Written By: - Date published: 10:47 am, November 27th, 2008 - 91 comments
Categories: climate change, economy, International, john key -
Tags:
Don’t let Key go abroad representing us again until he has had some diplomacy training.
I can’t believe, I literally can’t believe, the comments he has made in the UK. In addition to the comments yesterday, where he called the new carbon-offset airport departure tax “protectionism” and said it will lead to a “contagion effect”, he is now reported to have told British Prime Minister (and former Chancellor) Gordon Brown that his new tax policy is “not necessarily rational”.
Think about how this looks to the UK. Key has not actually done the job of Prime Minister for one day and yet here he is in the UK, a guest of the British government, criticising the policies of a government that has been in power eleven years, insulting them in the crudest terms. ‘Who does this guy think he is?’ British leaders will be asking themselves, ‘some puffed up newbie presuming to tell us how to run our country’.
This is not how you do diplomacy, and it’s not how you do diplomacy because it doesn’t work. The UK doesn’t have to listen to us, least of all when we want them to change their policy on something as core to sovereignty as tax policy. If we want them to listen, we have to use constructive language (eg. ‘clearly, New Zealand is very concerned about climate change. We are also economically dependent on tourism and every year hundreds of thousands of people from the UK come to experience our beautiful country. We will be working with our British friends closely to see if it is possible to reduce emissions without making tourism from the UK to New Zealand unaffordable). Key’s comments have not been constructive or even nuanced, they have been plain insulting. Leaders are people too, be rude to them, attack their work, especially when you have just met them and have no experience of your own, and they will not look on your cause fondly.
No, Key won’t a public dressing down from Brown over this, but that’s not how diplomacy works. The consequences will be far more subtle and far more insidious. Key will have helped to deafen the ears of UK leaders to our voice. National should keep him in New Zealand where he can’t do any more harm (to our international relations at least) and get the competent diplomats like Tim Groser out there to repair the damage so far as it can be.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
rjs – the MP for Helensville doesn’t automatically get to be PM.
But that just goes to show what a muck up this was by the British. They knew full-well that they were going to have to announce this in their Budget. So why invite the most adversely-impacted country’s Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism for a meet and greet at the same time? I think Key was remarkably restrained in his response. Perhaps not speaking in perfect diplomatic-speak, but representative nonetheless.
Arguably the British Government even made the Queen look foolish with her visit to the giant rugby ball promoting the World Cup. so whereas Brown wants to discourage long haul travel on environmental grounds, the Queen, head of state for both our coutnries, is quite happy to promote just such activity?
The contradicitions in this from the British side are almost laughable, while I can just imagine the groans from the Foreign Office of the timing.
Your rules of diplomacy are purely your own construct to support your pathetic beat up. They don’t exist anywhere outside your mind and don’t reflect either history or reality.
Diplomacy takes many forms in response to situations. There is no set process enshrined in some diplomacy holy book. Only time can tell whether a course was appropriate. Chamberlain behaved ‘diplomatically’ and look at the success he was… Kennedy didn’t and Krushchev blinked. Lucky we had Adlai Stevenson, Robert Macnamara, Dean Rusk et al advising him rather than you.
insider: Need I point out that comparing the response to an airport departure tax with the response to the Nazis or the Cold War does neither your credibility nor your argument any good?
L
Sorry Lew, I didn’t invent the ‘rules of diplomacy’. I foolishly assumed as rules they applied regardless of the situation and those were two salient examples of high profile yet radically differnet approaches to diplomacy that came quickly to mind. I could have argued banana access under the Lome convention or fire blight but they just don’t have the same impact. Can you define for me what examples I am and am not allowed to use to argue the case around them, just for future reference.
Oh and need I point out that making out that Key’s dissing of the departure tax is a major foreign policy faux pas and against all reasonable standards of diplomacy does Steve’s credibility or argument any good. Absurdity trumps absurdity…?
insider. I knew one of you would take the bait and start talking about the cold war or the nazis or something but that’s great power brinksmanship, we’re talking about diplomacy as a small state
GC:- Helen/Labours popularity had nothing to do with a “honeymoon”…….i think you are mistaking “honeymoon”for competent leadership…..and we have not seen that in the past week!
Rex W
I thought you wouldn’t be taken in by the media’s anti-Jonathan Hunt obsession. He didn’t drive – so he took taxis. His home happened to be quite a long way from the airport. But he didn’t have the self-drive car he was entitled to as an MP, so saved taxpayer money on that.
