Luxon and the Houthis: “Oops, I did it again!”

Chaos in Global Politics

The right-wing coalition government appears to favor confrontations on all fronts. If the government had not had enough difficulties so far (the fierce reaction of the left-wing opposition to the race relations policies, the mainstream media’s harsh criticism of practically every move the government makes, and the bureaucracy’s leaks that create further obstructive blocks), the deployment of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel to assist the US and the UK forces that are attacking Houthi bases in Yemen might make the broader New Zealand public oppose the governing parties. Although it is possible to agree with the symbolism of this move, on multiple levels, there are multifaceted ramifications.

The final, the fourth argument might not be easily understandable. Please write me about that and I will try to clarify.

The Houthis appear to incriminate Christopher Luxon. We should remember that while Luxon was still CEO of Air New Zealand in 2019, the company contracted the Royal Saudi Navy for gas turbine maintenance. The contract caused controversy because the Saudi military was intervening in the Yemeni civil war against the Houthis and allegedly committed war crimes too. Luxon claimed that he did not know about the contract because the value of the contract did not reach $5 million, the escalation threshold of contracts within Air New Zealand. The controversy itself might be enough to argue that Luxon is not capable of leading a corporation because it is problematic in both ways: if he knew about it, then that is trouble, if he did not, then that is the problem.

In January 2024, the New Zealand Government agreed to deploy NZDF personnel to contribute to the military operations of the US and the UK on the Red Sea near Yemen. In their role, the New Zealand troops will assist with precision targeting of the Houthis’ positions. This time, Christopher Luxon certainly knows about the aims of New Zealand’s operations against the Houthis. However, this time, the move may cost him politically much more than the controversy over an Air New Zealand maintenance contract. This possibility is large because there are at least four issues regarding New Zealand’s participation in the war against the Houthis.

Incorrect justifications

The New Zealand Government provided some details on why the deployment of military personnel was good (and necessary). According to their arguments that were presented by Prime Minister Luxon, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins, the Houthis (as they refer to themselves, Ansar Allah) were conducting piracy in the Red Sea which was an ongoing problem for decades. To stop this, it is right for New Zealand to stand up for the freedom of navigation. Besides, the military deployment is not connected to the war in Gaza, the issues are separate.

It is striking why the Government raised these arguments. Ansar Allah may well have harassed shipping in the region in the past but the questions of why we did not hear about it more often, whether they have killed any sailors, whether they looted the cargoes, or whether they sunk ships emerge. If the answer to these questions is negative, then the description of their actions as 'piracy' is fallacious, and we might wonder how on earth the Houthis achieved a decades-long track record in piracy suddenly.

The other argument that the actions of Ansar Allah and the war in Gaza are not related is completely incorrect. After 7 October 2023, the start of the war in Gaza, Ansar Allah made a point of attacking ships with Israeli connections, as a means of expressing resistance against the genocidal actions that Israelis are presently perpetrating in parts of Palestine. Also, it was the Houthis (Ansar Allah) who declared war on Israel officially.

Problematic message to the Middle Eastern region

In various interviews, Geoffrey Miller, geopolitical analyst of the Democracy Project, highlighted that so far, New Zealand has been seen as an honest broker in the Middle East, and New Zealand could support the de-escalation of the conflict. The Government’s move might compromise this image.

In an interview on ‘The Platform,’ Professor Robert Patman at the University of Otago also criticized the Government by saying that the deployment of personnel may undercut New Zealand’s position at the United Nations where New Zealand co-sponsored a resolution demanding “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza.

Crucially, the diplomatic efforts towards the peaceful settlement of disputes have not yet been exhausted, neither for Gaza nor for Yemen; but there has been a rush towards military responses. In itself, this is not in accord with stated New Zealand values. When the decision about the deployment was made, the New Zealand Government should have provided answers to questions such as who engaged in discussion with the Ansar Allah about their actions and their motivations, what diplomatic efforts were performed to resolve the situation, and if none, why the Houthis do not deserve the opportunity to state their take.

Moreover, the possibility of New Zealand getting engaged in a long-term commitment in the Middle East is high. Even though the deployment may have a specified expiry date (end of July 2024), the situation in the region is changing rapidly, and may potentially escalate in unknown ways, which will inevitably lead to further responses. Thus, it is quite feasible that the NZDF personnel, once placed under Centcom command, will be utilized for operations in areas other than Red Sea shipping and Ansar Allah positions in Yemen, and will be requested to remain engaged for extended tours.

