Diplomacy is never easy but the new coalition government has tied itself in knots by committing defence personnel to combat Houthi rebels threatening maritime trade in the Red Sea while trying to ignore the connection to the crisis in Gaza.
New Zealand has two detachments abroad serving in critical conflicts: Ukraine, and now, a 10-nation “pop-up” alliance led by the United States to confront the Houthis in Yemen.
The government, not entirely convincingly, asks us to believe there is no connection between the scorched-earth Israeli retaliation against Hamas in Gaza for the October 7 outrages and the deployment against the Houthis. It wants to paper over the ambiguity of joining a US-led alliance against the Houthis when Washington supplies the military and diplomatic cover for the Israel attacks and refuses to back our own calls for a ceasefire.
“Any suggestion our ongoing support for maritime security in the Middle East is connected to recent developments in Israel and the Gaza Strip is wrong,” Foreign Minister Winston Peters insisted. “We are contributing to this military action for the same reason New Zealand has sent defence personnel to the Middle East for decades – we care deeply about regional security because our economic and strategic interests depend on it.”
It appears that in the transition from the Labour government through the interregnum before the coalition arrived in November, that policy shifted – going from one led by a longstanding commitment to the idea of a two-state solution in the Middle East and defence of rules-based international affairs to one more clearly determined to align forcefully with Washington.
“I want us to be in lockstep with our partners who have common interests and actually be right there with them at that time,” Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said in December when he signed statements with Washington on Russian cyber attacks and Israel’s war in Gaza.
It may also be the case that Peters, in his third stint as Foreign Minister, is resetting policy in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mfat) after a series of initiatives at the United Nations to demand a ceasefire in Gaza. Those votes were in line with historical New Zealand commitments under successive governments to the two-state solution and a rules-based world order and the idea of an “independent foreign policy” which Peters is reinterpreting.
In a speech to the Wellington diplomatic corps in December, he put a different perspective on what an independent New Zealand foreign policy meant. He said it had often been “perplexing” to allies and instead talked of independent foreign “policies” plural. “We will vigorously refresh our engagement with our traditional like-minded partners – Australia, our closest friend, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom – with a focus on how we advance shared interests and address strategic challenges,” he told the diplomats.
Freedom of the seas
The decision to support the US-led Operation Prosperity Guardian against the Houthi attacks by providing six NZ Defence Force staff was unilaterally announced at a chaotic Beehive news conference on January 23. Luxon stood beside Peters, who did a good impression of being deaf when asked difficult questions. A grinning Defence Minister, Judith Collins, seemed to relish the idea of being a person of action.
They made the case, which is not on its surface unreasonable, that New Zealand as a trading nation has a legitimate interest in freedom of navigation and keeping the Red Sea open. New Zealand has a long-term commitment to open seas, whether with deployments to the Gulf or its participation in freedom-of-navigation exercises in the South China Sea.
However, the insistence the engagement has nothing to do with Gaza is unrealistic. “The decision to back the UK- and US-led bombing of Houthi sites in Yemen is a mistake,” former prime minister Helen Clark, for eight years the leader of the UN Development Programme, told the Listener. “It is a fact that the Houthis started the disruption [in the Red Sea] because of Gaza. There are some root causes here.” She argues that although the Houthis may not be recognised as such, they are effectively in charge of Yemen. “They are the de facto authority of Yemen and they have been for years … and they need to be dealt with and negotiated with.”
Acolytes of Iran
Also known as the Ansar Allah (supporters of God), the Houthis are a family-led Shia militia that has so far survived a civil war with the recognised Yemen government, which has been forced to retreat to Aden, the port in the south. Its motto is: “Allah is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, a curse upon the Jews and victory to Islam.” The Houthis are said to be part of the loose network of Iranian-backed militia across the Middle East broadly described as the “Axis of Resistance”. This includes Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The idea Operation Prosperity Guardian will stay contained and that it is not related to the Gaza crisis seems fanciful even if one accepts that there are vital interests at stake in keeping the Red Sea open. The January 28 drone attack that killed three US soldiers and injured many more in Jordan hints at the scope for the conflict to spiral into a series of linked fires.
