Ministerial Statements — Situation in the Middle East—Government Response

I wish to make a ministerial statement relating to the situation in the Middle East.

The situation in the Middle East is of the gravest concern. No New Zealanders want to wake up to news of more bombing, more strife, and more misery. Yet, tragically, for the last two years, that is what we have seen: a relentless and remorseless series of events which have greatly destabilised the region and gravely harmed its people and their sense of security and prosperity.

New Zealanders are scattered across every part of the world, and so, of course, our minds turn in the current crisis to our people in harm’s way. Ensuring their safety is an absolute priority for this Government. New Zealand is a very long way from the Middle East. Unlike our own region, the Pacific, New Zealand’s influence in the Middle East and our ability to affect the trajectory of events is modest. Nevertheless, this Government, continuing New Zealand’s long tradition as a responsible international citizen, has pursued an active foreign policy based on engagement with all—via an intensive programme of prime ministerial and ministerial travel.

We have sought to understand the perspectives of all involved in the Middle East crisis, and to present a clear New Zealand position. That’s why we travelled to Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia and why we’ve met and discussed these issues with Israel, Iran, the Palestinians, the Turks, the Gulf states, the Europeans, Australia, the United States, our Asian partners, and many others. That’s why we have resisted the pressure from some to expel from New Zealand the ambassadors of some Middle Eastern countries. We prefer diplomacy to moral outrage. Indeed, ours is a foreign policy of collecting all the facts, hearing all the perspectives, and applying a careful, reasonable, cool-headed approach to the situation—not kneejerk reaction and simplistic moral posturing.

The New Zealand Government’s response to what is happening in the Middle East should be guided by two questions. First, how can we act to get our people out of harm’s way? Second, how can we best contribute to an international debate which helps push the situation towards de-escalation and peace, not further disintegration and despair?

Our first priority is the safety of New Zealanders. Our months-old advice to New Zealanders in Iran and Israel remains to leave if and when they can find a safe route. By the way, to hear some media carrying on about the fact that we have not helped our people or warned them is a disgrace, given that for months we’ve said to leave—and yet they never carried that message to New Zealanders wishing to warn their cousins or friends offshore. Back to the issue. The Government is committed to supporting New Zealanders caught up in this crisis. Since the beginning of the conflict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided round the clock, 24/7 consular support to New Zealanders in Israel and Iran—and to their families back home in New Zealand—and will continue to do so.

As we announced on Sunday, we have sent a C-130 aircraft to ensure that we have the resource available to aid in evacuations from the region for those who want to leave. We are also in discussions with commercial airlines to see if they can help. We encourage all New Zealanders in the region to make sure they register with SafeTravel so we can have an accurate picture of who may need assistance and where. We are also monitoring carefully the economic impacts back home of what is happening in the Middle East.

We note and welcome positive signals in the last few hours about a potential ceasefire. New Zealand strongly supports all efforts toward diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks. An enduring solution depends on de-escalation and diplomacy. As we have repeatedly said, the Middle East is not a situation of black and white; of good and evil; of just one bad actor. Those in this House who rush to condemn, or call out, one actor or other, or who demand that the Government do the same, should pause to reflect on whether they are seeking to understand and influence what is going on, or simply virtue-signalling about it. New Zealand has consistently called for peaceful resolution of this latest conflict. Diplomacy must always be the first resort, not the last. We have been clear to all our partners, and to all parties to the conflict, that military action must end and parties must return to the negotiating table to find a lasting resolution. New Zealand has a long, proud history of standing up against nuclear weapons. Our concerns about Iran’s aspirations for nuclear weapons are longstanding. Iran has a proven pattern of non-compliance with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations, and Iran has made threats against other countries in the volatile Middle East.

We end this statement by noting what New Zealand is looking for in the Middle East and what we oppose. We want de-escalation and dialogue. We want a two-State solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living in security and peace, side by side. We want humanitarian aid to get to those who need it. Ultimately, we want peace. What we do not want is New Zealanders in harm’s way. We do not want ever escalating rounds of military action. We do not want a nuclear Iran. We do not want Hamas holding hostages and terrorising Palestinian and Israeli citizens alike. And we do not want Israel occupying Palestinian land. Ultimately, we do not want another generation of young people in the Middle East scarred by conflict, replicating the enmities of today and yesterday. This cycle of conflict, now generations old, must end.

The Middle East is a long, long way from New Zealand, and our influence is limited, but the Government is committed to doing all we can to help New Zealanders affected, and to help contribute to de-escalation and diplomacy. Thank you.

Over recent days, the world has watched with increasing alarm as the United States has carried out missile strikes on Iranian territory. These are not defensive actions under imminent threat, they are not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, they are not supported by the international community, and, most crucially, they are not legal under international law. There is much in the statement by our Minister of Foreign Affairs that I completely agree with. We also welcome the possibility of a ceasefire. We also endorse the non-expulsion of ambassadors from countries who have taken actions that we disagree with. If we want international diplomacy, if we want international dialogue, the role of diplomats has never been more important. We also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force deployment, and they go with our full support.