This problem is admitted even by US President Joe Biden, who has said that missile attacks on Houthi installations had not stopped ship attacks. The context for the strikes against Ansar Allah in Yemen is seemingly broader than simply 'protecting freedom of navigation.'  They form an integral part of wider US operations against Iranian allies in other locations in various parts of western Asia, which have recently acted in various ways (including by firing at US forces) intending to address the Israeli aggression. This has been acknowledged by Pentagon spokespersons. The comprehensive strikes against Iranian allies include even the US-assisted revival of ISIS in Northern Iraq. Needless to say, New Zealand has no cause for argument against Iran at all. Nor has New Zealand had any prior involvement nor cause for any involvement in the civil war in Yemen. Furthermore, New Zealand already has existing deployments involved in naval operations to monitor and protect sea lanes (for example in Bahrain).

Open alignment with the US-UK interests

Critics of the military deployment also argued that this step signals how New Zealand is aligning with the US interests in the continued power rivalry between the US and China, as well as other active world conflict zones. It is important to remember that this alignment was signaled before the announcement on 23 January 2024.

In a keynote address to the US Business Summit held in Auckland on 30 November 2023, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters affirmed NZ’s intention to ‘strengthen engagement with US on strategic and security challenges,’ and to ‘encourage continued step-up in US commitment and engagement with the Pacific,’ as well as ‘seeking new opportunities to intensify and contribute to dialogue on strategic and security issues with the US.’  In this context, he cited that ‘New Zealand has a crucial role to play in promoting shared values in our part of the world and in growing economic opportunity and performance,’ while being ‘focused on regional security and prosperity.’

In an address to the Diplomatic Corps on 11 December 2023 Peters reaffirmed NZ’s stance as a ‘values-driven and constructive international partner,’ with a focus on national interests, as well as to enhance mutual prosperity and security through multi-lateral and bilateral relationships.  He also signaled NZ’s intention to ‘refresh engagement with traditional likeminded partners, Australia, US, Canada, and UK,’ and to ‘reinvigorate our defense and security engagement, including with the US and our Five Eyes partners, as well as other key security partners in the region and beyond.’

An opinion piece by Derek Grossman, a senior defense analyst at Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California, published via Nikkei Asia on 15 January 2024, entitled, ‘New Zealand’s new PM isn’t going back to old ways on China.’  Grossman points out a tension within the new coalition government between the National Party’s tradition of Sinophilism (especially under former National PM John Key 2008-17), and the early indications from PM Luxon, Defence Minister Judith Collins, as well as FM Peters, that the new coalition administration will be more focused on reinvigorating the security relationships, particularly with the US and the other Five Eyes partners.

The direction of New Zealand’s foreign policy is then clear, especially because the new Government indicated the intention to consider joining the AUKUS alliance’s technological cooperation, the so-called Pillar II. The New Zealand Government, however, avoided questions around both the possible escalation of conflict in the Middle East that could result from the US/British attacks on the Houthi region of Yemen and the possible future complications of this stance concerning New Zealand’s significant bilateral trade ties with China.

Therefore, it appears that New Zealand is joining the small group of countries that have already been announced by US Central Command (Centcom) as support partners for the joint US-UK strikes on Yemen last week (including Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Netherlands).  Active participation in this is a significant change of tack for New Zealand, which may have serious implications for perceptions of New Zealand and future options for New Zealand’s involvement in diplomacy regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, the war between Ukraine and Russia, and, last but not least, China.

Unexplainable but rightful hypocrisy

All three reasons discussed above are relevant and crucial for the emerging opposition to the coalition government’s foreign policy. However, it is also essential to raise the two arguments as to why the alignment with the US interests is inevitable and eventually, right. First, it is mistaken to think New Zealand can have an independent foreign policy. Second, the alignment with the interests of the United States is the morally right choice for New Zealand, and that would have to be made eventually.

