NZ’s stand could have consequences

New Zealand’s leadership role in a UN resolution condemning Israel’s continued settlements could affect its relationship with the incoming Donald Trump administration, a University of Otago professor says.

Prof Robert Patman said New Zealand’s role in the resolution probably would not have "escaped Mr Trump’s attention", but it was difficult to say whether there would be any consequences once he assumed office.

President-elect Trump has criticised the resolution and expressed support for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli Government, which continues to build settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

However, given the strong support for the resolution in the international community, it would be difficult for Mr Trump to single  New Zealand out in any way.

"If Mr Trump, with the Netanyahu Government, starts taking consequences against the likes of New Zealand, he will be taking consequences against a lot of countries in the international system."

Despite the potential consequences, Prof Patman praised Foreign Minister Murray  McCully for not backing down, which reflected New Zealand’s long-standing support for a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict.

"I think it is to his credit that he withstood considerable pressure [from Israel]."

If New Zealand had folded at the first sign of pressure, it risked being seen as letting down the countries that supported it becoming a member of the Security Council.

"It would also bring into question our commitment to having an independent foreign policy, which would have been very unpopular to most New Zealanders."

New Zealand’s co-sponsorship of the UN Security Council resolution, which said the settlements violated international law and undermined a two-state solution in Israel’s conflict with Palestine, has already prompted a strong reaction from the Netanyahu Government.

The Israeli Government has recalled its ambassador from New Zealand and blocked the New Zealand ambassador from travelling to the Middle Eastern nation. According to Israeli media, Mr Netanyahu also warned Mr McCully that New Zealand’s support for the resolution would be viewed as a "declaration of war".

Prof Patman said the dispute between New Zealand and Israel over the resolution was not of the same magnitude of the dispute with France over nuclear testing and the sinking of  Rainbow Warrior.

"I don’t think it’s quite the same order, because New Zealand is just one of many countries which finds itself at loggerheads with the Netanyahu Government."

The support for the resolution also did not represent a change in stance from New Zealand — it had always supported a two-state solution.

This contrasted with New Zealand’s diplomatic dispute with the United States in the 1980s over the country’s nuclear-free stance, which definitely represented a change in policy.

He believed Mr Netanyahu’s strong response was about sending a message to domestic and international audiences.

"I think Mr Netanyahu is trying to send a message — ‘Look, I’ve got friends in high places, namely the new president ... so you better watch out with me’."

A spokesman for Mr McCully did not respond to questions about whether New Zealand’s role in the resolution would affect its relationship with Mr Trump.

vaughan.elder@odt.co.nz