United Nations General Assembly (Patrick Gruban, 2006).

Yesterday, I read about a YouGov poll in the United Kingdom, in which young Britons were polled about World War 3. More than half reckoned some kind of global war, if not the nuclear conflagration that most assume W.W.3. would become, is likely within a decade. As the Iran war rolls on, the need to break away and form a distinctly New Zealand foreign policy has never been stronger, more urgent or consequential if the country does not change course.

I have written a bit in the recent past about challenges facing New Zealand, and paths that we could choose from. I have mentioned the need for United Nations reform, a change to prioritizing the South Pacific and the need to respect international law. With regards to all three of these – and other matters of concern – I have made proposals for changes that I hope others will agree with.

There are also other nations that New Zealand should be looking to develop closer ties with, while we wait for the United States to elect a better President. A good start would be to invite Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to New Zealand for bilateral talks. Canada is one of our more underrated trading partners. Meetings with the President of Mexico Claudia Sheinbaum, and the Government of Singapore would not go astray either.

But now with the American-Israeli war on Iran and Mr Trump’s demands that allies become involved against Iran, that persistent background buzz about New Zealand needing to pull back from the Anglo-American embrace and look at other options has been turned up a few decibels.

I have been watching the various arms treaties that were signed during the Cold War expire one after the other. Very few, if any of the original treatises, such as Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (S.A.L.T.) I and II, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (S.T.A.R.T.) I, and II, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (C.T.B.T.) now remain. S.T.A.R.T. I in 1991 in particular was a comprehensive landmark treaty with an ambitious, but truly credible aim of reducing nuclear weapons by 80%.

At the same time, Russia and the United States have resumed, or continued the development of weapons technology that was either prohibited or seriously restricted by these treaties. Russia, for example resumed production several years ago of the TU-160 Blackjack, a long range supersonic bomber. Both countries are developing or have developed hypersonic missiles that can reach long distance targets just a few minutes after being launched, leaving virtually no time for verification of their origin.

Whilst not being a fan of Prime Minister Helen Clark’s tenure (1999-2008), I do respect her voice on foreign policy as one who has learned experience of dealing with various challenges and crises during her time in Parliament. Another voice I respect is that of Phil Goff, her former Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had the bravery to tell the truth about Donald Trump during his time as Ambassador to the United Kingdom, before current Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters sacked him.

I cannot disagree with the Government stance that we need to spend more on defence. I have for as I have been interested in politics, advocated for a Defence Force that can meet all of its annual training commitments and be able to deploy a force in the South Pacific at short notice if needed. I have, however disagreed with the conservative parties of New Zealand politics, who overwhelmingly agree any American military technology has to be best, even if it is out of our affordable/politically realistic defence budget. I will continue to do so on the grounds that aside from the affordability question, our requirements for deploying in the South Pacific are not the same as those of the U.S., which wants to be able to deploy anywhere at any time.

Some say that a global conflict might be different than a head on confrontation. Some suggest that it might be economic, with things like oil and computer chips becoming weaponized themselves by their producers/manufacturing countries. That might be the case, but if a superpower feels trapped and vulnerable – something that has never happened before – because world opinion has turned against it, could in this crazy world, the prospect of mushroom clouds or an all-in brawl, might be more real than we want to admit.

And the global order which helped build New Zealand’s reputation up so much, would be dead.

A single voice is not a conversation. What do you think?