Cook Islands PM slams NZ for 'patronising approach' over China deal
Pausing nearly $20 million in development assistance is "patronising" and "inconsistent with modern partnership", Prime Minister Mark Brown has told the Cook Islands parliament.
New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands, due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.
The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which represents four percent of the country's budget. On Wednesday local time, Brown said the money would have been used for health, education and tourism marketing.
"The relationship between the Cook Islands and New Zealand is defined by partnership, not paternalism," he told his parliament on Thursday. "Decisions to unilaterally pause core sector support reflect a patronising approach, inconsistent with modern partnership."
The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Peters said had not been lived up to, but Brown said the declaration was "explicitly clear" that the Cook Islands could enter international agreements in its own right.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Where we are finding our divergence of views is in the provision relating to the consultation obligations and rights of both parties to the declaration.
"We are committed to addressing this urgently. That is why we agreed to New Zealand's proposal to establish a formal dialogue mechanism to discuss the agreements and their implementation."
Brown said there had been two meetings so far – one in April and May.
"It is disappointing that political commentary from within New Zealand has come at a time when official dialogue continues," he said. "Such commentary undermines genuine and concerted efforts by our senior officials to mend the erosion of trust and confidence that, to be clear, has been experienced on both sides."
RNZ Pacific reached out to Peters' office for a response on Brown's comments. A spokesperson for Peters said they would make no further comment and stood by the statements issued yesterday.
In parliament, Brown suggested a double standard from New Zealand and said he was "not privy to or consulted on" agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.
Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Especially, Mr Speaker, in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China."
Peters previously said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on 4 June. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon visiting China.
Brown said he was sure Luxon would ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and "the goodwill that we've generated with the People's Republic of China".
"I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands.
"Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China."
The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs, but New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief and defence.
Former Cook Islands Deputy Prime Minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown "should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness, because you can't rely on China".
ADVERTISEMENT
"[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do, because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand, and let the government and people of New Zealand down."
Not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters was being a bully.
"It's like he's taken a page out of Donald Trump's playbook, using money to coerce his friends," Buchanan said.
"What is it exactly do you want from us, Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?"
Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now and New Zealand seemed to want to knock the country back down.
rnz.co.nz
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
Tonga's Government Mum On Health Cyber Breach
, RNZ Pacific Senior Journalist The Tongan government has yet to reveal more details about a cyber breach of its health records that occured 10 days ago. The breach by hackers and their subsequent demand for payment were revealed in parliament four days after the event. A cyber expert from Australia has been in the country for nearly a week, and local media report that more personnel are being brought in. Meanwhile, concern about illegal access to health records is mounting, amid a requirement that patients bring any medical records they have into the country's hospitals as staff are now relying on manual data. Former Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni wants a full explanation from the government, but most of the country's leaders are in Ha'apai this week for the annual conference of the Wesleyan Church. Police have said that the hackers have demanded a payment in "the millions". A media conference scheduled for later on Thursday is expected to shed more light on the issue.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
New Zealand Withdraws Millions In Aid From Cook Islands
New Zealand has abruptly halted nearly $NZ20 million ($US11 million) in funding to the Cook Islands in retaliation for a partnership agreement the tiny Pacific Island nation concluded with China in February without consulting Wellington. NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters informed the Cook Islands government of the decision early this month, but it only became public on June 19 after a Cook Islands news outlet saw its brief mention in a government budget document. The New Zealand government declared it will not consider significant new funding 'until the Cook Islands government takes concrete steps to repair the relationship and restore trust,' a spokesperson for Peters said. Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown told parliament that the 'punitive' financial decision was 'patronising' and would hit core sectors including health, education and infrastructure. 