Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has described New Zealand’s stance on Palestinian statehood as “disappointing”.
In his United Nations address, Winston Peters said New Zealand would not be recognising Palestinian statehood at this time, citing several reasons, including that in the government’s view the criteria for statehood criteria hadn’t been met.
He condemned the actions of both Hamas and Israel.
Helen Clark spoke to 1News in New York following the foreign minister’s address.
“I’m very disappointed at the statement,” she said.
“Disappointed at the substance because New Zealand is really being left well behind other countries we would normally associate ourselves with. And secondly, disappointed that the truth wasn’t told after the Cabinet decision. Why drag it out to late Friday night here in New York? Not a good look.”
Peters’ musical analogy as he announces Palestinian statehood stance – Watch on TVNZ+
Cabinet made an in-principle decision earlier this month but chose to wait for Peters’ UN address to reveal it.
“It seems to me that the New Zealand government’s almost embarrassed by the decision,” she continued.
“You’ve got a divided government – you’ve clearly got minor parties who don’t want recognition. So, I think they just didn’t want the Kiwi public to know last Monday and have it play out all week. Instead, there was this hide and seek game as to what the decision would be and when just about every other delegation has gone home, New Zealand announces this rather sad decision.”
Clark rejected Peters’ reasoning for the decision.
“The missed opportunity is to be part of the growing consensus that Israel is completely out of court in what it is doing – particularly with the situation of creeping annexation of the West Bank, the chances for a two-state solution are being lost,” she said.
“Many states have come to the conclusion that they need to recognise the state of Palestine to give it a chance of ever materialising. That’s the issue, and New Zealand hasn’t put its weight behind that.”
She was also critical of the decision not to have Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announce such a significant foreign policy position.
“I think the Prime Minister should have fronted at the press conference last Monday when the decision was taken, rather than let the sad charade play out here in New York with everybody left guessing,” she said.
After his speech, 1News asked Winston Peters why the Prime Minister wasn’t in the US delivering it.
“He trusts the most experienced person in his government by miles to be here, who has been in the job going into the third decade now, to do the job for the country and speak on behalf of all New Zealanders as a result of a democratic decision made at the last election,” he said.
“It’s that simple.”
Speaking to reporters in Auckland, Luxon said not being at the UN to announce the move was “quite normal”.
“Leaders don’t go to UN every single year.”
Luxon said he had “a number” of engagements and bilateral visits overseas, and had to balance that with being in New Zealand.
“I will go at some future time, but it is quite a normal practice to not have leaders there every single year.”
He rejected not being present at the UN was a missed opportunity.
“APEC is really important, EAS is really important, NATO is really important. The UN general assembly meetings where 195 leaders and or foriegn ministers attend is quite a regular occurrence, it’s been going on for a long time, and I will go at some time, but actually when I see the calendar at the beginning of the year, there’s other priorities for us.”