However, those who had anything to do with Jonathan over the years know him as extremely loyal, generous and supportive. He consequently has wide international networks. Which he used to good effect as High Commissioner. The mean-minded NZ MSM of course didn’t see nor understood this discrete diplomacy, and never missed the chance to have a cheap shot.
Oh that’s right steve, it was another one of your ‘grand plans’…
And no you weren’t talking about diplomacy for a small state, so stop trying to redefine the issue post fact. You said: “Rule one of diplomacy, behave diplomatically” – it was an absolute; there were no qualifiers. And you’d be going against some pretty strong schools of thought if you tried to exclude great power brinksmanship from the sphere of ‘diplomacy’.
insider you do realise that “diplomacy” actually means “being diplomatic” don’t you?
Your argument is not strong.
Janet where is your proof?
I concede Steve is perhaps over-egging it a little, but you’re over-egging it a hell of a lot more, and failing to understand the diplomatic principles and conventions to which he refers (which exist whether you realise it or not, and are quite explicitly NOT applicable equally in all cases). Conventionally, small issues should be and usually are treated as small issues, handled calmly and in such a way as to not require players to entrench their positions in order to save face. That’s not what Key did in this case.
L
Felix
YOur definition of diplomacy is even weaker, especially in the context of the discussion and the orginal post. I suggest you get a better dictionary.
Lew
“Perhaps”….be real! Steve invented has invented some major diplomatic incident based no doubt on his vast foreign policy experience and then dreamt up some rules of diplomacy, which even you say don’t exist or which are flexible at best (which was my original point), to attempt justify his position. And you say I am overegging it for pointing out the flaws in his position.
I imagine if John Key had been silent on the issue, SP would have come out and said: “John Key’s next foreign policy test, to articulate to the British how annoyed we are with the departure tax… FAIL!”
Insider: which even you say don’t exist
I said no such thing – rules exist, but they vary from case to case. Not that it excuses Steve, but it seems to me you’re taking a convenient reading of his `rules of diplomacy’ which suits your argument, precisely what you accuse him of doing.
L
I dont see any suggestion that SP is arguing that Key should not have raised the tax issue. Rather the undiplomatic manner that Key applied. Key’s choice of language was either stupid or arrogant. Either way he embarrassed us all.
GC et al,
luckas said: “not saying anything positive about John Key for the next 18 months?”
I dunno, what about the positive in he’s the new Prime Tourism Minister..? Though, as Tim Ellis has encouraged us to anticipate we can and do expect yet more from the fellow..
Alexandra – No just the left blogosphere. In fact maybe just The Standard blog viewers minus the righties
northpaw – Sorry I don’t get your point.
Alexandra – he didn’t embarass me.
insider you’re so right.
Diplomacy has nothing to do with being diplomatic. How could I have missed that before?
You’re moronic. Which has nothing to do with being a moron, apparently.
Lew
If they vary from case to case they sound more like guidelines than rules, which I would consider more black am white. Not trying to be pedantic, but if Key is going to be accused of having broken some ‘rule’ it’s helpful to know what that rule is and when it applies. If it is really a guideline or a convention, then those are not immutable and breaching them can be an important diplomatic tool. Not that that even happened in this case I think we agree.
Alexandra
You keep being embarassed for all of us, but be warned, on current efforts it will be a lonely job.
Felix
But nobody said diplomacy had nothing to do with that, just that it has so many more and richer meanings, just like twat, dick, jerk, arschloch, why limit yourself so?
Oh Clinton, you’re such a drama queen. You’re obviously beating this up – in part due to being inflated with your own sense of importance no doubt. Again. Yeah, yeah, you used to work in MFAT. The operative words being “used to”. The fact that you used to write briefing notes for people who had managed to actually be someone (i.e. the Minister) does not mean you have the authority to assert what the UK PM is thinking.
“…insulting them in the crudest terms”
I mean really – what a load of bollocks.
The tax from the UK will be enormously detrimental to NZ tourism.
I see all the Lefties (who have no clue when it comes to all things economic) have welcomed the tax when everyone in the industry has bemoaned the loss of the $1 billion that British Tourists bring in to NZ every year.
But the fact that climate change is about us will do nothing for the Brits who are plannign to come here. Adding 85 pounds onto a flight to NZ will deter anyone – the flight is expensive enough as it is. And NZ’s own ETS or climate change action will do nothing for those people, so its totally unrelated whether Hide believes in climate change or not.
