March 7, 2026 • 20 mins
One week on, the war in Iran is progressing by the day.
In the latest, the United States are gearing up to potentially send ground troops into Iran, Australia is considering whether they should send in troops, and New Zealand supports the US but won't involve itself any further.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'd be so yes. One week on and the war
in Iran is progressing by the day and expanding. In
the latest the United States are gearing up to potentially
send ground troops into Iran. Australia is considering whether they
should send in troops in New Zealand, while New Zealand
supports the US but won't involve itself any further. At
this stage, do we have a duty to our allies?
Where does it go from here? And if our neighbors
(00:31):
across the ditch send their troops and we'll be faced
with the decision. Of course, and former Prime Minister Helen
Clark thinks New Zealand should refrain from even expressing support
for a US lead invasion for the US lead invasion
of Iran, and Helen is with me now, good afternoon.
Of course, you've been very critical of the legality of
the strikes. I just wonder could you have you're speaking
(00:54):
as a former prime minister. Could you have spoken this
bluntly if you were currently Prime minister? Or is it
somewhat easier there more license once you've got out of office.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
We were presented with a similar situation in two thousand
and three. There was quite a long lead up to
the invasion of the United States, which was supported directly
by the US, Australia, the United Kingdom and the Spanish
Conservative government of the time. We made it very clear
that we could not support the war on Iraq. We
(01:29):
made the same points as I made in the last week,
saying no one like Saddam Hussein or who's government, just
as no one in New Zealand liked the Ayahtola and
the regime. That wasn't the point. In order to invade
another country, A couple of things have to be in order.
(01:49):
One of them is that there is an imminent threat
of attack against you. There wasn't end the story. There
was not an imminent a threat of attack. Therefore the
defense under international law of self defense in the face
of an attack didn't occur. Now. Secondly, the UN Security
(02:11):
Council needs to say not only never approved this war,
but did not even have the issue put to it.
In two thousand and three, the US was persuaded by
the UK that it should go down a Security Council route,
and they did. But when they didn't get security Council
or support they caused the war anyway. So you know,
(02:34):
back in two thousand and three, little of New Zealand
and Canada, I might say, Jean Credy and the Canadian
Prime Minister, if I was strongly about this, as I did,
and our governments felt the same, we said, we can't
support this. We cannot support this, there's no authorization for it,
there's no eminent threat of attack. So yes, if I've
been in government today, I would have been taking the
(02:57):
same position as two thousand and three.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
I guess I did want to just throw in a
reminder that we do have a fairly capricious president in
the White House right now, which does I think that
those days, I would argue that maybe there was a
bit more room for you to dissent without it causing
major problems for us.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
No, it was mean, it was a no brainer for
us to take the position we did. Look, I was
a student at the time of the Vietnam War. I
you know, had a dim recollection from my high school
days of our history teacher discussing with us the war
in Vietnam, which New Zealand should never have entered, and
I ended up being part of the generation that supported
(03:38):
Norman Kirk's Labor government coming to power because they were
going to pull the troops out of Vietnam. So, you know,
Labour's got a long history and form on standing up
on these sorts of issues against wars which are not
supported by a Security Council authorization. Now, in two thousand
and three, look, let's face it, it made for a
pretty frosty atmosphere with Washington d C. Very frosty indeed,
(04:04):
and was in the aftermath of nine to eleven, and
the US had had a reasonably easy pushover of the Taliban,
who of course were no match for the armed might
of the United States at the time. But you know,
look back and say, what did twenty years of war
(04:27):
on Afghanistan achief? What what's the last twenty years of
you know, for Iraq achieved. You know, if you put
a foot into the politics in the Middle East like this,
I fear it's not going to end well for anyone.
And you know, tragically a lot of people will be killed.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Some you know that have would would read arguments against
your position, and there was one in the Herald Human
by a lawyer Samira ta Garbia, well, an.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Iranian whose refugee states in New Zealand and I understand
about the nature of the regime, but that's not a
point for an illegal war in the face of no
imminent threat to those waging this war.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
But the point do these people have a point when
they say that focusing on this legality ignores the reality
of the Iranian regime and that's repression. So what I
mean is, if you were to wait for the Security Council,
with the right of veto and all that sort of stuff,
you can wait a long time and get nowhere.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
You know. My answer to that, tim is there are
any number of pretty nasty governments around the world which
breach human rights on a daily basis. If the West
were to work itself up into a paddy against each
of them the way it has against Iran, we would
(05:53):
be in perpetual war on many fronts. I am a
bit surprised that, frankly, countries haven't used the what's called
the responsibility to protect approach more with respect to Iran.
