The question of why New Zealand soldiers ended up on Turkish beaches in April 1915 is typically not part of these Anzac Day commemorations. Image: Getty/The Conversation
ANALYSIS:By Olli Hellmann
When New Zealanders commemorate Anzac Day today on April 25, it’s not only to honour the soldiers who lost their lives in World War I and subsequent conflicts, but also to mark a defining event for national identity.
The battle of Gallipoli against the Ottoman Empire, the story goes, was where the young nation passed its first test of courage and determination.
The question of why New Zealand soldiers ended up on Turkish beaches in April 1915 is typically not part of these commemorations. Rather, our collective memories begin with the moment of the early morning landing.
Consider, for example, the timing of the Anzac Day dawn service, or the Museum of New Zealand-Te Papa Tongarewa’s exhibition, Gallipoli: The Scale of Our War, which plunges visitors straight into the action.
This selective retelling of history is necessary for the “coming of age” narrative to work. It helps conceal that Britain was pursuing its own colonial ambitions against the Ottomans, and that New Zealand took part in World War I as “a member of the British club”, as historian Ian McGibbon puts it, loyally devoted to the imperial cause.
Against the background of the recent horrors and escalating tensions in the Middle East, however, it seems more important than ever to make these silences speak in our commemorations of Gallipoli.
Where collective memory begins . . . dawn service at the Auckland War Memorial Museum cenotaph. Image: Getty Images
Britain’s colonial interests While the causes of World War I are complex and multifaceted, historians have extensively documented that Britain had long seen parts of the decaying Ottoman Empire as prey for colonial expansion.
Already, in the late 1800s, Britain had taken control of Cyprus and Egypt.
Turkey’s Middle Eastern possessions were of interest to the government in London because they provided not only a land route to the colony in India, but also rich oil reserves.
Hence, when the Ottoman Empire signed an alliance with Germany — mainly to guard against Russian territorial aspirations – and somewhat reluctantly entered World War I, the British did not lament this as a diplomatic defeat.
“The decrepit Ottoman Empire was more useful to them as a victim than as a dependent ally,” as the late historian Michael Howard explained.
The day after Britain declared war on the Ottomans on November 5, 1914, British troops attacked Basra (in today’s southern Iraq) to secure nearby oil facilities.
In the following months, the Triple Entente of Britain, France and Russia won a number of easy victories, which fuelled the belief the Turkish military was weak. This in turn led Britain to devise a plan to launch a direct strike on Constantinople, the Ottoman capital.
First, however, they had to clear the Gallipoli peninsula of enemy defences. And who better suited to this task than the first convoy of Anzac troops, just a short distance away in Egypt after passing through the Suez Canal?
Australian, British, New Zealand and Indian cameliers in Palestine during World War I.
Palestine: a complex tangle of pledges As is well known, war planners in London had underestimated the enemy’s military strength. The battle of Gallipoli ended in a Turkish victory over Britain and its allies.
Nevertheless, fortunes eventually turned against the Ottoman Empire.
Although a whole century has gone by, British diplomatic efforts and secret agreements that were meant to accelerate the collapse of the Ottoman Empire still shape the Middle East today.
Most significantly, it is the violent conflict over Palestine that can be traced back to colonial power dealings during World War I. The crux of the problem is that Britain affirmed three irreconcilable wartime commitments in relation to Palestine.
First, in the hope of initiating an Arab revolt against Ottoman rule, the British made promises to Sharif Husayn, the emir of Mecca, about the creation of an independent Arab kingdom.
Second, in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Ottomans’ Arab lands into British and French spheres of interest, Palestine was designated for international administration.
Third, in the Balfour Declaration of November 1917, the British government pledged support for a “Jewish national home” in Palestine — a move motivated by a mixture of realpolitik and Biblical romanticism.
In the end, it was the third commitment that turned out to be the most enduring.
Lord Balfour inspecting troops at York Cathedral during World War I. Image: Getty Images
How should we remember Gallipoli? Amid this complex history, we must not forget the thousands of New Zealand soldiers who died in World War I — men who had either volunteered, expecting a quick and heroic war, or served as draftees.
However, we need to have a public discussion about whether it is still appropriate for our commemorations to skip over the question of why these men fought in Europe and the Mediterranean.
Facing up to this question not only makes us aware of our responsibilities towards the Middle East problem, but it can also serve as a lesson for the future — not to blindly follow great powers into their military adventures.
Students and activist staff at Australia’s University of Sydney (USyd) have set up a Gaza solidarity encampment in support of Palestinians and similar student-led protests in the United States.
The camp was pitched as mass graves, crippled hospitals, thousands of civilian deaths and the near-total destruction of infrastructure haunted Gaza with Israel’s war on the besieged Palestinian coastal enclave passing the 200 days milestone.
Nearly 85 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million people have been displaced and more than 14,500 children killed in the attack, which critics have dubbed a war of vengeance.
Al Jazeera reflects on 200 days of Israel’s war on Gaza. Image: AJ screenshot APR
In Sydney, according to the university’s student newspaper, Honi Soit, the camp was established on the campus when tents were pitched “emblazoned with graffiti reading ‘Free Palestine’ and ‘from the river to the sea’”.
Students form several Australian universities were in attendance for the launch of the encampment, which was inaugurated with a student activist “speak out” on the subject of the war on Gaza and the demand for USyd management to drop any ties to the state of Israel.
According to the student newspaper: “Many chants that were used on US campuses in the past week were repeated at the encampment tonight like “disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest” followed by “Albanese/Sydney Uni you will see, Palestine will be free”.
— USyd SFP | Join the Gaza Solidarity Camp! (@SFP_USyd) April 24, 2024
Pro-Palestinian protests are gaining momentum at colleges and universities across the United States with street protests outside campuses as police have cracked down on the demonstrators.
