Source: New Zealand Government
Madam President
Twelve months ago, when delivering New Zealand’s national statement, we said that never has it been more apparent just how much political leadership is required to respond to the international challenges we face.
Political leadership is needed to restore trust in our domestic and international institutions, forge unity, maintain fragile social cohesion, and fill the gaps when the international community, through the United Nations, proves unable to.
Traversing events during the past year, that leadership gap has only grown. The international order that has sustained peace for the past 80 years stands on the precipice of breaking down.
The shift in the international order from rules to power continues its malignant path while the Security Council is effectively paralysed on many of the acute geopolitical challenges it faces. This inability to act – largely a product of the veto power by the ‘Permanent Five’ – impacts deeply on perceptions of the United Nations’ broader legitimacy.
And for a small state like New Zealand, whose security and prosperity for the past 80 years has relied on a functioning multilateral system, the erosion of that system is hugely troubling, and costly.
The United Nations, as an organisation, has grown enormously since its creation eight decades ago. But its effectiveness has not kept pace with this growth, so it has found itself a bigger target from those who question the breadth of its ambitions or from those who want to weaken the multilateral system that it leads.
The United Nations’ reform effort needs to rise to the scale of its current structural, fiscal, and geopolitical challenges.
We will play our part, as co-chair of the mandate implementation review, because New Zealand, as a small state, wants the United Nations to carry out bold reforms that can restore its standing with member states.
New Zealand is deeply troubled by the humanitarian disasters we see globally. While the international community’s focus is rightly dominated by the suffering in Gaza and Ukraine, humanitarian crises in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, Sudan and Myanmar lead us to a deeper concern.
Our concern is that the effects of large-scale violence, displacement, and famine will create further inter-generational cycles of violence in countries already wracked by political instability and conflict.
Nearly 17 million people require humanitarian aid in Syria, with a similarly large number displaced. Over 21 million Congolese require humanitarian support.
In Sudan, more than 30 million people, some 65 percent of its population, require urgent humanitarian aid and protection. Basic services have collapsed, vaccination rates plummeted, and violence, including sexual violence, are endemic. Some 13 million Sudanese people have been displaced from their homes.
In Myanmar, over 3.5 million people are internally displaced and 22 million in need of humanitarian assistance, making it the worst humanitarian crisis in Southeast Asia.
These bald numbers are shocking to contemplate because they say that in too many places our shared humanity is held in contempt, or worse.
We need leadership that creates possibilities, not extinguishes them.
Leadership that persuades rather than controls.
And leadership that appeals to our better angels, not our worst instincts.
We most of all need leadership that meets the common desire for shelter, sustenance, to live in peace, feel secure, and live with the hope that their children will flourish.
Most of all, we need leadership that is courageous.
It was courageous leadership that saw Egyptian President Anwar Sadat address the Israeli Knesset in Jerusalem, in November 1977, to extol peace. Sadat would pay the ultimate sacrifice for his courage but his country and Israel have benefitted from his courage in the decades since.
In that speech, Sadat said: ‘the struggle which took us from war to war, from victims to more victims, until you and we have today reached the edge of a horrible abyss and a terrifying disaster unless, together, we seize this opportunity today of a durable peace based on justice’.
We are again on the edge of a horrible abyss in Gaza. But where, we ask, is the quality of leadership that can pull Israelis and Palestinians back from the abyss to project hope to the victims of this intolerable violence?
Because without hope, the cycles of violence that fuel and perpetuate this never-ending conflict will not end. It will instead be a terrorist breeding ground, creating the next generation of recruits for those who only hate.
That is the current context for the New Zealand Government considering the vexed question of Palestinian statehood.
New Zealand is an enduring supporter of the two-state solution and Palestinian self-determination. Our long-standing policy is that Palestinian state recognition is a matter of when, not if.
We noted announcements by some countries in July and August that they intended to recognise Palestinian statehood this week, now confirmed. We have also closely observed the Israeli Government’s actions in Gaza and on the West Bank following those earlier announcements.
And we have listened carefully to the arguments made earlier this week at the ‘Two State Solution Conference’.
Palestinian statehood recognition is, however, uniquely complicated given it is embedded in a seemingly intractable, never-ending conflict situation. Very few New Zealanders can recall any period of sustained peace in the Middle East during their lifetimes.
