NEW ZEALAND once prided itself on an independent foreign policy—an identity forged through the nuclear-free movement, defiance of great-power pressure, and a belief that small states could chart their own moral course. That legacy has been steadily eroded over the past two decades. But the contrast between the New Zealand Government's response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its silence on other breaches of international law has exposed just how far the country has drifted. It's extremely unlikely that the National-led coalition government will condemn the unprovoked attack on Venezuela by the United States, despite it being in violation of international law. In that sense, New Zealand is a partner to an imperialist smash and grab raid on Venezuela's oil reserves. Silence is complicity.
When Russia crossed the Ukrainian border, New Zealand moved with unusual speed: sanctions, condemnations, diplomatic statements, and moral clarity. It was presented as a principled stand for sovereignty and the rules-based order. Yet the New Zealand Government has refused to issue even a basic condemnation of Israel's continuing brutal and genocidal assault on Gaza. The same pattern now appears to be repeating itself in response to the United States’ attack on Venezuela, a clear violation of that country's sovereignty. So far, the New Zealand Government has remained silent. When a response does come, expect nothing more than diplomatic platitudes.
This is not principled foreign policy. It is selective outrage, calibrated to avoid offending the Trump administration and other western powers. The moral language deployed so confidently against Russia evaporates the moment the perpetrator is the United States. The message is unmistakable: international law matters only when it is geopolitically convenient. New Zealand’s political class insists that the country remains proudly independent, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Successive governments have aligned New Zealand more tightly with America's strategic concerns, even if those concerns have been used to justify interventions, sanctions regimes, and military actions that undermine the very international norms the New Zealand Government claims to defend. The result is a foreign policy that is neither independent nor principled, but subordinate.
The Gaza crisis has been the clearest test. As civilian casualties mounted, as hospitals and refugee camps were struck, as UN agencies warned of famine and collective punishment, New Zealand’s leaders retreated into euphemisms. They expressed 'concern', urged 'restraint,' and called for 'de-escalation'—the diplomatic equivalent of looking away. Meanwhile, when the International Court of Justice issued provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent acts of genocide, the New Zealand Government avoided acknowledging the ruling’s implications. The government’s continuing refusal to condemn Israel's brutal assault is not neutrality; it is alignment with power. And it is alignment that comes at the cost of New Zealand’s credibility on the world stage.
The same dynamic is visible in the response to the United States’ attack on Venezuela. The principle of sovereignty is not optional. If New Zealand truly believed in a rules-based order, it would apply those rules consistently. Instead, it has chosen silence. This silence is not accidental. It reflects a deeper shift: New Zealand’s foreign policy has become increasingly shaped by the strategic priorities of the United States and its allies. The rhetoric of 'shared values' masks the reality of dependence. Intelligence cooperation through the Five Eyes network, military interoperability, and economic ties have all created incentives for Wellington to avoid challenging Washington, even when doing so would be consistent with international law and New Zealand’s own stated principles.
The tragedy is that New Zealand once showed the world that small states could resist great-power pressure. The nuclear-free stance was not just a policy; it was a declaration that moral autonomy mattered. Today, that spirit has been replaced by timidity. The government’s unwillingness to condemn allies when they violate international law signals a retreat from the very values that once defined the country’s global identity. New Zealand cannot claim to stand for human rights, sovereignty, and the rule of law while selectively applying those principles. A foreign policy that condemns Russia but excuses Israel and the United States is not independent—it is subordinate. And subordination dressed up as principle is still subordination.
If New Zealand wants to reclaim its moral authority, it must rediscover the courage to speak truth to power, not just to adversaries but to allies. Until then, the country will remain what it has quietly become: a small state orbiting a larger empire, mistaking obedience for diplomacy and silence for neutrality. If New Zealand wants to be seen as something more than just a vassal state of the American Empire, it can begin the climb back to international credibility by condemning the attack on Venezuela.
Note: Several hours after writing this column, the New Zealand Government issued a response to the US attack on Venezuela. It came in the form of a short and perfunctory statement from Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and posted to X. Predicably, it fails to condemn the unprovoked attack. Absurdly, despite the United States having already violated international law, Peters says that the New Zealand Government 'expects all parties to act in accordance with international law'.
And here's a typical response from Winston Peters to Russia's attack on Ukraine.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.