4 Responses to “Cross-Link: New Zealand on the UN Security Council.”
Tiger Mountain on December 15th, 2016 at 08:19
heh, one side of an A5 should suffice
Mike on December 28th, 2016 at 12:03
Would be interested in what your thoughts a on israel and how they a saying its a declaration of war. And Trumps supporting them. Maybe we need a alliance with our chinese friends like Austria and hungry and france and uk once had!
Tiger Mountain on December 28th, 2016 at 13:52
post Mr McCully’s “redemption” how wrong can a commenter be! though my general cynicism still prevails,–did Murray McCully think the US would veto the settlement resolution as per usual, or did he really go for broke like Mr Obama appears to have?
Pablo on December 29th, 2016 at 08:12
Netanyahu is a bullying thug so should be treated with contempt. I am not sure that he used those exact words, but even if he used more muted threats he should be scorned. The withdrawal of ambassadors etc is just a diplomatic expression of discontent and I doubt major sanctions will be imposed by Israel on NZ trade because, dirty secret that it is, NZ defense companies supply critical components to the Israeli military.
Trump will try to reverse the US abstention but what is done is done. As I wrote in the paper, attempting to re-start the process of negotiating a two-state solution was one of the principle pillars of NZ’s UNSC bid. The beginning of that process requires ending the illegal settlements on occupied land. So NZ simply did what had always said that it would do, which is support anything that moved the needle in the right direction. Israel’s threats therefore ring hollow since they knew where NZ stood from the get-go. It was the US change of position that brought things to a head. Whatever the case, the bottom line is that resolutions do not necessarily mean concrete action to follow, so it could well be just an empty gesture that will only spur Israel to increase the pace of the settlement program. In doing so, it is well on its way to becoming a pariah state like the DPRK, although it will maintain the US cover from international sanctions (unlike the DPRK) and can use the neighbouring conflicts as diversions from its own misdeeds.
Incidentally, Michael Field has an interesting, albeit somewhat rambling piece on this issue in Scoop. Worth a read.