The Houthis may be acolytes of Iran but they have been effective in making themselves unignorable in their declared support of the people of Gaza. Whether that support is genuine or not, they have made a mark with missile attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and cruise missiles and drones sent up the Red Sea to Israel.
The alliance New Zealand joined has decided to deal with that militarily. Given that the Houthis have survived a decade of all that Yemen government forces, backed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, could throw at them suggests it might be tough. There appears to be no diplomatic arm of the US-led tactics other than a slightly embarrassing appeal by Washington to Beijing asking it to use its influence with Iran to try to get the Houthis to stop attacking ships transiting the Red Sea.
The Houthis, meanwhile, relish the attention from superpowers – and Wellington.
“What the Yemeni people did in the beginning was to target Israeli ships heading to Israel without causing any human or even significant material losses, just preventing ships from passing as a natural right,” Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdulsalam told Reuters. “Now, when America joined in and escalated the situation further, there is no doubt that Yemen will respond.”
Oddball alliance
The alliance against the Houthis is itself an oddball grouping, apart from the US and UK in the lead and with the greatest military firepower. Denmark is perhaps the most interesting member and, in a sense, the most like New Zealand – similar population, limited military power, a small country perhaps that likes to think it has outsize influence. The real reason Denmark is there is Maersk – the Copenhagen-headquartered shipping company is by some measures the largest container line in the world. A Maersk ship was one of the first targeted in the Houthi campaign.
The Danish navy has sent a frigate to support the effort against the Houthis and there is clearly a deep national interest, albeit to protect the assets of a private business champion. Interestingly given the comparison with New Zealand, the Danish ship will not be engaged in the US and UK strikes on the Houthis and its deployment is subject to a parliamentary vote.
“If you think that the answer to the Houthis is to simply allow them to terrorise free world trade, you are on the wrong track,” said Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen. “That is also why we, together with the Americans and the British, are now showing responsibility and sending a signal that we will not tolerate what is happening.”
The Houthis initially claimed they were trying to attack only shipping related to Israel. Given a Maersk container ship and an oil tanker from the UK-listed and Singapore-based resources company Trafigura have been targeted, that claim is hard to credit in reality.
Meanwhile, north of Yemen, the US lost two navy SEALs (sea, air and land teams) in an otherwise successful effort to prevent the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Houthis. The level of engagement and the number of incidents ratchet up whether it is in the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea at the mouth of the Straits of Hormuz, or southern Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. It all creates a highly combustible situation, where error or overreach could trigger disaster.
The Defence Ministry has been cagey about exactly what the six NZDF staff are doing and which services they represent. Investigative journalist Jon Stephenson has said his sources suggest New Zealanders may be involved in targeting operations. By comparison, New Zealand still has 86 defence staff in the UK and Europe training Ukrainian soldiers and supporting Nato partners with intelligence and logistic roles.
If one accepts that there is in fact a link between New Zealand joining the campaign against the Houthi attacks and the fallout from the Gaza crisis – especially the epic scale of the retaliation from Israel for the October 7 Hamas outrages which killed 1200 people – it changes the calculus for what Luxon, Peters and Collins have to consider about New Zealand exposure.
By early February, 26,700 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli forces and UN officials say a quarter of Gaza’s 2.3 million population are starving. Israel says 105 of the 240 hostages taken by Hamas remain unaccounted for. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its interim judgment on South Africa’s case against Israel’s campaign, accepted there was a plausible case to investigate Israel’s actions for evidence of genocidal tactics and said it should do “everything in its power to avoid killing Palestinians, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, creating intolerable living conditions in Gaza, or deliberately preventing Palestinian births”.
To those who support the Palestinian cause against Israeli occupation or who go further and support Hamas, New Zealand has joined an alliance of those who aid and abet a country under investigation for genocidal acts. Some will wonder if that makes New Zealand a target, or at least if it might increase the already febrile atmosphere at pro-Palestinian rallies and anti-Israel actions at home.
