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 2023
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 at your Government’s response yesterday to the recent strikes on Iran, and to challenge the selective application of international law reflected in your statement. By condemning Iran’s retaliation while failing to condemn the initiating attacks by the USA and Israel, New Zealand risks abandoning the principled independence that has long defined its foreign policy, aligning instead with USA and Israeli strategic objectives.
Your joint statement with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon denounced Iran’s response as “indiscriminate,” framing it as unreasonable, despite it being a deliberate and publicly declared response to prior USA strikes. Yet the statement did not apply equivalent legal or moral scrutiny to the preceding attacks by Israel and the USA, which killed senior Iranian officials, including the country’s head of state. Such asymmetry is not neutrality; it is the normalisation of force by powerful nuclear-armed states while denying other states the same legal considerations.
When the USA and Israel attack a sovereign nation during ongoing diplomatic negotiations, New Zealand’s failure to condemn those actions — while presenting them as supported by the “international community” — is misleading. The term, in this context, primarily reflects Western alliance positions rather than the consensus of the majority of UN member states. This is not simply complex geopolitics; it is a selective invocation of international law and multilateral language in support of strategic alignment
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 suppport that framework rather than with the principles of sovereign equality and multilateral restraint it has historically claimed to uphold. The USA, Israel, and your own statements use the language of international law as rhetoric while pursuing the geopolitical goal of regime destabilisation — something not genuinely supported by you or your Western allies.
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 also matters. The 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government, backed by the USA and the United Kingdom, profoundly shaped Iran’s political trajectory. While this does not excuse repression by the current Iranian regime, it underscores the destabilising consequences of foreign intervention and externally driven regime-change strategies.
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.
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 call on you to change your position and unequivocally condemn the initial strikes by the USA and Israel, and to affirm that international law applies equally to all states, regardless of power or alliance. Anything less signals acquiescence to the erosion of 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