web analytics

Weasel Winston’s FiveEyes fudge

Written By: - Date published: 4:45 pm, June 25th, 2025 - 22 comments
Categories: australian politics, chris hipkins, Diplomacy, Ethics, FiveEyes, genocide, helen clark, Iran, israel, law, nuclear war, war, winston peters - Tags:

Winston Peters’ Ministerial statement in Parliament yesterday was a disgrace. Echoing other FiveEyes leaders such as Keir Starmer, unable to distinguish evil from good, he accused those who can of “moral posturing.”

It was Israel who began the attack on Iran, assassinating its officers and scientists and bombing facilities in Iran on June 13th, in a clear violation of international law. It is Israel where it is easiest to distinguish evil from good with their rampant killing of innocents in Gaza and the West bank, authorised apparently by an ancient god.

Desperate to draw the United States into a wider conflict, when the Iranians responded as was their right, pressure from Israel’s supporters came on President Trump to join in. Performative or not, he gave the order to bomb Iran, another clear violation of international law.

The FiveEyes playbook on the response to America’s bombing is clear – condemnation is out. Australia’s Albanese took 24 hours to finally issue a formal statement in which he endorsed the strike and called for “dialogue and diplomacy”. Sir Keir Starmer defended US President Donald Trump’s actions in the Middle East as he called for Iran and Israel to “get back to” a fragile ceasefire brokered overnight.

Any excuse will do. The echos of the 2003 “coalition of the willing” incursion by the United States, assisted by Blair’s UK and Howard’s Australia, based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction, are deafening. That proved to be deception as well as illusion, and so is the trumped-up excuse of the Iranian enrichment in this episode.

Labour Leader Christopher Hipkins response to Winston’s waffle was spot-on.

New Zealand’s always stood proud as a nation that upholds the rules-based international order. We are a small country, but our voice on the world stage matters precisely because we’ve been prepared to stand up to speak truth to power when doing so is right. We did that in 2003, when Helen Clark and the Labour Government took a principled and courageous stand by opposing the illegal invasion of Iraq. We were told then that New Zealand should stay silent. We were told then that it was in our economic interests to look the other way. We didn’t, because we knew that legality matters, principle matters, and international rules matter. Those same principles have to apply today.

The strikes on Iran mark a dangerous escalation in an already volatile region. They risk igniting a war that would inflict enormous suffering on innocent civilians, destabilise the Middle East further, and undermine the very system of collective security the United Nations was created to uphold after the bloodshed of World War II. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State unless, as article 51 states, that is in self-defence or authorised by the Security Council. Neither of those conditions has been met. There is no clear justification, there is no credible claim of imminent threat, and there is no UN mandate. That makes those strikes contrary to international law. That’s not my just my opinion; that’s an opinion shared by legal scholars, human rights organisations, and former diplomats around the diplomatic world.

New Zealand should not drift from our values simply because the actions come from one of our traditional allies. We do not believe in a world where might makes right, and where power justifies impunity. New Zealand has a proud history of diplomacy, from our nuclear-free stance to our leadership on disarmament and peacebuilding. We’ve long argued that international security must be based on cooperation, not coercion. That legacy demands consistency by New Zealand. We should not accept one set of rules for the powerful and another set of rules for everybody else. We must choose principle, we should choose peace, and we should choose the path of international law. Honouring our past and living up to our values means that we need to be a voice for restraint, for legality, and for justice on the world stage.

That is not a statement of moral posturing. Ethics, values and law combine to say what is right and speak truth to power. Like those of Helen Clark in 2003, they are the words of another New Zealand leader we can be proud of.

22 comments on “Weasel Winston’s FiveEyes fudge ”

  1. SPC 1
    25 June 2025 at 9:29 pm

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nz-urged-to-push-for-un-reform-amid-iran-israel-tensions-the-front-page/ZVD4QYPRMFHATOOKYYRJP65CAY/

    [Only a link is not a comment. You can do better, so don’t be lazy, show some respect to the Author of this Post and TS readership, and put some effort into it, thanks – Incognito]

    Reply
    • Incognito 1.1
      25 June 2025 at 9:47 pm

      Mod note

      Reply
    • Psycho Milt 1.2
      26 June 2025 at 5:44 pm

      Patman's on an incredibly lucrative gig. Every time he appears in the media, you just need to think "What would an unworldly leftist academic with no self-awareness and no particular insight say about this issue?" and sure enough he'll trot out exactly what you were expecting. There's something awe-inspiring about the fact he can draw a university professor's salary for this.

      Reply
      • Incognito 1.2.1
        26 June 2025 at 6:02 pm

        Yawn

        Another attack-the-messenger comment from you.