'It also disrupts long-term planning and the sustainability of vital public services,' he said, adding it would 'harm the country's most vulnerable citizens.' New Zealand has long maintained a neo-colonial relationship with the Pacific nation as one of its so-called 'Realm' countries along with Niue and Tokelau. The Cook Islands, with a population of just 15,000, has been a self-governing territory in so-called 'free association' with New Zealand since 1964, administering its own affairs with Wellington providing oversight in the key areas of foreign affairs and defence. In 2001, New Zealand and the Cook Islands signed a Joint Centenary Declaration, which broadly states that the two governments must 'consult regularly on defence and security issues.' Peters demanded that the Cook Islands share the proposed text of the agreement with China before it was signed, which Brown flatly refused to do. The declaration nowhere defines the scope and nature of bilateral 'consultations.' It explicitly affirms the Cook Islands' right to enter independently into 'treaties and other international agreements' with any governments and international and regional organisations. Brown maintained that Wellington was advised the China deal would not include matters of security and that there was 'no need for New Zealand to sit in the room' while it was drawn up. He declared that his government was legitimately exercising the Cook Islands' autonomy and its ties with both New Zealand and China should not be construed as a threat. The 'comprehensive strategic partnership' is broad in scope, referring positively to China's Belt and Road Initiative and the US-backed Blue Pacific development strategy adopted at the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) in 2022. It pledges cooperation over economic and environmental resilience, infrastructure, including port and wharf facilities, and cultural exchanges. It also promises to 'explore areas for further cooperation within the seabed minerals sector' and offers joint consultations over regional forums. In response, Peters made increasingly belligerent threats, seeking to destabilise the Brown government. He warned that if the Cook Islands opted for more 'independence,' beyond the 'free association' framework, its citizens would lose their New Zealand citizenship. This would call into question the status of 80,000 of Cook Islanders living in New Zealand and another 28,000 in Australia. The China-Cook Islands agreement was hysterically denounced by the entire New Zealand political and media establishment as an existential danger and used it to justify the country's further integration into US-led plans for war against China. Right-wing New Zealand Herald columnist Matthew Hooton provocatively declared that NZ troops should be sent to invade the Cook Islands. In a complete inversion of reality, Martyn Bradbury, editor of the pro-Labour Daily Blog, wrote on June 21 that the Cook Islands was 'seeking to destabilise NZ' by publicising the fact that NZ aid had been stopped on the eve of NZ Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's visit to China last week. Bradbury denounced the Cooks as 'acting as an enemy to us' and engaged in 'treason.' The blog's unvarnished belligerence reflects the attitude of the NZ ruling class to the entire Pacific, which has not changed in the past century. The funding halt by Peters, who is leader of the far-right NZ First Party in the governing coalition, is a brutal reprisal. New Zealand is the Cook Islands' major source of development aid. The money is part of $NZ200 million directed to the country over the past three years as part of an almost 60-year arrangement. Peters' Trump-like ultimatum that the Cooks must scrap its deal with China is a clear threat that the funding could be permanently stopped. Significantly, Peters has refused to criticise the Trump administration's cuts to USAID funding in the Pacific. The Biden administration had pledged $US1 billion to help counter China's influence. All aid has now been frozen, which along with Trump's planned tariffs, is deepening the economic crisis in the region. Diplomatic relations between the Cook Islands and China were first established in 1997. Beijing has consistently defended its pacts, saying in February that the deals were not intended to antagonise New Zealand. China's ambassador to Wellington, Wang Xiaolong stated that as far as China was concerned, the Pacific was 'not a chessboard and should not become one.' New Zealand is now considering additional national security clauses in its agreements with Pacific Island nations. These would be modelled on the neo-colonial deals Australia has signed with Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea and Nauru which explicitly give Canberra the right to veto engagements with any other states on security and defence-related matters. In a Pacific-France summit convened in Nice last week by French President Emmanuel Macron, Peters mounted a thinly disguised attack on China, urging Pacific leaders to 'stand together as a region' against 'external forces' which he declared are seeking to 'coerce, cajole and constrain.' Peters explicitly criticized countries he claimed pressured Pacific partners 'not to publish agreements or avoid the [Pacific] Forum Secretariat when organising regional engagements.' The propaganda that China wants a military foothold in the Pacific turns reality on its head to justify the accelerating preparations for war by the US and its regional allies. New Zealand, under the previous Labour Party government and the current National Party-led government, has been intent on rolling back Chinese influence in the region. While engaged in strengthening security and defence ties with both Canberra and Washington, Peters has made multiple visits across the Pacific to cajole and bully island governments into line. The small impoverished island nations are caught in a fraught balancing act. Brown's visit to China in February followed similar trips last year by Fiji's Sitiveni Rabuka, Jeremiah Manele and Charlot Salwai, the prime ministers of the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, and Fiamē Naomi Mataafa of Samoa. All met with President Xi Jinping and secured economic agreements. In response to the NZ government's funding freeze, the opposition Labour Party's Pacific spokesperson Carmel Sepuloni wrote on Facebook that 'the Cook Islands signing the agreement with China was out of step with our free association agreement.' She merely criticised the 'timing' of the government's decision and called for diplomatic negotiations. Former Labour prime minister Helen Clark, who was a signatory to the 2001 Declaration, told Radio NZ last week that the Cook Islands had 'caused a crisis for itself' by not consulting Wellington before signing the deal. 'There is no way that the 2001 declaration envisaged that Cook Islands would enter into a strategic partnership with a great power behind New Zealand's back,' Clark told RNZ. In fact, the regional imperialist powers—Australia and New Zealand—have maintained neo-colonial control over the Southwest Pacific, keeping the fragile island nations in a state of dependency with conditions of poverty and under-development endemic. New Zealand is now working to further cement its interests in the region in collaboration with Australia, France—which placed New Caledonia under an armed occupation last year following anti-colonial riots—and the United States. All these countries are rapidly building up their militaries in preparation for a US-led war against China. 24 June 2025