New Zealand’s always stood proud as a nation that upholds the rules-based international order. We are a small country, but our voice on the world stage matters precisely because we’ve been prepared to stand up to speak truth to power when doing so is right. We did that in 2003, when Helen Clark and the Labour Government took a principled and courageous stand by opposing the illegal invasion of Iraq. We were told then that New Zealand should stay silent. We were told then that it was in our economic interests to look the other way. We didn’t, because we knew that legality matters, principles matter, and international rules matter. Those same principles have to apply today.

The strikes on Iran mark a dangerous escalation in an already volatile region. They risk igniting a war that would inflict enormous suffering on innocent civilians, destabilise the Middle East further, and undermine the very system of collective security the United Nations was created to uphold after the bloodshed of World War II. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State unless, as article 51 states, that is in self-defence or authorised by the Security Council. Neither of those conditions has been met. There is no clear justification, there is no credible claim of imminent threat, and there is no UN mandate. That makes those strikes contrary to international law. That’s not just my opinion; that’s an opinion shared by legal scholars, human rights organisations, and former diplomats around the diplomatic world.

New Zealand should not drift from our values, simply because the actions come from one of our traditional allies. We do not believe in a world where might makes right and where power justifies impunity. New Zealand has a proud history of diplomacy, from our nuclear-free stance to our leadership on disarmament and peacebuilding. We’ve long argued that international security must be based on cooperation, not coercion. That legacy demands consistency by New Zealand. We should not accept one set of rules for the powerful and another set of rules for everybody else. We must choose principle, we should choose peace, and we should choose the path of international law. Honouring our past and living up to our values means that we need to be a voice for restraint, for legality, and for justice on the world stage.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Noting that article 51 on the right to self-defence states specifically that that right is inherent for “individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”, does the New Zealand Government believe that the US’s pre-emptive strike on Iran meets that criteria?

In the context in which the Leader of the Opposition asked that question, we note the United States’ decision to undertake targeted attacks aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities was based on the US statement to the UN Security Council that it was acting in collective self-defence consistent with the UN Charter. That was a statement they made, and, of course, in time, that will depend on the emerging evidence.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister may not have heard my question to him. My question was: does the New Zealand Government believe that the pre-emptive strike meets the criteria of article 51?

Well, as I said, unlike some, we wait till we get the evidence, and we’ve said it constantly day after day that instead of rushing to judgment, as we were asked this morning by the media: “Has peace broken out?” “No,” we said, “We’re going to trust but verify.” When we sought to verify, we found that what they were saying by way of questioning was wrong. In this case, we’re going to find out the facts as time goes by. There’ll be some days yet—maybe some time yet—before we can establish as to the immediacy of the problem and the level of deterioration with respect to the Iran position on gaining nuclear capability in terms of weapons.

Is it the New Zealand Government position that article 51 permits the use of pre-emptive force?

It is, in fact, the international position that, if justified—and that is why it’s recognised in the UN and exactly why it’s written that way.

Has the New Zealand Government received intelligence supporting the claim that the US strike was in line with article 51?

As we have said before, we have not been privy to that information, nor did we, frankly, expect to be, but we have made the wise decision—in my view—to hold our counsel until we know all the facts before we rush to judgment and imperil the future of 5.2 million New Zealanders. More importantly, there are people over there in Iran right now—where the numbers have escalated from 46, just two days ago, to, now, 134—that we have to get out. That’s our number one priority, and we’re going to have that on our mind before we make any rash statement that might affect their safety getting out.

Will the New Zealand Prime Minister use his presence at NATO on behalf of our country this week to urge for restraint, de-escalation, and adherence to international rules by all countries?

I will contact the Prime Minister and pass on the Leader of the Opposition’s message. I think the response to that is, as the Minister of Defence says: he always does.

Finally, when the Government commits to the two-State solution, as he did in his ministerial statement, does that mean it will now take steps to formally recognise Palestine by inviting the ambassador to present their credentials, and, if not, why not?

Well, the trouble with that is—and we have said countless times—is that it’s not, when it comes to recognising Palestine, if but when. But having spoken to the Palestinian Authority, having spoken to the Egyptians, having spoken to the United Arab Emirates, having spoken to the President of Turkey, having spoken to the President of Indonesia—these huge Islamic countries—and others, they understand our view. We said, “How will we actually recognise it and maintain the standards of recognition which we’ve always held thus far, or are we’re going to lower the standard, and then the next time it happens, we’ve got a much lower base and precedent that we’ll come to regret?” That’s a position that a lot of countries share with us. It’s not if but when, and when is when we know we’ll have the authority legitimately capable of making the claim that they are the representatives of the people.

