficit will get worse.
For many workers, it has also meant an unstoppable inflow of cheap labour from Eastern Europe – a tap that cannot be turned off. To express concern at this might look like racism from the leafy suburbs of southern England, but it looks rather different to those whose jobs are at risk, whose wages are undercut, and whose housing, schools and hospitals are put under pressure.
Yes, the Brexit vote may have been partly a protest on the part of those who felt that their interests had been ignored. But there is more to it than that.
Many of those most likely to bewail the Brexit vote do so from a position of assumed cultural superiority. Outside the EU, it seems, they will suffer a deprivation not endured by lesser mortals; they will be denied access to European culture, food, holidays – a loss that may not matter to others but is important to them.
The paradox is that this manifestation of supposed superiority is entirely misplaced. There is nothing that – whether in or out of the EU – can deny the centuries-old British involvement in or access to Continental Europe. Britain has always been historically, geographically, culturally, economically and in every other way a part of Europe and has often played a crucial part in its affairs – something for which Europe has been at times very grateful. The question is not – whether Europe, but what kind of Europe.
And on that issue, it may well be that the instincts of the Brexiteers are more reliable and culturally authentic than those who profess themselves to be the most committed “Europeans”.
The British have always feared and opposed the emergence of a dominant European power. The Spanish launched their armada and were defeated by Francis Drake; Napoleon made his attempt at European domination and was stopped at Trafalgar and Waterloo; and the Germans had two cracks at it last century and it took two world wars to halt them.
It may not be appropriate in polite company these days to recall these aspects of past British involvement in Europe. But these events leave their imprint – and the British preference for a Europe at peace with itself but not subject to domination by any one power remains a strong element in the British cultural identity.
The British have always valued their independence – and, translated into modern terms, that means the value attached to self-government and democracy. That is the element that, in their keenness to emphasise their “Europeanness”, is overlooked and misunderstood by the Brexit critics.
Much of the impetus behind the decision to leave the EU came, in other words, from that long-standing British commitment to running their own affairs, without interference from Continental powers. They wanted to regain “control” – perhaps an abstract concept but one that mattered to many Brexit voters.
Those who condemn those voters for their ignorance and bigotry might ask themselves whether it is not the critics who reveal their ignorance. Even at 12,000 miles distance, I fancy that I understand what those voters were seeking to achieve. The drive to achieve and retain the right to self-government is not to be derided; it has served both Britain and Europe very well in the long history they share.
Bryan Gould
19 December 2016
Can Bill English Manage the Transition?
The emergence of Bill English as National party leader and therefore as Prime Minister was in some ways almost a non-event – it did of course produce an important and clear-cut outcome, but the contest was over before it began.
From the moment that Bill English was endorsed by John Key, it would have been a major surprise if he had not prevailed, and the absence of any real sense of contest was compounded by the surprising thinness of the field that he had to overcome.
Challenges from Judith Collins and Jonathan Coleman were never going to have him quaking in his shoes – and hardly spoke volumes for the talent allegedly to be found on National’s front bench. Judith Collins had really no claim to be considered, having surely disqualified herself from high office by her unsavoury connections with dirty politics and Cameron Slater, and her inability to separate her ministerial responsibilities from her husband’s business interests in China.
Jonathan Coleman has proved himself a decently competent Minister, but his problem in pitching himself as the party leader can be seen from the fact that the only time he has hit the headlines concerned a fight he got into at a function hosted by British-American Tobacco, when he blew cigar smoke into the face of another guest, and refused to desist.
So, the hot favourite won going away. That, however, was the easy bit. Bill English now has to jump higher hurdles, including winning a general election – and that is a hurdle he has fallen at in the past.
He can fairly claim to be the architect of much of National’s policy platform, but selling it to the public is now his responsibility and can no longer be contracted out to his predecessor, who – unlike him – had the advantage of being a born salesman. There is an eerily close parallel between his predicament and that of the former UK politician, Gordon Brown.
Brown was handed the premiership, after a long wait, when Tony Blair – who is variously reckoned to have been either a brilliantly persuasive communicator or a ham actor and con man – was persuaded to remove himself from the scene.
Brown was a dour Scot, not given to levity and small talk. The contrast with Blair was all too apparent. His advisers told him that he must smile more – with the result that often, in the middle of a television interview on some humourless topic, he would suddenly remember to smile and, at the most inopportune moment, break into a kind of rictus, baring his teeth in an alarming way and appearing almost manic.
Bill English is not, of course, similarly afflicted, but he does not have John Key’s easy manner, and – when he remembers to smile – he can often look as though he is enjoying a private joke at the expense of his interlocutors, perhaps because he knows he is cleverer than they are and knows things they don’t.
But his problems are not just presentational. He, more than anyone else, has been associated with, and has claimed the credit for, giving priority to “the deficit’ – not the country’s deficit (the one that really matters) but the government’s.
Cutting the deficit matters, especially to policy wonks, but a price has been paid for the cuts – particularly by ordinary people who have found that their housing, health, education and living standards have suffered while the government has pocketed money that could have been spent on them.
And he is still at it. As we speak, he has authorised a further sale of state houses in Christchurch to absentee landlords in Australia – more money for the government’s coffers, but a further loss of government-provided housing for the badly housed and homeless.
It was one thing to be hard-nosed as Minister of Finance, but quite another to be a hard-nosed Prime Minister. The combination of a smiling front man and a tough number two served the last government well, but English and Joyce – two hard-nosed money men who focus more on figures than people – may not work as well.
That leaves the Deputy’s position. The call from the rival candidates, Paula Bennett and Simon Bridges, was for change and refreshment – a call that could be echoed to advantage by Andrew Little come election time.
Bryan Gould
10 December 2016