At ‘Unleashed’, a creative exhibition hosted by W?t? Workshop in Auckland, a unique workshop titled ‘An Intro to Scars and Scrapes’ draws considerable attention. The recently held event saw the participation of Christopher Luxon for a tourism marketing declaration. However, the Prime Minister kept a cautious distance from the event’s interactive segments, possibly due to the ongoing verbal joust with his Foreign Minister, Winston Peters. So far, the nascent coalition Government has seen New Zealand First emerge as the more grown-up entity alongside Act’s fledgling presence.
Despite this, an interesting twist is expected in the political landscape with Act’s leader, David Seymour, likely to assume the Deputy Prime Minister’s office, currently held by Peters, in a little over a month. This impending shift has unveiled differences in approach towards the trade tariffs imposed by the US President, Donald Trump. The disagreement notably lies in Luxon’s ambitious objective to assemble a trading coalition willing to counteract Trump’s growing protectionist views.
Luxon’s comprehensive strategy, which was revealed last week, involves a global outreach to various world leaders in the hopes of gaining their commitment to this cause. However, his own foreign minister appears to be missing from the list of leaders who were initially contacted to rally support for the plan. Peters, while speaking to RNZ, criticized the concept, suggesting it was too quick and slightly immature.
Peters, in his speech at the East-West Center in Hawaii, cautioned against aggressive reactions to international geopolitical activities. He mentioned that recent conversations around global trade have unfortunately turned into stark, divisive issues. Peters remarked in his talk that the escalation of trade conversations into warlike rhetoric seems rather rash and narrow-minded.
The pointed criticism seems to be a clear disparagement of Luxon’s own articulations about a trade war and the worthiness of free trade. Luxon’s intent to foster a pro-trade coalition encompassing the Indo-Pacific and Europe also appears to be the target of Peters’ critique. The speech, while primarily addressing the audience in Hawaii, seemed to hold implications for the leaders back home in Wellington.
A harder challenge arises with the involvement of David Parker, Labour’s spokesperson for foreign affairs, who alleged in an interview with Newsroom that he had seeded the said idea through Peters’ office during a recent visit to Europe. The full extent of this disagreement, and Luxon’s denial of it, could hinge on Trump’s potential decision to retract further tariffs.
The prime issue lies in the varying perspectives that Luxon and Peters hold towards Trump and his trade policies. These differing views, considering they remain unchanged, are expected to influence the political discourse over the course of the next 18 months leading to the next election. Unless the coalition government disintegrates early, this difference of opinion is bound to resurface frequently.
An unyielding stance seems to be the course for Peters, who has continually shown support for Trump’s trading approach since the start of the administration, despite potential detriments to New Zealand. Similarly, Luxon maintains his course resolutely, earning approval for his authoritative leadership as a supporter of free trade, championing a coalition of countries with shared interests.
This polarization in attitudes toward international trade and US policies is likely to remain a contested area between Luxon and Peters. With an election expected in about a year and a half, barring any early dissolution of the coalition, these contrasting views will likely be subjected to much debate and scrutiny in the months to come.
It is clear that the friction between these leaders, fueled by opposing perceptions on Trump and his trade agendas, may remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. Given the considerable time until the upcoming election, excluding the possibility of a coalition breakdown, many more opportunities are expected to arise for these disagreements to surface and be discussed publicly.
Given Peters’ long-standing support for Trump’s trade policies, it would be surprising if he were to modify his stance, even if it appeared New Zealand might be adversely affected. Luxon, on the other hand, continues to stand firm in his role as a staunch advocate for free trade, rallying a coalition of nations with similar views, thereby gaining significant commendation.
The starkly different viewpoints on Trump’s trade policies held by Luxon and Peters set a stage for political tension and disagreement. With a little over 18 months until the next election, assuming the coalition does not fall apart in the meantime, these differences are bound to be and should be thoroughly aired in public discourse.
Ultimately, the contrasting stances on international trade, specifically in relation to Trump’s approach, shows no sign of conciliation between Luxon and Peters. With the best part of a year and a half until the next election, unless the coalition prematurely dissolves, there will be ample opportunity for this divide to be put under the spotlight.