Graham Kennedy: Debate on Prime Minister’s StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement[Sitting date: 12 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1567. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):The Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday was steady as she goes. Setting aside the ribald and irrelevant commentary that peppers his deliveries to the House these days Mr Key strove to provide the usual reassurances to the New Zealand people: sound fiscal management support for business entrepreneurship State sector reform and earthquake recovery. We have been on the receiving end of this for 5 years now. It has become a mantra; a form of hypnopaedia—a National lullaby for those who wish to be reassured to retire to bed secure in the knowledge that our nation is in good hands.There was no penetrating and insightful comment on the global situation. Let us consider what the Prime Minister had to say about the world out there. First our tenure on the Security Council places us he observed “at the heart of international decision making.” New Zealand is determined he said to “effect real change” on the council. “We have” he said “already demonstrated our willingness to be a strong independent voice”. This comes a week after he advised the BBC and thus the world that contributing military training to Iraq is the price of the club. “Ultimately” he told the world “are we going to say we are going to be part of a club like [we] are with the Five Eyes intelligence? Are we ultimately going to be able to rely on members of those clubs to support us in our moment of need?”. Unless there be any uncertainly as to the nature of the club the Prime Minister drawing himself up to the full height of responsible global citizenship added: “And we do know that when it comes to the United States and Canada and Australia and Great Britain and others that we can rely on them.” And what can we contribute? Well not much but a bit. He said: “Even if the contribution is small—of course it will be proportional—there has to be some contribution. It is the price of the club.”The Prime Minister merged his BBC interview in London with a side trip to Davos where his favourite club of clubs—the global business elite—tolerated his presence. He was accompanied there by his “Minister for Trade and Dangerous Climate Change” Tim Groser who said in the House last year that New Zealand was now being accepted in “the big boys’ club” through his personal participation in the G20 and the World Economic Forum. This kind of diplomacy titillates our national leader fresh from Christchurch aspiration and London currency markets where club membership is indeed the passport to financial and political power. As a result 6 years into the John Key Government the nation’s foreign policy is characterised by a certain “clubbiness”. Congratulations and prizes to the nation’s two top club members.There is a self-evident contradiction—a logical mistake—being made here. We cannot say there has to be a contribution as the price of the club and then say we are independent. Not even my 10-year-old granddaughter would buy that line nor her 8-year-old sister. They were not born yesterday. I am not sure about their 3-year-old cousin but I would not want to subject the Prime Minister to his wrath so I would advise him to think carefully before double-speaking to the sons and daughters of this country. The price of the club is the price of the club. That price is providing troops to war-torn and weary places in response to pressure from the leaders of the club even when we are privately in doubt—even when we say they are there for training. This is how the Americans kicked off in Viet Nam 50 years ago. And if we are frantically shoring up Iraq’s army today has any club member asked the grand leader why it saw such wisdom and vision 12 years ago in dismantling it?I say to the Prime Minister that if you are an independent nation you are not beholden to a club—never. You abide by binding decisions of the United Nations. That is being part of the human family. The so-called club whose membership you value so highly and hold in such personal esteem illegally invaded the very country you are sending our troops to again. The US the UK and Australia illegally invaded Iraq in 2003. Some club! What to call it—the lawbreakers? And we did it ourselves once before that. Back in 1956 we were torn between two members of our club: Britain and Australia on the one hand and the leading club member the United States on the other.We sided with our closer cousins and invaded Egypt—also illegally. We got censured and condemned by the Security Council on behalf of the larger human family. We had to withdraw. It was a humiliating moment for the UK especially signifying the end of its global leadership. So we have a bit of a track record in sloping along inside the club into military misadventure. At least we had the wisdom back in 2003 not to follow the club into Iraq. There had not been an authorising Security Council resolution. A majority on the council including three permanent members opposed military intervention. Did this influence the leading club-ites? Not on your life—in they went. But today the club is fractured. Britain is not sending troops; just bombing from a height.Where is the authorising resolution for this military action in Iraq in 2015? Is it Resolution 2170? One permanent member says that that is not a basis for military action. Is it collective self-defence under article 51? A bit of a long shot. We are a member of the council now. We cannot do our usual thing and duck for cover. As a new member we are obliged to respect the council’s integrity. The Security Council is the ultimate club when it comes to this sort of thing not “Five Eyes”. Which club means the most to us—the “Five Eyes” espionage network or the 15-member Security Council whose primary job it is to ensure international peace and security? Let us get our club memberships sorted in order of priority having regard to the standards of global legitimacy.About 1000 years ago our first settlers arrived here. They were not members of John Key’s club. Almost two centuries ago our European forebears came here to leave the Victorian club back in the motherland. We are no longer members of the Anglo-Saxon club that illegally invaded Egypt 50 years ago. We are no longer members of the Pacific ANZUS club that got mired in Viet Nam raining napalm down on villages. We were never members of the trilateral club that invaded Iraq illegally 12 years ago. We are in fact or need to be an independent nation—considering the idea of a new flag to prove the point—that is never beholden to a club.If we are truly concerned by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—and we should be—then we might ask ourselves a few club questions of a broader kind. Are there any member States of the United Nations funding ISIL? If so do they include Saudi Arabia and Qatar? If so what might be the club’s response? What about the Security Council’s resolutions and its sanctions committees imposing obligations and penalties on member States financing terror groups? Why is the legal integrity of the intervention in Iraq not made clear by the UN Secretary-General based on the advice of his chief legal officer? Why does this Prime Minister not get a written opinion from his Attorney-General on the legality of any decision involving New Zealand troops in Iraq and table it in this Parliament so that the question can be debated?This is the time to remind people of the horrors of war and to outline a better path. Are our sons and daughters going into armed conflict so that this Prime Minister can be part of a club of some dubious legal distinction? Now is the time for New Zealand to show some courage of a new kind. We are on the Security Council. What are we doing there? Why are we not making the most of our membership there? Why are we not displaying our parliamentary interest in this by holding a debate specifically on the subject of sending troops to Iraq?