Students at New York University, Columbia, Harvard and Yale are among those standing in solidarity with Palestinians and demanding an end to the war on Gaza.
Tensions flare at US universities over Gaza protests.
Tensions between pro-Palestinian student protesters and school administrators flared at several US universities Monday, as in-person classes were cancelled and demonstrators arrestedhttps://t.co/ByWzL8ZWhNpic.twitter.com/W5I08JqoBg
Al Jazeera’s Kristen Saloomey, reporting from New York, said student demonstrators from New York University (NYU) gathered for hours in a park just off the campus to protest against the genocide.
The protest moved to the park following the mass arrest of 133 students and academic staff who had participated in a protest on the NYU campus the night before.
“As news spread of their arrests, so have demonstrations around the country — at other colleges and universities,” Saloomey said.
Columbia announced that it was introducing online classes for the the rest of the year to cope with the protests.
Watch Saloomey’s AJ report:
Columbia protests: Chants of ‘Azaadi’. Video: Al Jazeera
The Al Jazeera Explainers team have put together a comprehensive report detailing the numbers that highlight the unprecedented level of violence unleashed by Israel on Gaza in the 200 days of war.
The massive infrastructure damage caused by the Israeli war on Gaza . . . . making the strip “unlivable”.
The West Papuan resistance OPM leader has condemned Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and US President Joe Biden, accusing their countries of “six decades of treachery” over Papuan independence.
The open letter was released today by OPM chairman Jeffrey P Bomanak on the eve of ANZAC Day 2024.
Praising the courage and determination of Papuans against the Japanese Imperial Forces in World War Two, Bomanak said: “There were no colonial borders in this war — we served Allied Pacific Theatre campaigns across the entire island of New Guinea.
The Papuan Infantry Battalion in the Second World War . . . “Your war became our war. Your graves, our graves.” Image Australian War Memorial
Bomanak’s open letter, addressed to Prime Minister Albanese and President Biden, declared:
“If you cannot stand by those who stood by you, then your idea of ‘loyalty’ and ‘remembrance’ being something special is a myth, a fairy tale.
“There is nothing special in treachery. Six decades of treachery following the Republic of Indonesia’s invasion and fraudulent annexation, always knowing that we were being massacred, tortured, and raped. Our resources, your intention all along.
“When the Japanese Imperial Forces came to our island, you chose our homes to be your defensive line. We fed and nursed you. We formed the Papuan Infantry Brigade. We became your Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels.
“We even fought alongside you and shared the pain and suffering of hardship and loss.
“There were no colonial borders in this war — we served Allied Pacific Theatre campaigns across the entire island of New Guinea. Our island! From Sorong to Samurai!
OPM leader Jeffrey Bomanak . . . his open letter condemns Australia and the US leadership for preventing decolonisation of West Papua. Image: OPM
“Your war became our war. Your graves, our graves. The photos [in the open letter] are from the Australian War Memorial. The part of the legend always ringing true — my people — Papuans! – with your WWII defence forces.
“My message is to you, not ANZAC veterans. We salute the ANZACs. Your unprincipled greed divided our island. Exploitation, no matter what the cost.
“West Papua is filled with Indonesia’s barbarity and the blood and guts of 500,000 Papuans — men, women, and children. Torture, slaughter, and rape of my people in our ancestral homes led by your betrayal.
“In 1969, to help prevent our decolonisation, you placed two of our leaders on Manus Island instead of allowing them to reach the United Nations in New York — an act of shameless appeasement as a criminal accomplice to a mass-murderer (Suharto) that would have made Hideki Tojo proud.
“RAAF Hercules transported 600 TNI [Indonesian military] to slaughter us on Biak Island in 1998. Australian and US subsidies, weapons and munitions to RI, provide logistics for slaughter and bombing of our highland villages. Still happening!
“You were silent about the 1998 roll of film depicting victims of the Biak Island massacre, and you destroyed this roll of film in March 2014 after the revelations from the Biak Massacre Citizens Tribunal were aired on the ABC’s 7:30 Report. (Grateful for the integrity of Edmund McWilliams, Political Counselor at the US Embassy in Jakarta, for his testimony.)
“Every single act and action of your betrayal contravenes Commonwealth and US Criminal Codes and violates the UN Charter, the Genocide Act, and the Torture Convention. The price of this cowardly servitude to assassins, rapists, torturers, and war criminals — from war criminal Suharto to war criminal Prabowo [current President of Indonesia] — complicity and collusion in genocide, ethnocide, infanticide, and wave after wave of ethnic cleansing.
“Friends, we will not forget you? You threw us into the gutter! As Australian and American leaders, your remembrance day is a commemoration of a tradition of loyalty and sacrifice that you have failed to honour.”
The OPM chairman and commander Bomanak concluded his open letter with the independence slogan “Papua Merdeka!” — Papua freedom.
Last week’s leaked New York Times staff directive, as to what words can and cannot be used to describe the carnage Israel is raining on Palestinians, is proof positive, since those reports are published verbatim here in New Zealand, that our understanding of the conflict is carefully managed to always reflect a pro-Israel bias.
Forget the humanity of 120,000 dead and wounded Palestinians and countless others facing famine and disease sheltering in tents or what’s left of destroyed buildings, even internationally recognised terms and phrases such as “genocide,” “occupied territory,” “ethnic cleansing” and even “refugee camps” are discouraged, along with “slaughter”, “massacre” and “carnage”.
Though such language restrictions are claimed to be in the interests of “fairness”, an earlier investigation showed that between October 7 and November 14, The Times used the word “massacre” 53 times when it referred to Israelis being killed by Palestinians and only once in reference to Palestinians being killed by Israel.
