Abstract
Abstract
Aotearoa New Zealand prides itself on taking a ‘principled’ and ‘independent’ approach to foreign policy. This language is reflective of New Zealand’s national identity as a good global citizen, standing up for human rights, and being a principled actor in international affairs. There are important moments in New Zealand’s recent history where it appears to have upheld these objectives, namely, its response to the nuclear involvement of France and the United States of America (US) in the South Pacific in the 1970/80s, and its resistance to apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s. The evidence suggests, however, that New Zealand has not been consistent in adhering to its principles in its approach to the conflict between Palestine and Israel (the Conflict). This thesis examines why New Zealand governments have not been consistent in relation to their ‘principled’ and ‘independent’ rhetoric. While New Zealand has, from time to time, shown principled leadership in facilitating resolution of the Conflict (for example, its role in co-sponsoring United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (SC Res. 2334) in 2016) it has not done this consistently. This lack of consistency is most obvious when comparing its proactive approach in the United Nations (particularly the UNSC, and the performative opportunities this forum offers), with its more passive approach in the domestic sphere. New Zealand frames its response to the Conflict as one which supports the Peace Process and the two-State solution. This language is arguably adopted to support New Zealand’s broader geopolitical interests, falling in line with its Anglosphere partners, but to also instantiate its social identity as a good global citizen committed to resolving the Conflict. In this thesis original data from structured interviews with senior New Zealand politicians, public servants, and independent researchers in foreign affairs, defence, and security policy, suggests that while the factors influencing New Zealand’s foreign policy response to the Conflict are diverse, its identification with its English-speaking Anglosphere partners, (particularly the US) still plays a significant role in its foreign policy choices. While New Zealand is undergoing a decolonial process, the foreign policy choices it makes on the Conflict may still reflect a ‘neo-oriental’ set of assumptions which construct the Palestinian as ‘other’. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the domestic pro-Israeli lobby, and the dominance of the Israeli narrative, appears to have had a silencing effect on the willingness of New Zealand governments to take a consistently principled and independent approach to the Conflict. Arguably, it is a combination of these factors which helps explain New Zealand’s inconsistent approach to the Conflict.