The British government clearly thinks New Zealand should
have been more forthright in supporting condemnation of Russia for its
involvement in the Novichok poisoning scandal. Britain’s minister of state for
Asia and the Pacific, Mark Field, reportedly said in an interview that he hoped the Labour-NZ
First coalition would issue an “unequivocal” statement backing Britain’s position.
By implication, Winston Peters’ action in merely “accepting” the conclusions reached
by the British investigation into the poisoning wasn’t enough.
Now National’s foreign affairs spokesman, Todd McClay, has
taken up the call. According to McClay, New Zealand risks falling out of step
with “our closest friends and allies” unless it makes a statement unequivocally
condemning Russia. It was clearly not good enough, in McClay’s view, for Britain
to be “left guessing” over our support.
But hang on a minute. Cast your mind back to the Rainbow
Warrior bombing by French government agents in 1985. That crime had direct
parallels with the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his
daughter in the English city of Salisbury. It was a hostile act carried out by
a foreign power in the territory of another country with whom it had supposedly friendly relations.
McClay huffs and puffs that the Novichok incident was “an
appalling, violent breach of the sovereignty of one of New Zealand’s closest
friends”. Those exact same words could have been applied to the Rainbow Warrior
bombing.
If anything, the Rainbow Warrior outrage was even more
egregious, since it had fatal consequences and was carried out by a supposedly
friendly power. But was it condemned by Britain, the country thousands of New
Zealanders died for in two world wars?
Nope. On the contrary, Britain's silence implied condonation. Official papers released in 2005 showed
that Margaret Thatcher refused to sanction official criticism of France even
after the French government had admitted responsibility for the bombing. She
sided with the then foreign secretary, Geoffrey Howe, against colleagues in the
British cabinet who wanted the government to take a firmer line against the
French.
It was no secret at the time that Thatcher heartily disapproved of
New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stand and viewed this country as impertinent for having
the effrontery to undermine the Western defence alliance. For all we know, she
might have privately applauded France’s action.
The British government had no sympathy for us then, and it's a bit rich to expect unquestioning allegiance from us now that it finds itself in the same predicament. The words "goose" and "gander" spring to mind. If
I were Peters, I’d be asking my officials for a polite diplomatic translation of
the phrase “Blow it out your ear”.
3 comments:
Thanks for my 'grinner of the day' Karl1! All I can say is 'quite'. It's good to have people like you & Chris Trotter to remind us of the detail.
All countries, even NZ's friends, have made mistakes in the past.
But it is better to act in the national interest, and that is standing firm with democracies, NZ's long standing allies.
Otherwise, New Zealand -- who relies on her allies for her defence-- might find those allies not so keen to spend their treasure on protecting a rather defenceless friend who can't let bygones be bygones.
NZ might feel it is a long way from the action, but no. The Pacific is now a contested zone.
Vaughan,
Just to be clear: I don't take issue with the censuring of Russia, which has become a rogue state. I was simply trying to highlight a double standard.
Post a Comment