Appeasing Trump in the Middle East is not cost-free for New Zealand
While distant in geographic terms, brutal violence in Gaza, the West Bank and Iran marks the latest stage in the unravelling of an international rules-based order on which New Zealand depends for its prosperity and security.
It should be emphasised that New Zealand's founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, emphasises partnership and cooperation at home, and, after 1945, helped inspire a New Zealand worldview enshrined in institutions such as the United Nations and norms such as multilateralism.
In the wake of Hamas' terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, the National-led coalition government has in principle emphasised its support for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza and the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the occupied territories of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank.
However, in practice, this New Zealand stance has not translated into firm diplomatic opposition to the Netanyahu government's quest to control Gaza and annex the West Bank. Nor has it been a condemnation of the Trump administration for prioritising its support for Israel's security goals over international law.
Foreign minister Winston Peters has described the situation in Gaza as 'simply intolerable' but the National-led coalition had little specific to say as the Netanyahu government resumed its cruel blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza in March and restarted military operations there.
Even more striking was the government's silence on president Trump's proposal to own Gaza with a view to evicting two million Palestinian residents from the territory and the US-Israeli venture to start the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in late May in a move which sidelined the UN in aid distribution and has led to the killing of more than 600 Palestinians while seeking food aid.
While New Zealand, along with the UK, Australia, Canada and Norway, imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar ben Gvir, in June for 'inciting extremist violence' against Palestinians – a move that was criticised by the Trump administration – it was arguably a case of very little very late.
The Hamas terror attacks on October 7 killed around 1,200 Israelis, but the Netanyahu government's retaliation by the Israel Defence Force (IDF) against Hamas has resulted in the deaths of more than 56,000 Palestinians – nearly 70% of whom were women or children – in Gaza.
Over the same period, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank as Israel accelerated its programme of illegal settlements there.
In addition, the responses of the New Zealand government to pre-emptive attacks by Israel (13-25 June) and Trump's America (June 22) against Iran to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities were strangely ambivalent.
Despite indications from US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran had not produced nuclear weapons, foreign minister Peters said New Zealand was not prepared to take a position on that issue.
Citing provocative behaviour by both Iran and Israel, Peters adopted a neutral stance toward the 12-day war between the two nations.
With respect to the attacks by the US on three Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, the current New Zealand government seems to have echoed the view of Mark Rutte, the secretary-general of NATO, that such actions were consistent with international law.
Peters and deputy PM David Seymour reiterated Iran could not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and tacitly supported the US decision to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran.
Peters noted that the Trump administration's targeted attacks were aimed at 'degrading Iran's nuclear capabilities' and acknowledged the US statement to the UNSC claiming these attacks were taken 'in collective self-defence consistent with the UN charter'.
Taken together, the coalition government's responses to recent events in the Middle East indicate that its desire not to offend the Trump administration has compromised New Zealand's commitment to uphold an international rules-based order.
To be clear, Israel's conduct in Gaza is clearly at odds with its legal responsibilities as an occupying power, and the pre-emptive attacks by nuclear armed Israel and America on Iran cannot be justified legally when the clerical regime in Teheran does not have nuclear weapons and the diplomatic process had not been exhausted.
Of course, some observers maintain that a relatively small state like New Zealand has no choice but to tacitly accept flagrant violations of international law when they are committed by big powerful friends like Trump's America.
However, such a perspective understates the capacity of small and middle powers to shape what is an increasingly interconnected world.
In 2003, then prime minister Helen Clark bravely refused to support an illegal US invasion of Iraq and the wisdom of that stance was subsequently confirmed in what was a disastrous military adventure for the George W. Bush administration.
Moreover, New Zealand's leadership in promoting the 2021 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) – which has been ratified by 73 states – means it should have a strong voice on the military actions by Israel and the Trump team that have effectively incentivised Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Confronted with Trump's 'might is right' approach, the National-led coalition faces stark choices.
