Groser Tim: Address in ReplyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGroser Tim: Address in Reply[Sitting date: 23 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:233. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade):First of all since this is the first time I have taken the floor in this Parliament I would like to congratulate you Mr Deputy Speaker and your colleagues on your election. I would also like to say—and I am sure this is in common with every member of this House—that having gone through this bizarre slightly surreal thing that happens every 3 years called a general election where we go back and account to the people who put us here it is a great privilege. I know that all the members from whichever political party they come would actually really cherish that opportunity. I am certainly one of them.The issue I wish to take up in this debate is the first matter mentioned by the Prime Minister which is actually the stunning success for “New Zealand Inc.” in New York the United Nations Security Council. I really believe that this is something that happens about once in a generation and it does deserve some extended consideration and discussion in New Zealand politics. I want to acknowledge all the people who have put their shoulder to the wheel from our previous Prime Minister Helen Clark through to our current Prime Minister—I personally have watched him advocate strongly and very effectively with foreign leaders—and a whole team of officials who have really worked themselves into a grind by putting in a maximum effort to make this possible.But I absolutely want to single out Murray McCully. I now know Murray McCully extremely well professionally and I think personally and I believe that without his sense of commitment his drive and a travel programme that makes my own look positively lackadaisical we would not have got over the line so I do want to acknowledge that. You know everybody in this House who has been around for a while knows the old nickname he used to have: “Minister of Politics”. That applied to an earlier stage in his career. I do not imagine Mr McCully would mind that in the slightest because nothing is more important to any individual than the respect of your peers and he would never have attracted that nickname or soubriquet if it did not imply respect for his political skills. What he has done is apply those hard-won carefully honed political skills to the bigger stage of international politics to come out with a success. I want to put on record my views on that.As to the benefits I am aware of the wider arguments that are sort of more centralised on New Zealand interests and I do not disagree with them but the core point is this: if one looks at the history of small States over literally thousands of years from the Peloponnesian War to current crises it is clear what the core interest of small States is. It is global and regional peace and stability—that is nothing imperils the sovereign existence in every sense and the liberties of the citizens of small States more than the absence of international peace and security and the rule of law. For heaven’s sake whatever it costs—I have no idea how much it will cost—we should be playing our part once every generation in putting our shoulders to the wheel to try to make a contribution. The comments I want to make today are really some reflections on what I think the nature of a contribution from a small active State like New Zealand could be.We are in a difficult environment multilaterally around the world. I think there are various reasons but the core reason is a rather paradoxical one. Look at the World Trade Organization which is in terrible trouble and climate change negotiations which are very difficult; we tried to get a long-term agreement in place in 2009 but it has been kicked forward to 2020. I am sure we will get there but it is very difficult to make multilateralism work. I think the paradox is this: it was actually easier to make it work when we had a single hegemonic power—the United States—driving this process. It had enormous creativity behind the process that it put in place when it was absolutely the supreme power after the war with something like 50 percent of the world’s GDP. But as we know that situation is changing.I am optimistic that the emerging superpowers of China and India will play a very useful role but the habits of cooperation are not well embedded between the bricks and the traditional centres of power in developed countries. I think this has a very important implication for the role of small States. One could sort of say with a military point in mind that it is a very target-rich environment for small constructive States to operate and use their skills in and their networks to build coalitions to help a multilateral system that in this process of transition until habits of cooperation are more deeply embedded amongst the superpowers can play a very very important role.Power matters in international diplomacy. George Kennan regarded by many people as the finest strategic mind of the mid - 20th century and the man who crafted the Cold War containment strategy to try to avoid literal nuclear annihilation between the then Soviet Union and the United States said in 1944: “the realities of power will soon seep into any legalistic structure which we erect to govern international life.” When power is a bit more diffuse and there is no basis for looking for leadership from these more diffuse powers this puts a bigger responsibility on responsible small States. I think we are very good at this.Frankly I think we have had generations of New Zealanders who have shown outstanding skills in that. I recall for example Chris Beeby. I first met Chris when I was about 9 years old and my parents rented a house next to his parents’ house. Of course he was a big boy of 14 and gave me all sorts of advice none of which was probably very wise but I certainly found at the age of 9 that it was very interesting. Of course I later became a colleague of his. He was more senior than me in the system. Chris was an eccentric man but an absolute genius. His standing in international legal circles was such that when we had law of the sea conferences—this is a huge issue for humanity and an issue of vital economic and political importance to this country given that we have the world’s fourth-largest exclusive economic zone—the big powers would literally say that there was no point in having a meeting unless Beeby was there to chair it. So we have a bit of a conveyor belt that has turned out world-class people who are very very constructive with real skills.We are not the only small State that does this. I really pay tribute to Norway’s work which is not in the same areas that we tend to focus on—for example its work in the Middle East where it has been used very constructively albeit not enough to try to forge peace coalitions of interest there; its work in Sri Lanka; and its incredible work in the Amazon by funding through their enormous sovereign wealth fund hugely useful Clean Development Mechanism projects that are helping humanity. It is not like we should think we are the only group of people who can do this but we are one of them.There was a very famous US negotiator called Warren Lavorel—now sadly passed away—who I thought was the finest negotiator I had ever met. I remember saying to him that I was particularly frustrated with the United States sitting on the sidelines at one point in the Uruguay round. I said to Mr Lavorel who was a very very senior negotiator that there is one thing New Zealand and the United States share in common in the international trading system and that is we have an influence totally disproportionate to our real power. It took him 2 weeks before he was prepared to speak to me again but we made up.We have been able to use strategy very effectively under different Governments and with different generations of New Zealanders but we cannot smugly think that this is because we are cleverer than anyone else; you do not meet stupid people actually in international diplomacy. A core point behind our position is the strong domestic consensus in place. Colin Keating who was our then permanent representative the last time we were on the United Nations Security Council made his famous statement on Rwanda. I cannot recall his exact words but it was something like the international community should be ashamed of themselves. Did he have instructions from his Government? I very much doubt it. What Colin would have done was know what the core New Zealand value and position were. He would not have needed to go back to Wellington to ask for his instructions on what he should say because he knew where he stood.That is I think a fundamentally important point. There is a famous phrase by the great Prussian strategist Field Marshal von Moltke who said wisely: “No battle plan survives the first engagement with the enemy.” Having been a negotiator in the past I can assure you that that is what an endgame negotiation is like. People get frightened. They do not have a clear domestic position and that is when New Zealand knows exactly where the consensus lies in our country. People get up and take an initiative on the basis of their own authority knowing that they will be able to sell it. I wish to congratulate all those people who put us in this position and I look forward in 2 years’ time to hopefully congratulating them on their safe passage.