NZ must tread carefully
New Zealand is so far acquitting itself well on the United Nations Security Council, writes Terence O’Brien.
ONE swallow does not make a summer. But New Zealand’s first month on the United Nations Security Council witnessed a well-crafted and delivered speech on support for the Middle East peace process brokered by the United States, but which stalled in April 2014,
Since then a devastating war in Gaza and violence and tension throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem have prevailed, yet again.
Jordan, like New Zealand a nonpermanent member, has striven to reengage the council in the search for a collective response.
Some permanent council members (France and Britain) and others have responded with draft decision texts that the Jordanians have considered to meld with their own version. Severe differences persist over reconstruction of war-ravaged Gaza, over Israel extending its territory through settlements on the West Bank and the issue of war crimes.
New Zealand’s January council statement was intended to advertise even-handedness. Until now, the US response to Jordanian and other efforts has been guarded. In December it signalled opposition to texts then under discussion and was supported by Australia (since departed from UNSC).
On the strength of New Zealand’s opening shot, Washington may not now be able to count on similar obedience.
No conclusive council action will occur before March when a general election in Israel is scheduled.
New Zealand tactics will now be conditioned by the outcome of Foreign Minister Murray McCully’s visit to Jordan, which in itself is some testament to New Zealand’s serious purpose.
Jordan is, of course, in the frontline too of the atrocious regional conflict provoked by Isis for the creation of an Islamic caliphate.
New Zealand wisely deferred a final decision about what troop contribution it might make in that conflict, until its accession to the council seat.
One thing is certain – our final decision will colour the New Zealand tenure on the council, and reputation for independent thinking in the labyrinth of international relations.
The issue is not about whether New Zealand will expose itself to Isis retribution by committing to military support in Iraq (important though that is), but rather how wise it is to become involved with a conflict hideously complicated beyond outsider comprehension.
Prime Minister John Key has described a prospective New Zealand contribution in Iraq as ‘‘the price to be paid for being in the club’’. By this he means, presumably, the five Anglo Saxon democracies linked through intelligence-sharing arrangements, the principal members of which have pursued ‘‘war on terror’’ involving, according to the US Senate, illegal violence.
Those principals launched, as well the 2003 attack upon Iraq, on the basis of purposely distorted intelligence.
The disastrous consequences are directly connected to the rise of Isis.
In Britain the so-called Chilcott report on British involvement with the calamity will be released after prolonged delay, following the British general election in May. That should have bearing also on New Zealand’s deliberation.
The important Asian dimension of New Zealand foreign policy is relevant here too with Malaysia, the present chair of Asean, as a fellow UNSC member. Because of this McCully has emphasised New Zealand wishes to remain in close step.
However, Malaysia is not part of the coalition against Isis, and neither are other Southeast Asian countries with significant Muslim populations (including Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim state).
New Zealand must continue to carefully touch base diplomatically with Asean and Malaysia especially, as it nears the time for final decision about whether to despatch a military contribution to Iraq.
We wisely declined involvement in the 2003.
Finally, McCully is visiting the African Union headquarters in Addis where New Zealand now has a diplomatic presence which undoubtedly contributed to our successful UNSC election.
This is good timing by the foreign minister given that African issues dominate the UNSC agenda. It provides an opportunity to explore possibilities for New Zealand assistance with peacekeeping and building under the UN.
Our current UN peacekeeping performance is dismal. New Zealand defence chiefs display greater appetite now for Nato or coalition operations to the exclusion of blue helmet involvements – hence a preference for Middle Eastern projects.
Terence O’Brien is a former senior New Zealand diplomat and a senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic Studies.