        I didn’t know that in NZ university professors receive a salary for media gigs but I’ll take your word for it; colour me surprised.

        Reply
      • SPC 1.2.2
        26 June 2025 at 6:08 pm

        There is a Front Page podcast with Helen Clark on the link.

        Patman simply noted that, since Fraser in 1945 we have had concerns about the UNSC veto, something Peters himself stated in the UN.

        “We need to constrain the use of the veto, and we need to make the UN Security Council capable of doing what it’s supposed to do, which is being a barrier to war and also fulfilling its responsibility of maintaining global peace and security. At the moment, that institution can’t do its job; it’s dysfunctional.

        The veto has long been a point of frustration for New Zealand. Last year, while speaking about the Gaza crisis, Foreign Minister Winston Peters told the United Nations that since the start of the crisis, the veto had been used five times to prevent the Security Council from acting decisively.

        “This has seen the council fail in its responsibility to maintain international peace and security,” he said at the time.

        This week, Peters has called the escalation in the Middle East “extremely worrying” and pushed for “diplomacy and dialogue”.

        His other comments are also relevant.

        “We do have to be quite careful because New Zealand as a country does depend heavily on the rules-based international order… This type of action is one of many that we’ve seen, not just from the Trump administration, but going back, we’ve got the Russian invasion of Ukraine, China’s outlandish claim to 90% of the South China Sea, the US invasion of Iraq, the list goes on.

        “We’ve had a whole series of events in the post-9/11 period which have gradually eroded the idea of international relations being based on rules, process, and principles, and that’s the sort of world that New Zealand wants.

        “I think many people are expecting a country like New Zealand, which has championed non-nuclear security, to have a position on this issue,” he said.

        Reply
        • Psycho Milt 1.2.2.1
          26 June 2025 at 6:41 pm

          Well, yes, all of us since Fraser have been well aware the security council veto's a problem. And all of us since Fraser have been well aware there's a serious "Who will put the bell on the cat" problem with doing something about it.

          When he says “I think many people are expecting a country like New Zealand, which has championed non-nuclear security, to have a position on this issue,” he's expecting it to have a particular position on this issue that favours Iran. Anyone who's seen his appearance in other media stories knows that he isn't thinking NZ's promotion of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons means we should be chuffed Iran's plan to put "Death to Israel" into radioactive action has had a serious setback.

          Reply
      • Drowsy M. Kram 1.2.3
        26 June 2025 at 6:57 pm

        … unworldly leftist academic … no self-awareness … no particular insight …

        What a fine ‘critique’ – informative, reasoned, objective – “awe-inspiring“, imho.

        Why on spaceship Earth would reform of the UN security council, as advocated by Patman, be needed – what possible harm could US, Russia, and China's vetos do?

        Oxfam calls for reform of the UN Security Council [20 Sept 2024]
        A new Oxfam report, Vetoing Humanity, studied 23 of the world’s most protracted conflicts over the past decade, including Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Libya, Niger, the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and Yemen, and found that 27 of the 30 UNSC vetoes cast on these conflicts were on OPT, Syria and Ukraine.

        New Zealand calls for veto reform at UN General Assembly
        [27 Sept 2024]

        Meaningful UN Security Council Reform Requires Aligning Principles and Practices [26 Feb 2025]

        I quite liked this from Prof. Patman – a finalist for (NZ) Quote of the Year 2022.

        "He is delusional, but he’s not suicidal." (referencing Putin's nuclear threat)

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/130720395/massey-reveals-best-quotes-of-the-year

        Reply
        • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.2.3.1
          26 June 2025 at 7:20 pm

          On Prof Patman….he gets some prestigious recognition and praise here…

          Fearless

          University of Otago humanities pro-vice chancellor Prof Jessica Palmer said it was "much-deserved" recognition for his "fearlessness" as an academic.

          "He understands the importance of, and is generous in, his service as critic and conscience of society.

          "As well as producing a wealth of proactive commentary, he is readily available to media to give valuable insight on breaking news.

          "He provides a vital, Aotearoa-based perspective on international relations."

          And you could look at his Peers…previous winners. Names that I also Respect.

          The award was established in 2017, and previous winners have been Dr Dean Knight (2023), Prof Janet Hoek (2022), Prof Alexander Gillespie and Associate Prof Siouxsie Wiles (2021), Prof Michael Baker and Associate Prof Anita Gibbs (2020), Prof Andrew Geddis (2019), Prof Ann Brower (2018) and Dr Mike Joy (2017).

          https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/%E2%80%98fearless%E2%80%99-critic-wins-prestigious-award

          Reply
  2. Policy Parrot 2
    26 June 2025 at 6:43 am

    A bit of "Winstonian Diplomacy" if ever I saw it…

    Reply
  3. Dennis Frank 3
    26 June 2025 at 8:36 am

    Focus on one side of the situation doesn't work in real life. The only real consequence is that partisans get to feel they can set the political agenda, and the delusion persists until reality demonstrates the contrary. So the morality of the situation hinges on transcending tit for tat. The reciprocity of the two genocides is reality, Mike.