By that date, thousands of Palestinians had perished, the vast majority of whom were women and children, and most of them were killed inside their own homes, in hospitals, schools or United Nations shelters.
This carefully managed use of words is deliberate and insidious and, as Jack Tame’s interview with Israel’s ambassador on last Sunday’s Q&A programme showed, even our most experienced media people are not immune to its effects.
From his introduction, “establishing” that the genocide taking place in Gaza had its genesis in the October 7 attack by Hamas, and not in the Nakba of 1948, Jack Tame and TVNZ facilitated an almost hour-long presentation of pro-Israel propaganda, justifying its atrocities.
For its appalling lack of balance, including Tame’s obsequious allowance and nodding agreement with the Israeli ambassador’s thoroughly discredited claims of Hamas atrocities; “beheadings” “necrophilia” and for describing Israelis’ as being “butchered” (five times he used the word) while Palestinians were merely “killed”, this was a new low in our media’s record of bias when it comes to the presentation of the facts about the Palestine/Israel conflict.
In the very week that we prepare to remember the horrific sacrifices made in previous wars and even as Israel‘s genocidal slaughter of Palestinians brings us closer to World War Three than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis, that TVNZ should have, pre-recorded and so had time to edit, such a disgraceful presentation is simply appalling — and heads should roll.
A mass grave created by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has been uncovered at a Gaza hospital, where Palestinian civilians appear to have been the victims of a gruesome massacre.
“Bah, that’s old news Caitlin,” you may be saying. “We already know about the massacre and mass graves which were discovered a few weeks ago at the al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza.”
No no, that’s a different mass grave from a different IDF massacre at a completely different Gaza hospital. The now completely destroyed al-Shifa Hospital was in Gaza City; I’m talking about the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis, where some 210 bodies have reportedly been discovered in a mass grave after Israeli forces withdrew from the city earlier this month.
Two different massacres, two different hospitals, two different mass graves full of Palestinian civilians.
The IDF are just attacking hospitals and mowing down civilians and trying to bury the evidence of their crimes, so naturally we’re seeing the Western political-media class focus very hard on the problem of antisemitism allegations on college campuses.
MoH: Number of bodies retrieved from Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis rises to 210.
Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis, where some 210 bodies have reportedly been discovered in a mass grave after Israeli forces withdrew from the city earlier this month. Image: AJ screenshot APR
Getting far less attention than the fact that some Zionist university students are feeling uncomfortable feelings because other students say Palestinians are human beings is the fact that Israel is establishing a pattern of massacring civilians and burying them in mass graves outside hospitals in Gaza, or the fact that the IDF has been butchering children in Rafah, or the fact that the International Criminal Court is reportedly considering charging Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials for war crimes.
Those matters are important, just not nearly as important as how some Western Jews feel emotionally upset about pro-Palestine protests. For that, the world must stop spinning on its axis until this extremely egregious problem has been addressed.
All the Western spin and distortion around Israel’s mass atrocities in Gaza these last six months have revolved around centring feelings over human lives.
How Western Jewish Zionists are feeling about pro-Palestine sentiments. How Joe Biden’s feelings secretly feel about Netanyahu. How Israelis feel about October 7.
How did we get a point where people are more worried that Jewish students at Columbia feel uncomfortable by chants to end Israel’s genocide in Gaza than they are worried about the safety of the people facing a genocide?
Wherever there’s an opportunity to focus the narrative on what feelings are being felt by a politically convenient population, the Western press fall all over themselves to do so with tumescent enthusiasm.
Wherever there’s an opportunity to focus on Israeli atrocities, the Western press are nowhere to be found.
If you belong to a group that isn’t supported by the Western Empire, you can see your entire family murdered right in front of you and the Western political-media class still won’t consider you a victim.
If you belong to a group that the Empire regards as human, then even someone offending your feelings will be viewed as an unforgivable hate crime.
Loading urgent humanitarian aid for Gaza on the Akdeniz ship in Istanbul . . . Freedom Flotilla mission about to begin. Image: Salwa Amor /The New Arab
By Salwa Amor in Istanbul
Palestine solidarity activists are preparing a flotilla to deliver urgently needed humanitarian aid to Gaza, vowing to break Israel’s blockade of the Palestinian territory on board the Akdeniz, a seven-deck passenger ship.
Currently docked in Istanbul, the ship will carry 800 people from more than 30 nations, from Indonesia to the US state of Hawai’i, and is expected to transport 5500 tonnes of aid to Gaza once it sets sail from Turkey in the coming days.
On Friday, reports in Israel media suggested the Israeli authorities are preparing to intercept it. The activists joining the Akdeniz will be mindful of a previous fatal attempt by a vessel of comparable size to set sail from Turkey to Gaza.
The Mavi Marmara was a Turkish aid ship, part of a flotilla attempting to break the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip in May 2010. Israeli commandos intercepted the flotilla in international waters, boarded the Mavi Marmara and killed nine Turkish activists, injuring several others.
The incident sparked international condemnation and strained relations between Turkey and Israel.
The acquisition of the Akdeniz was made possible through the support of four million donors worldwide.
Organised by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC), a coalition of 12 countries including Turkey — and New Zealand through Kia Ora Gaza — in partnership with İnsani Yardım Vakfı (IHH), the mission aims to break the deadly siege that has severely impacted the lives of the people of Gaza for years amid Israel’s genocidal war that has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians since October 7.
Pro-Palestinian activist and human rights lawyer Huwaida Arraf, who was on the Mavi Marmara in 2010, announced she would also join the flotilla.
“While we recognise Israel’s potential for intercepting the mission, we hope for a peaceful outcome. If they choose to attack, those on board are prepared to engage in nonviolent resistance,” she told reporters.
