Practise what we preach at the UN

The accolades have been rolling in for John Key. The Prime Minister yesterday chaired the United Nations Security Council meeting on Syria and the previous day gave a speech to the UN General Assembly in which the Syria crisis was to the fore.

The speech was one of dozens made as part of leaders' week at the UN, and the high-level meeting was convened by Mr Key as part of New Zealand's push for progress on the Syrian crisis and the Middle East peace process during its two-year term on the Security Council. (New Zealand at present holds the revolving role of council chair.)

This was another important moment in the global spotlight. For Mr Key it was a chance to impress, to lead, to inspire and to castigate the world's leaders and the Security Council itself - supposedly the powerhouse of the UN - for the inability to find a solution to the conflict which has become one of the defining political and humanitarian crises of our time.

The Prime Minister's speech was impressive and its message hard-hitting. He told member states the UN could be ``more efficient, more representative, more responsive, and show greater leadership''. He took aim at the will and the ways of the 15-member Security Council, saying it must be ``better at responding to political crises before they spiral out of control'', warning that the council's shortcomings, if not addressed, ``risk undermining its relevance and standing in world affairs'' and said ``the use of the veto, the threat of the veto, the exploitation of the veto is well beyond what the founders of the United Nations envisaged''.

For civilians the world over watching in horror as atrocity and suffering seem to know no bounds, the words will resonate. For General Assembly members, they should be sobering. For powerful Security Council members holding the right of veto, however, they are likely to continue to fall on deaf ears.

For they have been said before. Mr Key made a similarly assertive speech in 2013 when he was campaigning for the Security Council seat. Helen Clark (whose bid for the UN's top job was promoted again by Mr Key as part of his speech) has also indicated aspects of the whole organisation need a shake-up. There are those resistant to such change, however, which may be part of the reason she is not faring well in the leadership contest.

The Security Council should be able to make a difference. Indeed, the world looks to it to do so. It is commendable to keep pushing for change, but, in order to be taken seriously, we must also practise what we preach.

Mr Key chastised member states for closing their borders and ``turning inwards'', encouraged members to be ``united in our respect for the principles of the UN Charter'' and assured the world that New Zealand was ``committed to being a good global citizen and playing our part''. But do these fine words ring true at home?

Our own response to the refugee crisis has been limited, we have been taken to task by the UN for various failings in relation to our own citizens. Are we really not ``flouting the rules'' in any way as he infers others are doing? Are we really ``playing our part''? Can we preach to others about ``lifting millions out of poverty'' about prosperity, security and the interests of all, when when we having growing inequality and child poverty in Godzone?

It would be amazing if Mr Key's words could spark change, starting with a greater commitment to the shaky ceasefire in Syria.

Mr Key told the assembly intervention was ``not about money. It is about saving lives''. If he can't achieve that abroad, there is certainly plenty of scope for helping those in the firing line at home.