The sudden announcement by the New Zealand government that it would send a six-member Defence Force team to the Middle East region raises questions about the coherence of the decision and risks undermining New Zealand’s long-standing claim it pursues a principled, independent foreign policy.
On January 23, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon indicated that the small NZDF deployment was part of a US-led coalition effort to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea where Yemeni Houthi rebels, backed by Iran ,were attacking commercial and naval shipping perceived to be linked to Israel.
These attacks, according to the Houthis, were an expression of solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza and would cease as soon as a permanent ceasefire was achieved in that territory.
The Red Sea is a vital route for global trade and the disruption caused by Houthi attacks has already increased the price of oil and fuelled fears of broader economic fallout for many states, including New Zealand.
Prime Minister Luxon described the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping as ‘‘illegal, unacceptable and profoundly destabilising’’ and said the NZDF deployment would contribute to the collective self-defence of ships and was ‘‘a continuation of New Zealand’s long history of defending freedom of navigation both in the Middle East and closer to home.’’
To be sure, as a small global trader, New Zealand is heavily reliant on a well-functioning rules-based international order upheld by institutions like the United Nations and norms such as multilateralism.
However, the New Zealand’s insistence that its increased support for maritime security in the Red Sea had no connection to Israel’s unrelenting military campaign Gaza — following the appalling Hamas terror attacks in Israel on October 7 — is incredible.
The US knew from the outset that its unconditional support for the Netanyahu’s policy of ‘‘mighty vengeance’’ ran the very real risk of spreading conflict in the volatile Middle East region.
Nevertheless, the Biden administration has continued to provide all-round military support to the Netanyahu government in its attempt to eradicate Hamas, backed by Iran, and used its veto three times in the UN Security Council to ensure the continuation of Israel’s massive military assault on Gaza.
This US stance has not changed despite the fact that more than 25,000 Palestinians — 70% of whom are women and children — have been killed in the course of Israeli military operations in Gaza.
In these desperate circumstances, it was always highly likely that a regional power like Iran and allies such as the Houthis and Hezbollah would seek to take advantage of the carnage in Gaza to advance their own agendas in the Middle East.
The Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea are clearly illegal, but they are essentially part of the fallout from the continuing international failure to stop a conflict in Gaza in which war crimes have clearly been committed.
Thus, the NZDF deployment could be interpreted as New Zealand shifting its weight behind US blanket support for Israel and confusing the symptoms of escalation in the Red Sea with the major cause of the continuing conflict in Gaza.
At the same time, the US-requested NZDF deployment does not sit comfortably with Wellington’s diplomacy towards the Gaza conflict.
It should not be forgotten that New Zealand was the only member of the Five Eyes partnership to vote for an immediate humanitarian truce in Gaza at the UN General Assembly on October 27.
In addition, New Zealand co-sponsored a resolution in the UN General Assembly on December 13 demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.
Despite the disagreement between New Zealand and the US over the need for a ceasefire in Gaza, the Luxon-led government is now prepared to assist US-led efforts to suppress Houthi attacks Red Sea attacks.
This is the same US that successfully opposed the Gaza ceasefire that New Zealand had supported.
Not only does the dispatch of the NZDF team to the Red Sea strengthen the impression of a diplomatic U-turn in Wellington, it also points to a selective concern about maintaining international law.
If the National-led government is worried about illegal activity in the Red Sea, why is it not showing comparable concern for the flagrant and multiple breaches of international law in Gaza?
For a country that was prepared to defy the US over its non-nuclear stance in the mid-1980s and refused to support the illegal US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, New Zealand governments have been strangely reticent to speak out about the horrendous plight of Palestinian civilians in Gaza during the last four months.
By agreeing to send an NZDF team to the Red Sea without demanding the US end its opposition to a ceasefire in Gaza, the current New Zealand government seems to have strengthened the impression it has retreated from an independent foreign policy based on principles and values.
■ Robert G. Patman is an Inaugural Sesquicentennial Distinguished Chair and specialist in international relations at the University of Otago. A version of this article originally ran in The Guardian.