Regarding independence, we need to accept that New Zealand is a small country. As a small country, independence can hardly be achieved. Because I was born in a similarly small country, Hungary, I learned from our history that our closeness to the great powers’ buffering zone, Hungary always had to balance in between the interests of the competing great powers. However, the leaders tend to clearly align with the interests of one of the competing powers. The most remarkable moment of this balancing act (gymnastics?) occurred during the civic revolution of 1848. Then, Hungary was part of the Habsburg Empire, and the leadership knew that as an independent country, Hungary would become the prey of one of the great powers (Prussia, Russia, or Austria) anyway. Therefore, to protect the achievements of the civic revolution and, at the same time, maintain Hungary’s inclusion in the Habsburg Empire, the Hungarian leadership sustained its conscription quotas for the empire. This resulted in a schizophrenic situation: Hungarian troops were fighting against civic revolutionary forces in North Italy.

New Zealand is located in a unique geographic position, and the perceived luxury of distance created a belief that New Zealand can be independent. However, from time to time, competing great powers appeared on the New Zealand shores. During World War II, German submarines laid mines in some of the harbors causing casualties too. After the defense contract between the Solomon Islands and China in 2022, China’s presence in the region has imposed a threat to the security of the region. Therefore, the US-China rivalry already arrived at the near abroad, the Pacific Islands.

The mere fact that New Zealand, a small state that has the largest geopolitical latitude, has to face the constraint of choosing between sides of competing great powers, proves theoretically that no country can escape this entrapment between great powers’ interests. If this choice is inevitable in the unfolding US-China confrontation, who should we choose then?

The simple answer is that we shall choose the side that is morally more acceptable (less unacceptable). This side is the United States and its alliance. Critics might say that this side is already unacceptable because we can see the obfuscation and spinning of words, and also the incorrect justification of the step to deploy the military to the Red Sea. For these critics, we must say that it is partly the proof of why they are morally less unacceptable, why hypocrisy (not so hidden obfuscation) is a necessary part of democracies.

Among the three global powers, the United States, China, and Russia it is only the United States that is democratic. Are all these powers imperialists? The answer is yes. Nevertheless, when it comes to standing up for their interests, it is only the United States that is constrained to make these standups appealing to the voters. This causes hypocritical behavior. Practically, democratic regimes give grounds to hypocrisy, the leaders in democratic countries at least have a moral sensitivity to make their policies look good. Authoritarian leaders would not bother and this causes a theoretical problem. When analysts discuss international politics, often they notice the US leadership announce incorrect arguments that lead to disappointment. It is difficult to overcome this disappointment, and seemingly, because the authoritarian leaders appear more honest, these analysts and the wider public tend to favor the authoritarian leaders. (This is the phenomenon that helps Donald Trump gather public support because his brutal honesty appears “better.”)

There are situations when incorrect statements help with achieving better outcomes. For example, an elderly person might have a better quality of life even after a terminal diagnosis simply by not knowing about the inevitable. This is the reason why in some countries, patients with cancer are often not told of the diagnosis. Using this analogy, we have to consider the possibility that the New Zealand Government understood the necessity to openly align with the United States.

There are fractured pieces of information about the possible US geopolitical strategy. What seems the most likely is that the United States decided to attempt to weaken its most significant rival, China and this strategy involves the trading isolation of the Asian country. The sanctions against Russia already caused disruptions to the European-Chinese trade as well. We should not forget that even New Zealand academics urged the Government to diversify the country’s trade relations so the dependence on Chinese demand may decrease, and this is why the Government attempts to quickly negotiate a free trade agreement with India. Another element of this US strategy is the creation of geopolitical tensions around fossil fuel exploration areas, most importantly, in the Middle East. Altogether, the situation is rather chaotic and it is difficult to see the steps in this strategy.

It is likely, that Foreign Minister, Winston Peters understood the situation and he “reads the room” clearly. Nevertheless, the explanation of this necessity of alignment might prove impossible to the New Zealand public. This is why it is likely that the Government’s foreign policy involvement might lead to its election loss by 2029. Governments typically have a honeymoon period that lasts longer than an election cycle. However, by 2029, the positive elements of this international strategy, the protection of democratic rights, may not be visible to many, but the costs of this strategy (returning inflation from the second half of 2024 due to longer shipping routes around Africa and higher insurance costs for shipping) will have been experienced already.

So, Luxon’s second, and this time direct not implicit, contribution to attacking the Houthis is likely to prove his first step to his political downfall.