Debating New Zealand’s foreign relations: the role and impact of the University of Otago Foreign Policy School 1966–1976

ABSTRACT

For over half a century, the internationally recognised University of Otago Foreign Policy School has annually drawn together a mix of government officials, diplomats, academics, students and members of the general public to discuss issues of international significance. This article considers the establishment of the Foreign Policy School, and analyses its impact on the formulation and implementation of foreign policy between 1966 and 1976. Michelle Hale Williams’ conceptual model is employed to assess the School’s influence on public and political debate. It is argued the School’s influence was directly and most clearly evident at what Williams defines as the agendas and institutional levels. There was a gradual but definite shift in New Zealand’s foreign policy outlook between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s, which is reflected in questions raised and discussed by the School. Public engagement with foreign policy questions, in which the School played an enabling role, was also transformed in the course of this period. The School rapidly became an important forum for foreign policy discussions between groups that had previously had little interaction. This article shows that, while it generated few concrete results at the level of policy, the School certainly played a part in helping to foster a national world-view that was increasingly based on New Zealand values and interests, paving the way for the emergence of a more independent foreign policy.

KEYWORDS:

• New Zealand
• foreign policy
• debates
• universities
• public engagement

Introduction

During the past 10 years, the [University of Otago] Foreign Policy School has come to play an important part in the public discussion of international affairs. Through the participation of Ministers and officials, it has helped successive governments to work out their foreign policies, and to explain them to the people of New Zealand. Perhaps the School has also helped people interested in the subject, in the universities and elsewhere, to understand the way in which foreign policy is formed, and the considerations on which specific policies are based. (Allan Highet, Minister of Recreation and Sport, at the 11^th University of Otago Foreign Policy School, 22 May 1976, cited in Otago Daily Times 1976, May 26)

This article seeks to analyse the role and impact of the University of Otago Foreign Policy School on the formulation and implementation of New Zealand’s foreign policy between 1966 and 1976. In the first part, we consider the emergence of the School. In the second part, the distinctive features of this institution are identified. The third part outlines a conceptual model developed by Michelle Hale Williams to help define, comprehend and assess the impact factor in public life. In the fourth part, we utilise Williams’ framework to examine the impact of the School on public and political debate in New Zealand. The fifth part looks at the effects of those developments on the institutional environment within New Zealand. The sixth part considers the impact of these factors on New Zealand foreign policy-making during this period. The seventh and final part provides an overall assessment and concludes that the impact of the School in its first decade was directly and most clearly shown at the societal and institutional levels.

The emergence of the University of Otago Foreign Policy School

More than 50 years ago, Arnold Entwisle, a senior lecturer in international relations in the Department of University Extension, directed the first Foreign Policy School at the University of Otago and, in many ways, the vision that inspired that event remains as relevant today as it was then. Entwisle believed, as he stated in an opening address to the first School in 1966, there was an urgent need for a ‘do-it-yourself kit’ (Entwisle 1966, May 13) in the area of New Zealand foreign policy-making. Entwisle’s assessment originated ‘wholly in some private ruminations’ (Entwisle AR 1975, May 22. Letter to [Frank] Corner. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 7; unreferenced) but was shaped by several factors. First, the world in the mid-1960s was rapidly changing. Entwisle pointed out that of the 134 independent states in 1966, 53 had been established during the previous two decades (Entwisle 1966, May 13). Second, and not unrelated, he recognised New Zealand faced looming and quite distinctive international challenges. Britain had signalled its intention in the early 1960s to join what was then known as the European Economic Community (EEC; Patman 1997, p. 12), and New Zealand in 1965 decided to send a military combat unit to fight alongside the United States, its ANZUS partner, in the Vietnam war (Rabel 2005, p. 76, 114–115).

While these developments stimulated a growing New Zealand interest in international affairs, Entwisle worried that efforts to develop a more independent New Zealand foreign policy could be hampered by a lack of public knowledge in this area. In particular, he noted there was a dearth of public forums in the country that could bring together ‘not only people having a professional interest in the subject – history teachers, leader-writers, officers of certain sections of the public service, perhaps one or two members of parliament – but [also] those whose interest springs simply from their concern for the country’s foreign relations’ (Entwisle AR 1965, Jan 27. Letter to Secretary, Department of External Affairs. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 2; unreferenced). The central purpose of establishing the Foreign Policy School, therefore, was ‘to provide [an] opportunity for informed consideration of New Zealand’s foreign policy’ (Entwisle 1965, Jan 27) and facilitate a wider debate on the challenges the country faced, directly or indirectly, in the international arena. By embarking on this path, it was hoped, in Entwisle’s words, ‘we will have contributed a little to the formation of a body of informed opinion in New Zealand’s relations with the rest of the world’ (Entwisle AR 1966, May 20. Letter to RM Mullins. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 2; unreferenced).

Planning and organisation

The Foreign Policy School was organised by University Extension, the adult education department at Otago, and was developed out of the adult education courses on world affairs and current events it had offered since the mid-1950s. Significantly, though, the Schools sought a more committed, nation-wide audience, and anticipated the emergence of a world-view that would be centred in Wellington, rather than London. Entwisle directed the first 10 Schools.

During this period, Entwisle drew on considerable support from the External Affairs Department in Wellington and also specialist academics, particularly in the Department of History and Political Science (which was divided into two separate departments in 1967). For instance, the programme for the 1974 School drew on the advice of HS Lang, Secretary to the Treasury, JM Howells of the Economics Department at Otago, and Hew McLeod of the History Department (Foreign Policy School 1974a; Foreign Policy School 1974b). But Entwisle remained ‘very much in command’ of the Schools. According to Malcolm Templeton, ‘the School was started and kept going by two enthusiasts, Arnold Entwisle and Angus Ross, head of the History Department, with modest financial support from the University’ (Templeton 1993). While Ross was very well connected in the foreign policy world, Entwisle was the point of contact between the External Affairs Department and University Extension, a relationship that was to play an important part in the development of the Schools. Years later, Angus Ross described himself as ‘a promoter of the Foreign Policy School since it began’ (Ross A 1993, Oct 18. Letter to Bill Webb. Located at: Webb Family collection, Dunedin; unreferenced).