Redemption and hope Former US diplomat and retired US Army colonel Ann Wright is one of the primary organisers of the FFC. In 2003, she resigned from the US government in protest against the Iraq War.
Speaking to The New Arab, Wright said the mission of the flotilla was to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza’s starved population.
“When you witness genocide, you can’t stand back. I’m 77, but even if I were 100, I’d still be on this ship,” said Wright.
Wright and her fellow activists are also determined to shine a spotlight on the dire humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza, bringing international human rights observers to the territory to witness the unfolding genocide.
“Our message to the people of Gaza is that we love you and are trying desperately to stop this genocide . . . To the Israeli people, I say you have a responsibility to stop your government’s genocide of Palestinians,” she said.
“I know the propaganda that comes from governments at war, having been a former US diplomat. But what’s happening in Gaza is genocide, and when you see what your government has done, you’ll be horrified.
“But now, I am older, and as I watch what is happening to the people of Gaza, I am appalled. It is not only the children, although that is what hits me the most.
‘Object to the US’
“But now, it is the time to object to what my country, the US is doing. This is what conscientious objection is about. I am putting my body, my money, my time, my everything on the line to say, ‘I object to what my country is doing, we should not be doing this’.
An activist called Michael said: “I want to stand up for those people in the US who agree with what I am doing and represent my country on this journey.”
Michael said he drew courage from the people of Gaza.
“The people of Palestine have lived under occupation for so long that it impresses me how a people like that can still have that courage and continue to stand for what they believe is right. I am guided by the bravery and courage of the people of Gaza in particular but all of Palestinians.”
On board the Akdenix . . . preparing for the humanitarian aid voyage to Gaza. Image: Salwa Amor/The New Arab
Solidarity without borders Argentinian surgeon Dr Carlos Tortta, a member of Doctors Without Borders, will also be on the ship.
“In all those places I saw a lot of pain but in no place I found such an amount of people killed and wounded and suffering like in Gaza when I worked in Al Shifa hospital in 2009,” he told The New Arab.
“When people ask me why I am going, the answer is why not? We are health workers, so it is natural to want to be with those injured,” he added.
Lee Patten, a 63-year-old former merchant navy officer from Liverpool, told The New Arab he felt compelled to join the voyage.
“When I see those poor children, I cannot simply turn away and leave them with no one to care for them,” he said.
The harrowing images emanating from Gaza have left an indelible mark on Lee.
“The sight of defenceless, innocent children is deeply distressing. It’s unfathomable to comprehend that such suffering is deliberate,” Lee explained.
Gaza ‘a stark warning’
“There seems to be a prevailing notion that what is happening in Gaza is confined to Palestinians and could never happen to Europeans. It’s astounding. Gaza serves as a stark warning to us all.”
As the onslaught continues with Israeli strikes devastating Gaza’s infrastructure, some participants on the boat say they are not going solely to help people but are determined to initiate the rebuilding process after the war.
Among them are several architects who have joined the mission to help in rebuilding Gaza.
Dilara Karasakiz, a 28-year-old Turkish architect among the almost 300 Turkish citizens participating, said she was taking this perilous journey for this very reason.
“I am going on this journey to help rebuild Gaza. We will rebuild everything Israel has destroyed.
“Gazans deserve a good standard of life, and we’re asking for their suffering to end and for them to be free. I’m not afraid because this ship is just a symbol of humanity.
“Why would I be afraid? I hope we’ll arrive in Gaza and bring some hope.”
Salwa Amor is an independent documentary maker. Most recently she was one of the producers of the award-winning BBC Panorama Children of Syria two-part series. This article was first published by The New Arab.
An Australian author and advocate, Jim Aubrey, today led a national symbolic one minute’s silence to mark the “blood debt” owed to Papuan allies during the Second World War indigenous resistance against the invading Japanese forces.
“A promise to most people is a promise,” Aubrey said in his open letter marking the debt protest — “unless that promise is made by the Australian government.”
After the successes of Australian and US troops against the Japanese in New Guinea, the Allies continued the advance through what was then Dutch New Guinea then on to the Philippines.
Flashback to the Second World War . . . Papuans supporting Australian troops in the war effort. Image: GR File
The first landing was at Hollandia (now Jayapura) in April 1944, which involved the Australian navy and air force.
Aubrey said in his letter:
“The Australian government’s WWII remembrance oath to Papuan and Timorese allies by the RAAF in flyers dropped over East Timor and the island of New Guinea — ‘FRIENDS, WE WILL NEVER FORGET YOU!’ — is in reality one of history’s most heinous bastard acts in war
and diplomacy.
“Betrayal is the reality of this blood debt and includes consecutive Australian governments’ treachery and culpability as a criminal accomplice and accessory to six decades of the Indonesian government’s crimes against humanity.
“Barbarity that shames us! Genocide, ethnocide, infanticide, and relentless ethnic cleansing.
Aubrey, spokesperson for Genocide Rebellion and the Free West Papua International Coalition, said that he and supporters were commemorating the Second World War “Papuan sacrifice for us” — Australian and American servicemen and women — four days before ANZAC Day without inviting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese or any government minister [and] without inviting US President Biden.
“To have them with us on this special solemn occasion, while honouring the fact that many of us — children and grandchildren – would not be here if it were not for Papuan courage, loyalty, and sacrifice so steadfastly given to our forebears, would be dishonourable.
‘Heartless complicity’
“We condemn outright their heartless complicity and premeditated exploitation of Papuans in their time of peril. A blood debt not honoured by a single Australian government or US administration!
