Speaker 1: Kyota.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Donald Trump
Speaker 2: has claimed that a ceasefire has been declared in the
Speaker 2: war between Israel and Iran. Releasing a statement on Tuesday
Speaker 2: morning and z time, Trump said there'd be a complete
Speaker 2: and total cease fire in what he's.
Speaker 1: Calling the twelve day War.
Speaker 2: He also said the war could have destroyed the entire
Speaker 2: Middle East and could have gone on for years, but
Speaker 2: claimed both Israel and Iran came to him almost simultaneously
Speaker 2: and said peace in all caps. While there remains uncertainty
Speaker 2: about how long this ceasefire will last and how committed
Speaker 2: both sides are to it, there also remains a question
Speaker 2: about the legitimacy of the intelligence that sparked the targeting
Speaker 2: of Iran's nuclear capabilities. To those familiar with how the
Speaker 2: IRANQ war started, it does feel like a case of
Speaker 2: history repeating itself. Former New Zealand Prime Minister and administrator
Speaker 2: of the United Nations Development Program Helen Clark was instrumental
Speaker 2: in our country not engaging in that war. She spoke
Speaker 2: to the Front Page on Monday afternoon prior to the
Speaker 2: ceasefire deal being announced to discuss her experiences with Middle
Speaker 2: East conflicts and what the world should be doing to
Speaker 2: bring lasting peace.
Speaker 1: Helen, I guess I'm keen.
Speaker 2: To start with what your thoughts generally are on the
Speaker 2: situation happening in the Middle East at the moment.
Speaker 3: It's a richest situation and very very threatening to all
Speaker 3: of us, at least in terms of economic security.
Speaker 4: You have the oil exports.
Speaker 3: Coming out of Saudi Arabia, uae Bar in Kuwait, Iraq, etc.
Speaker 3: Heading through the Straits of Hormuz, and if the Straits
Speaker 3: of hor Moos get closed, then you can just imagine
Speaker 3: what is going to happen to oil prices and the
Speaker 3: cost of living impact on that right through the value
Speaker 3: chain of energy, transport, food processing and the rest of it.
Speaker 3: So it's very very worry, let alone the possibility of
Speaker 3: any more death and destruction on a daily basis.
Speaker 2: I think what's interesting about this case is it does
Speaker 2: seem to bear some similarities to what we saw in
Speaker 2: Iraq over twenty years ago, a war that you opposed
Speaker 2: as Prime Minister of New Zealand. For our younger listeners
Speaker 2: who don't remember that time, can you just remind us
Speaker 2: of how that all started.
Speaker 3: You are right that there are parallels. There's two of
Speaker 3: the same objectives with Iraq. The case that the US
Speaker 3: made was that Iraq had weapons.
Speaker 4: Of mass destruction.
Speaker 3: Now what turned out to be the truth was that
Speaker 3: the weapons they did have and had used in the
Speaker 3: past had been destroyed after the First Golf War when
Speaker 3: a UN process went in, So that was a false
Speaker 3: basis for invasion. And the second objective was regime change,
Speaker 3: and that those two objectives apply to the Saranian excursion
Speaker 3: by Israel and the US today. Now, on the issue
Speaker 3: of weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons, there is
Speaker 3: no credible evidence that Iran is on the brink of
Speaker 3: using a nuclear weapon or has even developed one. Yes,
Speaker 3: it has nuclear activities, we know that, and that's been
Speaker 3: an issue of concern, but the credible assessment of imminent
Speaker 3: use and attack is just not there.
Speaker 4: Secondly, we think of the.
Speaker 3: Tortured history of Iraq, both before the invasion in two
Speaker 3: thousand and three and then after it. It was hugely
Speaker 3: destabilized when the structures that it did have were dismantled
Speaker 3: at the rise of Isis, which of course led to
Speaker 3: widespread sh human rights abuses of the peoples and the
Speaker 3: areas that they occupied in Iraq and Syria. It really
Speaker 3: hasn't settled to this day, and to think that we
Speaker 3: might be in for a similarly protracted date of fragility
Speaker 3: in Iran such as that which followed the Iraq War
Speaker 3: is very, very disturbing.
