Security council seat

Written By: - Date published: 6:44 am, October 17th, 2014 - 69 comments
Categories: International - Tags: ,

The news this morning is all about NZ winning a seat on the UN Security Council. Grant Robertson reckons…

https://twitter.com/grantrobertson1/status/522797826309234688

 

 

69 comments on “Security council seat ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    17 October 2014 at 6:47 am

    What does New Zealand stand for on the international stage?

    • Paul 1.1
      17 October 2014 at 6:51 am

      Helping the US get better trade deals.

    • Once Was Tim 1.2
      17 October 2014 at 6:53 am

      …. at the moment
      ‘free trade’ and the preservation of the American Empire?
      Good question Ad

    • Eddie 1.3
      17 October 2014 at 12:16 pm

      According to http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10619400/The-UN-security-council-vote-explained
      – World affairs: Containing the “madness” of Islamic State militants, preventing a repeat of what has occurred in Gaza this year, and finding a lasting solution to tensions in the Ukraine are among New Zealand’s priorities if elected.

      – Veto reform: The power to veto a resolution proposed by another member was initially given to each of the five permanent council members so the UN could not take direct action against any of its principal founding members. Although the veto has been exercised less frequently since the end of the Cold War, it is often used for the national interests of one of the permanent members or their allies. New Zealand would advocate for restraint of the veto power.

      – Intermediate seats: Countries such as Brazil, India and Japan have pushed for the creation of new permanent seats for countries that are leaders in their regions, but New Zealand wants intermediate seats on the council, giving larger countries a longer period to serve in the role, while leaving room for some of the smaller countries to win the existing temporary seats.

      • Murray Rawshark 1.3.1
        17 October 2014 at 7:06 pm

        I’d prefer a role containing the madness of O’Bomber’s drone murders.
        As for Gaza – Israel ignores the UN. I suppose NAct thinks they’ll solve the problem by asking the inhabitants of Gaza to take the same principled stand with Israel that Key takes with the US and A.
        Ukraine – what do they plan there, when the fascist regime came to power with US and European help?

        • swordfish 1.3.1.1
          17 October 2014 at 8:39 pm

          “Israel ignores the UN”

          Yep and the US has used its veto an astonishing 58 times to shield Israel from UN Security Council Resolutions – whether they be resolutions calling for a two-state settlement predicated on International Law or resolutions censuring/condemning Israel for its settlement-expansion / violence/ war crimes/ other violations. Greater than the number of vetoes exercised by all other UN member states on all other issues put together.

          • Eddie 1.3.1.1.1
            18 October 2014 at 6:41 pm

            There have also been more motions against Israel than any other country. That doesn’t seem fair at all. It smells of bullying when one nation is singled out because the Arabs want them dead. Perhaps if the UN was more fair and could n be respected to conduct truly independent and objective inquiries the US would stop standing up for Israel.

  2. Ad 2
    17 October 2014 at 6:50 am

    Is it possible for the Greens, Labour and NZFirst to speak as one policy voice about this government’s international positioning?

  3. Tiger Mountain 3
    17 October 2014 at 6:57 am

    the UN was a grand idea when formed and it still does useful international work in some areas, but most of the good geo political intentions have gone the way of Esperanto and the ‘International Style’ really.

    The UN is now the punching bag or flag of convenience for the major powers. Run down in the 80s via a funding ‘strike’ by the US to try and put the then strong non aligned countries in their place.

    Nowadays US imperialism and BRICS to some extent seem to use it as some dispute resolution clearing house while unobserved resolutions pile high.

    NZ on the Security Council? Big deal when this country no longer has an independent foreign policy anyway.

    • Ovid 3.1
      17 October 2014 at 9:33 am

      The World Health Organisation, UNESCO, the World Food Programme, the International Labour Organisation, UNICEF, the UNHCR, the International Criminal Court and other bodies all administered by the UN all do important work.

      The UN itself serves as an important forum between nations and as a smaller nation the only way we can enjoy any diplomatic clout is through multilateralism. I’m not saying it is a perfect system or that big powers don’t dominate small ones. What I am saying is that it’s better for us to support it than resign ourselves even further to the margins.

      • Eddie 3.1.1
        17 October 2014 at 12:19 pm

        Yes, we should support the good work. We should also work to change the system for the better. I’m not sure it’s about “big powers” dominating “small ones” but rather oppressive regimes trying to dominate human rights. UN Watch does the best work in this regard – they are truly about ensuring human rights are upheld rather than the hypocritical motions, mandates, and resolutions the UN is most known for. I hope NZ can be a light among the nations in not supporting hypocritical motions and in working for the good of humanity rather than the interests of ourselves or those who are using the system against itself.

