Financial Review Debate — Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

The situation in the Middle East is now central to the considerations of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and was among the topics addressed in the financial review we are debating today. We have been inspired by the success of the Egyptian and Tunisian people in toppling their dictators, and we were hoping that the Libyan people would soon prevail over the Gaddafi regime. However, as we know, the regime has fought back and was making advances, prompting calls for an internationally imposed no-fly zone to neutralise Gaddafi’s air force, which was bombing rebel forces.

The proposal for a no-fly zone is only one element in the resolution recently passed by the UN Security Council. The motion had a very loose wording, allowing member states to “take all necessary measures … to protect civilians” in Libya. So far the coalition powers have bombed not only anti-aircraft batteries but also Gaddafi’s tanks, troops, and even his compound in Tripoli. The British Secretary of State for Defence, Liam Fox, has not ruled out Gaddafi himself being a target.

Five important Security Council members—Germany, Brazil, India, China, and Russia—did not support the UN resolution. They were reluctant to support military intervention in Libya, and the Greens share their concerns. Although we fully identify with the democratic forces in Libya and do not wish to see them crushed, we see a lot of problems with the military intervention as it is evolving right now. Many civilian casualties will result from the air attacks on Government facilities in the cities of Libya. That has been the case in all previous air assaults by Western powers in places such as Belgrade, Baghdad, and Kabul.

We are also looking at more than coalition air operations; it is a military intervention that could involve foreign forces on the ground, even though the UN resolution prohibits a “foreign occupation force” in Libya. We read in this morning’s New Zealand Herald that “Coalition commanders argue that a ground intervention is not the same as an occupation, and that this form of military action must remain a viable option” if Gaddafi stays in power. In other words, regime change is on the agenda, as it was in Iraq, a war that New Zealand stayed out of.

We know well the problem that evolved with the Iraqi regime change when it was controlled by foreign forces, as opposed to the more orderly transition that is currently taking place in Egypt, which is being driven by domestic forces—the people and institutions of Egypt. It is also possible that the attacks by foreign forces could strengthen the dictator Gaddafi’s base of support as he pushes the message to Libyans that the attacks are coming from Western powers, which have traditionally been seen as hostile to Arab causes in Palestine and elsewhere. In a related problem, it could be more difficult for the democratic forces to get ordinary Libyans involved in their struggle, particularly in the capital of Tripoli, if the regime can portray the democratic forces as agents of the foreign invaders.

The intervention also takes place against the background of hypocrisy from the Western powers involved. For the last few years those same countries have been good mates with the dictator Gaddafi, praising him and selling him the very weapons he is now using against his own people. The fact that Libya had oil was justification enough, they felt. They also said that he had a stable Government, and that was a plus for them, even though that stability was enforced by a complete clamp-down on anyone who dissented against Gaddafi.

Of course, the same countries that are involved in the air attacks at the moment backed a range of dictators across the Middle East, from Mubarak in Egypt to Ben Ali in Tunisia and the kingdoms in the Persian Gulf. Even today there is hypocrisy, with the same Governments that are taking action against Gaddafi’s forces not being particularly worried about the Saudi Arabian forces entering Bahrain to crush the democratic movement there, with many people being killed.

It is really interesting that people can find clouds even on a sunny day. I am interested in the comments made in the Chamber earlier this afternoon by Gareth Hughes, a Green member, and by Keith Locke, who has just resumed his seat. The issues in the Middle East are a water shortage, which goes right across North Africa and down through the Middle East, as well as poverty, decades of injustice, mass unemployment, and rapid population growth. Those things all put pressure on food prices, which underpin the instability in this part of the world. The Middle East is hyper-arid, the underground water resources are disappearing, the population will double to 600 million in the next 40 years, and climate change will result in increased temperatures, so we are dealing in that part of the world with political dynamite.

I say good on the Minister of Foreign Affairs for opening embassies in Kabul and Abu Dhabi, because he is in touch with reality. The issue is water. Abu Dhabi has been developing underground storage tanks to store 26 million cubic metres of desalinated water. That will represent a 90-day reserve. The UN estimates that in this country we could sustain a population of about 48 million, based on the amount of water that falls in this country. The Arab countries are as sensitive to water as Australia is to floods. This is the paradox: although the Arab countries depend on increasing oil prices, those increases in turn will cause increasing food prices.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Prior to the dinner break I was talking about the paradox that applies in the Middle East whereby the countries there want to increase the price they get for their oil, but as they do that they are pushing up the price of the food that they need to import.

We are here to address the financial review of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I pay a particular compliment to the Minister for focusing the ministry on backing John Key’s undertaking to lift our exports from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP. We are doing that by consolidating trade agreements—for example, with China. In the financial year under review we secured a trade agreement with Hong Kong; initiated dialogue with the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries, with a view to establishing a trade agreement there; and entered into negotiations with India, Russia, and Korea, because those countries are our future.

The ministry has performed very well under the Minister’s leadership. For example, if we think about the ministry’s response to the tsunamis in Samoa and Tonga and, though not in the financial year under review, to recent events in Japan, we realise the ministry has performed exceedingly well. This work within the ministry is being done under the Minister’s leadership. He is looking at how to improve the efficiency of the department. The Minister has engaged with the private sector and taken advice from the export sector on how we can do more to support the activities of New Zealand businesses and exporters. At the same time, the ministry has brought together and reabsorbed the NZAID agency, which spends $500 million a year, back into the ministry, securing efficiency gains there in its administration.

The ministry has also performed very well in other areas of its work. It has preserved the International Whaling Commission and supported it as the sole agency representing the interests of whales and of people who support the longevity of whales on this planet. The ministry is also engaged in things like the agricultural research partnership, looking at how to engage other countries to address the issues of greenhouse gas emissions from our livestock in this country. Tim Groser has done a particularly fine job there in bringing a range of countries into a research partnership that involves not only New Zealand but also a lot of other countries and their money.

Report noted.

Ministry of Research, Science and Technology