Author Jim Aubrey salutes the Morning Star flag of West Papuan independence earlier today . . . “A blood debt not honoured by a single Australian government or US administration.” Image: Genocide Rebellion
“Lest We Forget . . . six decades of providing the Republic of Indonesia with an environment of impunity for crimes against humanity — 500,000 victims in Western New Guinea, 250,000 in East Timor [now Timor-Leste after the 1999 liberation].
“Future historians will teach their undergraduates that Australian governments did forget! That Australian governments also contravened Commonwealth and State criminal codes by helping the Indonesian government prevent the legal decolonisation of Western New Guinea and achieve their subsequent unlawful annexation; and by concealing and destroying evidence of the 1998 Biak Island Massacre.
“It is not only a matter of honour and truth, it’s personal. I have only just discovered that my father and my uncle were Australian servicemen in the Pacific Theatre campaigns across New Guinea.
“Honourable Australians and Americans, however, only need to know our duty of care and our international obligations cannot be compromised for political and economic plunder. The victims of crimes against humanity deserve the support and the protection they are by law, by right, and decency entitled to.
“Pacific Island nations look to the East for a relationship of integrity in their international affairs. Who can blame them with Australian governments track record of treachery, dishonour, and their demeaning elitism and history in the genocide of indigenous peoples.”
Pillar one of AUKUS involves the delivery of nuclear submarines to Australia, making New Zealand membership impossible under its nuclear-free policy. But pillar two envisages the development of advanced military technology. Image: Getty/The Conversation
ANALYSIS: By Marco de Jong and Robert G. Patman
When former prime minister Helen Clark spoke out against New Zealand potentially compromising its independent foreign policy by joining pillar two of the AUKUS security pact, Foreign Minister Winston Peters responded bluntly:
On what could she have possibly based that statement? […] And I’m saying to people, including Helen Clark, please don’t mislead New Zealanders with your suspicions without any facts – let us find out what we’re talking about.
Pillar one of AUKUS involves the delivery of nuclear submarines to Australia, making New Zealand membership impossible under its nuclear-free policy.
But pillar two envisages the development of advanced military technology in areas such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles and cyber warfare. By some reckonings, New Zealand could benefit from joining at that level.
Peters denies the National-led coalition government has committed to joining pillar two. He says exploratory talks with AUKUS members are “to find out all the facts, all the aspects of what we’re talking about and then as a country to make a decision.”
But while the previous Labour government expressed a willingness to explore pillar two membership, the current government appears to view it as integral to its broader foreign policy objective of aligning New Zealand more closely with “traditional partners”.
Official enthusiasm During his visit to Washington earlier this month, Peters said New Zealand and the Biden administration had pledged “to work ever more closely together in support of shared values and interests” in a strategic environment “considerably more challenging now than even a decade ago”.
In particular, he and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken agreed there were “powerful reasons” for New Zealand to engage practically with arrangements like AUKUS “as and when all parties deem it appropriate”.
Former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark warns a “profoundly undemocratic” shift in New Zealand’s foreign policy is taking place — warning the coalition Government off a geopolitical shift which Kiwis didn’t vote for. https://t.co/2E2aKOpf2w
Declassified documents reveal the official enthusiasm behind such statements and the tightly-curated public messaging it has produced.
A series of joint-agency briefings provided to the New Zealand government characterise AUKUS pillar two as a “non-nuclear” technology-sharing partnership that would elevate New Zealand’s longstanding cooperation with traditional partners and bring opportunities for the aerospace and tech sectors.
But any assessment of New Zealand’s strategic interests must be clear-eyed and not clouded by partial truths or wishful thinking.
Traditional allies . . . NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters meets US Secretary of State Antony Blinken for talks in Washington on April 11. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation
Beyond great power rivalry First, the current government inherited strong bilateral relations with traditional security partners Australia, the US and UK, as well as a consistent and cooperative relationship with China.
Second, while the contemporary global security environment poses threats to New Zealand’s interests, these challenges extend beyond great power rivalry between the US and China.
The multilateral system, on which New Zealand relies, is paralysed by the weakening of institutions such as the UN Security Council, Russian expansionism in Ukraine and a growing array of problems which do not respect borders.
Those include climate change, pandemics and wealth inequality — problems that cannot be fixed unilaterally by great powers.
Third, it is evident New Zealand sometimes disagrees with its traditional partners over respect for international law.
In 2003, for example, New Zealand broke ranks with the US (and the UK and Australia) over the invasion of Iraq. More recently, it was the only member of the Five Eyes network to vote in the UN General Assembly for an immediate humanitarian truce in Gaza.
China’s man in Wellington has a warning for the NZ Govt that joining Pillar II of AUKUS won’t make the region safer, in an exclusive commentary for Newsroom. https://t.co/xgXNwbWRSv
Role of the US In a robust speech to the UN General Assembly on April 7, Peters said the world must halt the “utter catastrophe” in Gaza.
He said the use of the veto — which New Zealand had always opposed — prevented the Security Council from fulfilling its primary function of maintaining global peace and security.
However, the government has been unwilling to publicly admit a crucial point: it was a traditional ally — the US — whose Security Council veto and unconditional support of Israel have led to systematic and plausibly genocidal violations of international law in Gaza, and a strategic windfall for rival states China, Russia and Iran.
Rather than being a consistent voice for justice and de-escalation, the New Zealand government has joined the US in countering Houthi rebels, which have been targeting commercial shipping in the Red Sea.
A done deal? The world has become a more complex and conflicted place for New Zealand. But it would be naive to believe the US has played no part in this and that salvation lies in aligning with AUKUS, which lacks a coherent strategy for addressing multifaceted challenges.
There are alternatives to pillar two of AUKUS more consistent with a principled, independent foreign policy, centred in the Pacific, and which deserve to be seriously considered.