Talk about wanking on without any purpose.
This is not a international ordeal, only in your world, Clinton, and we all know how small that is.
IrishBill: You’re banned for a month. Come back if you manage to learn some manners.
He’d be a better PM then Key…..in fact so would my cat!
GC
Evidence for the effectiveness of JH’s expertise as a NZ patriot and diplomat?
One example – that NZ won the hosting rights for the 2011 Rugby world cup.
insider you’ve been here all day arguing about trivial distinctions and rhetorical devices. Now you say you’re not trying to be pedantic?
Either you know perfectly well the context in which Steve used the term “1st rule” or you genuinely don’t.
Either way there’s zero point in anyone engaging with you on the topic as you’re either too cantankerous to discuss it in good faith or you’re too stupid to understand the issues.
i.e. you’re either a moron or a cock. And with your last comment you effectively negated the possibility of there being any third possibility without reversing your earlier positions.
Oh well.
That is a long shot argument if ever I’ve seen one.
While it was a stupid move, I am told it was a quick ideological jaunt at the end of an otherwise productive and warm discussion, and did not dominate Gordon Brown’s perception of Mr. Key. So as long as it’s not widely reported in the UK damage should be minimal. Overall I’m quite glad this was the worst damage John Key did after his poor performance during the campaign.
Your continued smear campaign against Key is getting more and more comical SP
I log in here now just to see what spin you have created against the man you fear and your obsession appears to be getting worse.
But don’t cry too much about poor old Gordy’s feeling being hurt as he’ll be out on his arse like helen soon enough when the BCP romp in
Ari
NZ is largely invisible to to the rest of the world. I have been watching how the change of government has been covered in the brief and occasional mention in the overseas media.They are along the lines of ‘ in contrast to the rest of the world the new government in NZ is reversing its climate change policies’ or ‘in contrast to the rest of the world the new government in NZ is bringing in tax cuts for the wealthy”. That is usually accompanied by some positive reference to Helen and Labour’s record.
The rest of the world thinks generally thinks we are quaint and irrelevant. It is up to us to show we are responsible world citizens, as we have been. Those who matter are watching.
“They are along the lines of ‘ in contrast to the rest of the world the new government in NZ is reversing its climate change policies’ or ‘in contrast to the rest of the world the new government in NZ is bringing in tax cuts for the wealthy’. That is usually accompanied by some positive reference to Helen and Labour’s record.”
Really? are these “overseas media” more left wing blog sites by chance as I have not seen or read any of these so called reports which makes me think you are suffering the same dillusions as poor old SP
mike, That’s funny! I’ve been watching your (and TE’s and others) apparent obsession with SP with ever increasing mirth.
I thought I was just imagining that there are a lot of righties that only comment now to say that SP is OTT and blahblah, and now you tell me, that for you at least, it’s true!
At least SP’s blogging obsession is wit’ the PM,
“Cannot. help. it. – Must. see. what. SP. wrote. – ooh. but. he’s. a. nasty. one. – must. tell. him .so.”
laffs.
“In addition to the comments yesterday, where he called the new carbon-offset airport departure tax “protectionism’ and said it will lead to a “contagion effect’, he is now reported to have told British Prime Minister (and former Chancellor) Gordon Brown that his new tax policy is “not necessarily rational’.”
If he wasnt saying this you guys would be attacking him on the grounds that he wasnt sticking up for New Zealand’s interests enough! Besides he is right, the new departure tax is irrational protectionism.
NickC – Please explain clearly how it is protectionism.
Steve,
Here in the UK no-one gives a fat rats arse what John Key has said about a stupid air travel tax that has no doubt been put in place to a) appease local greenies b) fund Heathrow T5 c) staunch middle class voters ditching labour for the conservatives by sticking it to the ‘rich pricks’ and d) get a climate change presence out as part of a dodgy budget tax package.
As a comment to Gordon, it was entirely appropriate for John as PM and Tourism Minister to question the tax and its efficacy to combat climate change. Therefore if the tax is not doing what it says on the packet it becomes a barrier to NZ’s tourism industry and protectionism.
No amount of dillydally talk about diplomacy is going to change that.
Enid. It doesn’t matter whether the British public knows or cares about Key’s comments. This is a diplomatic issue for New Zealand and Key has made a hash of his job in that regard, furthering NZ’s interests.