When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, New Zealand responded with unusual speed. Sanctions followed. Condemnations were issued. The language was unambiguous.

We were told this was about defending the “rules-based international order” — a phrase our politicians have grown remarkably fond of. Winston Peters has deployed it frequently in his time as Foreign Minister.

So where is that principled clarity now?

On Saturday, the United States attacked the Venezuelan capital Caracas, seized President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and spirited them away to face charges in New York.

President Donald Trump then declared that America would “run” Venezuela — including, he made abundantly clear, its oil reserves. He threatened the acting president with a fate “probably worse than Maduro” if she failed to cooperate.

This is, by any reasonable definition, an invasion. An act of aggression against a sovereign state. A violation of Article Two of the UN Charter. The kind of thing New Zealand normally objects to, or used to.

Peters’ response? After about 24 hours, he made a brief statement on social media: “New Zealand is concerned by and actively monitoring developments in Venezuela and expects all parties to act in accordance with international law.”

That’s it. “Concerned”. “Monitoring”. Expecting all parties to behave. One party has just bombed a capital city, kidnapped a head of state, and announced it will control the country’s resources. But sure, let’s urge “all parties” to play by the rules.

The Prime Minister’s Office, when asked for a response at the highest level, simply referred journalists back to Peters’ tweet. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon himself has said nothing.

As Geoffrey Miller, the independent geopolitical analyst, observed: “Luxon will probably be grateful to escape the media spotlight by virtue of the weekend’s events falling in the depths of New Zealand’s typically elongated summer holidays.”

The language tells you everything
Pay attention to the words politicians choose and the words they avoid. Peters didn’t name the United States. He didn’t describe what happened as an invasion, an attack, or even an intervention. The carefully crafted statement avoids assigning responsibility to anyone. It’s diplomatic jelly.

Compare this to how other countries have responded. Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay issued a joint statement expressing “deep concern and rejection of the military actions carried out unilaterally in the territory of Venezuela, which contravene fundamental principles of international law.”

They warned that “such actions set an extremely dangerous precedent for regional peace and security and for the rules-based international order.”

Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez was equally direct: “Spain did not recognise the Maduro regime. But neither will it recognise an intervention that violates international law and pushes the region toward a horizon of uncertainty and belligerence.”

Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide put it simply: “International law is universal and binding for all states. The American intervention in Venezuela is not in accordance with international law.”

Even Singapore, which is hardly known for picking diplomatic fights, issued a statement saying it was “gravely concerned” and “strongly condemned any unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country under any pretext.” That echoes the language Singapore used after Russia invaded Ukraine.

New Zealand? “Concerned” and “monitoring”.

The vested interests behind timidity
Maduro is no martyr; he is a dictator who ran his country into the ground. He lost the 2024 election by an enormous margin and then stole it. His regime was corrupt, authoritarian, and responsible for the flight of eight million Venezuelans from their own country. No tears should be shed for him personally.

But that’s not the point. The question isn’t whether Maduro deserved power. He didn’t. The question is whether the United States can bomb sovereign nations, kidnap their leaders, and declare control of their natural resources whenever it feels like it.

The answer, if you believe in national sovereignty or the rules-based order our government claims to defend, should be an emphatic no.

Why can’t New Zealand say so? The answer lies in vested interests: both American and our own.

Start with Washington. Trump’s intervention is not primarily about narcotics or democracy.

As Professor Robert Patman of Otago University has noted, Venezuela is not at the centre of America’s drug problems. Fentanyl and other drugs mainly come from places like China and Mexico. Trump’s announcement that America would “run” Venezuela and take its oil reserves revealed the true motivation.

At his news conference, Trump made clear his major objective was securing Venezuela’s oil resources, which he claims the United States “owns”. This from the man who once said America made a mistake in not grabbing Iraq’s oil reserves after the 2003 invasion.

The vested interests of American corporations are driving this policy, dressed up in the language of law enforcement and regional security. The military is simply being used to secure assets for private corporations.

And what about New Zealand’s own vested interests in staying quiet? Here the picture becomes clearer. Our farming and export sectors have already been hit by Trump’s tariff regime. An initial 10 percent rate in April was raised to 15 percent.

