Donald Trump has claimed that a ceasefire has been declared in the war between Israel and Iran.
Releasing a statement on Tuesday morning NZ time, Trump said there’d be a “complete and total ceasefire” in what he’s calling the “12 day war”.
He said the war “could have destroyed the entire Middle East” and “could have gone on for years” but claimed both Israel and Iran came to him “almost simultaneously” and said “PEACE!”
While there remains uncertainty about how long this ceasefire will last and how committed both sides are to it, there also remains questions about the legitimacy of the intelligence that sparked the targeting of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
To those familiar with how the Iraq War started, it does feel like a case of history repeating itself.
Former New Zealand Prime Minister and administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, Helen Clark, was instrumental in our country not engaging in that war.
She joined The Front Page on Monday afternoon, prior to the ceasefire deal being announced, to discuss her experiences with Middle East conflicts and what the world should be doing to bring lasting PEACE!
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kyota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Donald Trump
has claimed that a ceasefire has been declared in the
war between Israel and Iran. Releasing a statement on Tuesday
morning and z time, Trump said there'd be a complete
(00:28):
and total cease fire in what he's.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Calling the twelve day War.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
He also said the war could have destroyed the entire
Middle East and could have gone on for years, but
claimed both Israel and Iran came to him almost simultaneously
and said peace in all caps. While there remains uncertainty
about how long this ceasefire will last and how committed
(00:52):
both sides are to it, there also remains a question
about the legitimacy of the intelligence that sparked the targeting
of Iran's nuclear capabilities. To those familiar with how the
IRANQ war started, it does feel like a case of
history repeating itself. Former New Zealand Prime Minister and administrator
of the United Nations Development Program Helen Clark was instrumental
(01:16):
in our country not engaging in that war. She spoke
to the Front Page on Monday afternoon prior to the
ceasefire deal being announced to discuss her experiences with Middle
East conflicts and what the world should be doing to
bring lasting peace.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Helen, I guess I'm keen.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
To start with what your thoughts generally are on the
situation happening in the Middle East at the moment.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
It's a richest situation and very very threatening to all
of us, at least in terms of economic security.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
You have the oil exports.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Coming out of Saudi Arabia, uae Bar in Kuwait, Iraq, etc.
Heading through the Straits of Hormuz, and if the Straits
of hor Moos get closed, then you can just imagine
what is going to happen to oil prices and the
cost of living impact on that right through the value
chain of energy, transport, food processing and the rest of it.
(02:19):
So it's very very worry, let alone the possibility of
any more death and destruction on a daily basis.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
I think what's interesting about this case is it does
seem to bear some similarities to what we saw in
Iraq over twenty years ago, a war that you opposed
as Prime Minister of New Zealand. For our younger listeners
who don't remember that time, can you just remind us
of how that all started.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
You are right that there are parallels. There's two of
the same objectives with Iraq. The case that the US
made was that Iraq had weapons.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Of mass destruction.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Now what turned out to be the truth was that
the weapons they did have and had used in the
past had been destroyed after the First Golf War when
a UN process went in, So that was a false
basis for invasion. And the second objective was regime change,
and that those two objectives apply to the Saranian excursion
(03:17):
by Israel and the US today. Now, on the issue
of weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons, there is
no credible evidence that Iran is on the brink of
using a nuclear weapon or has even developed one. Yes,
it has nuclear activities, we know that, and that's been
an issue of concern, but the credible assessment of imminent
(03:39):
use and attack is just not there.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
Secondly, we think of the.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Tortured history of Iraq, both before the invasion in two
thousand and three and then after it. It was hugely
destabilized when the structures that it did have were dismantled
at the rise of Isis, which of course led to
widespread sh human rights abuses of the peoples and the
areas that they occupied in Iraq and Syria. It really
(04:06):
hasn't settled to this day, and to think that we
might be in for a similarly protracted date of fragility
in Iran such as that which followed the Iraq War
is very, very disturbing.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Is it fair to say that you faced a lot
of pressure at the time to fall into line with
the rest of the world.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Well, in all truth, there was very little pressure for
New Zealand to get involved. It was obliquely raised with
me sometime before the invasion actually occurred, and my response
was firm by the time it came close to the
invasion and when the Security Council was considering the matter
(04:44):
in New York and New Zealand's position was very clear
and we came under no pressure. Now, the only countries
who invaded Iraq were the US, the UK, Australia and Spain.