At a more diplomatic level, some worry that the speed with which the National-led coalition jumped into the Houthi mission means that Wellington has shifted from the multilateral and independent foreign policy associated with the Clark Labour government and perhaps also with the John Key National government, given his determination to embrace China.
“What is striking about this commitment by the government is that they compartmentalise their commitment to the rules-based system, particularly when they’re saying there’s no connection with an ongoing conflict in Gaza,” Robert Patman, professor of international relations at Otago University told the Listener. “The New Zealand government’s position would be much more credible if it had said it would be happy to participate in protecting maritime security, providing there was a ceasefire.”
It appears we may also depart from the approach of the Jacinda Ardern government, which was to partner with like-minded smaller countries to exert a common approach to the rules-based international system, rather than surrender all leadership to the big states.
“The government has effectively undermined its own diplomacy,” says Patman. “It’s gone ahead and accepted the US request for an NZDF contingent but demanded nothing in return.
“We are now responding to a request for military assistance to contain the fallout in the Red Sea from a Gaza conflict. We are helping to support a country that opposed New Zealand diplomacy so far in the UN General Assembly. So it’s awkward.”
![Helen Clark: "Christopher Luxon has spent most of his life in the United States and he automatically identified [with its interests].” Photo / Getty Images](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/v2/2OF4PMXBLRAFFJLD5JF7LT7ZA4.jpg?auth=8fb8fbb5a6f151e480c401d5cefeecbd717fc9f0f9eae799607ed2c56762f973&width=16&height=11&quality=70&smart=true)
At odds with history
New Zealand was the only member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance to vote for a ceasefire in a UN General Assembly vote in October.
Clark, asked why she thought Luxon seemed so eager to fall into step with Washington, said, “Christopher Luxon has spent most of his life in the United States and he automatically identified [with its interests].”
Clark doubts there may be a schism between Mfat officials and politicians on the longstanding policy that New Zealand supports a two-state solution that recognises Israel’s right to exist but also the principle of Palestinian sovereignty. She worries that the rush to join the Houthi alliance without recognising the connection with Gaza put New Zealand at odds with its historical position and independence. “I just think this was ill-judged [and] takes the pressure off Israel to come to the table.”
A critical question in the new era will be whether Luxon, Peters and Collins have the skills – and the quality of advice from their public servants – to align with the US when it makes sense, to operate an independent foreign policy that makes sense to New Zealanders, and to be prepared to go through some difficult moments.
There may be clues in Peters’ previous spells as Foreign Minister. “As minister, he excelled during both his ministerial stints in securing substantial additional resources for the diplomatic service,” notes the official history of the New Zealand foreign service. It also credits him with the shift to the Pacific – the “Pacific Reset” – as a genuinely strategic move. How that sits with his third stint is unclear as yet.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Mfat said New Zealand was still committed to a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine and expected Israel to adhere to the directions of the ICJ to allow aid in to Gaza and respect international law in the conduct of the war.
“New Zealand is concerned the current conflict could spread further,” the spokesman said. “We have called on all those in the region with influence to act to de-escalate tensions. New Zealand is deeply concerned that the way the conflict is unfolding fuels the cycle of radicalisation and division. This is why we have repeatedly said there can be no military solution to this conflict. We continue to call for an urgent return to Middle East peace process negotiations, with a view ultimately to a two-state solution that allows the people of Israel and Palestine to live safely, and peacefully together.”
Enter trump?
The very basis of the post-World War II order of international law – including the genocide laws enforced by the ICJ – is at stake in this morass with Israel and Gaza, Iran, North Korea, and the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Standing behind each of those flashpoints is perhaps the largest potential flashpoint: the possibility or probability of another Donald Trump presidency. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu shows every sign of defying Joe Biden and acting as a performative “Mr Security”; Kim Jong-Un repeatedly tests US resolve and Vladimir Putin keeps Ukraine simmering.
And how might a New Zealand foreign and defence posture more closely aligned to Washington survive a second Trump presidency and his inherent unpredictability? That page is yet to be written.
Peter Bale is a New Zealand-born journalist with a long history of roles with Reuters, CNN, and other news organisations.
