As you’ll have noticed, New Zealand hasn’t condemned the strikes. In fact, in a radio interview this morning, the Prime Minister said that our position aligns with Australia’s - and Australia has openly supported the strikes.
The logical conclusion, then, is that we support the strikes too, even if we’re not saying so explicitly.
That lack of condemnation has upset Helen Clark because, as she points out, the air strikes are illegal under international law. And she is right about that. But can anyone seriously argue that the strikes shouldn’t have happened?
Consider the counterfactual - the strikes didn’t happen at the weekend. Ayatollah Khamenei is still alive. He continues to kill tens of thousands of Iranians for protesting, continues to fund Hamas to attack Israel, continues to fund and support the Houthis as they cause turmoil in the Middle East, continues backing Hezbollah to create further instability, and continues causing trouble as far away as Australia, where Iran allegedly directed the firebombing of a synagogue in Melbourne just a few months ago.
This is exactly the same dilemma the world faced in Venezuela with the capture of Maduro. It shouldn’t have happened, it broke the rules - but no one is sad that someone broke the rules to do what many believed needed to be done.
Now, obviously, this doesn’t guarantee success. Bombing a country to force regime change almost never works.
What comes next could be worse. The disruption to the Middle East could be greater than any benefit gained. But all of those are unknowns right now.
What is known is this: the Iranian regime was murdering its own people, destabilising the region and attempting to cause disruption even further afield.
So yes, what happened at the weekend broke the rules. But tell me - are you upset that it did?
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show. This article was sourced from Newstalk ZB.
28 comments:
It is truly scary to live amongst so many uninformed commentators. I blame the MSM.
Firstly, for anyone who has been following the Iranian situation, it is a citizens uprising.
Secondly, a government is there solely for the benefit of the people, not themselves. Therefore, if somebody declares themselves "supreme leader for life" with no elections and an autocratic rule, there is every justification to dispose of them. Especially if they kill thousands of their own citizens.
When you proclaim yourself "the sole source of truth" you eventually become pretty unpopular.
Sometimes outside intervention is required when all other means are exhausted.
People cannot ever seem to answer the question "what hope would there be for any citizens if all rescue attempts were prohibited?"
As usual, conservatives admire decency and action whilst democrats wring their hands and talk nonsense. Out comes the anti-Semitism, the TDS and the faux outrage.
The question is what is the story with so called International law?
Are Clark et al more interested in International control and are a little miffed at losing their grip .
International law? What international law? I didn't vote for it. It has had no mandate from the New Zealand people.
I think Helen Clark and her fshould be ashamed of herself for supporting a so-called international UN law over the freedom of 90 million people. The UN needs to be disbanded. What has that corrupt organisation done lately to protect freedom and democracy? In fact they recently called for a palestinian state run by hamas! All over the world the iranian people are celebrating. Many are saying that this could bring peace to the middle east. I think that trump should get the nobel peace prize. The left cannot handle it that it is Trump who has done so much for the world.
Heather appears to be appealing to the 'R2P' doctrine in international law - that's 'Responsibility to Protect'. To quote Google AI, "The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a 2005 United Nations commitment ensuring the international community never fails to halt mass atrocities: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. It posits that sovereignty is a responsibility, not a right, requiring states to protect their own populations and others to intervene if a state fails to do so." Lofty ideals, but the doctrine came under severe scrutiny after it was abused by NATO in 2011 who used it to engineer the murder/assassination of Khaddafi in Libya. I commented at the time that 'R2P' had become 'R2C' - 'right to change a regime we don't like'.
The last two commentators above would do well to have a look at the Wikipedia entry for international law for starters as they do not appear to know what it is and how it operates.
Iran should not have been allowed to have a nuclear bomb. If they were allowed to, it would be nearly impossible to do anything about it. It would also mean that other countries in the ME would acquire them.
Goff and Clark have TDS.
Iran under Khamenei was a rouge state run by tyrants and a hot bed for international terrorism.
World leaders and prominent individuals should choose very carefully from now on with whom they side.
That includes the likes of ex-prime ministers and all other Marxists and apologists for deathly extremism.
Was it a breach of international law?
One could argue in this situation international law had failed the Iranian people for decades.
And would it be immoral to allow this failure to continue at the expense of more death and terrorism?
If by ‘international law’ Helen Clark and Heather du Plessis-Allan mean something like “the set of rules, norms, legal customs and standards that states and other actors feel an obligation to, and generally do, obey in their mutual relations” (Wikipedia), We the people have not agreed to that.
But that is not what du Plessis-Allan wrote. Instead, she said, “That lack of condemnation has upset Helen Clark because, as she points out, the air strikes are illegal under international law. And she is right about that.” Illegality implies the imposition of penalties.
The Concise Oxford gives law as, “a rule or system of rules recognised by a country or community as regulating the actions of its members and enforced by the imposition of penalties.”