By 1966, Entwisle had taught a range of adult education courses in current foreign policy questions for the past decade. The public appetite for discussion of international relations extended well beyond the city. Each of the University Extension lecturers was responsible for a rural district, and Entwisle’s was Central Otago (Entwisle P 2014, Feb 7. Interview with A. Gee; unreferenced). An indication of his thinking that led to the establishment of the Foreign Policy School the following year is provided by two new courses he offered in 1965. The first, a ‘World Affairs Commentary’ comprised eight lectures. The other course, in 10 lectures, was on ‘New Zealand and the World’ (University Extension 1965, p. 4).

The planning and the organisation of the School until 1976 remained largely in Entwisle’s hands. He emphasised these schools were all about expanding foreign policy knowledge in New Zealand, and should be bipartisan occasions that fostered links between academics, policy practitioners and interested members of the public. The first Foreign Policy School developed the theme of his programme of adult education lectures into a four-day residential course designed to attract a range of both students and members of the public. Its purpose was to discuss ‘the question of how to make a foreign policy’ and to ‘assist members in isolating the governing factors in the making of a foreign policy for New Zealand’ (Entwisle 1965, Sep 24).

Initially, it was planned to hold the first Foreign Policy School in 1965 during the May school and university holidays, which would enable participants from all over the country to attend. However, with the arrangements made and the leaflets printed, Entwisle was forced to cancel the event owing to lack of interest. A week before the deadline, only two enrolments had been received. Entwisle admitted to being ‘deeply disappointed’ at the lack of response (Entwisle, AR 1965, Apr 6. Letter to AD McIntosh. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 2; unreferenced). Nevertheless, several last-minute enrolments were received, which, although insufficient to save the 1965 School, reinforced his determination to go ahead with an essentially unchanged programme the following year ‘with more careful preparation’ (Entwisle AR 1965, Apr 13. Letter to AD McIntosh. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 2; unreferenced). The first Foreign Policy School on How to Make a Foreign Policy was held in May 1966 over a long weekend. (The previous year’s abortive School was to have run from a Monday to a Thursday.) Entwisle considered it ‘very successful … despite its relatively low enrolment’ of 22 and immediately started planning for the following year, with a view to make it ‘an annual affair’ (Entwisle AR 1966, May 20. Letter to AD McIntosh. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 2; unreferenced).

That aspiration was duly realised over the next decade. The University Extension Department hoped for a minimum of 40 enrolments in order to break even financially, but this number was never reached during this period. The 1967 School on National Security attracted 39 enrolments, but that number proved to be highest for any School directed by Entwisle. The numbers dropped back in 1968 to about 23 (Foreign Policy School 1966a; Foreign Policy School 1967b; Brown 1968, May 20, p. 1) when the School focused on International Agencies. Further Schools followed in the next three years on the History of New Zealand’s Foreign Policy, New Zealand and the Pacific Basin, and Europe in New Zealand’s Foreign Policy. Though there was a ‘slight fall in enrolments’ in 1971(Entwisle AR 1969, May 26. Letter to Secretary for External Affairs. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 5; unreferenced), the total was limited to 40 formally in 1972 (Foreign Policy School 1972). There was little need, as that year’s School on New Zealand Foreign Policy saw only 25 enrolments (Entwisle AR 1972, May 24. Letter to [GR] Laking. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 6; unreferenced). After the 1973 School concerning New Zealand in a Multipolar World, the attendance of 20 for the School in 1974 devoted to New Zealand in the World Economy was again considered disappointingly low (Entwisle AR 1974, May 27. Letter to [Frank] Corner. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 7; unreferenced; Foreign Policy School 1974c) but the numbers revived to the ‘nearly record’ level of 34 in 1975 when Asia in New Zealand’s Economy was the subject of the School (Entwisle AR 1975, May 22. Letter to [Frank] Corner. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 7; unreferenced; Foreign Policy School 1975b). After Entwisle’s retirement, the cap on enrolments was removed, and the numbers rose dramatically to about 130 in 1977 (Norrish 1977, June 9; Palmer 1977, p. v).

Measuring public impact: the Williams model

For the purpose of this study, the concept of impact is broadly defined in terms of influence (The criteria used here for defining and measuring impact were derived from a study of western European radical right-wing parties: Williams 2006, p. 43–46. For a discussion of the transition from ‘club' to ‘network' diplomacy, an analytical dimension appropriate to the more recent decades of the Foreign Policy School, see Cooper et al. (2015)). Influence is understood as ‘the capacity to change a course of events that might develop differently without the introduction of the impact stimulus … influence determines the ability to alter political discourse, to introduce important issues, to develop fresh ideas, and to induce action’. According to Williams, ‘one must account for the opportunity to influence decision-making prior to the stage of formal legislation’. According to this view, the ‘critical stage’ of influence is found in ‘political debates, popular discourse, or the process of bringing an issue to saliency’ (Williams 2006, p. 42–43). A pyramid model has been used to represent the different possibilities for impact (see Figure 1). The bottom level represents the widest possibilities, and the second and third levels represent narrower and more concrete possibilities, respectively.

Figure 1. Levels of impact. From Williams (2006, p. 44).

Williams’ agendas level emphasises the degree of influence that events have on popular discourse, public attention, and society at large. The agendas level is consistent with the works of Mark Considine (Considine 1998, p. 297–317), John Kingdon (Kingdon 1984), Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). From this literature, Williams derives an understanding of agendas as ‘the cycle of new ideas about policy replacing the old ideas’ (Williams 2006, p. 44). Williams draws on the work of Considine, who believes that ‘one of the most important aspects of policymaking in any political system is the pre-decision stage at which a potentially wide range of concerns and preferences are fashioned into some actionable list of proposals’ (Considine 1998, p. 297). This pre-decision level includes the ‘informal political discourse in a society and the way actors in the political system respond’ (Williams 2006, p. 44). Interaction at the agendas level is a dynamic process. This is, according to Kingdon, where ‘problems, policies, and opportunities combine and interact with the political environment’ (Williams 2006, p. 44). For Williams, ‘political agenda-setting incorporates a variety of actors outside of the legislature including political parties, interest groups, social movements and the priorities of the general public or voters that all combine to affect agendas’ (Williams 2006, p. 44).

