Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has spoken out against New Zealand's response to the war in Iran. Photo / NZME
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark says the Government should have taken the same stance on the war in Iran that she took on the Iraq War in 2003, which she called a “no-brainer”.
Speaking on Sunday to Newstalk ZB host Tim Beveridge, Clark has said if she were in power, she would have likewise condemned the international attacks on Iran.
The former Prime Minister (1999 to 2008) last week criticised the New Zealand Government’s response to the military action in Iran, saying the local reaction was a “disgrace”.
Clark said New Zealand had made it clear it could not support the invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s.
“We made it very clear that we could not support the war on Iraq. We made the same point as I made in the last week, saying no one likes Saddam Hussein or his Government. No one in New Zealand liked the Ayatollah and the regime. That wasn’t the point,” she said.
In order to invade another country, there had to be an imminent threat of attack against you, which wasn’t present here, she said.
“Therefore, the defence under international law of self-defence in the face of an imminent attack didn’t occur.”
She said the UN Security Council also had not approved this war, nor had the issue been put to them.
“There’s no authorisation for it. So yes, if I’d been in Government today, I would have been taking the same position as 2003.”
It was a “no-brainer” to take that stance in 2003, she said.
“Look, let’s face it, it made for a pretty frosty atmosphere with Washington DC. Very frosty indeed. It was in the aftermath of 9/11, and the US had a reasonably easy pushover of the Taliban, who, of course, were no match for the armed might of the United States at the time.
“But look back and say, what did 20 years of war on Afghanistan achieve? What’s the last 20 years for Iraq achieved? If you put a foot into the politics of the Middle East like this, I fear it’s not going to end well for anyone and tragically, a lot of people will be killed.”
She believed Israel was “calling the shots” around the decision to start the war.
Clark said comments from the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the US had to join in the attack because Israel was going to raised questions about “who is leading here?”.
Clark said it did not appear Iran had a “unified national liberation movement that’s waiting to move in”.
“So you ask yourself ‘how will this end?’
“Now, some are starting to say that, you know, President [Donald] Trump is entirely capable of declaring victory and saying it’s over when he feels he’s bombed enough sites.
“He may do that at the point where the markets go completely to custard, where the Europeans run out of gas, where the Gulf economies, which depend so much on their airline hubs and airline industry, tourism, expats buying expensive property and the rest of it, when they say ‘help, you know, we just, we’re not coping here, we’re going under’.”
Clark said there had also been “bold talk about Cuba” in recent days, and Greenland could draw focus again.
“You just don’t know which course this is going to take.”
Clark was critical of the argument that focusing on the legality of the attacks ignored the repression of Iran’s Government over its people.
“Have we invaded Saudi Arabia because it interns women’s rights activists? Have we, you know, invaded Cameroon where there’s many human rights abuses and ongoing repression of Anglophone speakers? Have we invaded the countries in the Sahel with military regimes which are repressing people? Have we invaded North Korea? You know, I mean, I could go on, there’s a very long list,” she said.
Clark also pointed to a “crooked election” in Uganda and the President of Zimbabwe trying to declare himself “President for life”.
“Yes, the Iranian regime is a very unpleasant one, but there are a lot of them.”
Clark said there were “any number of pretty nasty governments around the world” that breached human rights on a daily basis.
“If the West were to work itself up into a paddy against each of them the way it has against Iran, we would be in perpetual war on many fronts.”
Clark said Iran was also not the country fostering terrorist groups to do its bidding.
“There’s a level of double standard and hypocrisy about this.”
Clark felt several aspects of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s reaction to the Iran war had “been found wanting”.
“We have a very, very difficult road ahead now with how this war is affecting the global economy, which affects us.”
Petrol prices, food costs and more would be impacted by the war.
“We need a steady hand on the tiller and the verdict increasingly is that our current Prime Minister can’t provide that.
“So unfortunately, I think he’s put himself in a very difficult position by not understanding the brief, not being able to articulate a position.”
Luxon earlier fired back at Clark’s social media comments.
“I think she called my post disgraceful. I’d say what is disgraceful is a regime that actually kills its own people indiscriminately in the way that it has,” he said to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB on Monday.
Luxon also emphasised New Zealand had not been consulted ahead of the strikes.
“This is an evil regime ... New Zealand has condemned this regime for a long period of time.”