All eyes on UN as Peters brushes off Seymour concern

“Our world is in a whirlwind,” United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the UN General Assembly’s 79th session on Wednesday (NZ Time), outlining a world of deepening geopolitical divisions, wars raging and challenges unlike any before.

“We are edging towards the unimaginable – a powder keg that risks engulfing the world,” Guterres said, a sentiment shared by other leaders and politicians who followed him. 

It is Israel’s war in Gaza that arguably looms largest, the Secretary-General describing the situation as “a non-stop nightmare that threatens to take the entire region” – a direct reference to Lebanon, which has been subjected to a wave of Israeli airstrikes this week in the wake of bombing attacks against Hezbollah operatives (who have in turn been carrying out rocket and drone attacks against Israel).

But while the UN Head’s angst at the situation is plain to see, whether the organisation he oversees can do anything meaningful about it is another matter.

Addressing the UN Security Council last week on behalf of The Elders (a group of senior public figures), Former Prime Minister Helen Clark said the body faced an existential question: “Can the Security Council enforce its own resolutions?”

“Council members who question the binding status of these resolutions, or who use their veto to protect an ally or to oppose a geo-political rival, are eroding the Council’s authority. They also undermine their own reputations and long-term interests,” Clark said.

Pact for the Future

The Security Council’s five Permanent Members have on five occasions wielded their veto to block resolutions related to the war in Gaza (the US doing so three times and China and Russia jointly twice, with the US vetoing a separate resolution on Palestine’s application for full UN membership).

Clark’s message of a body in dire need of reform is set to be echoed by Foreign Minister Winston Peters when he delivers New Zealand’s national statement on Friday.

When he last spoke at the UN in April, Peters said the Security Council had “failed in its responsibility to maintain international peace and security,” and the crisis has only worsened since then.

The prospects of meaningful reform seem small, at least in the immediate future. Guterres laboured for the UN to adopt a ‘Pact for the Future,’ setting out the pressing global challenges in the 21st century and how the UN would tackle them, but has been largely written off as more focused on grand rhetoric than tangible actions.

Nor are the P5 likely to give up their veto powers, even if there has been some talk about adding permanent seats (without a veto) for African Nations.

Peters is unlikely to be going in with rose-tinted glasses, but even if there are solid grounds for cynicism, continuing to call for change is surely better than trying to contemplate a world without the UN altogether.

New Zealand’s stance

New Zealand’s own stance on Israel is hardening, with the country backing a UN Resolution calling on the country to withdraw from occupied Palestinian territories within 12 months – breaking ranks with ‘like-minded’ nations in the Five Eyes alliance to do so.

Yet Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s confident assertion that all three coalition parties were on the same page in their support for the resolution turned out to be untrue, with ACT Party Leader David Seymour telling AAP his party had not been consulted and expected “a more open dialogue in the future.”

“We had a friendly chat, I said, ‘Look, it would be good if we could chat about this more in the future,” Seymour later told reporters of a conversation with Peters.

Peters gave that argument short shrift, issuing a pointed statement to media outlets saying he did not intend to “consult with coalition partners on the literally hundreds of UN General Assembly resolutions that are considered each year that are within established foreign policy settings.”

Yet somewhat ironically, the New Zealand First Leader was on the other side of a similar argument over another contentious UN resolution.

The former National government’s decision in late 2016 to have New Zealand co-sponsor a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s settlements in Palestinian territories sparked a diplomatic crisis. The country recalled its Ambassador, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly described the matter as a “declaration of war.”

At the time, Peters took aim at then-Foreign Minister Murray McCully’s failure to take the resolution to Cabinet for approval, arguing any “denunciation” on a matter of international relations required formal sign-off.

McCully “should never have been allowed to act unilaterally on such an important issue”, Peters said at the time, with then-Prime Minister Bill English denying approval was needed for longstanding government policy – the defence essentially being used by the foreign minister now.

Peters may argue that co-sponsorship is a step up from a mere vote in favour, but some of Israel’s supporters in New Zealand have argued the latest Resolution represents a more hardline approach against the country.

Escalating Situation

Whether the Minister was right to move ahead in this case probably hinges on whether or not the issue could be described as among “significant matters concerning New Zealand’s international relationships, security, [or] foreign policy” – the threshold for Cabinet submission according to the Cabinet Manual – or whether it should have been subject to the “no surprises” principle for consultation between coalition parties.

This particular case may not escalate further, with Seymour saying ACT was “compelled” to support the Government’s position: “I am always on the team and do that.”

However, the Epsom MP also noted he represented “probably the largest Jewish community in New Zealand,” and lobbying from the same community was believed to have played a role in the last National government offering an expression of regret over the 2016 resolution.

Concern about Israel’s actions may have been profound then, but the situation has escalated dramatically since. Given the contentious nature of the government’s interest in AUKUS and other foreign policy shifts, a willingness to go against the US on a matter of principle may act as a useful counterbalance (albeit without shifting critics’ concerns on those areas).

With Israel showing no signs of de-escalating, there will be plenty more tests for New Zealand – and the UN – in the coming months.

Sam Sachdeva is the National Affairs Editor at Newsroom Wellington. The above article and pictures, which appeared on the Newsroom website, have been reproduced under a Special Agreement.