On balance, New Zealand involvement in pillar two of AUKUS would represent a seismic shift in the country’s geopolitical stance. The current government seems bullish about this prospect, which has fuelled concerns membership may be almost a done deal.
If true, it would be the government facing questions about transparency.
"We just sat there watching our home being collapsed [by Israeli missiles]. All our memories are here, this is where our children grew up," says a Gaza woman after being bombed out of her home. Image: Quds News screenshot APR
The vast majority of the projectiles were intercepted by Israel’s air defence system, with assistance from the ever-helpful United States military, and damage was minimal.
Having completed its retaliation, Iran then declared that the matter could “be deemed concluded” — although Israel is not usually one to let anyone else have the last word.
Indeed, on April 19, explosions echoed over the central Iranian city of Isfahan in what sources claimed to be an Israeli attack, but Tehran played down the incident, saying three “quadcopters” had been shot down and there were no casualties or damage.
Later that night one person was killed and at least eight injured after a blast at Kalso military base in Iraq about 50 km south of the capital Baghdad which had been deployed by the Iran-aligned Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF).
Neither the Israelis or the United States admitted any involvement in either incident.
Western barrage of criticism
In the meantime, a barrage of criticism over Tehran’s “aggression” has continued unabated in the West.
“We just sat there watching our home being collapsed [by Israeli missiles]. All our memories are here, this is where our children grew up,” says a Gaza woman after being bombed out of her home. Image: @Mohammedasad.84/Quds News screenshot APRBritish Prime Minister Rishi Sunak condemned “in the strongest terms the Iranian regime’s reckless attack against Israel”, which he insisted had once again shown that Iran was “intent on sowing chaos in its own backyard”.
The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs lamented that “Iran’s long term aggressive behavior is preventing the Middle East region to live in peace and security”.
For his part, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau whined about Iran’s “disregard for peace and stability in the region”, and regurgitated that old, tired slogan about “Israel’s right to defend itself”.
Germany’s Ambassador to Israel Steffen Seibert took to social media to proclaim German solidarity “with all Israelis tonight whom Iran is terrorising with this unprecedented and ruthless attack”.
Lastly, US President Joe Biden, who was forced to cut his beach weekend short due to the developments, announced: “Our commitment to Israel’s security against threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad.”
The Iranian attack, mind you, occurred a little over six months into Israel’s ongoing pulverisation of the Gaza Strip, which has killed nearly 34,000 Palestinians, including some 13,800 children.
Terrifying numbers
And yet, given the thousands of missing persons presumed to be buried under the rubble, even these terrifying numbers are no doubt grave underestimates.
More than 76,000 people have been wounded, as the Israeli military has busied itself flattening entire neighbourhoods and blowing up schools, hospitals, and other basic infrastructure, all the while condemning the territory’s inhabitants to famine and starvation.
Talk about “terrorising”.
Indeed, genocide is nothing if not “long term aggressive behaviour” — to borrow the Czech Foreign Ministry’s words. If the whole business weren’t so unprecedently heinous, it would be almost laughable to claim that Iran is the one “intent on sowing chaos” and disregarding “peace and stability in the region”.
But because Israel’s outsize role as a prized US partner in crime entitles it to a total subversion of logic, genocidaires become victims and unmitigated Israeli aggression becomes “self-defence”.
And never mind the April 1 Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus; that was just preemptive retaliation, right?
In light of the unceasing slaughter in Gaza, though, the Western response to the intercepted Iranian missiles and drones is sickeningly cynical. Sunak’s pathetic claim that “no one wants to see more bloodshed” fails to account for the reality that, as long as it’s Palestinian blood, it’s all totally fine.
Shifting focus from Gaza
Unfortunately, the Iranian spectacle may have provided the Biden administration with exactly what it needed to shift the focus away from Gaza — and specifically US complicity in genocide. After all, it would be a sad day for the arms industry if the US had to stop sending so many weapons to such an active client.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the US was responsible for a full 69 percent of arms imports by the Israeli military between 2019 and 2023, when the all-out genocide kicked off.
So much for “peace and stability”.
But one should never underestimate the imperial utility of the good old Iranian menace in justifying whatever US policy needs justifying. Recall Tehran’s inclusion on the original “axis of evil” shortlist, courtesy of former US President George W Bush, who in his 2002 State of the Union address denounced Iran for “aggressively” pursuing weapons of mass destruction and “export[ing] terror”.
Armed with said “axis”, the US proceeded to engage in nothing less than mass destruction and terror throughout the Middle East and beyond.
Fast-forward 22 years to the present era of destruction, and the Iranian bogeyman is as handy as ever. Following the April 13 attack, perhaps everyone’s favourite refrain “But do you condemn Hamas?” can be updated to: “But do you condemn Iran?”
As for things genuinely worthy of condemnation, these continue to include, well, genocide in Gaza — not to mention the brazenly hypocritical Western insistence on Israel’s “right to self-defence”, which ultimately amounts to genocidal apologetics.
And as leaders continue to trip over themselves in affirmation of solidarity with Israel after this “unprecedented attack”, we’d all do well to remember that you reap what you sow — and that Iran is not the aggressor here.
Belén Fernández is the author of Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Center (OR Books, 2022), Checkpoint Zipolite: Quarantine in a Small Place (OR Books, 2021), Exile: Rejecting America and Finding the World (OR Books, 2019), and other books. She is a columnist for Al Jazeera, contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine, and has written for The New York Times, Middle East Eye, among numerous other publications.
These days, New Zealand's Foreign Minister Winston Peters can be relied on to echo Washington’s message lines with dogged fidelity. Image: www.scoop.co.nz
COMMENTARY: By Gordon Campbell
Good grief, Winston Peters. Tens of thousands of Gazans have been slaughtered, two million are on the brink of starvation and what does New Zealand’s Foreign Minister choose to talk about at the UN?
