Hard Choices: When confronted with an unsanctioned military strike against a fellow member of the United Nations, a New Zealand prime minister has two viable choices. Either, she can line up behind New Zealand’s traditional allies and deliver a hearty endorsement of their actions. Or, she can take a stand on principle and distance her country from the justifications, decisions and actions of the aggressors.
THE LATEST STRIKE against Syria [14/4/18] marks a further
deterioration in the conduct of international affairs. Of more concern,
however, is the quality of the response it elicited from Jacinda Ardern. The New
Zealand Prime Minister’s remarks were not the sort to inspire either confidence
or respect.
In matters of this kind, a prime minister has two viable
choices. Either, she can line up behind New Zealand’s traditional allies and
deliver a hearty endorsement of their actions. Or, she can take a stand on
principle and distance her country from the justifications, decisions and
actions of the nation’s involved.
What a leader should not do is attempt to have a bob each
way. Why? Because, as the Ancient Greek storyteller, Aesop, pointed out some
2,500 years ago: “He who tries to please everybody, ends up pleasing nobody.”
New Zealand prizes highly its contribution to the formation
of the United Nations. The Labour Prime Minister, Peter Fraser, worked hard to
advance the rights of small nations at the San Francisco conference which gave
birth to the UN in 1945. Fraser, and just about every Labour PM since 1945, has
chafed against the veto-powers of the five permanent members of the UN Security
Council – rightly predicting that they would severely constrain the UN’s
mandate to keep the global peace. Identifying the UN as the most appropriate
forum for resolving the Syrian crisis and decrying the use of the Veto was,
therefore, an entirely predictable and consistent position for New Zealand’s
present Labour Prime Minister to adopt.
Had Ardern denounced the vetoing, by the United States, of a
Russian Federation proposal for an international inquiry into the alleged
chemical warfare attack on Eastern Ghouta, as well as the Russians’ tit-for-tat
vetoing of a similar proposal put forward by the US, she would have elicited
widespread support from UN member states.
That support would have grown if she had further declared
her disappointment that military action had been initiated by the US, France
and the United Kingdom (all permanent members of the Security Council) before
inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
had been given a chance to examine the scene of the alleged attack, gather
samples, and make their report.
She could also have announced that, if the Eastern Ghouta
incident was confirmed by the OPCW as a chemical attack, then New Zealand would
be seeking a vote explicitly condemning its perpetrators at the UN General Assembly,
as well as a re-confirmation of the UN ban against the deployment and use of
chemical and biological weapons.
Such a course of action would have identified New Zealand as
an outspoken defender of the UN Charter and encouraged other small states to take
a stand against the precipitate and unsanctioned military actions of the United
States and the two former imperial powers most responsible for the century of
instability which has beset the nations of the Middle East – France and Britain.
At a more pragmatic level, such a response would undoubtedly
have strengthened New Zealand’s relationship with that other permanent member
of the Security Council, the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese have
consistently and vehemently opposed unsanctioned and unprovoked military
attacks against the sovereign territory of fellow UN member states.
Such would have been the high road for New Zealand:
coherent, consistent and principled.
Alas, it was not the road Ardern chose to take.
Instead, having lamented the Security Council’s veto-induced
paralysis, the statement issued by New Zealand’s prime minister went on to say:
“New Zealand therefore accepts why the US, UK and France
have today responded to the grave violation of international law, and the
abhorrent use of chemical weapons against civilians.”
Using fewer than 30 words, Ardern telegraphed to the world
that New Zealand’s fine words about diplomacy and multilateralism should be dismissed
as mere rhetoric. In reality, her country is perfectly willing to set aside its
commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts between nation states, and
the rule of international law, if the United States, the United Kingdom and
France ask them to.
The alleged chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta pales into
insignificance when set alongside the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and yet, in
the latter case, the Americans were eager to present the UN Security Council
with photographic evidence of their claims. There has been no equivalent
evidential presentation in 2018. Nor should it be forgotten that the Cuban
Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully. This time, in spite of the risks,
fighter-bombers and cruise missiles have been sent into action.
Rather than take an unequivocal stand for peace, the UN
Charter and the rule of international law, New Zealand’s prime minister has
chosen to talk out of both sides of her mouth. An opportunity to assume moral
leadership and demonstrate political courage has been heedlessly squandered.
This essay was
originally published in The Press of Tuesday,
17 April 2018.
