Ian Wishart: ‘Son, your ego is writing cheques your body can’t cash’

It was memorable advice in the 1986 movie Top Gun, and it’s advice that Labour party alumni Phil Goff and Helen Clark should pay heed to still, as they make calls for NZ to take a “principled stand” on the Iran conflict.

Both those politicians (Clark, then a backbench MP and Goff, a cabinet minister) were members of a government that was publicly promising “New Zealand justice is not for sale, the convicted Rainbow Warrior bombers must serve their allotted sentences”, while behind the scenes we were furiously trying to sell that same justice system to the French, working out a plan to allow the prisoners to be deported swiftly.

Simon O'Connor: The failing international rules based order

Other than in the minds of UN junkies and some academics, the international rules based order has not been functioning properly for a long time.

This is an opinion piece I wrote recently and submitted to the NZ Herald but they have chosen not to publish (which is their right), ironically as they give their front page over to the views of Helen Clark.

We have heard much of the rules-based order and international law since the United States and Israel acted against the Islamic regime in Iran. From Helen Clark to Phil Goff, various academics and commentators, these terms roll of the tongue with an assured certainty.

Damien Grant: To Helen Clark - Sorry, but international law won't stop an Iranian nuke

How hard is international law? I see that Helen Clark has joined a growing phalanx of freshly graduated experts in the field so I thought I’d give it a go.


The basis of international law is the UN Charter which stipulates that one sovereign nation cannot attack another. Seems fair. However, Article 51 has an exception.

David Harvey: Unlawful

The UN Charter and the Iranian Conflict

Helen Clark and latterly Phil Goff have criticized the Government for failing to condemn the attack on Iran by the US and Israel. Ms Clark condemned the Government’s approach as servile towards the US and a disgrace.

The main argument advanced by Ms Clark is that the attacks were illegal. And she wants the Government to endorse that approach.

Melanie Phillips: Choosing lawfare over warfare

The fanaticism of the Iran regime is mirrored by a fanatical belief in international law

Has Britain entered the war against Iran? Well, yes… and no. In trying to dance carefully around a large trap door, Sir Keir Starmer has merely succeeded in falling straight through it.

Michael Rainsborough: The End of the World Order as We Know It – Nice of You to Notice

For the past week the global commentariat has been behaving like someone who suddenly realises, halfway through his morning espresso, that his house burned down sometime last Tuesday and everyone else has been politely stepping around the ashes ever since.

Donald Trump announces, quite openly, that the United States wants to take Greenland, one way or another. Washington sharpens the tariff knife. NATO’s obituary is proclaimed yet again. The United States, we are solemnly informed, can no longer be trusted as an ally and that it is even a predatory state. The West is finished.

Cue panic. Cue Davos. Cue the anguished cries of people who have not had to think seriously about power since the mid-1980s.

Damien Grant: Rules based order is no more, NZ has a choice to make

In the Mediterranean there is a Greek island. Melos (now Milos).

It is unremarkable. Larger than Waiheke with just over five thousand residents who survive on mining and tourism. However. In 416 BC Melos was caught in a dilemma.

Greece was consumed with the Spartan/Athenian conflict and Melos was both independent and geographically in the Athenian sphere of influence. Athens demanded Melos’ submission or face annihilation.

Melanie Phillips: How international law is weaponised against Israel

The rules-based global order has expired in disgrace

Another day, another libel against Israel in the name of international law.

The UN Human Rights Office has issued a report detailing what it calls Israel’s “systemic discrimination” against Palestinians in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, as well as eastern Jerusalem.

“This is a particularly severe form of racial discrimination and segregation that resembles the kind of apartheid system we have seen before,” declared the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk.

This is the lie constantly deployed by Israel’s enemies to demonise and destroy it.

Chris Trotter: The Right Move Against Hamas Was Not To Make One.

Israel's legal right to strike back at Hamas is unchallengeable. No nation, having suffered the sort of horrific attack unleashed upon Israel by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023, is ever going to be convicted in an international court of law for defending itself. It is the nature of Israel’s retaliation that is challengeable. In war, doing precisely what your enemy expects you to do is never a good idea. By responding to the 7 October attack in precisely the way Hamas anticipated, Israel has allowed the terrorists’ long-planned (and far some important) propaganda offensive to build and strengthen the pro-Palestinian Cause.

Richard Prebble: The world has got more dangerous. It is time to rejoin ANZUS

New Zealand is a partner of an Atlantic Defence treaty but apart from a pact with Australia this country has no defence treaty. New Zealand is a NATO partner, a nuclear alliance, but our membership of ANZUS is suspended.

Jacinda Ardern has explained New Zealand is sending troops to Europe because “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a violation of international law”. Russia’s “blatant attack on a country’s sovereignty is a threat to all of us”.

The PM is correct. Russia’s invasion is a threat to the international rules-based system that is fundamental to New Zealand’s national security.

All the political parties say the Pacific should be New Zealand’s focus but the actions do not match the words.