    Morality, when balanced, points the way to peaceful co-existence. Leftist ideology does not, being partisan by definition. Holism is the only effective ideology in geopolitics.

    Reply
  4. Phillip ure 4
    26 June 2025 at 2:36 pm

    That photo in link:

    It really shows how both Collins and peters look so 'sorted'….it almost tips into smug..

    And as former cabinet ministers from the past..that whopping pension….ministerial salaries/perks ..

    …with national super being just the cherry on top of that large cake ..

    Their chump-change..

    They really are ‘sorted’…

    Meanwhile…out here…

    Reply
  5. SPC 5
    26 June 2025 at 4:31 pm

    The Americans are determined to pose their action as decisive and thus a one-off.

    Threat removed from our/the POTUS 47 narrative time-line …

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yk942y437o

    Reply
  6. Psycho Milt 6
    26 June 2025 at 5:34 pm

    People who are able to distinguish evil from good don't write posts supporting one of the most evil regimes on the planet, and don't expect their politicians to either. We are instead quite sanguine about said evil regime finally getting its beans after spending years raining rockets on Israel via its proxies. If you weren't bothered enough to post by years of rockets being fired randomly at a civilian population, don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you profess to be outraged by precision strikes on the perpetrators.

    Reply
    • Incognito 6.1
      26 June 2025 at 6:04 pm

      Blablabla, I don’t like the Author’s views and Posts, blablabla.

      Your comments are getting tedious.

      Reply
      • Psycho Milt 6.1.1
        26 June 2025 at 6:45 pm

        I said what I dislike about the author's views and posts, what more would you like?

        Reply
        • Incognito 6.1.1.1
          26 June 2025 at 6:59 pm

          I said that your personal attacks & barbs are getting tedious.

          What do I like, instead of hearing about your tastes & dislikes?

          You reading this site’s Policy (https://thestandard.org.nz/policy/) for starters and addressing the contents of Posts instead of having a go at the Author would be a close second.

          Reply
          • Psycho Milt 6.1.1.1.1
            26 June 2025 at 8:33 pm

            I find it tedious to be told that people who share my views are "unable to distinguish evil from good," but sure, whatever. Nothing further from me on this thread.

            [You need not reply; actions speak louder than words. This is your warning – Incognito]

            Reply
  7. Res Publica 7
    27 June 2025 at 1:55 pm

    Let’s set the record straight.

    Five Eyes is not a military alliance. It’s an intelligence-sharing arrangement: nothing more. It doesn’t dictate New Zealand’s foreign policy, and it doesn’t require us to support everything the US or Israel does.

    Pretending otherwise is a convenient distortion.

    Yes, Western governments deserve scrutiny. The invasion of Iraq was a failure of principle and law. But that doesn’t mean every Western action is automatically illegitimate, or that adversaries like Iran or Russia deserve a moral blank cheque. If international law is your yardstick, apply it consistently—to everyone.

    Because let’s be honest: despite claims to the contrary, this post is just moral posturing. It’s when rhetoric outpaces reason, when values are used as theatre rather than principle, and when complex conflicts are reduced to black-and-white narratives that flatter one’s ideological comfort zone.

    Let’s also not make the mistake of confusing morality and policy. It’s one thing to speak with moral clarity. But it’s entirely another to build a foreign policy that can actually uphold those values in a messy, multipolar world. That requires discernment, not just outrage.

    New Zealand’s tradition is one of principled independence: not reflexive anti-Westernism, and not blind loyalty. We opposed the Iraq War not because it was American, but because it was wrong.

    That’s the standard. We can and should hold allies accountable, but we do so with consistency, legal grounding, and strategic realism.

    And as much as it pains me to say this, but for all his many, many faults as a minister, a politician, and a human being, Winston Peters' position was the only sensible, viable one New Zealand could take. Calm. Measured. Legally grounded. Not heroic, but responsible. And sometimes, that’s what smart foreign policy looks like.

    Reply
    • lprent 7.1
      27 June 2025 at 2:15 pm

      We opposed the Iraq War not because it was American, but because it was wrong.

      And the intelligence analysis had politics coming off it like your cats hallway where a neighbourhood tom has been spraying it for months.

      Reply

Leave a Comment