"Winston Peters is, after all, part of a three-party Coalition, and with the PM on the other side of the world... he and his officials needed time to work on their positioning," writes Audrey Young.
"Winston Peters is, after all, part of a three-party Coalition, and with the PM on the other side of the world... he and his officials needed time to work on their positioning," writes Audrey Young.
Opinion by Audrey Young
Audrey Young, Senior Political Correspondent at the New Zealand Herald based at Parliament, specialises in writing about politics and power.
The Government has called for diplomacy after the US strike on Iran.
Opposition parties called the bombing contrary to international law.
Australia’s Government said it supported action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
The New Zealand Government’s response to the United States’ strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities with stealth bombers has been equivocal, understandably.
It has neither supported nor opposed the bombing, and it is not alone.
First are New Zealand’s Opposition parties, whichsoon after the bombing declared it contrary to international law and called on the Government to say so as well.
Second is Australia, which came out yesterday and supported the bombing.
But it is more likely that New Zealand will continue to follow the example of Britain and Canada.
That is to avoid the issue of whether it supports or opposes the bombing of three nuclear facilities, to stay silent on whether it was justified or unjustified, not to offer a view as to whether it was lawful or unlawful under international law, and to emphasise what should happen from now on: de-escalation and diplomacy.
Unlike New Zealand, in the 24 hours after the bombing, the Australian Government came under domestic pressure from its highly vocal defence hawks to unequivocally support the bombing.
And it did so on Monday.
“The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent that – that is what this is,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.
Even if it is a bit squirmish about the legalities of America’s unilateral strike, Australia’s status as an ally is baked into the $368 billion Aukus submarine supply deal.
And with Aukus currently under review by the Trump Administration, it is not hard to see why Labor might have seen it as against its national interest to quibble about whether the US acted contrary to international law.
No wonder the general response to Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong was why had it taken Australia 24 hours to say that.
Britain, although equally the No 1 ally to the US with Australia, is in a different position.
While it too has come under pressure from the Conservative opposition to back the US action, the UK Labour Government has stronger grounds for resisting.
Its position as an intermediary between Iran and the US – not to mention between Europe and the US – is important. Britain, along with France and Germany, was meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister in Geneva the day before the bombing.
Despite US President Donald Trump dismissing their attempts at mediation, it will be important to keep those channels open.
And if the UK and European players are to maintain credibility with Iran in such a role, they cannot afford to be cheerleading the US against such Iranian humiliation.
Minister of Defence Judith Collins and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters announce an operation to assist New Zealanders stranded in Iran and Israel at RNZAF Base Whenuapai on Sunday. Photo / Sylvie Whinray
Foreign Minister Winston Peters on Sunday and Monday morning took a non-committal position on the basis of not having enough information.
You could tell that well-established US hawk was itching to back the US, but he resisted.
He is, after all, part of a three-party coalition, and with the Prime Minister on the other side of the world for a Nato summit, he and his officials needed time to work on their positioning.
But no amount of waiting for information is going to change the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recorded in May that Iran’s nuclear stockpiles include 400kg of uranium enriched up to 60% – beyond what it required for supposedly civilian use.
No amount of denial by Iran is going to persuade leaders of most Western countries that Iran was not far away – possibly months – from producing a nuclear weapon.
And no amount of extra information is going to change the claim by the US that its actions were of collective self-defence and were lawful.
New Zealand is committed to the “international rules-based order”. Whenever it calls out Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, it describes it as “illegal.” But whether something is lawful or unlawful under international law is often debatable, especially when it involves the US.
When Peters talks about wanting more information, he is not referring to waiting for the final piece of legal advice that will tip the scales and have New Zealand declare the US actions unlawful.
The only direction in which he would want to shift is further towards supporting the US, not criticising it.
By 3pm yesterday, Peters had issued a fuller statement calling for diplomacy and dialogue, and noting the US statement to the UN Security Council in defence of its actions.
It also noted New Zealand’s history of advocating for disarmament, opposing Iran’s nuclear programme, and stated more bluntly than he has stated before: “Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons”.
That may not be an unequivocal statement of New Zealand’s support for the US action, but it certainly moves closer to it.
And perhaps that is where New Zealand’s position will rest.