A November decision to roll back tariffs on food imports provided some relief, but American trade policy remains a constant threat. India has been hit with 50 percent tariffs for buying Russian oil. Brazil was targeted because of its prosecution of Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro.

Our agricultural and export lobby groups watch these retaliatory tariffs nervously. Any government criticism of Trump risks placing New Zealand next on the punishment list. This explains why Peters has been so careful not to name the United States in his statement.

The economic interests of New Zealand’s export sector — farmers, meat processors, dairy companies — are being prioritised over principles. It’s the politics of fear, wrapped in the language of diplomacy.

Stephen Nagy, a professor at the International Christian University in Tokyo, put it bluntly when explaining why America’s Asian allies have been so reluctant to criticise Trump: “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” This is what happens when a country’s foreign policy becomes subordinate to its immediate economic interests.

The double standard is breathtaking
Consider how this would play out if the roles were reversed. Imagine China had just bombed Taipei, sent special forces to capture Taiwan’s leader, and declared it would “run” the island.

Would Winston Peters be tweeting about how New Zealand “expects all parties” to respect international law? Would Chris Luxon be hiding behind his summer holiday?

Of course not. The response would be immediate, forceful, and unambiguous. We would be told that Chinese aggression cannot be tolerated. Gordon Campbell made this point sharply: “If the Chinese military were blowing up merchant shipping in the South China Sea, bombing Taipei and sending in special forces to kidnap Taiwan’s leader . . .  New Zealand wouldn’t be meekly asking both sides to show restrained respect for international law. We would be outraged.”

The same double standard has been on display over Gaza. Peters’ line about expecting “all parties” to respect international law has been the government’s exact position there too, as if both sides in that conflict have been equally responsible for bombing hospitals and blocking humanitarian aid.

Only last week, New Zealand opted not to join a joint statement by foreign ministers from Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom calling for Israel to abide by ceasefire terms. Peters sat that one out.

Opposition voices show what’s possible
Not everyone in New Zealand politics has been so timid. Phil Twyford of the Labour Party issued a stronger statement, actually naming the United States and describing the action as a violation of international law.

It’s not revolutionary language (more like stating the obvious) but in the context of the government’s mealy-mouthed response, it stands out. Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins should be speaking out likewise.

Helen Clark has been characteristically direct, telling RNZ that the US attack was “clearly illegal under the UN Charter.” When former prime ministers speak more clearly than current foreign ministers, something has gone badly wrong.

Professor Patman told RNZ that New Zealand’s response should be “firm and robust” and noted that the days of “softly, softly diplomacy” with Trump are over. Patman says: “New Zealand has persisted for the last 12 months in what I call softly, softly diplomacy towards Trump. The idea is if we keep our heads beneath the radar, we say nice things, we have photo opportunities with the great men at international meetings, he will soften and we’ll be able to nudge him in a more moderate direction. I’m afraid that’s over.”

He labelled Peters’ statement as “limp”.

The credibility at stake
The consequences of this craven approach go beyond the immediate crisis. Geoffrey Miller warned that the inconsistency between how Western allies responded to Russia and how they’re responding to America “may come back to haunt them, particularly when it comes to their credibility with the Global South.”

He’s right. Countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America are watching. They’ve heard endless lectures from Western nations about the importance of the rules-based order, about sovereignty, about international law.

Now they’re watching those same nations stay quiet — or worse, make excuses — when the violator is the United States. Beijing and Moscow will exploit this at every opportunity. They’ll point to Venezuela whenever anyone raises Ukraine or Taiwan. And they’ll have a point.

As Nathalie Tocci wrote in The Guardian, the European failure to condemn Trump’s action “embodies the law of the jungle so dear to dictators such as Putin. For Europeans to silently condone such a vision is not just unethical. It is plain stupid.”

After all, Trump is now speaking out loud about annexing Greenland too. And increasingly, the concept of “Spheres of Influence” seems to be rising, whereby military superpowers such as the US, Russia, China, etc can operate on a “might is right” basis to intervene however they want in their own regions.