      • Tracey 3.1.2
        17 October 2014 at 12:51 pm

        we can do all of that without being a proxy for the us on the sc.

        key says we wil represent what the people who backed us want.

        loudly.

        • Eddie 3.1.2.1
          18 October 2014 at 6:38 pm

          Easier to change from within, I think. Else call to disband Under but that would be throwing out the baby…

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 3.2
      17 October 2014 at 9:50 am

      Big deal when this country no longer has an independent foreign policy anyway.

      This is a strong factor to favour NZ having a seat?

      • ghostwhowalksnz 3.2.1
        17 October 2014 at 12:50 pm

        Time for Key to be reading up on the ” War Book”, which gives details of processes and procedures in the lead up to war.
        Looks like they have started on the laws that need changing

  4. Corokia 4
    17 October 2014 at 7:29 am

    Now that NZ has the seat and we no longer need to present ourselves as an independent neutral country, watch Key come out and announce us joining the US military coalition.

  5. RedBaronCV 5
    17 October 2014 at 7:38 am

    I assume we are ther to vote as the US demands. And do we owe the votes to any US arm twisting.

  6. Scott1 6
    17 October 2014 at 7:39 am

    Not really sure what good we are going to do on the security council.
    I presume Key feels he can corruptly squeeze something out of the USA and China when they need support on specific issues. It looks like we might be able to get about 16 million in cash or services out of that – not a lot in the big scheme of things but maybe enough to get some politicians cushy jobs when they retire.

    http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/66753/john-key-suggests-there-may-be-economic-benefits-being-un-security-council-david-hood-
    http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/06-029.pdf

    On the other side –
    Maybe we could make a difference by raising an issue to the security council that might otherwise be overlooked. But I’m not sure what scenario that would occur – maybe if Tonga and Samoa had a war?

  7. les 7
    17 October 2014 at 7:59 am

    just another vote for U.S foreign policy.10 years campaigning for a 2 yr stint..WTF!

    • Pawsharkial 7.1
      17 October 2014 at 10:59 am

      The nonpermanent members serve a 4 year term, but half (5 of 10, with 5 permanent making 15) are elected every two years.

      The new members will join the council on 1 January and serve to the end of 2016. The five will replace Argentina, Australia, Luxembourg, South Korea and Rwanda.

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/venezuela-united-nations-security-council

      So that’s; NZ tagging-in for Australia (as the USA’s Pacific stooge), Venezuela for Argentina (greater independence), Spain for Luxembourg (a country under great financial stress for a financial services principality), Malaysia for South Korea (SE Asian Islamic state for USA-backed NE Asian country still technically at war with its neighbour), Angola for Rwanda (shift from central to SW Africa). I note that we are the one of least interest to the world based on the Guardian Article.

      • alwyn 7.1.1
        17 October 2014 at 7:09 pm

        These numbers are, I am afraid wrong.
        There is an election for 5 places every year, not every two years and each country elected serves for only two years. Thus New Zealand will serve from 1 January 2015 until 31 December 2016.
        The rules are explained here.
        http://www.unelections.org/?q=node/33

  9. Skinny 9
    17 October 2014 at 8:15 am

    I have mixed views on this announcement. Helen Clark lead the way on this and deserves credit. Gaining a seat was by default really as Turkey blew their chances. And of course the Americans want New Zealand committed to their middle east war, they pretty much signaled this with their arrogant ‘linking us to their war machine coalilation earlier this week.

    Such a pity McCully couldn’t have offered up David Shearer as our representative since the UN is a far better fit than as a Labour MP. Now we have to suffer him waxing lyrical through the MSM, no doubt using the opportunity to stray off topic and take further pot shots at members of his party.

    • alwyn 9.1
      17 October 2014 at 7:11 pm

      You will note that Key did give credit to Helen Clark for her efforts.
      That man really has style doesn’t he?
      Can you imagine any credit being given to Key if the positions had been reversed?

      • Colonial Rawshark 9.1.1
        18 October 2014 at 1:14 am

        I’m always confused by why the Right Wing uses this framing. That is, why ask us to imagine what might happen, in a what-if scenario, that isn’t the reality of what actually did happen. And then to put it in the context of a pretend morality competition about pretend morals.

