Winston and Luxons joint statement on behalf of NZ
My letter to Winston Peters (to be sent)
Malcolm-Daniel Freeman
c/- PO Box
10-314
Dominion Rd Central
Auckland
3 March 2026
Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade
Private
Bag 18888
Parliament
Buildings
Wellington
6160
Winston.Peters@parliament.govt.nz.
Attack on Iran
Dear Mr Peters,
I am writing to express grave concern regarding your Government’s 1 March 2026 joint statement, issued with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, on the recent strikes on Iran. The statement reflects a selective application of international law. By condemning Iran’s retaliation while failing to address the initiating attacks by the United States and Israel, New Zealand risks departing from the principled independence that has long defined its foreign policy and aligning instead with U.S. and Israeli strategic positions.
The statement characterised Iran’s response as “indiscriminate,” framing it as unreasonable, despite it being a deliberate reaction that included missile and drone attacks on U.S. military bases and facilities in the region following the joint USA–Israel strikes. However, it did not apply equivalent legal or moral scrutiny to the preceding attacks by Israel and the United States, which reportedly killed senior Iranian officials, including the country’s head of state. This one-sided treatment is not neutrality; it normalises the use of force by powerful nuclear-armed states while denying others equal legal consideration.
When sovereign territory is attacked during ongoing diplomatic negotiations, New Zealand’s failure to condemn the initiating actions — while describing them as supported by the “international community” — is misleading. In this context, the term primarily reflects the positions of Western alliance partners rather than a broad consensus among UN member states. Such selective invocation of international law and multilateral language serves strategic alignment rather than principled, consistent application of international norms.
Similarly, when the USA conducted military action in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, your response was limited to expressing concern and urging adherence to international law, without directly condemning the apparent violation of Venezuelan sovereignty by the USA, which was a clear breach of international law. Silence or neutrality in such circumstances further undermines New Zealand’s international credibility.
Earlier, New Zealand condemned the October 7 attacks carried out by Hamas, while failing to apply equivalent language to Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza, which has caused widespread civilian casualties, displacement, and destruction. This contrast demonstrates one-sided support for USA and Israeli strategic objectives, rather than a consistent commitment to international law or human rights.
The pattern of pre-emptive intervention and regime-change policy — articulated most clearly in the post–Cold War Wolfowitz Doctrine — reflects a strategic model aimed at preserving unchallenged dominance. By refusing to condemn the initial strikes on Iran, New Zealand appears to align itself with and support that framework rather than with the principles of sovereign equality and multilateral restraint it has historically claimed to uphold. Your Support for such actions will not have the effect your claim; it risks deepening regional instability and reinforcing cycles of escalation rather than advancing peace or democratic self-determination.
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has described the Government’s response as a “disgrace,” noting that, in the absence of an imminent threat, such armed attacks breach international law (NZ Herald). Her position reflects long-standing principles of sovereignty and non-aggression that New Zealand has historically supported. Juan Manuel Santos, speaking on behalf of The Elders, similarly warned that wars aimed at regime change rarely deliver democracy or stability.
Historical context matters. The 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government, backed by the United States and the United Kingdom, restored power to the Shah, a leader friendly to U.S. interests, and profoundly shaped Iran’s political trajectory. In 1979, the Iranian people rose up in a genuine popular revolution, removing the U.S.-backed authoritarian regime. The government established by that revolution is the current Iranian administration, which the United States opposes today. The persistence of this oppressive regime is inseparable from ongoing external pressures and threats, particularly from the United States. Figures like the ousted Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, advocate a return to monarchy—an inherently authoritarian system that would overturn the popular will. As long as external forces continue to intervene or threaten the country, the regime is likely to double down, and only when such pressures cease can the Iranian people realistically pursue a more representative and accountable government.
At the time of the strikes, negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, reportedly mediated by Oman, were underway. Diplomacy had not been exhausted. Condemning only Iran’s retaliation while remaining silent on the initial breach of sovereignty signals that New Zealand applies international law selectively and prioritises alignment with USA and Israeli strategic interests over principled independence.