If the world reverts to such “Spheres of Influence”, New Zealand is left exposed. If the US can claim the Americas, what is to stop a superpower from claiming the Pacific?

New Zealand has spent years positioning itself as “a good international citizen”. It has sought seats on the UN Security Council. It has championed multilateralism. It has talked endlessly about the importance of small states having a voice in international affairs.

How does that square with staying silent when a great power simply ignores international law because it can?

The integrity test New Zealand is failing
This is ultimately a question of integrity — the kind of integrity New Zealand claims to stand for on the world stage. Either international law applies to everyone, or it doesn’t. Either sovereignty matters, or it’s just a convenient talking point when it suits politicians.

Either New Zealand is willing to call out violations regardless of who commits them, or else the politicians are just selective critics who only speak up when the target is someone they already dislike.

Winston Peters once prided himself on being willing to speak uncomfortable truths. New Zealand First has long positioned itself as independent-minded, unwilling to simply follow the crowd. Where is that independence now?

What we’re seeing instead is a government so afraid of offending Trump, and so captured by the economic interests of our export sector, that it can’t even name the United States in a statement about an American military attack.

As Professor Patman observed: “Foreign policy in this country has been traditionally bipartisan. We have stood up for the rule of law internationally.” If that’s true, then it’s certainly time to show some element of independence from the US and Five Eyes.

But doing so requires the New Zealand government to put principles ahead of the vested interests of farmers and exporters, and ahead of the political calculation that offending Trump carries too high a price.

Murray McCully, not exactly a darling of the left, showed more backbone when he championed UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on Israeli settlements in 2016. As Gordon Campbell observed, the current situation almost makes you yearn for the days when McCully was foreign minister.

That’s a damning indictment of how far New Zealand has fallen.

So, as we head towards an election year, foreign policy needs to be made a major issue. Voters now deserve to know whether New Zealand will continue to subordinate its principles to its perceived economic interests.

Dr Bruce Edwards is a political commentator and analyst. He is director of the Integrity Institute, a campaigning and research organisation dedicated to strengthening New Zealand democratic institutions through transparency, accountability, and robust policy reform. Republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Cabinet Minister David Parker recently told The Spinoff he’s reading The Triumph of Injustice – how the wealthy avoid paying tax and how to fix it, by Berkeley economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez.

The book complains that leftwing politicians throughout the world have forsaken their historic duty to innovate on taxation and force wealthy vested interests to pay their fair share. The authors say governments of both left and right have capitulated unnecessarily to the interests of the wealthy in setting policies on tax and spending.

Parker shares this ethos and it’s undoubtedly a big part of his decision to revolt against his leader.

First, Parker ignored constitutional conventions and spoke out against the Prime Minister’s decision last month to rule out implementing any capital gains or wealth taxes. And last week he resigned as Minister of Revenue, saying it was “untenable” for him to continue in the role given Hipkins’ stance on tax.

Clearly, Parker is highly aggrieved at Hipkins’ decision to rule out a substantially more progressive taxation regime, especially when there is such strong public openness to it.

In May, a Newshub survey showed 53 per cent of voters wanted a wealth tax implemented. And last week, a 1News poll showed 52 per cent supported a capital gains tax on rental property.

Parker has become the progressive voice of Labour
Parker has thrown a real spanner in the works for Chris Hipkins at a crucial time in Labour’s re-election campaign. Such dissent from a Cabinet Minister is highly unusual.

It’s also refreshing that it’s over a matter of principle and policy, rather than personality, performance, or ambition.

There will be some Labour MPs and supporters annoyed with Parker for adding to Labour’s woes, especially when the government is already looking chaotic. He’s essentially declared a “vote of no confidence” in his own party’s tax policy.

This is not the staunch loyalty and unity that Labour has come to expect over the last decade, whereby policy differences are suppressed or kept in-house.

But even though Parker was being criticised last week by commentators for throwing a “tantrum” in resigning his Revenue portfolio, this charge won’t really stick, as he just doesn’t have that reputation.

His protest is one of principle, not wounded pride or vanity, and it’s one that will be shared within the wider party.

