Audrey Young: NZ right to be cautious on response to US air strikes in Syria

The New Zealand Government response to the United States air strikes on a Syrian air base has been cautious and properly so.

It is early days in every respect of what the development means.

Not least of the unknowns is what US president Donald Trump meant when he said yesterday: "I call on all civilised nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria."

It is not clear what "join us" means.

It is not clear whether it was a one-off strike in retaliation for the chemical weapons attack on civilians or the start of a campaign that New Zealand might be pressed into joining in some tangible way.

New Zealand joined the US-led Coalition against Isis in Iraq - in a non-combat capacity - because it is at the invitation of the Iraqi Government.

It has assiduously stayed out of any US-led action against Isis in Syria (unlike US allies Australia, Britain and France) because it is not at the invitation of the Syrian Government.

New Zealand is not a formal ally of the US but it was forewarned of the air strike when the Pentagon contacted the Chief of Defence Force yesterday several hours in advance.

English said later New Zealand would support a "proportionate" response - which is an early indication it would not support a protracted campaign.

He handed the initial government response on the Syria air strikes to seasoned Foreign Minister Murray McCully.

McCully gave it cautious backing by saying New Zealand could "understand" the US action given the inadequate response by the UN Security Council.

That is perhaps another way of saying that even if the air strike was not legally sanctioned, morally it was okay by New Zealand.

National is not consistently legalistic in adherence to international law and conflicts.

English in Opposition complained that the New Zealand Government of the day had not joined the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

English as Prime Minister is a more cautious leader.