The institutional level is concerned with the impact of events on the political system, or the ‘institutional structure of government’. This is a narrower level of impact that affects the constitutional form of government, political party ideologies, party-to-party relationships, and electoral dynamics. At the institutional level, as with the agendas level, Williams believes there is a dynamic relationship, where political parties can alter the political system. According to this view, political structures can change in response to the impact of an event stimulus. An impact stimulus may force parties to shift along the ideological spectrum, or to expand into new areas in order to appeal to voters’ demands. In rare cases, ‘electoral system rules may change or constitutions may be revised’ (Williams 2006, p. 45).

In the top tier of Williams’ pyramid, the policy-making level of impact is more evident. Here the formulation and implementation of legislation can be seen as a ‘concrete’ indicator of impact. This level represents the most visible expression of influence because legislative activities are relatively easy to document (Williams 2006, p. 46). However, the policy level also represents ‘the most difficult causal leap’ (Williams 2006, p. 46). This is because ‘any issue has multiple influences upon its legislative form and outcome’ (Williams 2006, p. 46).

Impact of the Otago Foreign Policy School at the agendas level

The establishment of the Otago Foreign Policy School in 1966 was a major departure from the past because it provided one of the few forums in New Zealand for the discussion of foreign policy amongst policy practitioners, academics, students and the interested public. Until the mid-1960s, there had been relatively little opportunity for these different groups of people to come together and exchange foreign policy ideas. Foreign policy debates in New Zealand had hitherto largely been conducted within organisations such as the Department of External Affairs, the Annual General Meeting of the Returned Services Association, and the Royal Over-Seas League, or at conferences of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs (NZIIA), as well as university departments, societies and conferences. At the same time, New Zealand did not have any dedicated foreign policy-related think tanks until 1993 when the Centre of Strategic Studies was established at Victoria University in Wellington.

Why the school was not regarded as a conference

The Foreign Policy School was intended in its first years to be what its name suggests, a school rather than an annual conference or symposium. These foreign policy forums were called ‘Schools’ because of their origins in an adult education course designed to introduce students to the practical realities of foreign-policy making. The name was retained deliberately when the occasions had become much more like conventional conferences. The historian Ann Trotter recalled: ‘Entwistle’s (sic) idea was to educate people about the significance and importance of foreign policy – hence School in the title. The first Schools were just that’ (Trotter A 2014, Mar 5. Letter to A. Gee, based on her conversations with Angus Ross, head of the History Department, University of Otago; unreferenced).

Entwisle tried to create ‘a forum where the varied perspectives could be shared without rancour and intelligently’ (Ross 2014, Feb 11). He wanted to maintain a balance of officials and academics, and to avoid reliance on any one professional group. One of the early speakers recalled that the debates could become quite heated during the early Schools: ‘There were furious debates on the Vietnam issue and the radicals were always wanting to pass resolutions to send to government. Arnold Entwistle was very firm in not allowing anything like that. He insisted that the meetings were a ‘School’ not a conference or convention’ (McIntyre WD 2014, Jan 24. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced).

The residential nature of the early Foreign Policy Schools was an important factor in creating a comfortable learning environment. The good-natured conviviality of the occasion, and the value of informal and after-hours discussions, came as a pleasant surprise to many of the outside speakers. In 1968, the External Affairs Department sent Bruce Brown and Robin Burnett, neither of whom had attended a Foreign Policy School before. They booked hotel rooms, ‘both suspecting that we might need a break from the school and that if we lived in we might be badgered out of a session as well as in it’. Bruce Brown however ‘stayed only one night in the hotel and shifted into St. Margaret’s Hostel where the others were quartered. I discovered that the meal time discussions and after session coffee discussions were really the most pleasant part of the School and I was very glad that I had made the move’ (Brown 1968, May 20, p. 1).

The school-like nature of the Foreign Policy Schools seems to have been diluted somewhat in the course of their first few years. Yet the formula for the programme needed only minor adjustments in the light of experience, and remained remarkably unchanged over the years. Each year Entwisle emphasised in the enrolment leaflet that the ‘programme has been arranged to provide for the maximum participation by the students. Each lecture will be followed by one and half hours of discussion’. It should be added the intimacy of the occasion was enhanced by the fact that each speaker addressed all of the participants at the School. The last day was devoted to a discussion of the general theme of the School (Foreign Policy School 1967a). At the suggestion of the students, the Sunday afternoon session was dropped in 1968 (Entwisle AR 1967, July 17. Letter to RM Mullins. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 3; unreferenced). The final evening’s student debate was replaced in 1969 with an ‘Open Forum’, ‘a session which will permit of rather more free-ranging discussion’ (Foreign Policy School 1969). This was in turn replaced in 1970 with ‘a panel discussion during which the lecturers will be able to deal with questions not covered during the week-end’. The discussions in groups and full session following the lectures were lengthened from 90 minutes to 2 hours (Foreign Policy School 1970a).

From the beginning, students had been ‘expected to prepare a short paper on a selected topic, to be left with the School staff for criticism’ (by 1969 this had become simply ‘comment’; Foreign Policy School 1967a). ‘The organizers and lecturers attach considerable importance to these papers as being the most effective means of assessing the impact of the school on its members’ (Foreign Policy School 1968). The students’ essays from the first Foreign Policy School were sent to Ralph Mullins at the Department of External Affairs for his perusal. He found them ‘extremely interesting, even if somewhat uneven in standard’ (Mullins RM 1966, June 27. Letter to AR Entwisle. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 2; unreferenced). With the introduction of longer discussion sessions in 1970 ‘the request for a written paper from each student’ was dropped (Foreign Policy School 1970b).

The same general arrangements were followed until 1975, Entwisle’s final year as director, when the panel discussion was brought forward and the final evening given over to ‘the important round-up view of the general theme, which will be offered by a member of New Zealand’s diplomatic service’ (Foreign Policy School 1975a). This final paper was ‘devoted to bringing the themes of [the] preceding papers into direct relationship with New Zealand’s foreign policy requirements’ (Entwisle AR 1974, Sep 24. Letter to Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 7; unreferenced).