There's been a lot of focus on the new clear iss.
I'll come back to that, but there is a responsibility
to protect procedure where the Security Council will authorize a
(06:18):
range of measures. Now it's not easy because just as
the US protects Israel, it's proxy. So Russia and others
have given some protection to Iran, but that hasn't stopped
some measures under responsibility to protect being taken. And clearly
(06:38):
there's justification for that approach. But if we go back
to the new clear issue. Back in the time of
President Obama, his people John Kerry I think was Foreign Secretary,
the Sexuary of State, and the European Union and UK negotiators,
they negotiated an agreement, a joint Comprehensive Program on the
(07:04):
nuclear issues, where the technical phrase was with Iran, which
limited Iran's nuclear capacity, stopped it enriching to nuclear weapons
grade material, but gave it the ability to develop nuclear power, etc. Now,
when President Trump came to office that agreement, which had
(07:24):
been endorsed by the UN Security Council, he pulled out
of the agreement and the rest is history. You know,
we've been on the back foot as a world on
the Iranian nuclear issue ever since. And then President Trump
sent in his son in law and his old friend,
real estate developer Steve Whitcoff, allegedly to negotiate a new
(07:45):
nuclear deal with Iran. Now they were negotiating, facilitated by
the government of Oman, a mother of the Gulf States.
By all accounts, they were making progress. The Foreign Minister
of the Maan went to Washington, d C. May even
still have been there when Israel attacked with the US
and Port last weekend. So, you know, to attack in
(08:08):
the middle of talks, which purportedly we're trying to get
back to some sort of nuclear deal is particularly reprehensible.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
He actually mentioned Israel being the United States proxy. I
always must wonder if not that it's the other way around.
But we did hear Mark Aribio saying we had to
strike because Israel were going to which seems strange. But
how much of this do you think is driven by
Benjamin Nett and Yahoo rather than by Trump and his administration.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Well, it was an extraordinary statement from Marco Arrubia, and
it reminds us of the anecdotal story. But I think
this actually happened to Bill Clinton, who, after a particularly
stormy meeting when he was president with Prime Minister Nasenjer
who apparently said to his who left, who the hell
is the souper around here? To the Secretary State to say, well,
(09:11):
we had to join this because if they'd done it,
we might have been attacked anyway. So we had to
get in on the front foot. I mean, who is
leading here? You are what you get? Well, my guess
is Israel's calling the shots extraordinary.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
I mean it's mine as well, because I mean Trump
seems to be enamored with with net Yahoo as well.
But okay, what about now that we're now that it's started,
we're to from here because you know, the genie is
out of the bottle. I guess you're not going to
put the lid back on what what happens from here?
Speaker 3 (09:53):
Well, I mean, look, one one would have to be
a bit surprised as the Americans put boots on the ground.
As I say, the Iraq War, you know a lot
of people eventually lost, very difficult same in Afghanistan. You know,
(10:15):
the Iranian regime, whether people like it or not, it
seems to be quite resilient. I mean they do have
an army, they do have revolutionary guards. Yes, the number
of commanders, generals whatever been taken out, but you know
they're not going to people aren't going to stand passively
by someone who base their country and it seems that,
(10:36):
you know, all the commentary I'm reading is saying that
the opposition in Iran is very fragmented. You've got opposition
from different ethnic minorities. So there are the Kurds, there
are the Azeris, there are relatively small pile of the
population is Sunnis. There's different routes, but there's not an
(11:00):
organized opposition between each of these. And then you know
the sort of nascent political opposition, and you know political oppositions.
Some will support the son of the former shar but
others won't. So it's not like you've got a sort
of unified national liberation movement that's waiting to move in.
(11:22):
It's very disorganized, So you ask yourself, how will this end? Now?
Some are starting to say that, you know, President Trump
is entirely capable of declaring victory and saying it's over
when he fills his bombs enough sides, and he may
(11:42):
do that at the point where the markets go completely
to custard, where the Europeans are run out of out
of gas, where the golf economies, which depends so much
on their airline hubs and airline industry, terrorism expats buying
expensive property, and the rest of it when they say help,
(12:03):
you know, we're just we're not coping here, We're going under.