        Seriously mate, WTF? Key said something diplomatic, so? He doesn’t have the sole patent for being diplomatic, you realise, yeah.

  10. les 10
    17 October 2014 at 8:19 am

    Angola won one…wow!Good to see Venezuela in there.The country with the biggest oil reserves in the world ,who defied yankee imperialism!

    • Eddie 10.1
      17 October 2014 at 12:23 pm

      Are you serious?
      Venezuela backed Libya’s Col. Qaddafi and other serial human rights abusers. Caracas violates its Security Council obligations on terrorism by providing passports to Hezbollah and supporting the narco-terrorist group FARC. They were also the only country at the UN Human Rights Council last year to vote against holding Syria accountable, effectively backing its mass murder of 200,000 people. Are you supporting these decisions?

      • Scott1 10.1.1
        17 October 2014 at 7:09 pm

        Indeed,
        even if the US behaves badly – the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend – sometimes they are just plain crazy (like ISIS).

      • Murray Rawshark 10.1.2
        17 October 2014 at 7:21 pm

        Libya is a much worse violator of human rights now than it was in the years before Gaddafi was murdered. The Colombian government is a narco-terrorist group, and Key and his Washington mates love them.

        We don’t have to support the decisions of another country. We should support their right to make them without suffering destabilisation and coups directed from Washington.

        • Colonial Rawshark 10.1.2.1
          18 October 2014 at 1:21 am

          Eddie also spouts BS about Assad’s role in 200K deaths and over a million displaced – mainly through not mentioning the pivotal role that the US and its allies played in supplying and encouraging foreign anti-Assad forces in Syria.

          Those same forces that the US/allies helped with money, training and weapons included members from Al Qaeda and ISIS.

      • les 10.1.3
        17 October 2014 at 7:23 pm

        gee you have been successfully brainwashed!Human rights abusers…start with the Saudis ..Americas petro dollar sycophants…do some research on Venezuela and it s oil reserves..the C.I.A and their involvement in undermining democracy.The US/Anglo invasion of Iraq resulted in murder and mayhem..over 1million deaths..do you support that?Are you serious?

        • Eddie 10.1.3.1
          18 October 2014 at 6:45 pm

          Just to be sure, you believe the US is wholely responsible for Isis and all wrongs in the world? You’d be happier with dictatorships? I don’t think all US actions are right but let’s put some perspective into the debate. It’s like those who condemn ISIS but won’t say Hamas is wrong. That’s illogical and hypocritical.

  11. Tracey 11
    17 October 2014 at 8:34 am

    two years.

  12. travellerev 12
    17 October 2014 at 8:40 am

    Here is my take on it:

    “World affairs: Containing the “madness” of Islamic State militants, preventing a repeat of what has occurred in Gaza this year, and finding a lasting solution to tensions in the Ukraine are among New Zealand’s priorities if elected.”

    Another Five Eye Country On The Security Counsel, One Step Closer To A Mad Dash To War

    • tinfoilhat 12.1
      17 October 2014 at 8:52 am

      Much to my regret I clicked on your link.

      “World war III here we come!”

      🙄 🙄 🙄

  13. greywarshark 13
    17 October 2014 at 8:47 am

    We have mounted a campaign for a seat on the Security Council in diplomatic circles for a long time. What did that cost while we are ‘have nots’ at home? And what good will it do us – a favour to the USA so it will alter some of its policies so we can joing TPPA and come home to mother?

    McCully this morning. It is known how we always speak up for small nations. That’s strange he should say that. In our own case we have not been able to do this with Australia. We have had deteriorating ‘conjugal’ relationships there, and a loss of friendly treatment for our citizens. How have we upheld the citizens of Fiji? We have accepted a coup.

    How come Turkey didn’t get elected? They are in the middle of crisis with ISIS. Bearing a great burden with border incursions, needing big military expenditure and having thousands of refugees while they already have problems with a strong cohesive group of Kurdish people already in Turkey. They are the ones who deserve a seat, being in the midst of world problems. We are diddling around pretending to be a nation and actively preparing to give away our sovereignty to the USA and other big TPPA players.
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/turkey-loses-out-un-security-council-seat-20141016185125847941.html

    Terence O’Brien talked about us taking an independent view. That was once, in a fairy tale of long ago. That’s not the way it is now. We must have got many votes from USA lapdogs. And on that basis of our expected approach.