From the first School onwards, the lecturers had been required to provide three or four questions for discussion at the end of their papers (Foreign Policy School 1971). At the 1975 School, for instance, the participants were divided into four groups each day in order to discuss one of these questions, then reported back to the plenary session (Stead H 1979, May 31. Letter to Ralph Hayburn. Located at: Hocken Collections, Dunedin; 95-184 RB/280; unreferenced). This practice was continued for a few years after Arnold Entwisle’s retirement (Wood GA 2014, Sep 11. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced; Foreign Policy School 1976a). No regard was given to seniority: Helen Stead, then a student, acted as recorder for the session in 1975 chaired by John Ryan, who had only recently returned from the embassy in Bangkok. The role of session chairman was a revolving one: ‘We all had to take turns at introducing speakers, acting as recorder for sessions, thanking speakers, making tea or coffee’, Stead remembers: ‘Arnold Entwisle arranged the 1975 FPS along the most democratic lines I had then, or later ever, experienced’ (Stead H 2014, Apr 14. Email to A. Gee; Stead H 1979, May 31. Letter to Ralph Hayburn. Located at: Hocken Collections, Dunedin; 95-184 Box 22. RB/280; unreferenced). Other participants also recall the convivial atmosphere of the residential Schools. Don Matheson, a farmer, recalled a ‘constructive atmosphere – controversy with no trace of acrimony whatsoever’. The librarian Dorothy Ballantyne ‘enjoyed the general ‘tone’ which was serious but never pompous’ (Matheson 1979, May 25; Ballantyne 1979, May 22 [emphasis in the original]). However, the results were not to everyone’s satisfaction. Lance Beath of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs thought the workshop discussions were too short and needed greater ‘structuring’ and stronger leadership to produce more disciplined thinking (Beath 1979, May 21).

The public profile of the school during the Entwisle era

The proceedings of the early Foreign Policy Schools received little coverage in the New Zealand media. This was essentially due to two factors. First, Entwisle and the leadership of the University Extension Department preferred not to court media attention for these Schools. As related above, Entwisle believed the core purpose of the Schools was to educate those present on New Zealand foreign policy and did not want the presence of the media to constrain what could be said by some speakers. In this regard, he was sensitive to the concerns of the Department of External Affairs. At the first School in 1966, External Affairs had insisted that ‘we would not wish [Tom Larkin’s] speech to be reported for either press or radio coverage’ (McIntosh AD 1966, May 2. Letter to AR Entwisle. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 2; unreferenced). Moreover, the Director of University Extension until 1967, David Hall, did not want publicity in the newspapers. As Mervyn Palmer recalls, he wanted to ‘keep the thing pure’, not tampered with by the press (Palmer M 2014, Mar 19. Telephone conversation with A. Gee; unreferenced). One of those present in 1966 believed that the absence of reporters from the 1966 School meant ‘those attending the lectures had a free hand’ (Gilbert 1966, July 14).

Second, the media showed little independent interest in the Schools until 1976. The Evening Star’s university columnist, discussing the residential University Extension courses for 1966, commented: ‘One significant course considered New Zealand’s foreign policy, and did so by including experts not only from the universities, but from the Department of External Affairs and from the Institute of Economic Research’ (‘Phineas’ 1966, May 17). Its rival, the Otago Daily Times, merely sent a photographer to the opening of what it called ‘a school on foreign affairs’ and did not publish any report of the proceedings (Foreign Affairs School 1966, May 14, p. 8. It was by no means unusual at this time for the newspaper to publish only a photograph of any local conference without an accompanying report). This was not untypical of reporting of such events, given the limited resources of newspapers at the time. The fourth School in 1969 was reported in slightly more detail. The topics were listed, but the lack of any account of the contents of the papers presented or of the discussions that followed implies that the reporter attended only one of the sessions, if any (School on foreign policy here 1969, May 16, p. 3).

The first item of any substance to appear was Ray Jermyn’s 1969 lecture on the history of the Department of External Affairs, published in shortened form a few days later in the Otago Daily Times’s regular series of ‘World View’ features (Jermyn 1969, May 21, p. 4. Another presentation to a School in this period to be reported by the newspaper at some length was Hedley Bull’s in 1972: Bull 1972, May 16, p. 10). Nevertheless, press interest in the event remained very limited during the first decade of the School. However, newspapers and television began to take a much greater interest after Entwisle’s retirement. The topicality and controversial nature of New Zealand’s sporting links with South Africa helped to ensure that the 1976 School on Sport, Politics and Foreign Policy gained much greater media coverage. According to James Kember, who attended as Executive Secretary of the NZIIA, the 1976 event was the ‘coming of age’ for the School because it attracted widespread television coverage (Kember JL 2014, Feb 24. Email to A. Gee; Kember JL 2014, July 20. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced).

With respect to publication outputs during the first decade, some papers presented to the School appeared in a variety of publications, but the proceedings of each School were not available formally until 1976 when the University Extension Department began to publish them annually. Entwisle was strict in his insistence that speakers have their talks prepared in advance, but they were circulated to participants only (Entwisle P 2014, Feb 7. Interview with A. Gee; unreferenced; in contrast, speakers for the 1976 School were told the Academic Committee preferred they ‘speak extemporaneously from an outline, to allow a lively and informative session to be developed’. Carr N 1975, Oct 6 Letter to Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 7; unreferenced). From the beginning, he kept copies of all papers with a view to their publication ‘sooner or later’, though this did not eventuate on a systematic basis (Brown 1968, May 20, p. 2. Copies of almost all the papers are at Hocken OCG + For and in the records of the University Extension department at Hocken 126/93 [1–1 to 1–8] UE 79/44–51 (1967–75)). Instead, individual speakers occasionally published their contributions in academic journals. The historian Keith Sinclair’s lectures to the first Foreign Policy School in 1966 appeared as an influential article in Political Science, though without any indication that the text had been presented to the School (Sinclair 1966, Sep). From an early stage, the Department of External Affairs published some of the contributions of its officials to the Foreign Policy Schools. Its monthly publication External Affairs Review (from 1970 titled the New Zealand Foreign Affairs Review) was distributed free to subscribers within New Zealand and overseas, ensuring at least potentially a wide readership (Brown 1968, May; Harland 1970, May; Ansell 1970, Nov; Mullins 1972, Jul; Norrish 1974, May; Lynch 1975, May. We owe these references to Ken Ross: Ross 2014, Feb 14. Harland’s and Mullins’ papers were also published as booklets, distributed by the ministry).

