Foreign minister Winston Peters has told the UN General Assembly that New Zealand will not recognise a Palestinian state at this time.
Every once in a while New Zealand manages to stand out from the pack. Despite our size, there are moments when all eyes turn to us. Most often it’s in the sports or entertainment arena. We’ll roll out the “per capita” stats and the “aw shucks” attitude and proudly say that we, as a small island nation, are used to punching above our weight.
And now we’ve done just that in the worst and most embarrassing of arenas.
Earlier today, foreign minister Winston Peters stood up in front of the UN General Assembly to outline New Zealand’s stance in recognising Palestinian statehood. It was a much-anticipated address both locally and among our international allies, because as much as New Zealand likes to trumpet its history of strong moral stances, we have been extremely slow in any real response to Israel’s decimation of Gaza. (We have voted in favour of numerous failed ceasefire motions and sent humanitarian aid to Gaza, but little else.)
Bigger allies – Australia, Canada, the UK etc – have all in recent weeks formally recognised the state of Palestine, some with conditions, some without. In fact, more than 80% of UN member states have already done this. Much has been written about New Zealand’s sluggishness in responding to this terror, including the staunch pro-Israel stance of many in the Act Party and the likely tension that would have caused in cabinet when making this decision. But despite all of that, it was the broad assumption among New Zealanders that Peters would stand up today and recognise the state of Palestine on behalf of all of New Zealand.
Most media outlets will have received pitches this week for pre-written responses to such a recognition, with the note that in the event of Peters not only recognising Palestine but announcing formal sanctions against Israel, the articles could be updated at the last minute. So strong was the assumption that the general commentary seemed to be more focused on “what next” and the fact that a very belated recognition of Palestinian statehood was hardly a courageous move. Nobody submitted articles assuming Peters would announce New Zealand as one of the last holdouts on the matter.
Instead, Peters stood up and told the UN General Assembly that New Zealand would not be recognising Palestinian statehood. And that New Zealand would not do so until the conflict ended. He promised New Zealand’s recognition was a matter of “when, not if”, which has a real deadbeat-dad-promises-he’ll-have-his-shit-together-next-week air about it. Peters also lent a word of caution to the majority of states in attendance that actually their decision to collectively make this stand could prove counter-productive to stopping Israel’s attacks.
This is a leap in logic from previous sentiments put out by this government that New Zealand is just a tiny country and shouldn’t be, for example, expelling Israeli ambassadors or banning trade with Israel when that is not going to effectively stop the war. Peters now suggesting that New Zealand is not recognising Palestine in an attempt to have a better chance at stopping Israel, as if little old New Zealand could single-handedly turn the tide against two of the biggest military countries in the world, is laughable and makes a laughing stock of our nation.
If New Zealand was choosing not to make a “symbolic” gesture (of which Peters has always been derisive) and was instead taking meaningful action, that would be a different story. But claiming to be above recognition while also being behind on any real action only serves to make New Zealand look like a scab.
In his address, Peters also promised more humanitarian aid to Gaza. A $10 million ambulance at the bottom of a cliff that’s about to be bombed by Israel yet again. Deputy prime minister David Seymour, who has been vocally against recognising Palestine, said of Peters’ speech that he is “proud” of the government for showing “independence in foreign policy”. I too have, at times, held moral and political stances independent of everyone around me. With hindsight, almost all of them proved to be independently fucking ignorant.
Peters correctly pointed out that recognition at this moment is largely symbolic, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. It’s the equivalent of only joining in singing happy birthday for the hip hoorays. No one is noting how beautiful your voice is or even that they could hear you but it would be super weird if you refused to participate at all.
Not only has New Zealand refused to join in the singing, Peters has interrupted the song to tell everyone that actually they’ve got the date wrong. There is a 0% chance that Peters’ admonishment of the vast majority of UN member states, and continued delay in New Zealand’s own action, will have any impact on how they take their own stands. There is a 100% chance that it will be remembered as the time New Zealand punched above its weight in cowardice.
