Big people can make a small country big

BY COLIN JAMES
Last updated 05:00 28/03/2009

Relevant offers

Politics

MP's deep baritone brings down the house ACC levy hike considered Fay group would meet Chinese undertakings Global economy may hit Budget 'Saving the world starts in own backyard' Banks a one-man ACT band Greens question OIO's impartiality Mine inspectors at full power - Labour Department Debt crisis may stymie surplus by 2014 Crafar ruling will be seen as 'xenophobic'

Mike Moore, Don McKinnon, Helen Clark: top multilateral jobs after top domestic jobs. What has New Zealand got?

First, connections and track record.

As trade minister in 1984-90 Mr Moore was a great mixer, a vigorous proponent of free trade despite his early socialism and a perennial generator of a wide variety (and quality) of ideas plus books to convey them.

Mr McKinnon resolved the Bougainville standoff with Papua-New Guinea.

Miss Clark, who has got the biggest job of the three, won from major-country leaders a respect far greater than 4.3 million people can command and more than any previous prime minister including Peter Fraser, who lived in a simpler world.

Her intellect and supple understanding of international relations, her promotion of free trade, climate change and reconciliation of conflicting religious faiths and her demeanour earned her endorsement from a range of international heavyweights. Her insistence that without United Nations backing Iraq must not be invaded underlined her multilateralist credentials.

Second, New Zealand exports people.

In part, that is because New Zealand is very small. If you want to get to the top, the top isn't here. It is in one of the world's great cities or universities or corporate headquarters. Even Peter Jackson must court Hollywood.

That often means exile. For example, with a tiny few exceptions, New Zealand companies cannot offer a career that includes ladder-climbing time overseas. Aspirants must join foreign companies. If they come back, it is for the children or to retire.

So you find New Zealanders around the world in high positions in corporations and multilateral organisations. Until Miss Clark, political scientist Ramesh Thakur was the highest-ranked New Zealander at the United Nations, as senior vice-rector of the United Nations University with assistant director-general status, one notch down from Miss Clark's under-secretary-general spot at No3.

Mr Moore and Miss Clark could go no higher here after prime minister. A top multilateral job was the only higher option. And it is a higher option for a George Bush or a Tony Blair anywhere else is down.

Third, New Zealand often undervalues its most able. Mr Moore was is much more highly regarded offshore than onshore. The reaction of many to Miss Clark's going will be a mean-spirited good riddance: such people match their country's smallness with a sad smallness of mind.

That smallness has followed Miss Clark in foreign affairs. Murray McCully's retreat to a narrow frame exhibited in his approach to aid, which included an initial order to NZ Aid officials not even to attend last week's British-backed conference on the United Nations millennium development goals and, when he relented, a ban on their speaking underlines that he was John Key's most inapt appointment (offset only, so far, by his inspired choice of former deputy prime minister Jim McLay as ambassador to the United Nations).

Ad Feedback

What does Miss Clark leave behind?

She leaves a by-election when she leaves Parliament and the result might embarrass her party, given National's soaring popular support. And, Damien O'Connor's much-needed conservatism apart, those next on the list, when Michael Cullen goes, are unwanted.

But, more important, she leaves her party with a strong membership and a cohort of younger, smart, MPs who will in time remake the party in a more flexible and more modern mould. Labour is united, which is unusual when a dominant leader goes, as the fractious Australian Liberals are proving though a "so far" must be added because if Phil Goff doesn't get traction with voters by early 2011 there may be a push for a next-generation leader.

From all accounts, Miss Clark has contributed vigorously and constructively to caucus discussions since stepping down but has done that in private and has punctiliously done nothing that detracts from Mr Goff's leadership. Had she not won an international job, it was not unimaginable that she could have been foreign affairs minister in a future government.

Miss Clark leaves behind a hard-to-match international relations record, summed up in the China free trade agreement and the repair of the United States rift.

But at home her legacy is mixed. She reunited the country after the 1980s-90s reforms. But she mistook a debt-fuelled binge for a structural shift in the economy when actually it was marking time. Consequently, she mistook the budget surpluses as structural when they, too, were, in effect, borrowed. So she spent too much and now the bill is in.

How will she go in the United Nations Development Programme job? It requires exhortation, consensus-building diplomacy and administrative toughness. She has never been great at the first. She will do the second consummately. The third badly needs a dose of her steely admonition.

And for us? This once-shy farm girl will be New Zealand in New York and the 166 countries where the UNDP operates. Big people can make a small country big.

ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz

- © Fairfax NZ News

4 comments
Post a comment
Henry   #4   12:08 pm Mar 29 2009

Woah Murray easy on the comment there buddy! are you going to publish the second half of your book on here at a later date?