To condemn only Iran’s retaliation while remaining silent on the initiating breach of sovereignty signals that New Zealand applies international law selectively and prioritises alignment with USA and Israeli strategic interests over principled independence.
New Zealand once built its international standing on independence, nuclear non-proliferation, and principled opposition to militarism. Your current stance departs from that tradition. I therefore urge you to reconsider your position and to unequivocally condemn the initial strikes by the USA and Israel, affirming that international law applies equally to all states, regardless of power or alliance. Anything less risks eroding the very legal order New Zealand claims to defend.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm-Daniel Freeman
What the Elders had to say
Helen
Clarks remarks read
here
Why My Letter to Winston Peters Isn’t Enough
I recently sent a formal letter to Winston Peters about New Zealand’s response to the strikes on Iran. The letter is carefully written, legally grounded, and strategically structured — but make no mistake: it is deliberately weak.
My letter deliberately avoids the full force of what needs to be said, because directly confronting that ideological and geopolitical alignment in formal correspondence carries little chance of impact — but documenting it is still important.
Winston Peters is well known for ignoring voters’ concerns, which further highlights the current government’s lack of democracy and its commitment to a right-wing, neo-con agenda.
Here’s what it leaves out:
The full truth of corruption.
The letter frames New Zealand’s alignment with US and Israeli military aggression as a failure of principle, but it stops short of naming it exactly what it is: corruption. A system captured by powerful external and corporate interests, ignoring the democratic will and accountability it claims to serve.The ideological tightrope.
Letters to politicians, especially those who rarely listen, have to walk a dangerous tightrope. All politicians lie. They must follow their masters — the capitalist ruling class — while selling their lies to the public as principled policy in order to get re-elected year after year. They must also be measured enough to appear “taken seriously” by the politicians, even if the likelihood of a meaningful response is slim. In this case, the tightrope is particularly sharp: Winston Peters and NZ First are actively following the US empire’s neo-conservative agenda, promoting imperial and corporate interests while pretending to act independently — a stance even Labour, the failed social-democratic party of New Zealand, would not fully adopt. My letter deliberately avoids confronting this alignment head-on, because formal correspondence is unlikely to shift such deeply entrenched ideological and geopolitical loyalties.The moral outrage.
The historical context — from the 1953 US/UK-backed overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government to the ongoing human suffering in Gaza — is presented carefully, without the full indignation the situation demands. Stronger language is suppressed to meet the conventions of formal correspondence.The limits of official channels.
Let’s be honest: Peters and his staff may never read this. Or if they do, it will likely be filtered through bureaucrats trained to ignore inconvenient truths. The letter is designed for the record, not to shock or embarrass the decision-makers.
Despite its weaknesses, the letter serves an important purpose. It formally documents dissent, lays out the legal and moral case against the strikes, and publicly establishes a record of protest.
Why the Letter is Only Part of the Story
The letter above is deliberately measured — crafted so it can be sent as formal correspondence and taken seriously by government offices. But the reality it addresses is far more serious. New Zealand First, the country’s most conservative party, is acting in full alignment with the agenda its name implies: supporting the expansionist and aggressive geopolitical aim
s of the United States empire. In doing so, it behaves like a neo-conservative warhawk party, prioritising imperial interests over democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Winston Peters’ response to the strikes on Iran — condemning only Iran’s retaliation while ignoring the initiating attacks by the United States and Israel — exposes this alignment clearly. Rather than defending New Zealand’s independence or upholding international law, Peters and NZ First are complicit in the moral failures of New Zealand’s foreign policy.
This measured letter cannot fully capture the scale of the problem. The deeper reality is that the system is captured by external power and elite interests, and principles of sovereignty and justice are subordinated to strategic convenience. Citizens must recognise these failures if New Zealand is ever to reclaim a genuinely independent and principled foreign policy.
Comments
Post a Comment