Such an ‘international law’ implies cession of independent sovereign power without outside interference and imposition of penalties for not following that law, and We the people have not agreed to that. Our custom has been that Parliament make our laws, not some other international body who we do not get to vote for.
Before Queen Victoria asserted sovereignty over New Zealand, she first obtained the signed agreement of the locals. That was an agreement with what was then a tribalist society. Now we have democracy and cession of sovereign power to ‘international law’ requires a referendum, which we have not had.
Great supportive comments. The standout was Anonymous 9.39am. International law must always take a back seat to the sanctity of human life. Those that argue otherwise have seriously lost their way.
Barend
Rather than offer advice to other commentators as to the errors of their judgement, you would do well to look at the history of recent invasions aimed at regime change yourself.
In almost all cases, the motive was one acceptable and even endorsed by the population suffering under brutal dictatorship but unfortunately few failed to adequately plan for what came next.
In other words, most ended up with replacement regimes worse than the one evicted. eg Iraq, Afghanistan et al. That says more about the invaders’ strategy than the motive for change.
The end result inevitably had little to do with international law or its interpretation at the time.
And my guess is that this attempt at regime change will only succeed if the coalition of the willing adheres to a plan that demonstrates it has learnt from past mistakes, not whether they adhered to versions of international law promoted by corrupt bodies like the United Nations and its supporters.
So far, it would appear the coalition plan regards the post invasion oversight as an equal priority to the regime change itself. Only time will tell but the evidence of recent campaigns indicate it does.
The success of the Venezuela decapitation and the stated emphasis on support for an Iranian replacement government suggests that this time, things might be different.
Let’s hope so.
In response to the basis of the article -
- Helen Clark, has 'socialist credentials' has worked for the incompetent UN, if anyone can relate to what her role was (then), the committee she 'chaired' and what it achieved I would be interested to see an article on that. Strange that Helen supports a regime were Females do not appear in Govt office, have been to subject of harassment & arrest (more on trumped up charges & jailed), but a (by mass of numbers) are parade before TV cameras "chanting" in favour of that Regime.
A regime that allows the IRGC to ride around on motorbikes and willfully shoot dead any person on the street.
- BV, I see you 'speak' with your Academic background, can I take from your comment that you also 'support' the regime (Govt) that has stood & still stands as a male dominated "hate machine"??
My study of Libya, was that Gaddafi was no better than the Ayatollah's as their were people of that Nation who suffered the same fate as Iranian citizens have.
Pity that Tony Blair did not get 'that message'.
- Trump - if you have not "got the message", he has no time for The UN, and apparently for NATO. He has already delivered a military message to Iran, they obviously could "not read" the message or context of same, so he 'sent' another - which they took offense at.
Finally, there is a cemetery on the outskirts of Tehran, that contain the dead Iranian Citizens, who have (over past years) died at the hands of the Regime of both -
- Ayatollah Khomenini, following the fall of the Shah and executions that followed;
- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who upon assuming leadership, continued the pattern of citizen arrest & execution.
Any Iranian living outside Iran, you will find will welcome what The US has done, and will no doubt via cell phone encouraging "their " people to fight on.
Also keep in mind Venezuela now 'sing' different songs, they know full well what America is capable of.
The world has short memory- remember the second gulf war? The one that was supposed to free the Iraqi people and destroy chemical weapons and terrorism? What do you think will happen after the Americans walk away when things get real messy?
Barrie, 'the people' don't have a hand in international law. In British and NZ law, it is the Crown that signs a treaty.
That's right, Clive, you often end up with something worse than you began with. It's a point I have made a number of times. But it has nothing to do with my advice to those two commentators whose comments suggested that they are not aware of how international law works.
Anon 2010, another point I have made repeatedly in these annals is that the MENA region tends to present us with a choice between 'bad' and 'worse' rather than 'good' and 'bad'. Khaddafi and Assad, 'bad' (perhaps); but the shambles you have now is much worse and doesn't look as though it's going to get better any time soon with those countries carved up into fiefdoms for various tribal and extreme political groups.
Whom do you choose between Khaddafi/Assad and ISIS or al-Qaeda. Anon? I'll bet I know whom you would prefer if you were a member of a minority. In Syria, for instance, there are some 23 officially (under Assad) 'ancient churches', being Christian communities that have their origins in the first century. They were protected and when ISIS went for them, Muslim militias as well as Syrian army units went in to protect them. Now it's open season on such minorities again.
If there is one pearl of wisdom many MENA folks recognise, it's "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Barend, that 'the people' don't have a hand in international law is what I am complaining about. The Crown can sign the treaty, but I insist that they should get our agreement first.
Sovereignty originates in We the people and we appoint Parliament to administer it on our behalf when we vest our sovereignty in the Crown in Parliament for a term of three years, at the end of which time we get it all back.
For constitutional issues, such as vesting a portion of our sovereign power in international law, that should be by referendum.