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
The House: Parliament's Reaction To The Middle East Crisis
Parliament's week began with an assurance that the safety of New Zealanders in the Middle East is the first priority. The tense situation in the Middle East, and indeed, intervention from one of our allies is something that no government could ignore, so when the sitting day began on Tuesday, the first item of business was not Question Time, but a Ministerial Statement from Foreign Minister Winston Peters, followed by debate and questions. Peters emphasised that the government's main focus amidst the tension in the region was to get New Zealanders out of harm's way. "The government is committed to supporting New Zealanders caught up in this crisis," Peters told the House. "Since the beginning of the conflict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided around the clock, 24/7 consular support to New Zealanders in Israel and Iran-and to their families back home in New Zealand - and will continue to do so." The statement was also peppered with lines advocating for three D words: diplomacy, de-escalation, and dialogue - treading a delicate line of not signalling outright support for either side, citing New Zealand's limited influence in the Middle East. Perhaps as a reaction to accusations of fence-sitting in recent days, Peters finished the statement by offering a list of what New Zealand does and does not want in the region. "We want de-escalation and dialogue. We want a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living in security and peace side-by-side. We want humanitarian aid to get to those who need it. Ultimately, we want peace. "What we do not want is New Zealanders in harm's way. We do not want ever escalating rounds of military action. We do not want a nuclear Iran. We do not want Hamas holding hostages and terrorising Palestinian and Israeli civilians alike. And we do not want Israel occupying Palestinian land. "Ultimately, we do not want another generation of young people in the Middle East, scarred by conflict, replicating the enmities of today and yesterday. This cycle of conflict, now generations old, must end." Statement benefits Ministerial Statements are used by the government to brief Parliament-and by extension the public-on an unfolding situation or event and explain the government's plan of action in response to it. They resemble a press conference wherein a minister delivers a statement, followed by questions or comments from MPs from other parties, generally spokespersons on the relevant topic. There is a tactical benefit for governments in getting in first and delivering a Ministerial Statement (instead of waiting for the Opposition to request an Urgent Debate), in that you can lead the messaging, and so try to control it. Equally though, there is a benefit to the Opposition from Ministerial Statements - because they are able to both make comments and ask questions. Ministerial Statements are more flexible than either Question Time or Urgent Debates. The Q & A Labour leader Chris Hipkins generally agreed with Peters' advocation for diplomacy over the conflict saying "there is much in the statement by our Minister of Foreign Affairs that I completely agree with". "We also welcome the possibility of a ceasefire. We also endorse the non-expulsion of ambassadors from countries who have taken actions that we disagree with. "If we want international diplomacy, if we want international dialogue, the role of diplomats has never been more important. We also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force deployment, and they go with our full support." Opinions diverged over whether New Zealand should have called the US strike on Iran a violation of the UN Charter, with Hipkins asking Peters whether the government believed the strike was in line with the Charter's clause on the right to self defence. Peter continued to tread a delicate line in his reply. "Unlike some, we wait till we get the evidence, and we've said it constantly day-after-day that instead of rushing to judgement, as we were asked this morning by the media, 'Has peace broken out?' - 'No,' we said, 'We're going to trust but verify,' and when we sought to verify we found that what they were saying by way of questioning was wrong. "And in this case, we're going to find out the facts as time goes by. There'll be some days yet-maybe sometime yet-before we can establish as to the immediacy of the problem and the level of deterioration with respect to the Iran position on gaining nuclear capability in terms of weapons." While Hipkins wasn't quite able to milk the committal he wanted from Peters, the two weren't especially adversarial in their exchange. That mood wasn't to last though, with Green co-leader Marama Davidson the other opposition MP to question the minister. After a speech advocating upholding the rules-based order, Davidson asked whether the minister would condemn the Israeli and American strikes on Iran. This question seemed to open the floodgates for a shouting match between the two parties, which perhaps is a lot easier with the new seating configuration in the House (New Zealand First are now close to the Greens, having swapped with ACT to allow the new deputy prime minister to sit next to the prime minister). A Ministerial Statement which began in a relatively statesmanlike fashion then morphed into a political tit-for-tat. "I have to say when it comes to the proxies for Iran that have committed so much terrorism and the loss of thousands of lives, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, with respect to Iran-when it comes to that, the Greens have been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever," Peters said. "We've condemned all parties, and shouting out like that typically just disposes me to point to that member and say that member's only got one side, and, for the first time ever, she's mentioned Iran's people. Yes, Iran's people have been under 40 years of desperation." After a few minutes of back and forth and argy-bargy, Speaker Gerry Brownlee blew his metaphorical whistle. "Neither party here is displaying the sort of decorum that you'd expect out of Parliament. I refer both sides to Speaker's ruling 150/1, which means that neither side of the House has carte blanche to say whatever they like as a result of a ministerial statement." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
