Canada, the UK and France are on the brink of recognising Palestine – so why is New Zealand still holding back, asks Catherine McGregor in today’s extract from The Bulletin.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
Pressure mounts as allies take a stand
New Zealand is coming under increasing pressure to recognise Palestine as a state, as key allies signal they’re preparing to do just that. On Wednesday, foreign minister Winston Peters joined 14 other counterparts in signing a statement declaring their “willingness or positive consideration” of Palestinian recognition. But Peters, backed by prime minister Christopher Luxon, made clear that formal recognition won’t happen any time soon, reports RNZ’s Craig McCulloch. In parliament this week, Peters argued that “if we are to recognise the state of Palestine, New Zealand wants to know that what we are recognising is a legitimate, representative, viable political entity”.
His caution hasn’t stemmed the growing chorus of criticism. Former prime minister Helen Clark said that on the statehood issue, New Zealand has been hamstrung by its desire not to upset the US. “That is no longer tenable,” she told Morning Report. Greens co-leader Marama Davidson was more blunt: “History will judge Aotearoa if we fail to do what is right at this pivotal moment. It’s time for the government to make a clear stand for human rights and for justice, and recognise Palestine as a state.”
A shifting international tide
New Zealand’s hesitation comes as other liberal democracies move towards recognition. Canada on Thursday became the third country in a week to announce it will recognise Palestine, following similar pledges from France and the UK. Britain’s promise is conditional on Israel allowing more aid into Gaza, ending its annexation plans and committing to a two-state peace process. As the UK foreign secretary David Lammy pointed out in a speech to the UN this week, Britain carries a particular responsibility to Palestine due to its colonial-era role in shaping the modern Middle East, beginning with the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Support for a two-state solution, he said, should be viewed as part of that legacy.
Currently, 147 of the UN’s 193 member states recognise Palestine; that number is poised to grow in the coming months. In Australia, prime minister Anthony Albanese is “preparing the ground” for recognition, reported the ABC, but has indicated he wants to choose a moment that will have the most impact on peace prospects.
The case for economic pressure
In a powerful article for The Spinoff this week, New Zealand journalist Cole Martin – currently based in a refugee camp in the occupied West Bank – accused the government of offering only “empty rhetoric” in the face of Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza. While New Zealand has signed joint statements and imposed targeted travel bans on a handful of Israeli officials, Martin says it has taken no significant action in 21 months to deter what he describes as “genocidal” violence and apartheid policies.
Martin argues that “meaningful disruption is essential”, and that economic pressure – including divestment, sanctions and boycotts – is among the most effective non-violent tools available. “Global economic sanctions played a pivotal role in ending apartheid in South Africa,” he wrote. “The same tools must now be applied to Israel.”
What else can New Zealand do?
While sanctions and trade restrictions are the most obvious tools available, they’re not the only ones. Auckland University law professor Treasa Dunworth, writing for The Conversation, outlines several other ways New Zealand could demonstrate its opposition to Israel’s conduct and support for Palestinian rights. These include creating a special visa pathway for Palestinians seeking family reunification, launching an inquiry into New Zealand’s intelligence-sharing with Israel via the Five Eyes network, and withdrawing from Operation Prosperity Guardian, the US-led naval coalition in the Red Sea. Dunworth also points out that New Zealand could act unilaterally to refer Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the International Criminal Court for the use of starvation as a weapon of war.
Each of these steps, she argues, is legally and diplomatically feasible – but all require political will. The question now, as more peer nations act, is whether New Zealand’s government is willing to move beyond words.