It was a pretty small group. Most of the world
was appalled because again it didn't meet the tests under
international law of self defense in the face of an
(05:06):
imminent threat of at tech and that's the test that
we must also apply here. That Israel was not under
imminent threat of attack, and nor was the United States
of America.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
President posting on truth Social this quote, it's not politically
correct to use the term regime change, but if the
current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again,
why wouldn't there be a regime change? And then he'd
put the phrase MIGA or make Iran great again? Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth and JD Vance, the Vice President, have
flat out set on Sunday that that was not the plan.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Take a listen.
Speaker 6 (05:43):
This mission was not and has not been about regime change.
The President authorized a precision operation to neutralize the threats
to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear program.
Our view has been very clear that we don't want
a regime change.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
And you touched on this before, but a lot of
the Iraq War became about deposing Saddam Hussein and pushing
through a regime change. Donald Trump has now contradicted previous
statements that the US is not seeking a regime change
in Iran, but he also wrote that if the current
Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why
(06:24):
wouldn't there be a regime change?
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Now?
Speaker 1 (06:26):
How concerning is this?
Speaker 3 (06:28):
So I think I would speak for just about everybody
in you Zealand if I said, and I will, that
their Iranian regime is not a nice one, and nor
was Saddam husseins that the problem is that when change
is forced on a country by outside forces, that in
itself becomes very, very destabilizing, as we saw with Iraq.
(06:51):
And the chances are that if Israel and the United
States were to succeed with quote regime change in the
short term, you you may have a very unpredictable and
volatile country, even a failed state, which Iraq in effect
became after the destabilization of two thousand and three. So
(07:12):
it may be a question of be careful what you
wish for. In the end, it's the people of a
country that must determine who governs them, not outside forces.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Yeah, and when it comes to regime changes, I suppose
I'm thinking of that ancient Greek myth of Hydra with
the heads, and once you cut off one head, another
one grows.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Yes, you can envisits from the rhetoric at the moment
that those responsible for these attacks now are doing their
best to locate the supreme leader, and it hasn't been
ruled out that he may be on an assassination list.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
But what next.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
You know, they have already assassinated senior military and signed
nuclear science figures. But there's a whole structure under them.
So it may be that you go from the devil,
you know, as it were, to then down to the
captains and sergeants of the operation with a lot more unpredictability.
So it's just not as simple as saying we will
(08:11):
remove act and why and somehow there'll be a democratic
regime in the image of the West.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
That's not going to happen.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
And this is the folly of these kinds of military adventures.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
A lot of countries are calling for a return to
the negotiation table as a solution to things at the moment,
do you think that would work or has the horse
bolted so to speak?
Speaker 3 (08:41):
So look, it has to work in the end. We
have to get back to talks. Otherwise a balloon goes
up with entirely unpredictable consequences. What if no oil can
leave the Gulf, the world economy is thrown into turmoil.
You know, what if the war expands, What if American
hit What if then there's more widespread US bombing Parana,
(09:04):
it's unthinkable.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
So Winston Peters was absolutely.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Right to call for an end to the conflict and
return to the negotiating table. That's what everyone's calling for,
and it's not easy to achieve that in the circumstances.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
We're now in. And you know, the Iranians, you know, obviously.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Are in a mood where they want to strike back,
but every time they strike, more of their capacity is
taken out, and you know this could spiral on and on.
So I think all voices, including our countries, must be
heard for an end to the bombing, both science and
getting back to talks.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Given the Iraq War is widely seen as an abject failure,
do you think we are at risk of falling down
the same path again?
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Have we learned anything?