The 75-year-old issue of whether the five permanent members should continue to have veto powers over Security Council decisions.
Predictably, the NZ media has swooned at the prospect of New Zealand being invited to join the discussions on Security Council reform, whenever they happen, and whatever they involve. Typically, Peters has declined to say what he thinks significant UN reform should entail.
READ MORE: Israeli forces continue Nur Shams refugee camp raid, teen among 5 killed
In February, Ireland had already said everything about the UN that Peters said this week, but had gone much further. Ireland called for scrapping the Security Council veto altogether, and pointedly pledged $21.6 million to the relief agency UNRWA, at a time when most Western nations were cutting off, or suspending, their funding.
So far, the West has found it far easier to cut off the aid lifeline on which the Palestinians depend, than to cut off the supply of weapons that the IDF is using to kill them.
These days, Winston Peters can be relied on to echo Washington’s message lines with dogged fidelity. In his State of the Union speech last month for example, US President Joe Biden claimed that “the only real solution is the two state solution.”
Last week, Peters faithfully echoed that sentiment by repeating “The two state solution ….remains the only blueprint for peace that we have.”
For months, the US had used its veto to obstruct Security Council resolutions calling for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza, and the NZ government has politely refrained from criticising the US for doing so. And refrained from denouncing Israel’s blood-soaked violations of international law.
The miracle of our independent foreign policy these days is that it freely always finds itself in step with the US/UK consensus. Here are some of the gaps between what Peters told the UN, and reality.
Peters: “New Zealand welcomed Resolution 2728, which demanded an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire. We call on all parties to this conflict to comply with Resolution 2728 without delay.” Like Biden, Peters urged Israel not to conduct a military offensive in Rafah, the last Palestinian place of refuge.
Reality: Israel ignored Resolution 2728, and says it is putting the final touches to its military offensive against Rafah, the last Palestinian refuge.
Peters: “Building and expanding illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and the forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza imperil the two-state solution, which remains the only blueprint for peace that we have.
Reality: For the past 30 years, Israel has been building illegal settlements on the land ear-marked by the Oslo Peace Accords for a Palestinian state. Since the start of 2023, the Israeli government has overseen a sharp escalation of settler violence on the West Bank that is forcibly displacing more and more Palestinians from their land.
Meanwhile, Israel is still penning Palestinian families behind 9 metre high concrete walls, in an ever-shrinking, disconnected series of Bantustans. For good measure in January, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu had rejected the “two state solution” proposal.
Regardless, the Peters’ platitudes kept on coming:
Peters : “Palestinians should not have to pay the price of defeating Hamas.”
Reality: At least 33,000 Palestinians including some 13,000 children have alreadypaid the ultimate price for “defeating” Hamas. This is not counting those buried under the rubble of their homes. Two million Palestinians have been displaced, and — after being denied water, food, and adequate medical care — hundreds of thousands of them are on the brink of death by starvation. An estimated 122,000 Palestinian homes in Gaza have been totally destroyed.
Almost all of Gaza’s physical infrastructure — water, energy, roading, housing, hospitals, schools, mosques etc — have been destroyed. And yet the West’s political figureheads continue to wag fingers at Israel and urge it to show more restraint.
Peters has been well-rewarded for the mouldy old puffballs he tossed into the General Assembly. TheNew Zealand Herald called his speech” hard hitting” and RNZ called his speech both “harsh” and “scathing.” Academics applauded the speech as timely — as if what starving Palestinians really need right now is a UN committee to begin debating what the ideal balance of power in the UN Security Council might look like.
Meanwhile, other countries — South Africa, Ireland, Spain and so help us, Nicaragua — continue to show moral leadership on the Gaza situation, in both word and deed.
What Peters could have said
For a thought experiment, lets consider what a genuinely hard hitting speech by Peters might have contained.
Instead of blaming the UN in general for failing to bring peace to the Middle East, Peters could have/should have criticised the United States in particular for its use of its veto power. The US has repeatedly used its veto to insulate Israel, and to frustrate repeated attempts by the Security Council to condemn Israel’s disproportionate and indiscriminate response, to call for an immediate ceasefire, and to mitigate the suffering.
Finally in late March, Resolution 2728 (calling for an immediate Gaza ceasefire) was passed, but only because the US abstained. White House spokesmen then immediately undercut the UN measure by stating that Resolution 2728 was “non-binding” on Israel.
In any case, Israel ignored Resolution 2728. Nary a peep from Peters about this sorry saga.
Weapons sales Peters could also/should also have called on both the UK and the US — for starters — to stop selling the weapons to Israel that make the carnage in Gaza possible. But he didn’t. Such a call would have been timely.
Only days beforehand, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva had passed a resolution calling on countries to impose a ban on arms sales to Israel. Yet although Peters was speaking a few days later, he chose not to mention the HRC ban, let alone commend it. Did New Zealand support the HRC resolution, or not?
On the very same issue, Nicaragua has just presented its case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Germany’s arms sales to Israel are facilitating Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza.
You’d think the word “genocide” might ring a few alarm bells in Germany, but evidently not. Germany is Israel’s second-largest arms provider after Washington, and sent $353.7 million in military equipment to Israel in 2023. Germany has defended its position.
Moving right along . . . Peters could also have used his UN pulpit to announce that New Zealand would be formally joining South Africa’s legal claim of genocide against Israel at the ICJ. Ireland has already done so.
What weight — if any — is New Zealand giving to the ICJ’s preliminary finding that there is a “plausible case” to answer that some of Israel’s actions in Gaza may violate the Genocide Convention? Hard to tell, because there was no mention of the ICJ case in the allegedly “hard hitting” speech Peters gave at the UN.