So you know, that combination of factors could lead to
him declaring victory and moving somewhere else. I mean, there's
been bold talk about Cuba in recent days. For example,
we might go back to Greenland. You just don't know
which course this is going to take.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
And we get a lot of correspondence on the show
just you know, looking at the human rights of uses
in Iran and they're backing for Hesballo and her mass
under what circumstances would you, as Prime Minister, if you
were today, actually back military intervention against Iran?
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Well, in any context. New Zealand's position has been for
many years that you know, the Security Council has the
authority on this unless a state can demonstrate in the
threat of attack, which requires self defense.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
So when we see the human rights abuses, and that's
one of the things that you know, activates a lot
of the discussion around this, it's like, well do we
just sit by because you know there's never you know,
if there's no iminent threat around and can continue to
do what it does and fund you know, back terrorist organizations.
I mean, there's the question about whether we should even
why we haven't designated the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
(13:32):
What's your response to that? You know that, but you see, Have.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
We invaded Saudi Arabia because it in turns women's rights activists?
Have we invaded Cameroon where there's many human rights abuses
and ongoing repression of Anglophone speakers? Have we invaded the
countries in the hell of military regimes which are repressing people.
(14:00):
Have we invaded North Korea? I mean, there's a very
long list. Are we going to invade Uganda, which just
had a crook election and the leader of the oppositions
in hiding. Are we going to invade Zimbabwe where the
presidents trying to declare himself president for life? I mean,
you know, yes, the Iranian regime is a very unpleasant one,
(14:22):
but there are a lot of them.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
What about that sponsorship of terrorism, I guess with Hamasan
has Ballo, does that make it any different to the
other ones which you've quote mentioned.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
Well, you know, again, sadly, they're not the only country
which fostered terrorist groups to do their bidding. I mean, look,
it's fairly well documented that the United Arab Emirates has
been very directly supporting this vile RSS paramilitary in Sudan,
(14:56):
which has again been killing people by the thousand and
Darfur in western Sudan on the Chad border. This is
an America, a Western out hi directly funding a genocidal militia.
No one's you know, none of the Western countries have
stepped up to go to the Security Council and call
out United Arab Emirates, and we're all happy to fly
(15:18):
on their planes. So you know, there's a level of
double standard and hypocrisy about this, and I think we
need to come back to what is international law, what's
international humanitarian law, what's human rights law, and start to
look at the mechanisms that we have, like the responsibility
to protect and working up more cases under those procedures
(15:41):
to bring these cases directly before the Security Council.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
I don't want to broaden it out too much, but
do you think there's room for some reform.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Of the way.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
I mean, I'm not sure if it's ever realistic for
reform of the UN and the way decisions are made,
because those those powers of veto can mean that the
UN's you know, everyone gets together and sees how much
they hate each other and nothing much happens.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Well, of course it needs reform, you know, New Zealand,
across all governments, has called for reform. New Zealand has
never liked the VITA for this day. New Zealand's never
supported a reform which would bring in more countries with
a veto par to the Security Council, which would make
the paralysis worse. But something that has been interesting in
(16:24):
recent years is that where the Security Council hasn't been
able to act because, for example, in the War on Ukraine,
another illegal war which we have spoken out on, in
that case, Russia has blocked accedent the Security Council. In
the case of Israel's really atrocious behavior and Gata, which
(16:46):
some of us have called genocidal, the US has protected
Israel from Security Council resolutions. But what's happened is then
the General Assembly has taken up the issue, and the
General Assembly, by majorities and sometimes very large majorities, has
spoken out. So you start to raise awareness, you know,
(17:07):
put more pressure on the perpetrators. That you don't get
instant results from this because the General Assembly doesn't have
enforcement power, but you start to turn the tide on
public opinion.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Do you have a little bit of I know you've
been critical of Christopher Luxen and he stumbled around a
bit with the answer. Is a part of you that's
got a bit of sympathy for the position he finds
himself in and he doesn't want a capricious president shoving
on an extra ten percent of tariffs and then taking
the blame for that. Do you have some sympathy for
where he's in the situation he's in at the moment?
