Friday, February 15, 2013

Is New Zealand Suitable for the Security Council?

The New Zealand Herald has an article about the New Zealand bid to join the UN Security Council and quotes the NZ ambassador to the UN regarding why New Zealanded voted in favour of Palestinians Statehood in the UN vote on 29 November last year:

New Zealand's ambassador to the UN, Jim McLay, made reference to the vote in a speech last night to the Birkenhead Rotary Club where he canvassed arguments as to what value such a small country as New Zealand could add to the Security Council.
The United States and Canada voted against the resolution last year recognising Palestine as a non-member observer state at the UN. Britain and Australia abstained. The vote, on November 29, passed with 138 in favour, nine against and 41 abstentions.


"We were, however, the only one of the US and the UK, Canada and Australia and New Zealand to vote for the UN resolution recognising Palestine as a UN non-member observer state."

Not stated in the article was that almost all of the dictatorships and non-democratic regimes voted in favour of Palestinian Statehood.

In other words, when given the choice of siding with democracies like US, the UK, Canada, and Australia, or with dictatorships such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, New Zealand decided to align itself with the dictators and thinks that this will give it an advantage in its bid for a seat on the Security Council.

The scary thing is that they are correct, taking the side of democracy is a clear disadvantage if you want to get anywhere in the United Nations.

I guess that we should be glad that at least they are honest about it.