Today is the 80th Anzac Day since World War 2 ended with the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945.
On Anzac Day 1946, all the Montecillo residents were servicemen who had faced conflict. The majority were from World War 1, but WW2 veterans had started to arrive.
Today, while the residents are former service personnel or their family members, only one has faced conflict and this was against the Vietcong in Cambodia.
The reason for this difference is simply that in the last 80 years, even though there have been regional conflicts, in which New Zealand has been involved, there have been no world wars.
WW2 resulted in horrendous casualties of around 20million military, and 50million civilian deaths.
Because of this, the allies, led by United States president Franklin Roosevelt, resolved to establish a rules-based system so that there would never be another world war.
The United Nations was set up based on the principle of sovereign equality of all nations.
This principle has been adhered to by all democracies until the election of Donald Trump as president for his second term.
This time last year I referred to President Trump turning rogue in accusing President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of starting the Russia-Ukraine war.
In November, he published the National Security Strategy of the United States of America.
Under the heading ‘‘primacy of nations’’ he wrote: ‘‘The world’s fundamental political unit is and will remain the nation-state’’.
‘‘It is natural and just that all nations put their interests first and guard their sovereignty.
‘‘The world works best when nations prioritise their interests.
‘‘The United States will put our own interests first and in our relations with other nations, encourage them to prioritise their own interests as well.
‘‘We stand for the sovereign rights of nations, against the sovereignty-sapping incursions of the most intrusive transnational organisations and for reforming those institutions so that they assist rather than hinder individual sovereignty and further American interests ... The outsized influence of larger, richer and stronger nations is a timeless truth of international relations.’’
This national security strategy is in direct conflict with article 2.1 of the United Nations Charter which states: ‘‘The Organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members’’.
Presumably it is America’s excuse for the US bombing of Iran on February 28 this year, which started the current conflict between the US and Iran.
The US attack on Iran was a pre-emptive strike and unlawful under international law in that it was contrary to article 2.4 of the charter which requires all members to refrain from the threat or use of force against any state.
Customary international law justifies a pre-emptive strike if it is necessary in self-defence.
The test is stringent and is known as the Caroline test, named after a US ship, set on fire in 1837, by an Anglo-Canadian attack on US territory, in which a US citizen was killed.
Daniel Webster, the then US secretary of state, rejected the British assertion that their actions were permissible under the international law of self-defence. He wrote that when a nation uses force ‘‘within the territory of a power at peace, nothing less than a clear and absolute necessity can afford ground of justification’’ and that the necessity for the use of armed force must be ‘‘instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation’’, which conditions, he wrote, did not apply in the Caroline case.
The Nuremberg Tribunal affirmed the Caroline test as correctly expressing the customary international law.
The US attack doesn’t even start to achieve the Caroline test. In the introduction to his national security strategy, President Trump wrote that ‘‘in Operation Midnight Hammer we obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity’’.
At the time of the bombing the US and Iran were in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme.
There can be no question but that President Trump’s decision to attack Iran was a clear and deliberate breach of international law.
There is a real risk that President Trump has returned the world to the conditions that brought about WW2.
Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, speaking at the Munich annual security conference in February, said ‘‘a rift, a deep divide has opened between Europe and the United States. The rules-based world order no longer exists’’.
So, where does this leave New Zealand? Like America in 1837, New Zealand today cannot force our will by military might.
We can rely only on example and persuasion.
We owe it to those we honour today, who gave their lives in two world wars in the cause of freedom, to continue to uphold the rules of international law.
There is no need to review our membership of international alliances.
The good and decent people of America are still good and decent.
It is just that they presently do not govern the country.
New Zealand needs a bipartisan approach to international conflicts which places adherence to international law as the priority and our participation in our alliances as subject to that.
• David J. More is chairman of the Montecillo Trust.