Speaker 2: Is it fair to say that you faced a lot
Speaker 2: of pressure at the time to fall into line with
Speaker 2: the rest of the world.
Speaker 3: Well, in all truth, there was very little pressure for
Speaker 3: New Zealand to get involved. It was obliquely raised with
Speaker 3: me sometime before the invasion actually occurred, and my response
Speaker 3: was firm by the time it came close to the
Speaker 3: invasion and when the Security Council was considering the matter
Speaker 3: in New York and New Zealand's position was very clear
Speaker 3: and we came under no pressure. Now, the only countries
Speaker 3: who invaded Iraq were the US, the UK, Australia and Spain.
Speaker 3: It was a pretty small group. Most of the world
Speaker 3: was appalled because again it didn't meet the tests under
Speaker 3: international law of self defense in the face of an
Speaker 3: imminent threat of at tech and that's the test that
Speaker 3: we must also apply here. That Israel was not under
Speaker 3: imminent threat of attack, and nor was the United States
Speaker 3: of America.
Speaker 5: President posting on truth Social this quote, it's not politically
Speaker 5: correct to use the term regime change, but if the
Speaker 5: current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again,
Speaker 5: why wouldn't there be a regime change? And then he'd
Speaker 5: put the phrase MIGA or make Iran great again? Defense
Speaker 5: Secretary Pete Hegseth and JD Vance, the Vice President, have
Speaker 5: flat out set on Sunday that that was not the plan.
Speaker 1: Take a listen.
Speaker 6: This mission was not and has not been about regime change.
Speaker 6: The President authorized a precision operation to neutralize the threats
Speaker 6: to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear program.
Speaker 6: Our view has been very clear that we don't want
Speaker 6: a regime change.
Speaker 2: And you touched on this before, but a lot of
Speaker 2: the Iraq War became about deposing Saddam Hussein and pushing
Speaker 2: through a regime change. Donald Trump has now contradicted previous
Speaker 2: statements that the US is not seeking a regime change
Speaker 2: in Iran, but he also wrote that if the current
Speaker 2: Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why
Speaker 2: wouldn't there be a regime change?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 1: How concerning is this?
Speaker 3: So I think I would speak for just about everybody
Speaker 3: in you Zealand if I said, and I will, that
Speaker 3: their Iranian regime is not a nice one, and nor
Speaker 3: was Saddam husseins that the problem is that when change
Speaker 3: is forced on a country by outside forces, that in
Speaker 3: itself becomes very, very destabilizing, as we saw with Iraq.
Speaker 3: And the chances are that if Israel and the United
Speaker 3: States were to succeed with quote regime change in the
Speaker 3: short term, you you may have a very unpredictable and
Speaker 3: volatile country, even a failed state, which Iraq in effect
Speaker 3: became after the destabilization of two thousand and three. So
Speaker 3: it may be a question of be careful what you
Speaker 3: wish for. In the end, it's the people of a
Speaker 3: country that must determine who governs them, not outside forces.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and when it comes to regime changes, I suppose
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of that ancient Greek myth of Hydra with
Speaker 1: the heads, and once you cut off one head, another
Speaker 1: one grows.
Speaker 3: Yes, you can envisits from the rhetoric at the moment
Speaker 3: that those responsible for these attacks now are doing their
Speaker 3: best to locate the supreme leader, and it hasn't been
Speaker 3: ruled out that he may be on an assassination list.
Speaker 4: But what next.
Speaker 3: You know, they have already assassinated senior military and signed
Speaker 3: nuclear science figures. But there's a whole structure under them.
Speaker 3: So it may be that you go from the devil,
Speaker 3: you know, as it were, to then down to the
Speaker 3: captains and sergeants of the operation with a lot more unpredictability.
Speaker 3: So it's just not as simple as saying we will
Speaker 3: remove act and why and somehow there'll be a democratic
Speaker 3: regime in the image of the West.
Speaker 4: That's not going to happen.
Speaker 3: And this is the folly of these kinds of military adventures.
