In the little reading I've managed over a busy weekend, I note that the ineffable business reporter Fran O'Sullivan echoes our feelings entirely on the Letterman mistake.
Unfortuately, Mr Key then comes out the next day and says New Zealand should have a seat on the UN Security Council.
Really? Seriously? Is anyone there still taking him seriously?
He talks about New Zealand's anti-nuclear credentials, but that just seems to be another thing he is "trading on". Using our reputation to get the seat, but what then? Given the emphasis on nuclear proliferation at this Assembly (note, NOT disarmament, as was initially reported), it is a legitimate concern that a New Zealand Security Council vote would belong to the USA - a world power that is very focused on removing the Islamic Republic of Iran's legal right to nuclear power, by any means necessary.
("But, Fantail," I hear, "Iran's a bad guy?" That is a fair question. But to be addressed another time, perhaps.)
There is a precedent to this National Government trading like this - earlier this year we declined to continue our VERY proud record on the UN Human Rights Council in order to give USA a chance at gaining a nomination.
So, it's a two-edged sword. We're a small country. Our reputation, our principles are all we really have. If we did secure a Security Council seat, we would have a strong platform to act on democratic principles in defence of international law, to prevent another illegal war in the Middle East - it would be something to be proud of.
But we don't want the damn seat if it'll be used to terrorise another country in our name.
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you're inclined to reply, please do. Only those that are sensible and principled will receive responses.