Something quite ludicrous about the very term 'the rules of war' I'm delighted beyond measure that evil old man - and cohorts -have left the scene. Israel is better able to war selectively than the evil Islamic government of Iran. I pray for the Persians.
I simply cannot understand why anyone(even Helen Clark) would support keeping a murderous despot in power? Law or no law...it makes no sense to any rational thinking person. We are talking human lives. We are not having some sort of academic debate surely?
Look Barend
Your knowledge of history is impressive but, given that the rules based order is dead and buried, most states interested in supporting individual and collective liberties make decisions based on reality these days.
That is especially the case when past leaders
like our own Helen Clark claim this invasion is illegal based on an archaic UN sponsored law that has frequently been ignored by other left wing administrations (Obama) when it suited them.
Janine, the issue is whether who replaces that "murderous despot" is better or worse.
Bashar al-Assad was at the head of a much maligned regime the security apparatus of which was a law unto itself....... but of course the guy at the top (in this instance, a soft-spoken London-trained ophthalmologist) has to cop all the flak, so he becomes the "murderous despot". Now you've got a fellow in the driver's seat who was a senior member of al-Nusra, a crowd one notch below ISIS; the country is an anarchic shambles and it's open season on minorities (see my comments above). Perhaps the country will go the way of Libya after the NATO-orchestrated murder of Khaddafi, another "murderous despot".
Oh, I DO wish Westerners would take just a bit more effort to TRY to understand the Middle East and environs.................
Anon 740, I think it's going a wee bit too far to claim that "the rules based order is dead and buried." Goodness knows it has taken a pasting, but while currently on life support, the patient may yet be revived.
An international rules-based order (based on international law) sits very comfortably with Europeans; ever since the Peace of Westphalia 1648 (generally regarded as the kick-off point for international law) we have been conducting our affairs according to agreements signed between European nations (and since Maastricht, according in part to supranational law emanating from Brussels).
The Achilles Heel of international law (and therefore of a global rules-based order) is a lack of enforcement. Small countries can usually be coerced into seeing sense through various enticements and threats, but the big players can act with impunity. That's the US, China and to a lesser extent, Russia; whereas the US and China simply ignore international law and tribunals they don't like, the Russians like to present "interpretative statements" that may in some cases turn a treaty clause on its head.
With the rise of second- and third-wave industrialising developing nations, we may enter a few era in the foreseeable future when powerful groups such as BRICS insist on international law being followed in dealings with the so-called First World........ it's a thought. I may be dead wrong on this one but I for one am not quite ready to abandon all hope for international law yet.
My apologies Barend
I am the author of Anon 7.40 pm
You probably guessed
No worries, Clive.
You may be right about the international rules-based order being terminally kaput, but I will remain guardedly optimistic about its prospects.
Iran was destabilising the region huh Heather? Well thank god that things are settling now that USA and Israel are calming the whole situation.
"Oh, I DO wish Westerners would take just a bit more effort to TRY to understand the Middle East and environs."
In fairness to NZers in particular, it's been difficult to access countervailing reading and views here, unless one goes actively searching online. And unless people believe in the first place that they've been propagandised, they won't go looking.
As the now-retired journalist Michael Field said, some years ago, NZ has no tradition of specialist foreign affairs journalism. And it shows.
I'm a Boomer. It wasn't until the rise of the internet, and my concomitant access to academic resources, that I understood how comprehensively we in NZ had been propagandised about major international issues over all of my lifetime.
I was an adult at the time of the Iranian revolution that toppled the Shah. When I heard last year that some Iranians were calling for the return of the monarchy, I knew immediately that we were looking at another attempted colour revolution on the part of the CIA.
It failed, of course. And here we are: the US and Israel attempting to achieve régime change by way of the bomb. Will it succeed? There isn't a great track record of success in such a strategy. And meantime, many innocents die.
No one knows how this adventure will play out. So far, not so good. If it results in a stable and more humane Iran, then all credit to Donald Trump. But the risks here are enormous. The worst-case scenario? It doesn't bear thinking about.
So does Ewan McGregor thinks the risk of doing nothing outweighs the opportunity to rid the world of the most evil regime since Adolf Hitler..
It is because of weak US leadership in the past that we have come to this point.
My guess is that the current US administration will not make the same mistakes of their predecessors. It is also worth noting the current strategy in Iran will also weaken China’s ability to pursue its objectives in the Pacific.
But anyone expecting Ewan to give credit to Trump if the current invasion is successful in giving the Iranians their country back, is likely to be disappointed. Let’s hope l’m wrong
Time will tell.
You are attributing a false sentiment here, Clive. A straw man, so you can knock it down.
No straw man Ewan
You have created a situation where you will either give credit Trump for any successes or fail to do so.
I’m just pointing out that your track record of taking the fist option is not good.
Your credibility is in your own hands.
Time will tell
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.