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Well, unfortunately, I think he's been found wanting, you know,
the columnists united and saying in effect that this is
a time for political leadership. We have very very difficult
road ahead now with how this war is affecting the
global economy, which affects US. I mean, petrolprice are going
(18:02):
to go up the pump. This is going to put
up the the price of food because our farming industry
is transport, everything depends on it will affect the cost
of living. You know, we need a steady hand on
the tiller and the verdict increasingly is that our current
Prime minister can't provide that. So, unfortunately, I think he's
(18:24):
put himself in a very difficult position by not understanding
the brief, not being able to articulate a position.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Actually, I do have one other last question based on
the comments about Netanya who maybe having driven some of this,
which would tell me that there's no end in sight,
because if Netanya Who's behind this, then he'll really want
to make sure that as much of Iran's military are
totally flattened.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Yes, but of course he doesn't have anything like the
US Army to even consider boots on the ground right,
so he needs US cooperation and President Trump has shown
the past he's prepared to slap him down, you know,
if that's the mood of the day. I mean, Natan
Yahoo didn't want the ceasefire and Gaza either, and while
(19:10):
it hasn't been a total success, it's not a total
failure either. So I think in the end Trump will
make a call that he's had enough because you know,
the Golf Arab economies will be suffering so much. The
Europeans will be saying, heavens, you know, we need LNG.
We can't can't get them from the Russians. Now, we
can't get the gas from from the from the golf
(19:31):
and Wall Street, and you know the London Stock Exchange
and Frank further and the Paris Bulls that will all
be speaking, and at that point he could declare victory.
So but of course that could be for now. But
that's not going to stop the Israeli bombing raids or
the occasional one from the US. But I mean, you know,
(19:51):
I you know, I hope I'm right on what I'm saying,
But I whether the US is really prepared to wade
in with boots on the ground seems a bit doubtful.
That would suggest that no lessons have been learned from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Yeah, Helen, I really appreciate your time on this stafone.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talks edb weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'd be so yes. One week on and the war
in Iran is progressing by the day and expanding. In
the latest the United States are gearing up to potentially
send ground troops into Iran. Australia is considering whether they
should send in troops in New Zealand, while New Zealand
supports the US but won't involve itself any further. At
this stage, do we have a duty to our allies?
Where does it go from here? And if our neighbors
(00:31):
across the ditch send their troops and we'll be faced
with the decision. Of course, and former Prime Minister Helen
Clark thinks New Zealand should refrain from even expressing support
for a US lead invasion for the US lead invasion
of Iran, and Helen is with me now, good afternoon.
Of course, you've been very critical of the legality of
the strikes. I just wonder could you have you're speaking
(00:54):
as a former prime minister. Could you have spoken this
bluntly if you were currently Prime minister? Or is it
somewhat easier there more license once you've got out of office.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
We were presented with a similar situation in two thousand
and three. There was quite a long lead up to
the invasion of the United States, which was supported directly
by the US, Australia, the United Kingdom and the Spanish
Conservative government of the time. We made it very clear
that we could not support the war on Iraq. We
(01:29):
made the same points as I made in the last week,
saying no one like Saddam Hussein or who's government, just
as no one in New Zealand liked the Ayahtola and
the regime. That wasn't the point. In order to invade
another country, A couple of things have to be in order.
(01:49):
One of them is that there is an imminent threat
of attack against you. There wasn't end the story. There
was not an imminent a threat of attack. Therefore the
defense under international law of self defense in the face
of an attack didn't occur. Now. Secondly, the UN Security
(02:11):
Council needs to say not only never approved this war,
but did not even have the issue put to it.