Speaker 3 (09:49):
Well, it's clear that nothing has been learned at all
because the Iraq War had disastrous consequences. So one loses
track of the great many people who died of starvation, hunger,
poverty in Iraq after the invasion, let alone they spin
out with isis the huge security threats in the countries
of this day? Who would wish that on the people
(10:11):
of Iran? What I have been noticing is that even
people who have been terribly persecuted by the Iranian regime
have come out in social media and so please do
not bomb my country.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
This is not the way.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Diplomacy is the way, and that's what we have to
hang out for.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
I think there's another important point too.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
New Zealand has been for a very long time, half
a century or more strong voice for nuclear disarmament. We
don't support actually anyone having a nuclear weapon. The five
permanent members of the Security Council have them the other
acknowledged club. But India, Pakistan, Democratic Republican, North Korea so
called have nuclear capacity. Iran it has not been demonstrated,
(10:53):
but it could go that way, which is what.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
The inspections have been about.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Israel is estimated to have some ninety plutonium based nuclear
warheads and enough plutonium for one hundred to two hundred weapons.
In other words, in this context in the Middle East,
this war is like putting a match to dynamite.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
We do not know what could happen.
Speaker 7 (11:17):
We talked about a lot of subjects. We talked about
the importance for the United States and New Zealand to
work cooperatively and helping democracy in places like Afghanistan. We
talked about North Korea and Iran, our mutual desire for
these problems of our nation's wanting to have nuclear weapons
to be solved in a peaceful way by using the
(11:37):
diplomatic process.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
All in all, I.
Speaker 7 (11:39):
Found to be a construct for conversation, such a good conversation.
I've decided to invite her for lunch.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
And you've been in the room when these kind of
talks have happened in the past. Is there anything to
suggest here that there is some kind of intelligence about
that Iran was further along in its manufacture of nuclear
weapons than perhaps we're led on to believe.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
So let's have some context here. Back in the twenty tens,
United States and the Europeans negotiated with Iran a joint
and comprehensive program of action through which Iran agreed to
limit its nuclear program in return for relief from sanctions.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
When President Trump came to office, he scuttled that agreement
in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Now, the International Atomic Energy Agency has continued to carry
out its inspections for the best that it can in Iran,
but it did report on the twelfth of June that
Iran was not responding with adequate explanations about its nuclear materials,
and they haven't really had adequate site access either, So
that's a concern, but that is a very different matter
(12:53):
from saying though on the brink of firing a nuclear weapon.
I would also point out that Israel is not a
signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty, so the International Atomic
Energy Agency never reports on Israel's nuclear program because it
has no capacity to.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Does this kind of show the flaws with the United Nations?
If there's a charter that can be broken and ignored
so easily by a permanent member of the Security Council,
is there a point to the organization?
Speaker 3 (13:24):
We're in a very very fragile position with the multilateral system. Now,
look on the Security Council you have Russia sitting, which
invaded Ukraine, totally illegal under international law and a breach
to the UN Charter. This bombing now by the United
States of Iran will also be deemed illegal under international law.
(13:46):
So if those who hold the veto on the Security
Council willfully breach international law, what hope for the rest
of US and for New Zealand, which has always stood
by international law because as a small state.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
That's all we've got. That's all we've got.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
It is extremely worrying and we need to be holding
hands with a vast majority of the world's countries who
are appalled by this, because most of them don't have
much might either and do depend on an international order
based on international law.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
It does seem quite archaic that the Five Countries can
veto decisions, you know, like a call for peace in Ukraine,
for example, can obviously.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Be vetoed by Russia.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
Can that be changed, well, yes it should.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
And again New Zealand can hold its head high because
going back to the drafting of the UN Charter in
ninety forty five, Peter Fraser, leading the New Zealand delegation
as Prime Minister, stood out against the veto. Now, I
think we ended up with a veto because the League
of Nations, which had failed to stop World War II
(14:52):
and had gone out of business. The Americans were never
a member of it, and it seemed that the only
way the Americans were going to come into the UN
was have a veto right in the Security Council. But
here we are, you know, this is the eightieth year
of the UN Charter. Here we are the five victor
countries from World War II have a veto. To this day,
(15:13):
they are using it in a way which also was
not envisaged by the UN Charter, which is that there
should not be its use where the matter at hand
directly concerns the country casting the vito. But that course
is all lost in the mist of time. So we
have a security Council that's highly polarized, highly dysfunctional, and
unable to make a useful contribution to international peace and security.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Helen, if Christopher Luxen called you tomorrow asking for your
advice on what New Zealand should do next in this situation,
what would that be?