In taking such a strong stance on progressive taxation, and so openly opposing Hipkins as being too cautious and conservative, Parker has become something of a beacon for those in Labour and the wider political left who are discontented over this government’s failure to deliver on traditional Labour concerns.

Is there a future for Parker in Labour?
Parker’s outspokenness may be a sign that he’s had enough, and is looking to leave politics before long. Being on the party list means he can opt out of Parliament at any time.

After the election, he may decide it’s time to retire, especially if Labour loses power. In fact, Parker has long been rumoured to be considering his retirement from politics, so it might just be that the time has finally come.

A private decision to leave might explain why Parker has decided to put up and not just shut up, and publicly distance himself from Labour’s decisions on tax for the sake of his reputation.

It’s also possible that Parker has chosen to try to pressure Labour towards a more progressive position on taxation, and this is the start of a bigger campaign. If so, he would be playing the long game.

Parker is now established as the most progressive voice in Labour, which could see him move up the caucus ladder when Hipkins eventually moves on — especially if Labour is defeated at the election in October.

And Hipkins might have inadvertently invited opponents to want to replace him with a more progressive politician when he made his “captain’s call” to rule out any sort of real tax reform for as long as he holds the role.

Given that they had an absolute majority in the last three years they can’t blame anyone else. And should they lose the election, the analysis from within Labour will certainly be that they were too centrist and didn’t do enough.

Parker would be a strong contender for the leadership sometime in the next term of Parliament. That is if he wants it and hasn’t simply had enough. There are signs that he would be keen — he ran for the top job in 2014, with Nanaia Mahuta as a running mate, but lost out to David Cunliffe.

Last week he reiterated that he was up for a fight, explaining his decision to stand down as Minister for Revenue, saying, “I’m an agent for change — for progressive change.

“I’ve been that way all of my political life and I’ve still got lots of energy as shown by the scraps that I’ve got into in the last couple of weeks on transport.”

Of course, when the time comes to replace Hipkins, the party will face the temptation to look for a younger and “fresher” leader. Until very recently, the likes of Kiri Allan and Michael Wood were seen as the future, but those options have disappeared.

And the party might do well looking to someone with more proven experience.

Parker could fit that bill — he’s been in Parliament for 21 years and served in the Helen Clark administration as Attorney-General and Minister of Transport. He is seen as an incredibly solid, reliable politician, with a very deep-thinking policy mind.

By contrast, the rest of the cabinet often seems anti-intellectual and bereft of any ideas or deep thinking, which means that they are too often captured by whatever new agendas the government departments have pushed on them.

Arguably that’s why the blunt approaches of centralisation and co-governance have so easily become the dominant parts of Labour’s two terms in power.

Labour needs Parker’s progressive intellectual politics
Regardless of whether Parker ever gets near the leadership again, it’s clear he has much to offer in pushing the party in a more progressive direction. Certainly, Labour could benefit from a proper policy reset and revival — which Hipkins hasn’t been able to achieve.

The new leader managed to throw lots of old policy on the bonfire, and he successfully re-branded Labour as being more about sausages and “bread and butter” issues, but Hipkins hasn’t yet been able to reinject any substantial positive new policies or ethos.

Parker’s dissent this week indicates that frustration from progressives in Labour is growing, and there are some very significant policy differences going on in the ruling party of government.

For the health of the party, and for the good of the wider political left, hopefully Parker will continue to be a maverick, positioning himself as an advocate of boldness and progressive change.

Parker recently selected Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century as the book “Everyone should read”. He explained that “As a politician who believes in social mobility and egalitarian outcomes, this book inspired me to seek the revenue portfolio”.

That Parker has now had to give away that portfolio says something unfortunate about the party and government he is part of. And if the last week also signals that Parker is on his way out of politics, that too would be a shame.

After all, in a time when parliamentary politics is about scandal, and the government has lost so many ministers over issues of personal behaviour, it would be sad to lose a minister who is passionate about delivering policies to fix the problems of wealthy vested interests and inequality.

Dr Bryce Edwards is a political scientist and an independent analyst with The Democracy Project. He writes a regular column titled Political Roundup in Evening Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz