The Cook Islands passport saga with New Zealand and the Comprehensive Partnership Agreement with China have raised serious public concerns sending national and international alarm bells that goes far beyond our shores, writes Terea Mataiapo Dr Paul R P Allsworth.

Both plans and initiatives have been boldly and alarmingly instigated by Prime Minister, Mark Brown, causing much dissent, concern and anger amongst the people.

One of the fundamental principles of good governance is not only consulting with the people but more significantly, getting the peoples support and mandate for important issues, such as a Cook Islands passport with the inevitable loss of New Zealand citizenship. This matter was poorly managed and I must say, as a mataiapo and former Koutu Nui president, I and I’m certain, the broader matakeinanga, tribes and people, join me in not wanting to lose their respective New Zealand passport status. In response to sustained pressure from New Zealand and our people here at home and abroad, PM Brown “put on hold’ and then fully backed down on this foolhardy venture. Unlike his senior parliamentary colleagues, he avoided meeting the protesters who gathered at Parliament.

To fully comprehend the historical relationship between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, one must delve into the origins of its constitutional relationship and how this relationship has developed and successfully tested the passage of time, over the past 60 and in fact, 100 years.

For purposes of this article, I have penned in graphic form our constitutional arrangement between the realm member states, Niue, the Cook Islands and Tokelau and our realm parent, New Zealand.

With matters of regional and international trade agreements, specifically, the Comprehensive Partnership Agreement with China, it is within the confines of the constitutional arrangement that binds New Zealand and the Cook Islands, that PM Mark Brown, should have liaised and consulted with the New Zealand Government. PM Brown stated, “We have advised them (NZ) on the matter, but as far as being consulted and to the level of detail that they are requiring, I think that’s not a requirement.” I, like the vast majority of informed political, legal and media opinion, beg to differ from PM Brown. Based on our constitutional realm arrangement, his conduct was at best, unbecoming.

The constitutional arrangements amongst the realm country members, which in my view, New Zealand is the realm parent, with realm member states, being Niue, the Cook Islands and Tokelau. This basically means that the realm member states operate in free association with New Zealand, with the exception of external security and defence protection. It is only this specific part in the constitutional realm arrangement, that New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom and to some extent, the United States, that raises alarm bells and concern.

NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters stated, “Neither New Zealand nor the Cook Islands people knew what was in the agreement.” As a result, continuous mass media complaints on social media and print media increased. On the other hand, PM Mark Brown says, “New Zealand is asking too much oversight over its deal with China.” PM Brown goes further by saying, “They (NZ) certainly did not consult with us when they signed their comprehensive partnership agreement with China and we would not expect them to consult with us.” PM Brown has a point but very much ‘stretching a long bow’! One should note New Zealand’s agreement with China was purely trade, with no strategic fisheries and seabed mining development and minimal risk to security and defence.

Foreign Minister Peters stated, “Consultation was only meaningful if it happened before an agreement was reached, not after the fact.”

When one examines our Constitutional realm arrangement, one would expect a realm member state, such as the Cook Islands, to consult with its realm parent, being New Zealand. New Zealand, being the Cook Islands historical protectorate and protector for security and defence, would naturally be alarmed, not with trade matters, per se, but more critically, the possible impact of security and defence ‘diplomatic permutations’ that will overshadow China’s entry into the strategic Cook Islands seabed mining and fisheries. Out of the eight or so agreements signed with China, only seabed mining and fisheries requires a physical and capital infrastructure presence inside the Cook Islands EEZ.

It would be fair to say, that the other trade agreements, do not affect and impinge on the security and defence realm arrangements between New Zealand and the Cook Islands. International law allows the free movement of ships in the EEZ, however, the mere presence of Chinese naval and merchant ships, in Avarua or Penrhyn harbours, will notably see New Zealand, our realm parent and its allies, which are also our allies, becoming seriously concerned. This in my view, is what Foreign Minister Peters has been agitated about. China possesses the world’s largest navy and has been actively stretching its powerful naval presence throughout the Pacific region.

I believe most Cook Islanders have no issues with PM Brown delving into trade opportunities with China. Expanding goods and services is part and parcel of international trade to boost the national economy. The only aspect, in my view is, when trade oversteps the economic line and moves into unchartered areas via seabed mining and fisheries resources both requiring activities including the ability for intelligence gathering and possible military presence. This will lead to rising geopolitical tensions, as China’s direct presence and influence, in the middle of the Pacific, will shake alliances such as New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom and to a large extent, by virtue of the AUKUS agreement, the United States.

There is no doubt, that China’s aggressive military exercises in the Pacific are intensifying due to the corresponding display of military alliances and threats worldwide. China’s historical and current trade interventions in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, has seen multiple trade centres turned into strategic military bases. This is the real concern with the Cook Islands, as the northern group atolls, stores the bulk of the Cook Islands seabed mineral deposits and fisheries. Tremendous concentration and development will be focused in the northern group islands, notably, Manihiki and Penrhyn. Penrhyn atoll has a deep natural harbour and a long coral airstrip built by the US during the second world war.

PM Brown has stated that due to the nation turning 60 years of self-government this August, it is time to pursue our own self-determination and sovereignty. The Cook Islands already enjoys self-government in free association with New Zealand, our parent realm. Sovereignty on the other hand is rather ambiguous, means power, control, rule, dominion and authority. Any question of sovereignty movements needs the Cook Islands peoples voice and mandate, if and when PM Brown chooses his next steps. It is probably along these lines that Foreign Minister Peters said New Zealand and the Cook Islands needed to “reset” the relationship and re-state the mutual responsibilities and obligations. He further stated, “New Zealand wants to renegotiate its free association agreements with the Cook Islands to secure increased transparency in its foreign partnership.”

The failed passport saga and China agreement has taught us that, transparency, accountability and public trust is central to the hearts of the Cook Islands people and any deviation without formal consultation and mandate, will not be tolerated. PM Brown most certainly has no mandate from the people to embark on such foolhardy if not egotistical ventures.

What the future holds will depend entirely on the outcomes of the “reset” negotiations between our realm parent, New Zealand and realm member, the Cook Islands. More significant is the question of the presence of the rising dragon, China. in the room. Only time will tell.

• Dr Paul R P Allsworth holds a PhD in Political Science and an MBA, and is a former director of the Cook Islands Audit Office. The views expressed in this opinion piece are his and not necessarily of this newspaper.