    • Matthew Hooton 13.1
      17 October 2014 at 6:54 pm

      I think we would have won votes from countries that did not want two of the US’s NATO allies (Spain and Turkey) elected to the Security Council at the same time, especially since three NATO members (US, UK and France) are permanent members.

      • Murray Rawshark 13.1.1
        17 October 2014 at 7:28 pm

        I can imagine McCully showing video of Lange’s Oxford uranium speech as proof of our independence.

        • music4menz 13.1.1.1
          17 October 2014 at 8:15 pm

          Sad that some folk seem to live so much in the past! Who really cares about Lange’s windbag Oxford debate! Amazed there wasn’t reference to the ’81 Springbok Tour. Move on!

          • Murray Rawshark 13.1.1.1.1
            17 October 2014 at 9:51 pm

            Some of us have longer memories than a goldfish with Alzheimers. Some don’t. I’d hazard a guess that you belong in the second category.

  14. greywarshark 14
    17 October 2014 at 9:07 am

    Is this what we will get from Grant Robertson in the future, ‘An amazing opportunity to do good’? Feeding us bright little soundbites based on the myths and hopes of our lost and simpler past, rather than advising the public the realpolitik we are players in now.

    It doesn’t bode well if we want to become a well-informed country making practical and future-looking, strong and effective policies to maintain our capabilities as a principled, developed modern nation.

  15. tc 15
    17 October 2014 at 9:13 am

    Isn’t this like finally getting that membership to an exclusive golf club to find it’s only a 9 hole weekday membership and you can’t bring guests.

    The full weekend 18 hole membership countries ( the 5 permanent members) still play alone and any one of the 5 can veto any measure.

    Does it have any value at all given how toothless and corrupt the UN is.

    • greywarshark 15.1
      17 October 2014 at 10:34 am

      tc
      Before you throw it away as worn and compromised – what else do we have that is better than the UN? We will never get another one. Better try and clean up the old one. People prepared to keep using their skills and building, hammering and welding can restore old railway engines using coal and water, old technology and not clean environmentally, but they go as they used to. Keep working on the UN, it has value now and could have more in future.

      I wonder if it will be able to flex any muscle and independent brain it has left in its present flabby state, to do something about the ebola outbreak which could be the new black death, the plague that deals with our over population problem in a horribly decisive way.

      • tc 15.1.1
        17 October 2014 at 2:26 pm

        I know folk who have worked for and with the UN, there are much more effective and less compromised organisations in areas of aid, skills transfer etc..

        They don’t bother with the UN, they choose to be alot more effective elsewhere. Look at what Geldorf did with live aid as one example.

  16. cogito 16
    17 October 2014 at 9:19 am

    I heard McCully say this morning that he will be doing a lot of listening and getting to know the issues that different countries face. Funny when one thinks that **not** listening, and actually being in **denial** about people’s issues is what Key & co have been doing at home in NZ for the last six years….

  17. Patrick O'Brien 17
    17 October 2014 at 10:00 am

    It’s a sad day for all Humanity

  18. Clemgeopin 18
    17 October 2014 at 10:39 am

    Hope New Zealand will show its independence, integrity, values and lofty ideals.

  19. Eddie 19
    17 October 2014 at 12:15 pm

    The UN is a joke – many of the member states have appalling human rights records. The whole organisation needs a good, hard reflection and shake-up so it’s not so hypocritical and obviously used as a political tool for dictators and terrorists to claim legitimacy. NZ wanting to “gain support from the Islamic block” sounds like we are going to play the hypocrisy game and continue the sick joke that is the current UN. How sad! I sincerely hope that NZ will take a stand and lead in not bowing down to oppressive regimes just for some political points and possibly some trade. Let’s hope our win is also a win for the world and humanity!

  20. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 20
    17 October 2014 at 12:52 pm

    Turns out John Key was seriously wrong that material from the Snowden archive could have destroyed NZ’s bid:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11326840

    • alwyn 20.1
      17 October 2014 at 7:18 pm

      He wasn’t ” seriously wrong” at all. After all he never said it would stop us getting on the council. He said it could do so. His words, in the article you link to were

      “He said he did not know if Mr Greenwald’s promised revelations would cost New Zealand Security Council votes.
      “It would be a tragedy if it didn’t happen because of that.”‘

      Luckily Greenwald had nothing like the influence the he (Greenwald) and Dotcom thought he had. The rest of the world were just like New Zealanders and simply yawned and moved on.