Hon Marama Davidson: Mr Speaker!

Before I call the member, just a reminder that this debate is in response to the ministerial statement that was largely confined—although it did stray widely—to the sending of the C-130 to the Middle East. I appreciate that there is going to be some broader questioning, but I don’t want to see a repeating of questions that have already been asked.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party condemns the United States’ unlawful and aggressive strikes on Iran, and we call on the Government to do the same. The attacks by the United States are a blatant breach of international law. The attacks on Iran constitute a breach of international law because neither attack was made in self-defence by the US and by Israel.

I heard in the ministerial statement that the Minister of Foreign Affairs prides themselves on wanting to prioritise diplomacy, wanting to push for de-escalation, and wanting to push for enduring peace, and yet we did not see a statement that recognised and acknowledged the dangerous escalation of the US strikes on Iran. So, in response to the statements from the ministerial statement, we are looking for that condemnation of Israel and the United States’ illegal strikes on Iran.

The Minister also spoke in his statement about the ceasefire and having a look into it to check out whether it’s worth anything. I too want to speak to that part of the Minister’s speech, where if it is then true, of course we would all welcome that; it’s what we all want. But we know from the continued genocide in Gaza that a ceasefire with Israel isn’t worth the paper it’s written on; they have continued to breach and breach and breach ongoing calls and so-called settlements of a ceasefire.

We don’t want any nation armed with nuclear weapons, but there is no greater motivator—and, again, this refers to the Minister’s statements about diplomacy and de-escalation—to obtain nuclear weapons and power than the realised threat of attack by the greatest nuclear power in the world. Absolutely, it would be wonderful to have Iran back at the negotiating table, where they were before the strikes from Israel and the United States launched their unilateral strikes.

New Zealand must stand for—again, we heard this from the Minister—upholding rules-based international order. The Government is absolutely right—the Minister is right—to state that for a small State like New Zealand, a small country like Aotearoa, the rules-based international order is what we have to protect our interests. It is that very rules-based international order, especially because of our positioning in the world as well as our size, that we have to be able to use against military powers around the world, and yet the Government refuses to take action to uphold that very order when it is clear that it has been violated. So—

SPEAKER: The member needs to come to the heart of the ministerial statement, not round the edges of it. The ministerial statement was about the sending of the C-130 to pick up New Zealanders who may be distressed.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There were a broad range of statements that I was directly referencing in the ministerial statement.

SPEAKER: Well, you were interpreting some of the statements made. Bring it back to the purpose of the debate.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I heard some valid wide interpretation in the speech before me, as well. Mr Speaker, I will take your advice on board, but there was, surely, some ground for interpreting this speech from the Minister.

SPEAKER: And I was very liberal; you had three minutes.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Israel and the United States—oh, well, OK, let me put this as a particular important point that I do genuinely want to put to the Minister: we stand by the support for evacuating New Zealanders, particularly, from both Iran and Israel, and we are very clear about being able to use and deploy our forces for those purposes. We have stood by those very similar actions to crises around the world, as the Green Party. We continue to stand by that as well.

I do implore the Minister to think about the very Iranian freedom activists who deserve freedom from both the oppression of the Iranian Government but also the freedom from the terror inflicted upon them by Israel and the United States, because the Minister did refer to the self-defence clause from the US in these strikes on Iran. I do ask that the Minister consider the very voices of Iranians in Iran and the diaspora here and around the world, who are pushing for a pathway to peace that is without violence. Will the Minister condemn Israel and the United States’ illegal strikes on Iran?

I made it very clear, in the ministerial statement, the Government’s position, but I have to say when it comes to the proxies for Iran that have committed so much terrorism and the loss of thousands of lives—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, with respect to Iran—the Greens have been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever. On October the 7th, that outrageous terrorism of 1,200 people and 200 people kidnapped or abducted, there was not a word, not a syllable. This is not balance at all. Above all, I believe our country needs to demonstrate that we’re even-minded, even here. We’ve condemned all parties—

Chlöe Swarbrick: In the face of a genocide, Winston.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and shouting out like that typically just disposes me to point to that member and say that member’s only got one side, and, for the first time ever, she’s mentioned Iran’s people. Yes, Iran’s people have been under 40 years of desperation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Look at my track record!

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know all your track record; it takes five seconds to examine it.

SPEAKER: Neither party here is displaying the sort of decorum that you’d expect out of Parliament. I refer both sides to Speaker’s ruling 150/1, which means that neither side of the House has carte blanche to say whatever they like as a result of a ministerial statement.

How is New Zealand contributing to de-escalation and to diplomacy if we continue to only selectively condemn breaches of international law from those countries we think we agree with?

Because the premise of that member’s question is demonstrably false. As I’ve pointed out in my speech and countless speeches, there are no rightful parties in this dispute or in this disaster. We’ve said it over and over again. Balance is what we’re talking about, not mindless virtue-signalling and one-sided answers.