From 1970 onwards, speakers were told that the NZIIA had first option on publishing papers presented to the Schools, and they were asked to prepare them with this possibility in mind (Entwisle AR 1970, Nov 4. Letter to JG McArthur. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 5; Entwisle AR 1973, Dec 7. Letter to RA Farrell. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 5; unreferenced). The NZIIA, ‘flush with Ford Foundation funding … became a key source of support for the School in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s’ (Ross 2014, Feb 10; Wood GA 2013, May 27. Interview with Robert Patman, Chris Rudd and A. Gee; unreferenced). Its then Director, Bruce Brown, published the two papers he gave at the 1969 Foreign Policy School in his pamphlet New Zealand Foreign Policy in Retrospect (Brown 1970), and a collection of six papers from the 1972 School was published as Defence Perspectives, edited by Ken Keith, who was to become Brown’s successor (Keith 1972; Ross 2014, Feb 10). The following year Wang Gungwu’s paper on the re-emergence of China was also published by the Institute (Wang 1973). Offering to publish the papers from the 1976 School on ‘Sport, politics and foreign policy’, Kember, then Executive Secretary of the NZIIA, wrote that ‘the subject well warrants publicising it to a wider audience’ (Kember JL 1976, Mar 31. Letter to Mervyn Palmer. Located at: Hocken Collections, Dunedin; 93-080 Box 18; Kember JL 1976, Apr 21. Letter to Niall Carr. Located at: Hocken Collections, Dunedin; 93-080 Box 18; unreferenced). Kember provided an introduction to the collection of five papers, titled New Zealand, South Africa and Sport: Background Papers (Kember 1976). The Institute’s decision to publish the papers ‘was in direct recognition of the importance of the topic, its wide public canvassing and because of the subsequent (tour) events’ (Kember JL 2014, July 20. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced). The journal Political Science had also offered to publish a selection of the papers delivered at the 1976 School, something it had not done since publishing Sinclair’s paper a decade earlier (Goldstein R 1976, Feb 26. Letter to Director, Department of University Extension. Located at: Hocken Collections, Dunedin; 93-080 Box 18; Carr N 1976, Mar 3. Letter to Ray Goldstein. Located at: Hocken Collections, Dunedin; 93-080 Box 18; Carr N 1976, Apr 7. Letter to Michael Bassett. Located at: Hocken Collections, Dunedin; 93-080 Box 18; unreferenced). From 1977 onwards, the proceedings were published annually by the University Extension Department itself, and subsequently by commercial publishers (The papers from the 1976 School were available as a photocopied collection with a title page but without an introduction, and retaining their original pagination: Foreign Policy School 1976b).

Impact of the Otago Foreign Policy School at the institutional level

From the outset, the Department of External Affairs was closely linked with the Foreign Policy Schools. Starting in 1965, Entwisle had kept the Department informed about his plans and sought the advice of the then Secretary of External Affairs, Alister McIntosh, on speakers and topics. At the first Foreign Policy School in 1966, two senior External Affairs officials – Tom Larkin and Ralph Mullins – had prominent speaking and chairing roles, respectively, at the event (Palmer M 2014, June 24. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced). This supportive response from the Department gave the School a head start and meant it was taken seriously in academic and foreign policy circles almost immediately. The close relationship between External Affairs and the Foreign Policy School developed into what Arnold Entwisle termed ‘an easy, predictable partnership’ (Entwisle AR 1975, May 22. Letter to [Frank] Corner. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 7; unreferenced). Both sides quickly saw the association as a mutually beneficial one.

Involvement of the External Affairs Department

Several years after the first School, Entwisle acknowledged that ‘we have always leaned heavily on [the] Ministry for advice, and assistance in running this school’ (Entwisle AR 1973, Oct 3. Letter to Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 6; unreferenced). He admitted that in organising the first two Foreign Policy Schools he had ‘occasionally found it necessary to deal with the criticism that they were “officially” inspired. The idea was somewhat naively based, as far as I could gather, upon the fact that [the External Affairs Department] had met our requests for assistance. It is now very clear that this idea has been completely dispelled’ (Entwisle AR 1969, May 26. Letter to Secretary for External Affairs. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 5; unreferenced). Following the 1966 School, Entwisle reported that ‘Mr Larkin and Mr Mullins rendered us splendid service, though their patience must have been greatly tried at times. Everyone agreed that it was most useful to have their comment and guidance as a corrective to some of our thinking’ (Entwisle AR 1966, May 20. Letter to AD McIntosh. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 2; unreferenced).

The writer and peace campaigner Elsie Locke, a prominent member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Joint Council on Vietnam (the anti-war protest movement) attended the first two Foreign Policy Schools. She returned with a ‘much greater regard’ for the External Affairs Department. Locke found the two officials she met at the 1966 School (almost certainly Tom Larkin and Ralph Mullins) ‘extremely knowledgeable and well informed’ (Gilbert 1966, July 14). Helen Stead attended several of the Schools from 1975 onwards as a mature student and subsequently local councillor. She thought they were among the best conferences, seminars or conventions she had ever attended: everyone was given an opportunity to contribute and the ‘rapport between all participants was constantly commented upon’ (Stead H 1979, May 31. Letter to Ralph Hayburn. Located at: Hocken Collections, Dunedin; 95-184 Box 22. RB/280; unreferenced). Not all participants were so complimentary. The writer Charles Brasch, who had known Entwisle since 1956, commented on the first School in 1966 that ‘I couldn’t help feeling that the School forgot realities in most of its discussion’ (Brasch C 1966, May 18). Letter to Arnold [Entwisle] [unsigned, on letterheaded paper ‘Landfall: A New Zealand Quarterly’]. Located at: Hocken Collections, Dunedin; 95-184 Box 22. RB/280; unreferenced).

Nevertheless, Entwisle informed the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1970 that the speakers sent by his department had ‘sent our students away with a gratifying sense of having glimpsed the centre of things’ (Entwisle AR 1970, May 29. Letter to [GR] Laking. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 5; unreferenced; The Department of External Affairs became the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1969). He believed that the presence of ‘professionals’ from Wellington (Entwisle AR 1966, May 20. Letter to RM Mullins. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 2; unreferenced) helped to solidify foreign policy discussions ‘where every simple soul knows he has the right answer’ (Entwisle AR 1971, Oct 12. Letter to [GR] Laking. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 5; unreferenced). At the same time, it was plain that many participants valued the opportunities for informal discussion and making contacts with representatives of the External Affairs Department at the Schools (Hearn 1979, June 13). In short, Entwisle was convinced that the involvement of External Affairs had made a significant contribution to the success of the School during its first decade (Entwisle AR 1971, Oct 12. Letter to [GR] Laking. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 5; unreferenced).

