The problem with getting involved in other people’s wars, again

Friday, 26 January 2024

Max Harris is a lawyer, campaigner, and writer based in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland. He has postgraduate degrees in law and public policy from the University of Oxford and has written several books.

OPINION: When Prime Minister Christopher Luxon appeared at the Beehive podium with Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins this week, it sounded like it was the Government’s first day back at work.

The post-cabinet press conference was nothing short of shambolic. Long pauses, senior ministers talking over each other, direct questions from Press Gallery avoided.

Sometimes the Government might deserve leeway. Not now. The Government was making a weighty announcement: New Zealand was getting involved in a new war.

The Government announced on Tuesday that six New Zealand Defence Force personnel would join a US/UK-led military coalition to attack Houthi rebels in Yemen. The personnel would be involved with “targeting” but wouldn’t, the ministers said, enter Yemen.

The Houthis began targeting Israeli ships or ships en route to Israel in November to increase pressure on Israel to end its bombardments in Gaza. No one’s been killed in these attacks, but they have resulted in the rerouting of ships. There are also reports that these attacks have become more indiscriminate.

There are problems of process and substance with New Zealand’s involvement in this US/UK-led coalition in Yemen.

The US/UK-led attacks have bypassed the United Nations Security Council. A resolution adopted on 10 January – itself controversial – condemned the Houthi attacks on vessels, but urged “caution and restraint to avoid further escalation” and encouraged “enhanced diplomatic efforts by all parties … including continued support for … Yemen’s peace process under the UN auspices”. The resolution noted the right of states to defend vessels in accordance with international law, but explicitly did not authorise unilateral military intervention.

One reason New Zealand has likely been asked to send a small number of troops is to give the impression of a broadly supported international intervention – an alibi against claims the US and UK are circumventing the Security Council. But as of Wednesday, the second round of strikes on Yemen was supported only by Australia, Bahrain, Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand.

The absence of Security Council authorisation was part of why New Zealand did not join the war in Iraq in 2003. As well, the US/UK strikes on Yemen disrupt a finely balanced ceasefire negotiated by the UN in late 2023 between the Yemeni government and the Houthis, following a nine-year war.

This decision also did not go through Parliament. An arcane, ambiguous legal power called “the royal prerogative” enables the government to make decisions on going to war without consulting Parliament. There have been repeated calls for a War Powers Act in the UK to change this, and halting moves in the UK towards a convention that Parliament should debate military operations. Similar legislation is overdue here.

The lack of parliamentary oversight made this week’s press conference all the more important for accountability – bringing us to questions of substance.

New Zealand’s involvement sees our Government taking sides with the US and the UK – countries that are unpopular in many parts of the Middle East because of colonial involvement, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their failures to act more firmly to stop Israeli destruction in Gaza.

That in itself could increase the security risk faced by New Zealanders, especially in the Middle East. When a journalist asked Luxon if New Zealand’s involvement in this coalition would elevate the threat level faced by New Zealanders, Luxon said: “We don’t know that.”

While Luxon tried to separate Gaza and Yemen, it’s strained to suggest the Houthi attacks – which only began after Israel’s bombardments – have no connection to Gaza. Pressing for a ceasefire in Gaza is a more principled way to hasten the end of Houthi attacks.

The Government set out no clear endgame or objective. US President Joe Biden admitted last week that initial air strikes had been ineffective. “When you say working, are they stopping the Houthis? No,” Biden said. It seems more likely that military escalation will inflame regional instability, potentially drawing Iran (associated with the Houthis) into the conflict, risking a bigger war. France has explicitly refused to support the conflict due to risks of escalation.

The Government says Houthi disruptions to international shipping could increase the cost of living in New Zealand. But there are other ways to protect the navigation of vessels aside from bombardment. It’s not obvious that other measures have been pursued – another reason this unilateral military intervention may fall afoul of international law.

Luxon’s other argument is New Zealand should stand up for its values. But why should our values lead us inexorably to unilateral military intervention that goes around the UN?

Over a decade ago, award-winning journalist Nicky Hager wrote in Other People’s Wars: “Citizens … have a right to know what the overall strategies are [when our military goes to war] and enough of the detail to judge whether the actions are legal and ethical, and, just as importantly, they have a right to decide whether they agree with them.”

Those words ring true today. New Zealanders haven’t been told enough about the Government’s strategy in Yemen, or enough detail to judge whether the actions are legal and ethical. We deserve better.