The government can continue to fudge fundamental moral and legal issues in the Middle East and risk complicity in the further weakening of an international rules-based order it purportedly supports, or it can get off the fence, stand up for the country's values, and insist that respect for international law must be observed in the region and elsewhere without exception.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
29 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Proposal outlines large-scale 'Humanitarian Transit Areas' for Palestinians in Gaza
A boy carries a box of relief supplies from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Photo: Eyad Baba / AFP A proposal seen by Reuters and bearing the name of a controversial US-backed aid group described a plan to build large-scale camps called "Humanitarian Transit Areas" inside - and possibly outside - Gaza to house the Palestinian population, outlining a vision of "replacing Hamas' control over the population in Gaza." The US$2 billion (NZ$3.3 billion) plan, created sometime after 11 February and carrying the name of the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, or GHF, was submitted to the Trump administration, according to two sources, one of whom said it was recently discussed in the White House. The plan, reviewed by Reuters, describes the camps as "large-scale" and "voluntary" places where the Gazan population could "temporarily reside, deradicalise, re-integrate and prepare to relocate if they wish to do so." The Washington Post made a reference to GHF plans to build housing compounds, opens new tab for Palestinian non-combatants in May. A slide deck seen by Reuters goes into granular detail on the "Humanitarian Transit Zones," including how they would be implemented and what they would cost. It calls for using the sprawling facilities to "gain trust with the local population" and to facilitate US President Donald Trump's "vision for Gaza." Reuters could not independently determine the status of the plan, who created and submitted it, or whether it is still under consideration. The aid group, responding to questions from Reuters, denied that it had submitted a proposal and said the slides "are not a GHF document." GHF said it had studied "a range of theoretical options to safely deliver aid in Gaza," but that it "is not planning for or implementing Humanitarian Transit Areas (HTAs)." Rather, the organisation said it is solely focused on food distribution in Gaza. A spokesperson for SRS, a for-profit contracting company that works with GHF, told Reuters "we have had no discussions with GHF about HTAs, and our 'next phase' is feeding more people. Any suggestion otherwise is entirely false and misrepresents the scope of our operations." On 4 February Trump first publicly said that the US should "take over" the war-battered enclave and rebuild it as "the Riviera of the Middle East" after resettling the population of 2.3 million Palestinians elsewhere. Trump's comments angered many Palestinians and humanitarian groups about the possible forced relocation from Gaza. Even if the GHF proposal is no longer under consideration, the idea of moving a large portion of the population into camps will only deepen such worries, several humanitarian experts told Reuters. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The proposal was laid out in a slide presentation that a source said was submitted to the US embassy in Jerusalem earlier this year. The US State Department declined to comment. A senior administration official said, "nothing of the like is under consideration. Also, no resources are being directed to that end in any way." The source working on the project said that it had not moved forward due to a lack of funds. Reuters previously reported that GHF had attempted to set up a Swiss bank account from which to solicit donations, but UBS and Goldman Sachs declined to work with the organization. The Israeli Embassy in the US did not respond to a request for comment. Ismail Al-Thawabta, director of the Hamas-run Gaza government media office, told Reuters it "categorically" rejects the GHF, calling it "not a relief organization but rather an intelligence and security tool affiliated with the Israeli occupation, operating under a false humanitarian guise." The undated slide presentation, which includes photos dated 11 February, said that the GHF is "working to secure" over $2 billion for the project, to "build, secure and oversee large-scale Humanitarian Transit Areas (HTAs) inside and potentially outside Gaza strip for the population to reside while Gaza is demilitarized and rebuilt." The Humanitarian Transit Areas described in the slides would be the next phase in an operation that began with GHF opening food distribution sites in the enclave in late May, according to two sources involved in the project. GHF coordinates with the Israeli military and uses private US security and logistics companies to get food aid into Gaza. It is favoUred by the Trump administration and Israel to carry out humanitarian efforts