Speaker 2: A lot of countries are calling for a return to
Speaker 2: the negotiation table as a solution to things at the moment,
Speaker 2: do you think that would work or has the horse
Speaker 2: bolted so to speak?
Speaker 3: So look, it has to work in the end. We
Speaker 3: have to get back to talks. Otherwise a balloon goes
Speaker 3: up with entirely unpredictable consequences. What if no oil can
Speaker 3: leave the Gulf, the world economy is thrown into turmoil.
Speaker 3: You know, what if the war expands, What if American
Speaker 3: hit What if then there's more widespread US bombing Parana,
Speaker 3: it's unthinkable.
Speaker 4: So Winston Peters was absolutely.
Speaker 3: Right to call for an end to the conflict and
Speaker 3: return to the negotiating table. That's what everyone's calling for,
Speaker 3: and it's not easy to achieve that in the circumstances.
Speaker 4: We're now in. And you know, the Iranians, you know, obviously.
Speaker 3: Are in a mood where they want to strike back,
Speaker 3: but every time they strike, more of their capacity is
Speaker 3: taken out, and you know this could spiral on and on.
Speaker 3: So I think all voices, including our countries, must be
Speaker 3: heard for an end to the bombing, both science and
Speaker 3: getting back to talks.
Speaker 2: Given the Iraq War is widely seen as an abject failure,
Speaker 2: do you think we are at risk of falling down
Speaker 2: the same path again?
Speaker 1: Have we learned anything?
Speaker 3: Well, it's clear that nothing has been learned at all
Speaker 3: because the Iraq War had disastrous consequences. So one loses
Speaker 3: track of the great many people who died of starvation, hunger,
Speaker 3: poverty in Iraq after the invasion, let alone they spin
Speaker 3: out with isis the huge security threats in the countries
Speaker 3: of this day? Who would wish that on the people
Speaker 3: of Iran? What I have been noticing is that even
Speaker 3: people who have been terribly persecuted by the Iranian regime
Speaker 3: have come out in social media and so please do
Speaker 3: not bomb my country.
Speaker 4: This is not the way.
Speaker 3: Diplomacy is the way, and that's what we have to
Speaker 3: hang out for.
Speaker 4: I think there's another important point too.
Speaker 3: New Zealand has been for a very long time, half
Speaker 3: a century or more strong voice for nuclear disarmament. We
Speaker 3: don't support actually anyone having a nuclear weapon. The five
Speaker 3: permanent members of the Security Council have them the other
Speaker 3: acknowledged club. But India, Pakistan, Democratic Republican, North Korea so
Speaker 3: called have nuclear capacity. Iran it has not been demonstrated,
Speaker 3: but it could go that way, which is what.
Speaker 4: The inspections have been about.
Speaker 3: Israel is estimated to have some ninety plutonium based nuclear
Speaker 3: warheads and enough plutonium for one hundred to two hundred weapons.
Speaker 3: In other words, in this context in the Middle East,
Speaker 3: this war is like putting a match to dynamite.
Speaker 4: We do not know what could happen.
Speaker 7: We talked about a lot of subjects. We talked about
Speaker 7: the importance for the United States and New Zealand to
Speaker 7: work cooperatively and helping democracy in places like Afghanistan. We
Speaker 7: talked about North Korea and Iran, our mutual desire for
Speaker 7: these problems of our nation's wanting to have nuclear weapons
Speaker 7: to be solved in a peaceful way by using the
Speaker 7: diplomatic process.
Speaker 1: All in all, I.
Speaker 7: Found to be a construct for conversation, such a good conversation.
Speaker 7: I've decided to invite her for lunch.
Speaker 2: And you've been in the room when these kind of
Speaker 2: talks have happened in the past. Is there anything to
Speaker 2: suggest here that there is some kind of intelligence about
Speaker 2: that Iran was further along in its manufacture of nuclear
Speaker 2: weapons than perhaps we're led on to believe.
Speaker 3: So let's have some context here. Back in the twenty tens,
Speaker 3: United States and the Europeans negotiated with Iran a joint
Speaker 3: and comprehensive program of action through which Iran agreed to
Speaker 3: limit its nuclear program in return for relief from sanctions.
