Trade desires lead to thorny situation

Coverage of New Zealand’s role in the UN resolution on the Middle East has been somewhat obscured by the seasonal distractions and the focus on the holiday road toll.

Too bad. Arguably, our work on the UN resolution censuring Israeli settlements and Palestinian violence has been New Zealand’s most high-profile achievement on the world stage for many years.

True, the UN resolution is a largely symbolic gesture - no sanctions will be imposed on Israel for non-compliance, and a freeze on settlements would be merely the first step in talks towards the highly theoretical ‘two state’ solution that Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu has never wanted.

To all intents, the ‘two state’ solution has been a dead duck for years – but it does get hauled out and propped up again whenever the UN periodically concerns itself with the equally fabled ‘peace process’.

So why did New Zealand feel it was worth getting involved in this UN statement? The simple answer is trade.

For any small nation, trade opportunities tend to be at the forefront of its diplomacy.

In this case, our role was driven by the economic opportunities in Iran, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia that a critical public stance on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories might put within our grasp.

Evidently, these opportunities were seen as outweighing (a) the fury of the Israelis, and (b) the risk of ending up on the enemies list of the incoming Trump administration.

The symbolism of being seen to support the Palestinians – even if such gestures change little on the ground – is an important regional theme.

Appearing to be onside with the suffering Palestinians is a badge of credibility for the regimes concerned even when – in the case of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan – this involves ongoing co-operation with Israel.

Ever since New Zealand temporarily joined the Security Council two years ago, Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully had been seeking a UN initiative on Syria, and a resolution on the Israel/Palestine question.

Wordings were constantly changed on the settlements resolution to ensure the Obama administration would not feel politically impelled to veto it.

Reportedly, when McCully and Netanyahu met in Israel late in 2016, New Zealand had been promoting a milder version of the final document.

Ultimately, McCully might even achieve the Free Trade Agreement with Saudi Arabia that would vindicate him personally over the Saudi sheep fiasco, and bring down the curtain on his political career in triumph.

Sometimes….doing what’s good for trade can co-incide with Doing What’s Right, even if that latter bit is always in the eye of the beholder.

For New Zealand, the UN resolution was a trade gambit disguised as a diplomatic manoeuvre.