In two thousand and three, the US was persuaded by
the UK that it should go down a Security Council route,
and they did. But when they didn't get security Council
or support they caused the war anyway. So you know,
(02:34):
back in two thousand and three, little of New Zealand
and Canada, I might say, Jean Credy and the Canadian
Prime Minister, if I was strongly about this, as I did,
and our governments felt the same, we said, we can't
support this. We cannot support this, there's no authorization for it,
there's no eminent threat of attack. So yes, if I've
been in government today, I would have been taking the
(02:57):
same position as two thousand and three.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
I guess I did want to just throw in a
reminder that we do have a fairly capricious president in
the White House right now, which does I think that
those days, I would argue that maybe there was a
bit more room for you to dissent without it causing
major problems for us.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
No, it was mean, it was a no brainer for
us to take the position we did. Look, I was
a student at the time of the Vietnam War. I
you know, had a dim recollection from my high school
days of our history teacher discussing with us the war
in Vietnam, which New Zealand should never have entered, and
I ended up being part of the generation that supported
(03:38):
Norman Kirk's Labor government coming to power because they were
going to pull the troops out of Vietnam. So, you know,
Labour's got a long history and form on standing up
on these sorts of issues against wars which are not
supported by a Security Council authorization. Now, in two thousand
and three, look, let's face it, it made for a
pretty frosty atmosphere with Washington d C. Very frosty indeed,
(04:04):
and was in the aftermath of nine to eleven, and
the US had had a reasonably easy pushover of the Taliban,
who of course were no match for the armed might
of the United States at the time. But you know,
look back and say, what did twenty years of war
(04:27):
on Afghanistan achief? What what's the last twenty years of
you know, for Iraq achieved. You know, if you put
a foot into the politics in the Middle East like this,
I fear it's not going to end well for anyone.
And you know, tragically a lot of people will be killed.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Some you know that have would would read arguments against
your position, and there was one in the Herald Human
by a lawyer Samira ta Garbia, well, an.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Iranian whose refugee states in New Zealand and I understand
about the nature of the regime, but that's not a
point for an illegal war in the face of no
imminent threat to those waging this war.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
But the point do these people have a point when
they say that focusing on this legality ignores the reality
of the Iranian regime and that's repression. So what I
mean is, if you were to wait for the Security Council,
with the right of veto and all that sort of stuff,
you can wait a long time and get nowhere.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
You know. My answer to that, tim is there are
any number of pretty nasty governments around the world which
breach human rights on a daily basis. If the West
were to work itself up into a paddy against each
of them the way it has against Iran, we would
(05:53):
be in perpetual war on many fronts. I am a
bit surprised that, frankly, countries haven't used the what's called
the responsibility to protect approach more with respect to Iran.
There's been a lot of focus on the new clear iss.
I'll come back to that, but there is a responsibility
to protect procedure where the Security Council will authorize a
(06:18):
range of measures. Now it's not easy because just as
the US protects Israel, it's proxy. So Russia and others
have given some protection to Iran, but that hasn't stopped
some measures under responsibility to protect being taken. And clearly
(06:38):
there's justification for that approach. But if we go back
to the new clear issue. Back in the time of
President Obama, his people John Kerry I think was Foreign Secretary,
the Sexuary of State, and the European Union and UK negotiators,
they negotiated an agreement, a joint Comprehensive Program on the
(07:04):
nuclear issues, where the technical phrase was with Iran, which
limited Iran's nuclear capacity, stopped it enriching to nuclear weapons
grade material, but gave it the ability to develop nuclear power, etc. Now,
when President Trump came to office that agreement, which had
(07:24):
been endorsed by the UN Security Council, he pulled out
of the agreement and the rest is history. You know,
we've been on the back foot as a world on
the Iranian nuclear issue ever since. And then President Trump
sent in his son in law and his old friend,
real estate developer Steve Whitcoff, allegedly to negotiate a new
(07:45):
nuclear deal with Iran. Now they were negotiating, facilitated by
the government of Oman, a mother of the Gulf States.
By all accounts, they were making progress. The Foreign Minister
of the Maan went to Washington, d C. May even
still have been there when Israel attacked with the US
and Port last weekend. So, you know, to attack in
(08:08):
the middle of talks, which purportedly we're trying to get
back to some sort of nuclear deal is particularly reprehensible.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
He actually mentioned Israel being the United States proxy. I
always must wonder if not that it's the other way around.
But we did hear Mark Aribio saying we had to
strike because Israel were going to which seems strange. But
how much of this do you think is driven by
Benjamin Nett and Yahoo rather than by Trump and his administration.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Well, it was an extraordinary statement from Marco Arrubia, and
it reminds us of the anecdotal story. But I think
this actually happened to Bill Clinton, who, after a particularly
stormy meeting when he was president with Prime Minister Nasenjer
who apparently said to his who left, who the hell
is the souper around here? To the Secretary State to say, well,
(09:11):
we had to join this because if they'd done it,
we might have been attacked anyway. So we had to
get in on the front foot. I mean, who is
leading here? You are what you get? Well, my guess
is Israel's calling the shots extraordinary.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
I mean it's mine as well, because I mean Trump
seems to be enamored with with net Yahoo as well.