  21. Murray Rawshark 21
    17 October 2014 at 7:38 pm

    Kiwiri “..material from the Snowden archive could have destroyed NZ’s bid”

    Alwyn He didn’t say that at all… ” He said it could do so.”

    Hmmm. Stick a carrot up me bum and call me Charlie and I’ll still think I’ve missed something there.

  22. Andrew 22
    17 October 2014 at 9:52 pm

    To All you folk out there that thought that the unbelievable could’nt happen, Listen to Barak Obama’s first speech as President . “Yes we Can!”.. You negative sods!.

  23. Tinshed 23
    17 October 2014 at 11:20 pm

    Nearly every single comment here demonstrates so clearly why the Labour Party (yes, I know, The Standard is not the same as The Labour Party, but you can see the similarity) did so badly in the recent general election. New Zealand being voted on to the Security Council is a ‘Good Thing’, something we should all be proud of. It was a bi-partisan effort. The Prime Minister praised the efforts of David Shearer and Phil Goff in support of New Zealand’s bid. Even the grumpy old man of New Zealand politics, Winston Peters, had a good word to say. It was a 10 year effort, started by Helen Clark. John Key acknowledged this. We should all be delighted. Yet reading the comments here you don’t get a sense of positivity. Instead, the tone of most posts is of unrelenting negativity, disparagement and sarcasm. Just for once, can’t you all say something nice and positive about this? That you can’t, that your hatred and dislike of the current government consumes so many of you is one of the fundamental reasons your party, the Labour Party, was preferred by only 26% of the population. If you keep up this negativity, you will forever remain a minority party. Why can’t you see this?

    • lprent 23.1
      18 October 2014 at 12:19 am

      Problem is that it is hard to think of a damn thing that John Key’s government would do with the position that was worth a damn.

      Just an expensive way to give John Key photo opportunities.

      Rather pointless.

      Can you be positive and suggest something that NZ could do that is positive?

    • ropata mako shark 23.2
      18 October 2014 at 12:40 am

      Yes let’s pat ourselves on the back for getting on the UN Security Council and pretend the rest of the world gives a flying f*ck.

      Key is just going to roll over for his golfing buddy Obama, to get his “small man” ego stroked. Expect more sycophantic puff pieces from the “news” media about Key’s diplomatic prowess.

      Meanwhile back in NZ, kids are going hungry and third world diseases are spreading because of poor housing. Do we give a crap about that, or do we just wanna play war games with ‘Murica?

    • ropata mako shark 23.3
      18 October 2014 at 12:57 am

      PS: It’s legitimate political discourse. It may seem cognitively stressful and negative to someone caught in a Key-induced reality distortion field.

      What’s next Tinshed? Book-burning? Ministry of Truth to weed out the complainers?

      • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 23.3.1
        18 October 2014 at 7:50 pm

        Book-burning? Ministry of Truth to weed out the complainers?

        The raid on Nicky Hager’s home and appropriation of his property (material and intellectual), shows that we already have that and it’s operating smoothly, – fast, efficient , effective silencing of dissent.

        (There were also rumours that his book was being bought up and burnt by Young Nats pre-election, but I acknowledge this as rumour only.)

    • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 23.4
      18 October 2014 at 8:26 pm

      your hatred and dislike of the current government

      Are you proud of what this government has done to NZ?
      Even as recently as Dec 13, NZ was perceived as having the least corrupt government on the planet (shared with Denmark that year). http://www.transparency.org.nz/Corruption-Perceptions-Index With all that we now know, do you think we still deserve that ranking?

  24. SPC 24
    18 October 2014 at 10:43 am

    This cartoon says it all.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11344331

    We are like the kid who believes in the tooth fairy at a dentists convention.

  25. Clemgeopin 25
    18 October 2014 at 4:50 pm

    While it is some sort of a prestige to be in the security council, I am not sure how it is useful, apart from rubbing shoulders with the five main members? If it can lead to real peace in the world, of course it is great, but most often the measures are dictated by the big powerful countries for their own strategic and economic needs.

    In my opinion, NZ should not be part of any war unless it is approved by the UN. The Afghanistan war was, but the Iraq war was not. For that reason, NZ should not be part of the coming war unless it gets the UN security council or the general assembly approval.

    Another thing. We have spent millions and millions of dollars lobbying members for the vote. I cringed when I saw the African and other delegates being brought here for a tax payer feted jaunt. Isn’t that just bribes for votes? What a disgrace for us to do such a blatantly corrupt thing. What do you think?