in Gaza as opposed to the UN-led system which it says let militants divert aid. Hamas denies this and says Israel is using hunger as a weapon. In June the US State Department approved $30 million in funding for the GHF and called on other countries to also support the group. The United Nations has called GHF's operation "inherently unsafe" and a violation of humanitarian impartiality rules. The UN human rights office says it has recorded at least 613 killings at GHF aid points and near humanitarian convoys run by other relief groups including the U.N. One slide outlining a timeline said a camp would be operational within 90 days of the launch of the project and that it would house 2160 people, along with a laundry, restrooms, showers and a school. A source working on the project said that the slide deck is part of a planning process that began last year and envisions a total of eight camps, each one capable of sheltering hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. The proposal did not specify how the Palestinians would be relocated into the camps, or where the camps could be built outside Gaza, but a map shows arrows pointing to Egypt and Cyprus as well as other points labelled "Additional Destination?" GHF would "oversee and regulate all civil activities required for construction, deradicalisation and temporary voluntary relocation," the proposal said. Responding to questions from Reuters, three humanitarian experts expressed alarm over details of the plan to build camps. "There is no such thing as voluntary displacement amongst a population that has been under constant bombardment for nearly two years and has been cut off from essential aid," said Jeremy Konyndyk, president of the Refugees International advocacy group and a former senior US Agency for International Development official who reviewed the plan. The source who worked on planning for the camps told Reuters that the intent "is to take the fear factor away," enabling Palestinians to "escape control of Hamas" and providing them "a safe area to house their families." The latest bloodshed in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict was triggered on 7 October 2023, when Hamas attacked southern Israel, killing around 1200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies. Gaza's health ministry says Israel's retaliatory military assault on the enclave has killed over 57,000 Palestinians, caused a hunger crisis, and displaced nearly Gaza's entire population internally. -Reuters
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
US leader believes Israel, Hamas truce could drive greater peace in the region. That may be wishful thinking
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returns to the White House today, there's going to be a lot of talk about peace. United States President Donald Trump seems to be in a peace-making mood. After briefly bombing Iran last month, he swiftly hailed a ceasefire between Israel
The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Regulatory Standards Bill hearing, day one: Former PM says ‘no chance' of bill working
The bill dubbed the sibling to the controversial Treaty principles bill gets a whole week in parliament to have submissions heard. Read our explainer on the Regulatory Standards Bill here and our reporting on the urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing on the bill here. A new day, a new controversial piece of legislation under scrutiny. After attracting a reported 150,000 public submissions, the Regulatory Standards Bill is having its week in the select committee, with all-day hearings from Monday to Thursday knocking out 30 hours' worth of oral submissions. Whatever the finance and expenditure committee hears could influence changes to the bill, but the passing of it is already a promise made in the National-Act coalition agreement. The inside of select committee room four was a ghost town on Monday morning, with all MPs on the committee's panel opting to join the hearing via Zoom, and most submitters doing the same. Lawyer Ani Mikaere was one of the first speakers of the day, and had some choice words about the bill and the government at large: 'National and NZ First currently face the spectre of this parliamentary term going down in history as the period when the Act Party governed – as coalition partners, you have been completely upstaged.' Adam Currie from 350 Aotearoa, who appeared via Zoom link, told the committee the bill can 'get in the compost heap' – then panned his camera over to his own compost heap for visual effect. 'Thank you Adam, very succinct,' committee deputy chair and National MP Ryan Hamilton replied. Former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer, who submitted against, labelled the bill the 'strangest piece of New Zealand legislation I have ever seen'. Palmer argued that regulation is necessary in many instances – like when he worked as a young lawyer on night clothes regulations, so that young children wouldn't be set alight by heaters while they slept. 