A couple of recent examples where New Zealand has had little to say include a resolution that extends the presence of a small UN peace-keeping force in Western Sahara, but does not allow them to check on human rights violations many believe are being perpetrated there by Morocco.
Morocco took over Western Sahara in 1975 when colonial power Spain withdrew. Civil war followed until 1991, when the UN brokered a peace and sent its peacekeepers in. However, Morocco still considers the area its own (it's extremely mineral rich) and stands accused of terrible acts, including driving 200,000 West Saharans into refugee camps.
New Zealand has just voted in lock-step with other members of the Security Council to keep the peace-keeping mission there for another year, but agreed to Morocco's demand that human rights checks be kept off the agenda. No doubt we were also mindful that New Zealand fertiliser companies are the third largest buyers of Western Sahara phosphate rock in the world - a trade human rights groups deplore.
During the same period, New Zealand remained silent as the Security Council met about autonomous weapons - so called "killer robots". There'd been talk that the council might move pre-emptively to ban the development of weapons that select targets and use force without any human intervention. Two years ago New Zealand had enthusiastically agreed. Now, our line is that we'll "develop a policy in concert with other governments" when they're "clearer" about the weapons.
And at the same time, New Zealand voted to support the Saudi-led coalition effort in Yemen against the Houthi rebels.
In brief - to the extent it's possible - the Saudis, along with America and other Western, African and Muslim powers have banded together to fight against a group of Iranian-backed rebels that have taken over large swathes of Yemen, the Middle East's poorest country.
Like many things in the region, however, what seems like a clear-cut case of right versus wrong is not quite. Although the Houthis have perpetrated much violence, there are many geopolitical reasons that Saudi Arabia is leading the fight against them - not least of all because they are anxious about the rise of Iran.
In turn, the US is supporting the Saudi Arabian-led effort for a range of reasons too: it has been "training and equipping" Yemeni forces to fight al-Qaeda since 2006, it has strategic assets in the country, and has sold US$90 billion ($120 billion) in arms to Saudi Arabia since 2010.
The problem is that this war effort is expanding - with ground troops now thought to be involved - and civilians are dying. Recent reports out of Yemen have suggested the Saudi-led forces are using cluster bombs in residential areas. There do not seem to be long-term plans in place, which may lead to the familiar scenario - a (possibly) well-intentioned war that ends up both alienating the civilians it was meant to help, and a huge number of arms in the hands of people who end up as enemies of the West.
It may well be that New Zealand on the Security Council has to pick its battles, or choose the lesser of two evils when it is deciding who to support. It's also true that power on the Security Council is weighted in favour of the world's largest players, not the likes of New Zealand. Even so, one might have thought, after all our chest-thumping in the lead-up to winning the seat, that we might have been a pretty consistent, independent voice for good. Even if that voice is only the whisper of a conscience in the ears of the world's true powerbrokers.