But okay, what about now that we're now that it's started,
we're to from here because you know, the genie is
out of the bottle. I guess you're not going to
put the lid back on what what happens from here?
Speaker 3 (09:53):
Well, I mean, look, one one would have to be
a bit surprised as the Americans put boots on the ground.
As I say, the Iraq War, you know a lot
of people eventually lost, very difficult same in Afghanistan. You know,
(10:15):
the Iranian regime, whether people like it or not, it
seems to be quite resilient. I mean they do have
an army, they do have revolutionary guards. Yes, the number
of commanders, generals whatever been taken out, but you know
they're not going to people aren't going to stand passively
by someone who base their country and it seems that,
(10:36):
you know, all the commentary I'm reading is saying that
the opposition in Iran is very fragmented. You've got opposition
from different ethnic minorities. So there are the Kurds, there
are the Azeris, there are relatively small pile of the
population is Sunnis. There's different routes, but there's not an
(11:00):
organized opposition between each of these. And then you know
the sort of nascent political opposition, and you know political oppositions.
Some will support the son of the former shar but
others won't. So it's not like you've got a sort
of unified national liberation movement that's waiting to move in.
(11:22):
It's very disorganized, So you ask yourself, how will this end? Now?
Some are starting to say that, you know, President Trump
is entirely capable of declaring victory and saying it's over
when he fills his bombs enough sides, and he may
(11:42):
do that at the point where the markets go completely
to custard, where the Europeans are run out of out
of gas, where the golf economies, which depends so much
on their airline hubs and airline industry, terrorism expats buying
expensive property, and the rest of it when they say help,
(12:03):
you know, we're just we're not coping here, We're going under.
So you know, that combination of factors could lead to
him declaring victory and moving somewhere else. I mean, there's
been bold talk about Cuba in recent days. For example,
we might go back to Greenland. You just don't know
which course this is going to take.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
And we get a lot of correspondence on the show
just you know, looking at the human rights of uses
in Iran and they're backing for Hesballo and her mass
under what circumstances would you, as Prime Minister, if you
were today, actually back military intervention against Iran?
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Well, in any context. New Zealand's position has been for
many years that you know, the Security Council has the
authority on this unless a state can demonstrate in the
threat of attack, which requires self defense.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
So when we see the human rights abuses, and that's
one of the things that you know, activates a lot
of the discussion around this, it's like, well do we
just sit by because you know there's never you know,
if there's no iminent threat around and can continue to
do what it does and fund you know, back terrorist organizations.
I mean, there's the question about whether we should even
why we haven't designated the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
(13:32):
What's your response to that? You know that, but you see, Have.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
We invaded Saudi Arabia because it in turns women's rights activists?
Have we invaded Cameroon where there's many human rights abuses
and ongoing repression of Anglophone speakers? Have we invaded the
countries in the hell of military regimes which are repressing people.
(14:00):
Have we invaded North Korea? I mean, there's a very
long list. Are we going to invade Uganda, which just
had a crook election and the leader of the oppositions
in hiding. Are we going to invade Zimbabwe where the
presidents trying to declare himself president for life? I mean,
you know, yes, the Iranian regime is a very unpleasant one,
(14:22):
but there are a lot of them.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
What about that sponsorship of terrorism, I guess with Hamasan
has Ballo, does that make it any different to the
other ones which you've quote mentioned.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
Well, you know, again, sadly, they're not the only country
which fostered terrorist groups to do their bidding. I mean, look,
it's fairly well documented that the United Arab Emirates has
been very directly supporting this vile RSS paramilitary in Sudan,
(14:56):
which has again been killing people by the thousand and
Darfur in western Sudan on the Chad border. This is
an America, a Western out hi directly funding a genocidal militia.