And while New Zealand is furthest away from that conflict in the Middle East, we also acknowledge the strongly held views people have about it.
New Zealanders were appalled by the barbarity of Hamas’ attack on Israeli citizens on October 7, 2023, the worst massacre in Israel’s history. Hamas have no place in any future Palestinian State. They know only hate.
Today, nearly two years on from the horror inflicted that day, including the continued holding of Israeli hostages by Hamas, we are shocked to our core by harrowing images of famine in Gaza. We are also revolted by what can only be described as a grossly disproportionate response from the Israeli Government.
However, there is an old saying about a musical instrument that sums up well the vexed question of Palestinian statehood recognition, ‘If the string is too tight it will snap, but if it is too loose, the instrument will not play.’
Those countries who hoped their earlier signalling of Palestinian statehood recognition would protect and promote the two-state solution have instead seen the Israeli Government snap and continue its widely condemned military actions in Gaza while continuing to develop illegal settlements on the West Bank, in defiance of international law.
The New Zealand Government agrees with the ends sought by partners, and acknowledges their good intentions. We commend too the leadership efforts of those countries trying to bring an end to the violence through their diplomatic efforts.
We desperately want diplomacy to succeed and we believe it is those countries with leverage who are most likely to achieve a breakthrough. That would show global leadership.
However, we do not believe that the current situation represents the last or even best chance to preserve the two-state solution.
Rather, we think a future situation – when Israeli and Palestinian political leadership is an asset, not a liability, and where other situational variables have shifted the current calculus away from conflict and towards peace – would be more conducive for recognising Palestinian statehood.
Therein lies our dilemma over any decision to recognise Palestine statehood now, because statehood recognition, as an instrument for peace, also does not play because there is no fully legitimate and viable State of Palestine to recognise.
Palestine does not fully meet the accepted criteria for a state as it does not fully control its own territory or population. There is also no obvious link between more of the international community recognising the State of Palestine and the claimed objective of protecting the two-state solution.
Indeed, what we have observed since partners’ pre-announcements reveals that recognising Palestine now will likely prove counterproductive. That is, Hamas resisting negotiation in the belief it is winning the global propaganda war, while pushing Israel towards even more intransigent military positions.
Recognition at this time, we also think, is open to political manipulation by both Hamas and Israel. Hamas will seek to portray our recognition of Palestine as a victory, as they have already done in response to partner announcements. Israel will claim that recognition rewards Hamas and that it removes pressure on them to release hostages and agree to a ceasefire.
Because, even now, after almost two years of this outrage, they still refuse to give the hostages back.
And then, like over 150 countries before it, New Zealand recognition of Palestinian statehood now would serve as little more than an existential act of defiance against an unalterable state of affairs.
We are not ready to make that gesture.
Rather, the New Zealand Government believes that it has one opportunity to recognise Palestinian statehood and it would make better sense to do so when conditions offer greater prospects for peace and negotiation than at present.
With a war raging, Hamas still in place, and no clarity on next steps, we do not think that time is now.
We have, ever since the October 7 attacks, repeatedly demanded a ceasefire, the release of the remaining hostages, and for Israel to allow vital aid to flow into Gaza. That is where our focus remains.
To that end, today the New Zealand Government announces a further significant financial contribution to support the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Our focus will not shift from where it is needed most, in Gaza, right now.
Aid must flow and the violence must cease.
Ultimately, however, if leaders and their people do not covet peace, or cannot overcome their hate, no actions taken by us will shift them from their destructive and ruinous path.
But if they do covet peace; when we see action, not in the form of rhetoric, but of agreements; and when statehood emerges, with institutions to support it, New Zealand will then recognise Palestinian statehood.
Colleagues, our focus on the leadership gaps that exist in our troubled world goes directly to our responsibilities as member states – large and small – to bolster the United Nations to ensure, as our Charter’s preamble proclaims, ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’.
Our support for the United Nations has remained unwavering since its creation in San Francisco. Keeping the ‘spirit of San Francisco’ alive is the work of us all because the United Nations, as was once said, remains ‘our greatest hope for future peace’.
And now is the time for those of us who believe in multilateralism, not to compromise it, but to stand up, and fight for it.
Thank you