For its part, the External Affairs Department viewed the Foreign Policy School as the sort of serious public forum for the discussion of foreign policy it was happy to encourage. By the mid-1960s, there were new pressures for External Affairs to deepen its engagement with the public, press and academic world. Wide public interest in the Vietnam and Omega questions had thrust its officials blinking into the limelight. Jermyn argued in 1968 that ‘the Department was now coming increasingly under the microscope of a demanding and enquiring public, and was found wanting. The question was whether, in our own defence, we should get across to at least selected elements of the public the limitations we worked in (sic) when preparing policy recommendations at departmental level. Mr [George] Laking [Secretary of External Affairs 1967–72] said that the single most important barrier to creating good relations between the Department and the general public was the sheer ignorance of so many people, often the most vocal critics, of the basis of New Zealand’s foreign policy’ (External Affairs Department 1968, Aug 9, p. 9). This was something that External Affairs, in its involvement in the Foreign Policy Schools, sought to address.

The first few Foreign Policy Schools ‘became in effect confidence building measures for establishing intelligent dialogue between government officials and the protest movement’ (Ross K 2014, July 30. Email to A. Gee and Robert Patman; unreferenced). Under Laking’s leadership, External Affairs sought greater public engagement in order to provide facts to inform public debate rather than engaging in those debates themselves (Laking 1968, Aug). Kember, of the NZIIA and later the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, believes ‘that the interaction between practitioners and academics is critical … [and] the practice benefits absolutely from the challenge of the broader f[oreign] p[olicy] thinking that comes from the school and other similar meetings’ (Kember JL 2014, Feb 24. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced). Professor David McIntyre of the University of Canterbury, a prominent historian of the British Empire and Commonwealth, who spoke at the 1967, 1968 and 1972 Schools, strongly agreed with Kember’s assessment: ‘the mix of officials, politicians, military, academics, students, and foreign visitors was very fruitful’. On the one hand, the ‘official side was able to lay out the difficulties of policy making to educate the more woolly-minded academics’. On the other hand, ‘academics with various wide perspectives I think gave the official/military side some useful thoughts and contact with overseas opinion’ (McIntyre WD 2014, Jan 24. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced). One aspect of this engagement was the practice, started in 1973, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sending a group of its new recruits to the Foreign Policy School as part of their induction programme. Five trainees were selected and accompanied Graham Fortune, a senior administrative official, to Dunedin in 1973 (Parkinson 1973, Apr 5; Foreign Policy School 1973, Apr 26; Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 1974, May 14. Secretary of Foreign Affairs to PV Wright. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 7/4/8 part 2; unreferenced; Parkinson 1974, Apr 18), and the experiment was considered a success. It has continued to the present day. Entwisle noted the presence of Foreign Affairs trainees gave the School ‘a special attraction for the students whom we have from the beginning sought to recruit. It enables them to see something of the Ministry’s work from the inside’ (Entwisle AR 1975, May 22. Letter to [Frank] Corner. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 7; unreferenced). He felt the School profited ‘immensely from this contact with young, knowledgeable people, professionally committed to work on the issues we are discussing’ (Entwisle AR 1974, May 27. Letter to [Frank] Corner. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 7; unreferenced). By the mid-1970s the School had become so much part of the foreign policy calendar that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs believed that if it did not send a representative it would be construed as if a deliberate point was intended (Willberg 1976, May 4; 1976, May 10).

The ‘mainstays of the engagement’ between External Affairs and the Foreign Policy School were Ralph Mullins, Bryce Harland and George Laking. The close relationship between these three key figures and the Schools ended with Mullins’ death and Laking’s retirement in December 1972. The ‘dynamic changed’ under the new Secretary of External Affairs, Frank Corner, and his deputy Malcolm Templeton. Norman Kirk, elected Prime Minister in November 1972, was much more actively engaged in foreign policy than his predecessors had been. Frank Corner and his senior officials were ‘utterly focused’ on assisting the new prime minister, so liaison with the Foreign Policy School was handed to more junior officials. The practice began with Fortune of sending mid-level officials to the Schools with a group of new recruits, but not to present a paper (Ross K 2014, July 31. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced). Each year in its first decade, senior officials addressed the Foreign Policy School. The tradition of the School being opened by the Minister of Foreign Affairs developed only after 1975.

Impact of the Otago Foreign Policy School at the policy level

There is little evidence that the first decade of Foreign Policy Schools directly influenced the substance of New Zealand’s foreign policy. Kember, for instance, ‘would be hesitant to say the school actually influenced foreign policy formulation directly’ (Kember JL 2014, Feb 24. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced). Nevertheless, there are indications that the new ‘three-way interface’ (McMechan P 1980, Feb 12. Letter to Young Vivian. Located at: Hocken Collection, Dunedin; 93-080 Box 7. RB/280; unreferenced) between officials, members of the academic community, and the public did have some significant indirect effects on certain aspects of New Zealand’s foreign policy. Amongst other things, the first decade of Foreign Policy Schools helped to foster new New Zealand thinking on important foreign policy issues – the Vietnam War, China, Europe and sporting ties with the apartheid regime in South Africa. Under the heading of How to Make a Foreign Policy?, the 1966 School examined New Zealand’s relationships with Pacific and South East Asian countries, including Wellington’s military commitments in Malaysia and Vietnam, and other dimensions of the country’s external relations (Foreign Policy School 1966b, p. 3). The School ended with a debate on New Zealand’s intervention in South Vietnam in 1965 (Foreign Policy School 1966c). In what was the first serious challenge to the widely held belief that New Zealand’s strategic circumstances made it essential to remain involved in South-East Asian affairs (McKinnon 1993, p. 173–175), Sinclair spoke on ‘New Zealand’s Future Foreign Policy: A New Pacific Pact’. He advocated a regional defence alliance of New Zealand, Australia and neighbouring Polynesian states with the aim of avoiding involvement in conflicts outside the region, especially nuclear war. Sinclair recalled in 1993: ‘Since then, obviously, New Zealand opinion and policy have moved somewhat in the direction that I advocated, but I do not, of course, feel that I did any more than contribute to the debate’ (Sinclair 1993, p. 187). When published in Political Science a few months later (Sinclair 1966, Sep, p. 68–77), his argument was influential among other academics, and certainly played a part in shaping the strategic focus on the Pacific region that eventually became part of New Zealand’s foreign policy.

