Much has been said about the words New Zealand has chosen to use in responding to the United States' attacks on Iran. While New Zealand's general opposition to the United States/Israeli joint onslaught on Iran has been clear, many have criticised the carefully chosen words various government Ministers have used when referring to the global fuel crisis and economic upheaval those attacks are causing as timid and non-committal. 

This diplomatic-speak, the critics argue, is selling New Zealand short. They say our leaders should be more forthright in their condemnation of what the United States is doing and the erratic and unpredictable actions of President Trump. Uncomplimentary parallels have been drawn between the government's actions today, and the perceived moral courage of the earlier Lange government which defied the United States by closing our ports to nuclear powered or armed ships in the 1980s. 

However, the situations are quite different. The nuclear ships ban, which quickly became a mainstream view domestically, was a deliberate decision the New Zealand government took with respect to its own borders. It was not, as the government repeated constantly at the time, a policy it was seeking to export elsewhere. New Zealand was prepared to bear the diplomatic and economic consequences to uphold the integrity of its nuclear free policy. To that extent, it was an issue that was almost entirely within New Zealand’s control.

In contrast, the current Iranian crisis has a much more global effect. New Zealand's interests are far more focused on protecting and ensuring the continuity of our oil supplies, especially since we are a very small market at the end of one of the world's longest supply lines. We have no other special interest in the conflict now underway, and the government has made it clear we will not become actively involved. 

As a country, we may well have a view on the justification and legality of the military assaults that have been taking place and the long-standing suppression of human rights in Iran, but, other than the expression of that view we are in no position, directly or indirectly, to influence the outcome of what is happening. Therefore, the question reverts to New Zealand's national interests and how they can be protected and advanced.

There are two aspects to this. The first relates to protecting our oil supply lines. In this regard shoring up existing supply arrangements with Singapore and Korea for refined products, following the previous government's decision to close the Marsden Point Oil Refinery, has been an important part of the government's response. That appears to be proceeding as satisfactorily as can be expected in the circumstances, although those supply lines are themselves still reliant on far more uncertain supply lines from the Middle East. The potential re-opening of the Straits of Hormuz, still very much at the discretion of Iranian authorities, will not make an immediate significant difference in that regard.

The second aspect is far more difficult and problematic – managing our ongoing relationship with an increasingly volatile and unpredictable United States. Again, a contrast with the nuclear ships row is in order. Then, despite deep and bitter differences with New Zealand, the then United States administration still adhered to established international rules in its response.

The same cannot be said about the current idiosyncratic United States administration which has shown no respect at all for upholding established rules of engagement for dealing with differences between nations. New Zealand has no assurance that any response from Trump to any strongly expressed criticism it may make of his policy regarding Iran, or anywhere else, would be proportionate, reasonable, or consistent with established international practice. 

In a situation where New Zealand is critically dependent on the regularity of international oil supplies being restored as quickly as possible our national interest demands that the government act in a way that does not put that objective at risk. And, like it or not, that imposes some discipline on the way Ministers and senior diplomats can be seen to be responding to the actions of long-time friends like the United States.

That does not mean that New Zealand should be too timid to speak its mind. Nor equally does it mean sacrificing tact and diplomacy for foolhardiness. There is a fine line to tread between making the country’s position clear in situations like this, consistent with our independent foreign policy, and being overly belligerent in our language to the detriment of our wider interests.

The government is clearly trying to achieve that balance but is not really doing so. While some Ministers have been able to set out the government’s position with a measure of clarity, others have struggled, coming across as either too mealy-mouthed or even covert supporters of the United States’ position. The upshot has been that New Zealand’s long-standing position in such conflicts – favouring a United Nations’-led response and upholding the international rules-based system – has often sounded a little muddled in recent weeks.

This in turn gives understandable rise to the call for more firmly stated opposition from the government to what the United States is doing in Iran. Were that to become the case, however, and the Trump administration retaliate in the vindictive way it does to strong criticism, the domestic calls that the government should have seen that risk coming and acted more smartly to prevent that would be just as loud.

Thanks to Trump, the current international situation he has engineered is a no-win case for everyone. In such unfortunate and unprecedented circumstances, New Zealand’s softly-softly approach, which definitely needs to be better finessed in its presentation to the New Zealand electorate, is nonetheless arguably the best and most prudent option available at present to protect our national interests.