No one's you know, none of the Western countries have
stepped up to go to the Security Council and call
out United Arab Emirates, and we're all happy to fly
(15:18):
on their planes. So you know, there's a level of
double standard and hypocrisy about this, and I think we
need to come back to what is international law, what's
international humanitarian law, what's human rights law, and start to
look at the mechanisms that we have, like the responsibility
to protect and working up more cases under those procedures
(15:41):
to bring these cases directly before the Security Council.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
I don't want to broaden it out too much, but
do you think there's room for some reform.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Of the way.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
I mean, I'm not sure if it's ever realistic for
reform of the UN and the way decisions are made,
because those those powers of veto can mean that the
UN's you know, everyone gets together and sees how much
they hate each other and nothing much happens.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Well, of course it needs reform, you know, New Zealand,
across all governments, has called for reform. New Zealand has
never liked the VITA for this day. New Zealand's never
supported a reform which would bring in more countries with
a veto par to the Security Council, which would make
the paralysis worse. But something that has been interesting in
(16:24):
recent years is that where the Security Council hasn't been
able to act because, for example, in the War on Ukraine,
another illegal war which we have spoken out on, in
that case, Russia has blocked accedent the Security Council. In
the case of Israel's really atrocious behavior and Gata, which
(16:46):
some of us have called genocidal, the US has protected
Israel from Security Council resolutions. But what's happened is then
the General Assembly has taken up the issue, and the
General Assembly, by majorities and sometimes very large majorities, has
spoken out. So you start to raise awareness, you know,
(17:07):
put more pressure on the perpetrators. That you don't get
instant results from this because the General Assembly doesn't have
enforcement power, but you start to turn the tide on
public opinion.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Do you have a little bit of I know you've
been critical of Christopher Luxen and he stumbled around a
bit with the answer. Is a part of you that's
got a bit of sympathy for the position he finds
himself in and he doesn't want a capricious president shoving
on an extra ten percent of tariffs and then taking
the blame for that. Do you have some sympathy for
where he's in the situation he's in at the moment?
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Well, unfortunately, I think he's been found wanting, you know,
the columnists united and saying in effect that this is
a time for political leadership. We have very very difficult
road ahead now with how this war is affecting the
global economy, which affects US. I mean, petrolprice are going
(18:02):
to go up the pump. This is going to put
up the the price of food because our farming industry
is transport, everything depends on it will affect the cost
of living. You know, we need a steady hand on
the tiller and the verdict increasingly is that our current
Prime minister can't provide that. So, unfortunately, I think he's
(18:24):
put himself in a very difficult position by not understanding
the brief, not being able to articulate a position.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Actually, I do have one other last question based on
the comments about Netanya who maybe having driven some of this,
which would tell me that there's no end in sight,
because if Netanya Who's behind this, then he'll really want
to make sure that as much of Iran's military are
totally flattened.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Yes, but of course he doesn't have anything like the
US Army to even consider boots on the ground right,
so he needs US cooperation and President Trump has shown
the past he's prepared to slap him down, you know,
if that's the mood of the day. I mean, Natan
Yahoo didn't want the ceasefire and Gaza either, and while
(19:10):
it hasn't been a total success, it's not a total
failure either. So I think in the end Trump will
make a call that he's had enough because you know,
the Golf Arab economies will be suffering so much. The
Europeans will be saying, heavens, you know, we need LNG.
We can't can't get them from the Russians. Now, we
can't get the gas from from the from the golf
(19:31):
and Wall Street, and you know the London Stock Exchange
and Frank further and the Paris Bulls that will all
be speaking, and at that point he could declare victory.
So but of course that could be for now. But
that's not going to stop the Israeli bombing raids or
the occasional one from the US. But I mean, you know,
(19:51):
I you know, I hope I'm right on what I'm saying,
But I whether the US is really prepared to wade
in with boots on the ground seems a bit doubtful.
That would suggest that no lessons have been learned from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Yeah, Helen, I really appreciate your time on this stafone.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talks edb weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe
When a group of women from all over the country realise they all dated the same prolific romance scammer they vow to bring him to justice. In this brand new season of global number 1 hit podcast, The Girlfriends, Anna Sinfield meets a group of funny, feisty, determined women who all had the misfortune of dating a mysterious man named Derek Alldred. Trust Me Babe is a story about the protective forces of gossip, gut instinct, and trusting your besties and the group of women who took matters into their own hands to take down a fraudster when no one else would listen. If you’re affected by any of the themes in this show, our charity partners NO MORE have available resources at https://www.nomore.org. To learn more about romance scams, and to access specialised support, visit https://fightcybercrime.org/ The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe is produced by Novel for iHeartPodcasts. For more from Novel, visit https://novel.audio/. You can listen to new episodes of The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe completely ad-free and 1 week early with an iHeart True Crime+ subscription, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. Open your Apple Podcasts app, search for “iHeart True Crime+, and subscribe today!