Uzra Balouch   #3   03:01 pm Mar 28 2009

Indeed big people make small countries big. Kiwis need to let go of their island mentality and nurture and nourish their tall pooppies instead of cutting them down to size.

It should be a proud day for us New Zealanders that our former Prime Minister will be heading the UNDP- it is for me. Congratulations Rt. Hon. Helen Clark. Way to go!

Murray   #2   02:38 pm Mar 28 2009

"But at home her legacy is mixed. She reunited the country after the 1980s-90s reforms. But she mistook a debt-fuelled binge for a structural shift in the economy ....."

Surely, this paragraph must be merely a token comment by Colin James regarding Helen Clark's legacy as one of New Zealand's four(?)longest serving prime ministers?

As such a comment, it really is woefully inadequate and it is implicitly questionable.

Who apart from Colin James says "she mistook the budget surpluses as being structural... "?

Colin James opines Helen Clark's "intellect and supple understanding of international relations, her promotion of free trade, climate change and reconciliation of conflicting religious faiths and her demeanour" - all acceptable as truth and very nice.

But as prime minister, first and foremost, Helen Clark was a "politician" and leader of the Labour Party. I am quite sure that beyond a laudable idealism (which has been evidenced to have gained international recognition) her foremost objective was to attune the policies of her beloved Labour party to the values and aspirations of the New Zealand electorate; and for the Labour Party to continue to lead an MMP government.

"But she and Labour didn't listen to the people, and that is why they lost the election", is the common retort.

Wrong.

In all fairness, Colin James also comments on Helen Clark's "consensus-building diplomacy and administrative toughness".

These were features which distinguished Helen Clark's political leadership from that which was apparent regarding some of her (NZ) contempories. Helen Clark's prime Ministryship was not a populist governance by referenda. She listened to ALL the people, and gave due weighting to the voice of minorities, not least of which were immigrant minorities.

Helen Clark has left a democracy which is functioning wonderfully (again surely, evidenced to have gained international recognition) and I have said before that my personal belief is that she would give her very life for the sake of democracy. Large numbers of Anglo-Saxon and Maori New Zealanders left the country long-term (often for the perceived long-term opportunities Colin James has detailed) and NZ moved rapidly from predominant bi-culturalism to multi-culturalism.

As these emigrating citizens were substituted, Helen Clark was aware that for political success she had to maintain social cohesiveness. Her determination to listen to and give weighting to minorities as part of her concept of "listening to the people" has to be seen in the light of her Party only just prevailing over the spike in conservatism that Don Brash had been able to muster.

Consensus and inclusiveness, above all else, had to be her political tool, and this could not have been put into effect with a populist style.

But as the Brash inspired spike in populist conservatism withered, the National opposition was left with a policy vacuum. National maintained electoral momentum with one thing and one thing alone - with the help of sympathetic journalists National had consolidated the sentiment that substantial tax cuts were affordable, and indeed, implementation of them was only natural justice.

Helen Clark would have accepted Dr Cullen's advice that substantial tax cuts were imprudent, but she was the politician extraordinaire - to reconcile with the mood of the electorate was the dictate; and she intimated that she was tempering Dr Cullen's dogma.

Next week NZers receive profligate tax cuts directed mainly towards the big borrowers and the big spenders, partly funded by curtailing the KiwiSaver of lower income earners. National had no imagination for anything beyond tax cuts, which are now taking place in spite of John Key's and Bill English's better judgment - the remainder of the programme is in jeopardy.

The election might have been lost because Dr Cullen and Helen Clark knew better; that is, that the surpluses were NOT structural.

Please explain how Helen Clark is able to be described as a big spender?

Surely, she is a modest lady from all points of view?

Paul   #1   10:49 am Mar 28 2009

I'm happy that Helen Clark is going, and neither Colin James or anyone else using a naive patriotism is going to convince me to think otherwise. She was a mean-spirited and bad-mannered leader who took the country for granted and I'm absolutely gobbsmacked she has been awarded a high level position at the UN.

Post comment


Required

Required. Will not be published.
Registration is not required to post a comment but if you , you will not have to enter your details each time you comment. Registered members also have access to extra features. Create an account now.


Maximum of 1750 characters (about 300 words)

I have read and accepted the terms and conditions
These comments are moderated. Your comment, if approved, may not appear immediately. Please direct any queries about comment moderation to the Opinion Editor at blogs@stuff.co.nz
Special offers
Opinion poll

Should bicycle helmets be mandatory?

Yes- They save lives and prevent injury

Yes- But only for children

No - It is a personal choice

I don’t care

Vote Result

Related story: (See story)

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content