Speaker 4: When President Trump came to office, he scuttled that agreement
Speaker 4: in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3: Now, the International Atomic Energy Agency has continued to carry
Speaker 3: out its inspections for the best that it can in Iran,
Speaker 3: but it did report on the twelfth of June that
Speaker 3: Iran was not responding with adequate explanations about its nuclear materials,
Speaker 3: and they haven't really had adequate site access either, So
Speaker 3: that's a concern, but that is a very different matter
Speaker 3: from saying though on the brink of firing a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3: I would also point out that Israel is not a
Speaker 3: signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty, so the International Atomic
Speaker 3: Energy Agency never reports on Israel's nuclear program because it
Speaker 3: has no capacity to.
Speaker 2: Does this kind of show the flaws with the United Nations?
Speaker 2: If there's a charter that can be broken and ignored
Speaker 2: so easily by a permanent member of the Security Council,
Speaker 2: is there a point to the organization?
Speaker 3: We're in a very very fragile position with the multilateral system. Now,
Speaker 3: look on the Security Council you have Russia sitting, which
Speaker 3: invaded Ukraine, totally illegal under international law and a breach
Speaker 3: to the UN Charter. This bombing now by the United
Speaker 3: States of Iran will also be deemed illegal under international law.
Speaker 3: So if those who hold the veto on the Security
Speaker 3: Council willfully breach international law, what hope for the rest
Speaker 3: of US and for New Zealand, which has always stood
Speaker 3: by international law because as a small state.
Speaker 4: That's all we've got. That's all we've got.
Speaker 3: It is extremely worrying and we need to be holding
Speaker 3: hands with a vast majority of the world's countries who
Speaker 3: are appalled by this, because most of them don't have
Speaker 3: much might either and do depend on an international order
Speaker 3: based on international law.
Speaker 2: It does seem quite archaic that the Five Countries can
Speaker 2: veto decisions, you know, like a call for peace in Ukraine,
Speaker 2: for example, can obviously.
Speaker 1: Be vetoed by Russia.
Speaker 4: Can that be changed, well, yes it should.
Speaker 3: And again New Zealand can hold its head high because
Speaker 3: going back to the drafting of the UN Charter in
Speaker 3: ninety forty five, Peter Fraser, leading the New Zealand delegation
Speaker 3: as Prime Minister, stood out against the veto. Now, I
Speaker 3: think we ended up with a veto because the League
Speaker 3: of Nations, which had failed to stop World War II
Speaker 3: and had gone out of business. The Americans were never
Speaker 3: a member of it, and it seemed that the only
Speaker 3: way the Americans were going to come into the UN
Speaker 3: was have a veto right in the Security Council. But
Speaker 3: here we are, you know, this is the eightieth year
Speaker 3: of the UN Charter. Here we are the five victor
Speaker 3: countries from World War II have a veto. To this day,
Speaker 3: they are using it in a way which also was
Speaker 3: not envisaged by the UN Charter, which is that there
Speaker 3: should not be its use where the matter at hand
Speaker 3: directly concerns the country casting the vito. But that course
Speaker 3: is all lost in the mist of time. So we
Speaker 3: have a security Council that's highly polarized, highly dysfunctional, and
Speaker 3: unable to make a useful contribution to international peace and security.
Speaker 1: Helen, if Christopher Luxen called you tomorrow asking for your
Speaker 1: advice on what New Zealand should do next in this situation,
Speaker 1: what would that be?
Speaker 3: What I would say is have New Zealand's voice firmly
Speaker 3: heard for international law and for a return to diplomacy, quickly,
Speaker 3: call for the cease fire, core for the negotiations, called
Speaker 3: for disarmament as we always have, put your stake in
Speaker 3: the ground and what New Zealand's stood for for a
Speaker 3: very long time.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Helen.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
Speaker 2: can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
Speaker 2: at enzdherld.
Speaker 1: Dot co dot nz.
Speaker 2: The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who.
Speaker 1: Is also our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2: Subscribe to the front page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
Speaker 2: get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
Speaker 2: behind the headlines.