John Hayes - A closet Colonialist?

There have been of late several responses both audio and in print to statements made by John Hayes and reported in the local print media and all of which have been critical of his reported statements. John Hayes has worked for the New Zealand MFAT for several years and has been involved in Pacific affairs for much of that time. I have too much respect for that fact to be given to a knee jerk reaction to truncated media reports of what he said. I wanted to read what he said in full to the Institute of International Affairs of New Zealand before commenting.
I have had that opportunity and am now able to say that much of what he said is right but I totally disagree with the rest and I make that assertion solely in respect of the Cook Islands and not any other country referred to by John Hayes.
The distinguished foreign affairs bureaucrat now politician makes four fundamental assertions according to my analysis :-
1. “… small countries could never pursue an independent foreign policy.”
2. “… the age of decolonisation is over.”
3. The self-government model of the Cook Islands is a failure
4. “… we need to ensure that incomes and the level of core services in Cook Islands (sic) … is as good as in New Zealand.”
The first point is a self-evident fact. Hayes admits that this is true of New Zealand as well and that all those of small nations who pursue, even with the best of intentions, independent foreign policies are living a delusion. I agree with him. It is impossible for nations to arrive at foreign policies without recognition of the plethora of complex inter-mixing international forces – politics, religion, trade, high finance, national pride, race etc – that set moving parameters to independent thought and action by any country. At no time is the compound of boundaries fixed.
This is true of any nation even although John Hayes shies from this all encompassing fact, preferring to assert this only in respect of small countries.
Governments change out of synch with other countries so too foreign policies. New countries appear on the world map, as we have seen since World War II, and serious attempts are made by all to have accommodative foreign policies. International organisations like the United Nations and its several agencies declare policies that tend to set parameters to foreign policy beyond the sovereignty of many countries.
All this is accepted. No country steps onto the international stage without knowing this. To do so is to live a delusion. Island nations once enjoyed the luxury of total independence establishing fiefdoms of, at various times, barbaric or highly advanced governance. This stopped when the march of “civilization” barged through our back doors. We ceased being independent enclaves. We became global villages. We became citizens of planet Earth with all its trappings and plagues – and, woefully, the loss of our independence. We came to govern not by “our” way but by “their” way no matter how hard we fought against it.
The art of foreign affairs is getting what you want from the world and doing what you want in the world without violent reaction. Pretty much the same with domestic affairs. In essence it is getting the most for yourself out of your relationship with your world neighbours. You could do it on your own, as do powerful countries, or you could do it collectively, as do powerless countries.
This, however, is impossible when a country is NOT in charge of its own foreign policies. The ability of a country to independently position itself on the international stage as it wishes is a fundamental element of self-governance. That is what we have. That is what Hayes has missed when he described our self-government in free association with New Zealand as “pseudo sovereignty”.
Bill Rowling, the former Prime Minister of New Zealand, was right in respect of New Zealand’s foreign policy when he said “that our decisions will be made in Wellington, not in Washington, London nor Canberra”. Premier Albert Henry and Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Henry were right when they insisted that the foreign policy of the Cook Islands will be made in Rarotonga and not Wellington or Canberra despite the discomfort of those two Pacific power bases.
Self-governance gave our country CHOICE, a powerful nationalistic possession, which we did not have for 65 years as a colony of New Zealand. We got the choice to navigate the best interests of our country through the competing interests of others. We got the choice to pick for ourselves from the flow of goods, services and money that recognise no international boundaries. We got the choice to borrow from wherever and whenever. We got the choice on the international stage to swing with Wellington, Washington, Beijing or any other.
Indeed we got the choice to be a strong nation, go with the flow or do nothing. We have the choice to allow our country to drift aimlessly without economic leadership as has been the case in recent times. We also have the choice to change the leadership of this country which choice, in my view, is critically urgent.
I have taken the choice to deal with the other assertions made by John Hayes in my forthcoming columns. I hope you will join me.

Herald Issue 463 10 June
- World famous activist assisting residents
- Budget will decide if residents prosecute Government over landfill
- Forestry project sucking Mangaia dry
- Budget 2010 – fiasco or disaster?