Graham Kennedy: General Debate 
Graham Kennedy: General Debate 
[Volume:656;Page:5679] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to address the decision of the Government last week to commit the SAS to Afghanistan. The decision to commit our armed forces has both a political and a legal dimension. The Government’s political explanation is that if Afghanistan remains a haven for terrorists the US-led operation is essential to contain the spread and we must play our part. In respect of the legal dimension the Government is coy. We are told that New Zealand always makes decisions consistent with international law so we must trust in that. Such bland patronisation of members of this House conveys a contempt that I am sure is not intended. 
The Minister of Foreign Affairs tells us the decision is in the national interest. But in formulating its policy the Government accords undue importance to political considerations and insufficient weight to the legal basis on which it rests. It therefore sees through a glass darkly unable to draw the subtle distinctions required in contemporary national security policy. The difference in approach is clear. The Government first formulates its political case and then dresses it in loose legal garb as a fashion statement. The Green Party judges the legal basis as a necessary condition and if that is met it considers the political wisdom of deployment. The difference reflects contrasting world views. We believe ours to be relevant to the 21st century. 
Afghanistan generates special confusion because it involves the vexed relationship between terrorism and armed conflict. In the 20th century terrorism was correctly perceived as a matter of criminality. But following 9/11 the world has been led to agree that it is matter of international security. Terrorism and security thus conflate into a single composite issue causing a loss of clarity and strategic vision by the superpower and therefore by the rest of us. 
The distinction still needs to be drawn between the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom. For reasons I set out on 17 June we judge the International Security Assistance Force which is a peace-building mission authorised by the United Nations Security Council to be legal in international law; Operation Enduring Freedom which is a counter-terrorism campaign is not. The UN has never explicitly authorised Operation Enduring Freedom. The Minister of Defence cited Resolution 1368 and Resolution 1373. But once the question of restoring peace to Afghanistan came under the operational purview of the Security Council as it did in December 2001 the right to continue military action in self-defence lapsed. Yet Operation Enduring Freedom continues to be prosecuted today by NATO beyond the strategic direction of the UN increasingly veiled in the twilight world between law and power. 
The trend of the last decade away from multilateral to hegemonic control of global security is evidenced in the fact that this latest request to New Zealand came not from the UN Secretary-General but the US Secretary of State. Yet New Zealand obediently responds to this 19th century call to arms. So where is the legal validation from the United Nations of this latest New Zealand deployment? Is an American request to deploy anywhere on the planet sufficient? Operation Enduring Freedom has recently been brought under the single hat of the US commander in Afghanistan along with the International Security Assistance Force. So in the name of peace-building we are now engaging in counter-insurgency and sliding into what is now a civil war retaining counter-terrorism to justify it. It is no wonder this Government is confused. 
I advance these comments more in sorrow than anger. I wish our SAS well and may they return home safely. The decision has been made. But let us draw a lesson for the future. The executive is obliged to show greater respect to this House. I therefore request the Government to confirm that henceforth all decisions of this kind will be prefaced with a legal advisory opinion that is tabled in this House. The executive no matter which party is in power owes the legislature this much.