The very foundations of New Zealand’s foreign policy seem to be crumbling at a time when we need them the most.
For decades New Zealand has championed multilateralism as the backbone of its foreign policy, but in an increasingly fractured world, a gap is emerging between what we say and what we do.
Small states like New Zealand rely on multilateralism to amplify their voice and constrain great powers. But as global institutions weaken and strategic pressures rise, New Zealand is drifting toward a more selective and cautious form of engagement.
This is not a reflection of wavering commitment. It points to a deeper problem: the erosion of the system it relies on.
Small states like New Zealand cannot rely on multilateralism alone in an increasingly unstable world. Recent actions by great powers have shown multilateral institutions are often ignored or bypassed.
In theory the United Nations provides a platform for states to collaborate on issues that do not respect borders, such as climate change and international terrorism. These are challenges that no single state can hope to solve alone.
However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that great powers are indifferent to this reality. The United States and Russia have repeatedly denied the threat of climate change.
Both are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) who can veto collective action. Both have repeatedly used this power to block or dilute UN action on climate change and other international issues.
While the UN offers small states like New Zealand the chance to face our biggest problems collectively, these structural constraints raise questions about how effective that system remains in practice.
The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was widely considered to be an unprecedented moment for the UN, as it was an action initiated by a P-5 member without explicit UNSC authorisation.
Twenty-three years later the limitations of the system are once again under the spotlight. The US-Israel attacks on Iran leave small states like New Zealand wondering if the `‘paper wall’’ of the UN Charter is capable of constraining the unilateral actions of great powers.
When powerful states ignore the rules, those rules begin to lose meaning, and small states have the most to lose.
As the world changes, New Zealand’s commitment to multilateralism has become more selective. While our leaders still talk like multilateralists, we act more cautiously when real costs are involved.
A big part of New Zealand’s foreign policy since the 1980s has been semi-detachment with great power, and a strong, independent voice on international issues.
New Zealand’s refusal to recognise Palestinian statehood in September last year completely undermines this approach to international relations.
This is seen to be an alignment with the United States and Israel on an issue about which 157 countries stand against us.
In this case, New Zealand’s actions do not match its stated principles. The gap between principle and practice raises questions about our level of commitment to multilateralism.
In falling back on a selective approach to an international rules-based order, New Zealand’s foreign policy risks becoming morally meaningless. Neutrality begins to look less like a principle and more like avoidance.
In his address to the United Nations General Assembly, Winston Peters emphasised New Zealand’s desire to remain a friend to both Israelis and Palestinians. While this reflects a commitment to balance, it is inconsistent with New Zealand’s stated support for international law.
Where does this leave us then?
If the rules only apply when great powers choose to follow them, then the system begins to look less like a safeguard and more like subservience.
For small states, that distinction matters. Multilateralism has never just been about co-operation, it has been about protection.
It is what allows countries like New Zealand to operate in a world dominated by far more powerful actors.
But if those actors can ignore the rules without consequence, then small states are left with a difficult choice. To continue to defend a system that is increasingly unable to defend them, or quietly adapt to a world where power, not principle, determines outcomes.
New Zealand cannot afford to sit comfortably between those two positions, because if we are not willing to uphold the system when it is tested, we should not be surprised that it fails us when it matters most.
• Logan Bryant is a student in the Master of International Studies programme, University of Otago.