The topic for 1970 was proposed by Richard Northey, one of the students present in 1969 and a future Labour MP. The 1970 School on New Zealand and the Pacific Basin looked at relations with Australia, the United States, the Pacific Islands, the Malay world, Japan and China. Robert Taylor, a lecturer in Political Studies at Auckland, gave the final lecture, on ‘New Zealand and Mainland China’. Looking back, he ‘would like to think that the conference contributions would have had some influence on policymaking’. New Zealand did not yet have diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. ‘There was at the time discussion of changing allegiance to Beijing in an international context where China was still in the throes of the Cultural Revolution and Nixon’s visit to China which led to Sino-American rapprochement was yet to come’ (Taylor R 2014, Jan 31. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced). The subsequent advent of detente between the United States and the Soviet Union, together with rapidly improving American relations with the People’s Republic of China, shaped the context in which the 1972 Foreign Policy School considered New Zealand’s Foreign Policy. Laking, head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, thought the theme ‘timely’ (Laking GR 1971, Oct 22. Letter to AR Entwisle. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 5; unreferenced). In December 1972, New Zealand became one of the first Western-oriented states to establish diplomatic relations with China in the era of superpower détente.

Meanwhile, the topic for 1971, Europe in New Zealand’s Foreign Policy, was prompted by the final stages of the negotiations regarding the United Kingdom’s joining the then EEC (Alley 2014, Feb 2). Hugh Templeton, the National MP for Awarua in Southland and formerly a member of the External Affairs Department, gave the concluding lecture, on ‘Europe and Our Foreign Policy’. He recalls that the School did not influence National Party thinking on the question of Europe as the debates had already been resolved by this time (Templeton H 2014, Feb 10. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced). After Britain’s accession to the EEC, New Zealand was forced to diversify its trade relations, and the 1975 School concerning Asia in New Zealand’s Economy may have been something of a building block in this process. Entwisle explained: ‘New Zealand’s interest in Asia is of long standing … In recent years however the range of New Zealand’s Asian interests has been further widened … This 1975 Foreign Policy School programme is a first attempt to bring all these themes together’ (Foreign Policy School 1975a). Brian Lynch of Asian Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concluded the 1975 School with an overview of ‘Asia in New Zealand’s Foreign Policy’ (Foreign Policy School 1975a). The theme of the School proved significant in that it foreshadowed a massive expansion of New Zealand’s trade with the Asia-Pacific region. By 1997, over 60 per cent of New Zealand’s exports went to this region (New Zealand Official Yearbook 1998).

The 1976 topic, Sport, Politics and Foreign Policy, focused on the controversy over the New Zealand rugby team’s planned tour of South Africa (which took place from 30 June to 18 Sep 1976; see also McKinnon 1993, p. 242–245), which led most African countries to boycott the Olympic Games in Montreal in July that year. The speakers included well-known critics of Apartheid and the list of recommended reading contained several works critical of South African policy. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs declined to provide a speaker on the topic of ‘New Zealand’s image in the United Nations as affected by sporting ties with South Africa’, explaining that it did not ‘feel that it would be appropriate for the Ministry as such to express views on the subject’ (Scott JV 1976, Apr 26. Letter to N. Carr. Located at: Hocken Collections, Dunedin; 93-080 Box 18; unreferenced). However, the Foreign Policy Schools were by now so well established in the foreign policy calendar that the absence of a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be interpreted as conveying a deliberate message. With a fortnight to go before the 1976 School was to open, it became clear to the ministry that if it failed to send anyone ‘Our total absence would be noted … and probably misinterpreted’ (Willberg 1976, May 4; Willberg 1976, May 10). With this in mind, the Ministry sent two officials as representatives. In the event, the topicality and controversial nature of sporting links with South Africa ensured the 1976 School gained widespread coverage. Kember, for example, still has ‘vivid memories of the TV cameras outside on the lawn’ interviewing everyone (Kember JL 2014, Mar 3. Email to A. Gee; unreferenced). Thus, it is highly likely that the School provided a stepping stone for the intensification of a national debate over sporting links with South Africa that would eventually convulse the country during the Springbok rugby tour of 1981.

However, there does seem one case where the Foreign Policy School did have a direct and tangible impact on the making of New Zealand foreign policy. In June 1968, a controversy suddenly arose concerning American plans to install a navigational beacon in New Zealand. This was to have been part of the Omega network, a world-wide positioning system allegedly for civilian purposes only. As its signals could be received under water, it was widely suspected that Omega could also be used for positioning by strategic nuclear missile-armed submarines, which might as a consequence make New Zealand itself a target for attack in the event of a nuclear war. The Department of External Affairs moved quickly to defuse the controversy. In particular, Mullins made use of contacts made at the School. He and Laking arranged ‘a quiet Saturday off-the-record gathering’ that brought together several of the interested parties and enabled the Department to make the case within government that it was not in New Zealand’s best interests to proceed with the commitment that had been given to the Americans. The former civil servant Ken Ross, who was present, believes in retrospect that the process of extracting New Zealand from its commitment to the Omega station ‘was unlikely to have been so successful without the earlier contribution’ of the first three Foreign Policy Schools, where ‘the contacts had been developed’ (Ross K 2014, July 30. Email to A. Gee and Robert Patman; unreferenced; see also Locke 1992, p. 262–266).

Evaluation of the impact of the Foreign Policy School’s first decade

Between 1966 and 1976, the Foreign Policy School had a significant impact at the agendas and institutional levels of the Williams model. The agendas level emphasises the degree of influence that events have on popular discourse, public attention, and society at large. It has to be recognised that the establishment of the School in 1966 constituted a break from the past as far as New Zealand was concerned. It was complementary to but different from the role of the NZIIA, which regularly organised meetings, presentations and conferences on international matters throughout the country. It also has to be kept in mind that New Zealand did not have any dedicated foreign policy-related think tanks until 1993.

