The Western intervention was contrary to the UN Charter and based on three lies; that there was going to be a massacre of civilians; that the Arab League supported intervention; and that there was only going to be a ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya. The Arab League had met, but only eleven of the member countries turned up, giving the six Gulf states (all dictatorships) a majority for their Saudi-inspired pro-intervention motion. The “no-fly-zone” was quickly forgotten as NATO planes targeted any government facility, military or  non-military, and tried to assassinate Gaddafi and his associates. It also became clear that most members of the Security Council disagreed with the way the operation was being implemented, and that there was little support from the rest of the world.

The African Union did not accept Gaddafi had intended to massacre civilians and it attacked the NATO bombing as an dangerous intervention in an African civil war. At the Security Council, the African Union spokesperson, Dr Ruahakana Rugunda, said NATO was undermining AU efforts to negotiate a solution by demanding that Gaddafi go before any dialogue began.

It now looks as if some Western governments are softening their position, with talk about a negotiated transition to a post-Gaddafi government. One problem is that NATO has endorsed its favourites in the National Transitional Council which are not trusted by several of the armed rebel groups.

After the debacle in Libya it is no wonder the Syrian democrats are not calling for military intervention. They are confident they can win by themselves, with the moral support of the international community.

We’ve seen great bravery from ordinary Syrians. Despite a death toll now reaching around 1600, protest numbers continue to rise. After last Friday’s prayers, hundreds of thousands once again poured into the streets – including in Damascus. The Assad regime is now on the back foot. We have to do our bit to help. The Auckland Syrian community has been active – I spoke at a big meeting they hosted on July 3. But unfortunately our government is not listening, with Foreign Minister Murray McCully  barely mentioning Syria these past few months.

 Phil’s notice of motion asked the House to support three things;

Recognise the historic opportunity to advance the cause of nuclear disarmament at the NPT Review Conference currently underway. 

Recognise the leadership on this issue by US President Obama; and

Call on the NZ Govt to take an active role on this issue, drawing on our proud nuclear-free stance, and support the UN’s Five-Point Plan, including preparation for a Nuclear Weapon Convention.

These are all laudable aims however there is a tendency by some in New Zealand to over-advertise our credentials over nuclear disarmament

New Zealand was indeed path-breaking in the 1980s over our national nuclear-free zone, which went beyond the Latin American and South Pacific regional zones in banning nuclear-capable ships from our national waters.

I was, and remain, a supporter of that policy – I did my PhD on the subject and was part of the NZ delegation that negotiated the South Pacific zone.  But there has always been a distinction between the strict nuclear-free policy here in our national territory and the ambivalent stance we take at the UN to a nuclear-free world.  To this day we still vote along political rather than logical lines on nuclear disarmament at the UN.

Successive NZ Governments, under both National and Labour, have been ambivalent in their voting patterns at the United Nations on resolutions calling for a nuclear-free world. 

They have on occasion voted in lock-step with NATO countries in opposing some resolutions calling for various aspects of a nuclear-free world, depending on which countries are sponsoring it.

NATO relies on nuclear deterrence to “keep the peace” and foresees retention of nuclear weapons “into the indefinite future”. 

New Zealand, by contrast, is on record as being in favour of a nuclear-free world.  Yet both National and Labour often vote with NATO at the UN in the mistaken belief that Kiwis back home do not notice.

In fact, we do.

Georgia has had the bulk of the good will in the international media to date – probably because people in the West remember fondly Georgia’s Rose Revolution in 2003.  But that does not fairly reflect the shared desire by both sides to warmonger.

On the other side Russia has again shown that the five permanent members of the Security Council do not have the necessary balance and lack of bias to be exercising the role that they do.  Russia’s involvement in this conflict means that we cannot expect the United Nations to respond in the way that will save the most lives and lead to long term peace.  This is a shame because compromises like that give bodies with less democratic ideals, such as NATO, added legitimacy.  Which possibly brings us back to where we started?