'The idea that you would not allow parliament to protect the public from danger is just unreasonable,' Palmer said. Lawyer Sonja Cooper of Cooper Legal, which represents survivors of abuse in care, said she opposed the bill as it would allow abuse to continue. Cooper said she was concerned with the bill's principle that all are made equal under the law – her clients have a 'very distinct and urgent set of needs' which wouldn't be addressed if they were treated as 'equal', and with many of them being Māori, the bill's omission of the Treaty was a 'refusal to accept the needs for policies which may need to treat people differently to achieve equality'. When Act Party MP and committee member Mark Cameron questioned whether Cooper was telling the committee that laws should allow people to be treated unequally despite all people being 'created equal', Cooper replied: 'It's a nice thought that everyone is born equal, but that's not the reality.' Their back and forth made Palmer whisper 'oh, god' and at the end of it, he and Cooper just threw their hands in the air in disbelief. Human resources expert Chris Till supported the bill, but didn't support his 'undemocratic' five-minute submission time. After arguing that iwi have too much power over freshwater resources, and that the RSB would fix this 'racist, tribal and anti-democratic' system, Till continued to argue with Hamilton about his lack of time, so his submission was called off slightly early. Cameron, who had been waiting to ask a question, just gritted his teeth. Later, former Green Party MP Darleen Tana submitted against the bill, with the argument that it would 'constrain future governance, restrict public investment and sets up a narrow economic lens'. Also submitting against, Dunedin City Council's in-house lawyer Karilyn Canton said the council was concerned that the bill's omission of the Treaty would make it at odds with council obligations under the Local Government Act. She also highlighted the bill's requirement for review of secondary legislation (such as council bylaws, of which DCC administers about 40), and argued the Local Government Act already has sufficient provisions to the creation of these laws. Canton said it's also still unclear what falls into the scope of 'secondary legislation', and the likes of a district plan – which has the force and effect of a regulation under the Resource Management Act – would fall into this category. 'So the risk is that it creates disputes, creates costs and it creates uncertainty,' Canton said. Health Coalition Aotearoa's chair Boyd Swinburn opposed the bill, and told the committee the sector's already existing 'regulatory chill' – the absence of regulations which could protect young people from the likes of alcohol marketing – could turn into a 'regulatory freeze' if the bill passed. Swinburn pointed to the Australian government's years-long court case with tobacco giant Phillip Morris over plain packaging for cigarette cartons, which the company argued violated their property rights by confiscating property (their trademark) without compensation. 'It's very naive to think that the industry would not weaponise the privileging of its private property and rights,' Swinburn said. Far North district councillor Hilda Halkyard-Harawira began her submission against the bill by chucking on a pair of sunglasses, and letting the committee know that up in Northland, if someone speaks to you with their shades on, it's because you're telling a 'whole bunch of lies'. She said the bill amounted to 'historical amnesia', and said the uplifting of personal, economic and property liberties over collective rights was like experiencing a flood in your neighbourhood, and only having the local 'vape store' owner be saved. Raewyn Moss and Jo Mooar of Transpower, which controls the nation's energy grid, highlighted their concerns with clause eight of the bill, which highlights 12 principles of responsible regulation, including an emphasis on property rights. 93% of Transpower's overhead lines run on statutory rights under the Electricity Act, the committee heard, and Moss said there was concern that a review of the Act will result in Transpower paying compensation to permit them to use and maintain the land their grid rests on. They were also concerned that protections for these lines under the Resource Management Act would be overruled and ignored for new housing and developments, which could 'have a big impact on public safety'. Rock the Vote NZ deputy leader Daymond Goulder-Horobin said the party largely supported the bill, but they had some suggestions. For 'better optics', regulations minister David Seymour should share appointment powers of the regulatory standards board that will be born from the bill with other parties, so that the committee is 'balanced'. 'Every party is beneath 50% of the vote, so democratic legitimacy is always vested on [the voting of a bill],' Goulder-Horobin said. 'This does not have to be a bill that antagonises the left.' The finance and expenditure committee will resume oral hearings into the bill today at 8.30am.