The Foreign Policy School brought together informed people who had previously had little sustained contact. Interested members of the public outside the university world, academics, students, protestors and foreign policy professionals now had a forum in which to interact and vigorously debate international issues. On the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1993, Malcolm Templeton acknowledged ‘the role the Foreign Policy School has played in promoting public discussion and understanding of New Zealand’s foreign policy … Otago University is, as far as I know, the only institution that provides a regular annual opportunity in this country for the discussion of foreign policy issues in a forum outside the Ministry’s control’ (Templeton 1993, p. 218). The fact that there were no simultaneous sessions and that each speaker addressed the whole of the audience present helped facilitate in-depth discussions on foreign policy topics. In addition, and no less significant, these early Schools helped to promote informal discussions and personal contacts. In other words, they provided important ‘networking opportunities’ for the participants.

Initially, the publication of the proceedings of the Schools was an uneven and intermittent affair, but it became a regular feature from the mid-1970s on. Indeed, the Foreign Policy School was, by the 1980s, a major builder of research capacity in the area of foreign policy. Similarly, the media coverage of the early Schools was quite patchy and uneven. However, this pattern began to change in the mid-1970s when the media began to pay more attention to this annual event. According to one observer, the Schools were increasingly seen as providing ‘an intelligent briefing’ for senior journalists with interests in the foreign policy area (Webb 1990, May 11).

At the institutional level – which is concerned with the impact of events on the structure of government – the commencement of annual Foreign Policy Schools had a cumulative effect on certain government departments and departmental relationships. From the beginning, the Department of External Affairs (and its successor, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) responded positively to Entwisle’s requests for its involvement in the Schools. Senior officials such as Mullins, Laking and Harland spoke at the Schools, and suggested speakers and topics. The close relationship between the School and the Department of External Affairs evolved and deepened in the course of the first decade. And Entwisle believed that the presence of External Affairs officials enhanced the credibility of the School and was critical to consolidating the event as an annual fixture (Entwisle AR 1971, Oct 12. Letter to [GR] Laking. Located at: Archives New Zealand, Wellington; PM 55/2/2 part 5; unreferenced).

From the standpoint of External Affairs, the relationship with the School seemed to be a beneficial one. The School provided a forum for engagement with expert outside speakers and interested members of the public. It provided an opportunity for what is now called outreach and enabled foreign policy professionals to find out what New Zealanders outside the government were thinking on a range of foreign policy issues. The venue was sufficiently distant that those who came from Wellington were able to think beyond day-to-day work pressures, and this helped promote a genuine two-way conversation in which they could both inform and listen.

It was during this first decade that External Affairs began the practice of sending a number of newly recruited staff to attend the Foreign Policy School as part of their induction programme. The numbers were relatively small at first, but this development was encouraged by the experience of ‘Past speakers from the Ministry who have participated in the Foreign Policy School [and who] have commented on its potential usefulness as a training seminar for junior diplomatic officers’ (Parkinson 1973, Mar 27). The attendance of new diplomatic recruits was one of the most important developments in the nature of the Schools in the early 1970s, and an indication of the event’s importance to the Ministry. For the first time in 1973, Foreign Affairs sent an officer specifically with a view to recruitment (Parkinson 1973, Apr 13). For students or recent graduates, the School was an excellent opportunity to make themselves known to potential employers or other influential people. Peter Entwisle, son of the School’s founder, points out that attending the Foreign Policy School was potentially a ‘good career move’ for students (Entwisle P 2014, Feb 7. Interview with A. Gee; unreferenced).

Other government departments, such as the Ministry of Defence, also saw the value of attending the School and exposing officials to a range of ideas that they may not have encountered in their daily routines in Wellington. The establishment of the School also affected the NZIIA. The two institutions built a close, co-operative relationship, sharing membership and speakers. The NZIIA’s Executive Secretary always attended the School from 1970 on, and from 1976 its bi-monthly publication the New Zealand International Review began regularly to publish detailed articles and reports on the proceedings of the various Schools.

However, with the possible exception of New Zealand’s rescinding its commitment to the Omega station, it is difficult to pinpoint examples where Foreign Policy Schools directly influenced foreign policy decision-making during this period. The political scientist Roderic Alley spoke at the 1971 and 1973 Schools. Looking back, he observed: ‘You could say the School influenced New Zealand foreign relations to the extent that this was an excellent sounding board for officials. Ideas and comments would have been gathered for subsequent consideration’ (Alley 2014, Feb 2). As one young secondary school teacher later put it, ‘Evolving policy seem[ed] to get a bit of a workout off-Broadway at Otago’s Foreign Policy School’ (Lukey 2014, Feb 2). Stead agreed that the School ‘acts partly as a catalyst and partly as a sounding board for academics and officials’. In light of this, it could be argued that the School probably helped to foster new ideas about a more distinctive New Zealand approach towards the Vietnam war, the global significance of China, the priority of diversifying trade links in the Asia-Pacific region after Britain joined the EEC, and reassessing the costs and benefits of sporting links with the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Conclusion

On balance, the impact of the University of Otago Foreign Policy School during its first decade was most directly and clearly shown at the agendas and institutional levels. The School soon ‘became firmly established as a national gathering of some importance’ (Ross A 1993, Oct 18. Letter to Bill Webb. Located at: Webb Family collection, Dunedin; unreferenced) in foreign policy discussions between academics, policy practitioners and interested members of the public, groups that had previously had little interaction. It expanded the public outreach of the Department of External Affairs and occasioned a new institutional linkage between the Department and a non-governmental forum. While the School generated few concrete results at the level of policy, the consequences at the societal and institutional level combined to help accelerate a world-view that was increasingly based on New Zealand values and interests and thus paved the way for a number of policy initiatives in the coming decades that were associated with the emergence of a more independent New Zealand foreign policy. That is to say, there was a gradual but definite shift in New Zealand’s foreign policy outlook between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s, which can be traced in the questions raised and discussed by the School in its first decade. It was also a period in which public engagement with foreign policy questions was transformed. In that sense, Arnold Entwisle’s early and enduring vision of the Foreign Policy School as a forum for expanding the boundaries of foreign policy knowledge in New Zealand was largely realised (Patman 2015, June 26).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Otago Research Grant [10392].