Two state solution = Tooth fairy solution Both Winston Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon repeatedly state their support for the “ two state solution” — as if, in 2024, this call still has any substance, or any merit. As the Palestinian writer and political analyst Tareq Baconi recently wrote in the New York Times:
The language that surrounds a two-state solution has lost all meaning. Over the years, I’ve encountered many Western diplomats who privately roll their eyes at the prospect of two states — given Israel’s staunch opposition to it, the lack of interest in the West in exerting enough pressure on Israel to change its behaviour and Palestinian political ossification — even as their politicians repeat the phrase ad nauseam.
Yet in the shadow of what the International Court of Justice has said could plausibly be genocide, everyone has returned to the chorus line, stressing that the gravity of the situation means that this time will be different. It will not be.
The two state solution has been a dead duck for at least 25 years. To continue to call for it is rank bad faith. The two state solution vanished under the remorseless settler expansion, encouraged by successive Israeli governments. By choosing to keep on peddling this fantasy, Western leaders legitimise the violent occupation by making it seem transient, a mere period of turbulence before justice (somehow) prevails, and an era of peaceful co-existence (somehow) emerges from future negotiations conducted in a climate of mutual compromise. Dream on.
Before October 7, as Baconi says, Palestinian grievances (and the deaths of Palestinian children which through 2022 and into mid 2023 were running at record levels) were absolutely invisible on the world stage. It was only after Jewish people were killed on October 7 that the Gaza situation commanded media and political attention.
Since then, the international community has reverted to its deeply familiar call for a two state solution, under which Palestinians and Israelis co-exist in security and mutual prosperity, side by side. Baconi again:
Repeating the two-state solution mantra has allowed policymakers to avoid confronting the reality that partition is unattainable in the case of Israel and Palestine, and illegitimate as an arrangement originally imposed on Palestinians without their consent in 1947.
And fundamentally, the concept of the two-state solution has evolved to become a central pillar of sustaining Palestinian subjugation and Israeli impunity. The idea of two states as a pathway to justice has in and of itself normalized the daily violence meted out against Palestinians by Israel’s regime of apartheid.
If only Peters had chosen to address that reality . . . He didn’t, of course. Exactly 30 years ago the Rwanda genocide broke out — a catastrophe in which New Zealand played a positive role in spurring the UN and the wider international community into action. Evidently though, we’re a different country now.
Footnote One: Logically, any significant UN reform would require the US, Russia, China, France and Britain to all agree to weaken or surrender the veto power that each of them has in the Security Council. If Peters has any clues about how to convince those countries to do so, he should put those ideas on the table. The world would be all ears.
Instead, Peters has called for UN reform without offering any inkling of what he thinks that should entail. But lets take him at face value. Does he want the UN General Assembly to be able to over-ride the veto power held by any and all of the five permanent members of the Security Council?
Does he really think the US — which bankrolls so much of the UN activities — will voluntarily give away, or weaken its veto? A newly elected President Donald Trump is likely to say that only the US has bought itself the right to have a veto.
Also: does Peters still think that a relatively minor power like Britain should be allowed to keep its SC veto power? Arguably, India, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Brazil, the UAE, South Africa and Indonesia all have as great a claim (or better) than Britain to permanent Security Council membership. Why should Britain still enjoy a Security Council veto?
Does Peters think Britain still should, and if so, why? Since Peters says he wants to open the box of UN reform, he needs to be telling us what he thinks should be inside it.
Footnote Two : As mentioned above, the International Court of Justice has found (with respect to the South Africa allegations) that there is a “plausible case” to answer that some of Israel’s actions in Gaza may have been in violation of the Genocide Convention. A final verdict is still years away. No doubt, Israel will continue to ignore any ICJ findings critical of its actions. The moral weight of the process though, is significant.
Footnote Three: Interesting comments have been made in the course of Nicaragua’s ICJ case against Germany. “There can be no question that Germany . . . was well aware, and is well aware, of at least the serious risk of genocide being committed” in Gaza, according to Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Nicaragua’s representative at the ICJ.
Moreover: “It is indeed a pathetic excuse to the Palestinian children, women, and men in Gaza to provide humanitarian aid, including through air drops on the one hand, and to furnish the weapons and military equipment that are used to kill and annihilate them,” Nicaraguan lawyer Daniel Müller told the ICJ.
Because Nicaragua has lodged its ICJ case under emergency provisions, the court’s initial ruling may be only a week or two away.
Footnote Four: South Africa also petitioned the ICJ to address Gaza’s ongoing hunger crisis; the court ordered Israel to permit the delivery of basic food and water supplies “without delay”. In February, the ICJ accepted a long-planned case by the UN General Assembly to discuss the legality of Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. International law is moving against Israel’s actions.
New Zealand has virtually ignored all of these ICJ proceedings. Oh, we talk about our support for the international rule of law, and about how important this system is to a small country like ours. But we no longer back up this rhetoric with meaningful action.
Right now, other small countries (Ireland, Spain and South Africa in particular) are actually walking the talk, while we sit nervously on the sidelines waiting to see which way the diplomatic wind is blowing.
Footnote Five: Interesting that British Foreign Minister David Cameron met this week with Donald Trump, and that Peters — as a lesser figure — is meeting with a Trump official in Washington. Having opened the door to New Zealand engagement with candidate Trump, Peters needs to be asked — what impact does he think that a re-elected President Trump would have on the AUKUS pact, and on America’s level of engagement with the Pacific?
Gordon Campbell is an independent progressive journalist and editor of Scoop’s Werewolf magazine. This article has been republished with the author’s permission.
!["We just sat there watching our home being collapsed [by Israeli missiles]."](https://davidrobie.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Gaza-woman-laments-her-bombed-home-1.png)