Speaker 3 (15:45):
What I would say is have New Zealand's voice firmly
heard for international law and for a return to diplomacy, quickly,
call for the cease fire, core for the negotiations, called
for disarmament as we always have, put your stake in
the ground and what New Zealand's stood for for a
(16:06):
very long time.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Thanks for joining us, Helen.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzdherld.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Dot co dot nz.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Is also our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Subscribe to the front page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Kyota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Donald Trump
has claimed that a ceasefire has been declared in the
war between Israel and Iran. Releasing a statement on Tuesday
morning and z time, Trump said there'd be a complete
(00:28):
and total cease fire in what he's.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Calling the twelve day War.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
He also said the war could have destroyed the entire
Middle East and could have gone on for years, but
claimed both Israel and Iran came to him almost simultaneously
and said peace in all caps. While there remains uncertainty
about how long this ceasefire will last and how committed
(00:52):
both sides are to it, there also remains a question
about the legitimacy of the intelligence that sparked the targeting
of Iran's nuclear capabilities. To those familiar with how the
IRANQ war started, it does feel like a case of
history repeating itself. Former New Zealand Prime Minister and administrator
of the United Nations Development Program Helen Clark was instrumental
(01:16):
in our country not engaging in that war. She spoke
to the Front Page on Monday afternoon prior to the
ceasefire deal being announced to discuss her experiences with Middle
East conflicts and what the world should be doing to
bring lasting peace.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Helen, I guess I'm keen.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
To start with what your thoughts generally are on the
situation happening in the Middle East at the moment.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
It's a richest situation and very very threatening to all
of us, at least in terms of economic security.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
You have the oil exports.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Coming out of Saudi Arabia, uae Bar in Kuwait, Iraq, etc.
Heading through the Straits of Hormuz, and if the Straits
of hor Moos get closed, then you can just imagine
what is going to happen to oil prices and the
cost of living impact on that right through the value
chain of energy, transport, food processing and the rest of it.
(02:19):
So it's very very worry, let alone the possibility of
any more death and destruction on a daily basis.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
I think what's interesting about this case is it does
seem to bear some similarities to what we saw in
Iraq over twenty years ago, a war that you opposed
as Prime Minister of New Zealand. For our younger listeners
who don't remember that time, can you just remind us
of how that all started.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
You are right that there are parallels. There's two of
the same objectives with Iraq. The case that the US
made was that Iraq had weapons.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Of mass destruction.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Now what turned out to be the truth was that
the weapons they did have and had used in the
past had been destroyed after the First Golf War when
a UN process went in, So that was a false
basis for invasion. And the second objective was regime change,
and that those two objectives apply to the Saranian excursion
(03:17):
by Israel and the US today. Now, on the issue
of weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons, there is
no credible evidence that Iran is on the brink of
using a nuclear weapon or has even developed one. Yes,
it has nuclear activities, we know that, and that's been
an issue of concern, but the credible assessment of imminent
(03:39):
use and attack is just not there.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
Secondly, we think of the.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Tortured history of Iraq, both before the invasion in two
thousand and three and then after it. It was hugely
destabilized when the structures that it did have were dismantled
at the rise of Isis, which of course led to
widespread sh human rights abuses of the peoples and the
areas that they occupied in Iraq and Syria. It really
(04:06):
hasn't settled to this day, and to think that we
might be in for a similarly protracted date of fragility
in Iran such as that which followed the Iraq War
is very, very disturbing.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Is it fair to say that you faced a lot
of pressure at the time to fall into line with
the rest of the world.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Well, in all truth, there was very little pressure for
New Zealand to get involved. It was obliquely raised with
me sometime before the invasion actually occurred, and my response
was firm by the time it came close to the
invasion and when the Security Council was considering the matter
(04:44):
in New York and New Zealand's position was very clear
and we came under no pressure. Now, the only countries
who invaded Iraq were the US, the UK, Australia and Spain.
It was a pretty small group. Most of the world
was appalled because again it didn't meet the tests under
international law of self defense in the face of an
(05:06):
imminent threat of at tech and that's the test that
we must also apply here. That Israel was not under
imminent threat of attack, and nor was the United States
of America.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
President posting on truth Social this quote, it's not politically
correct to use the term regime change, but if the
current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again,
why wouldn't there be a regime change? And then he'd
put the phrase MIGA or make Iran great again? Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth and JD Vance, the Vice President, have
flat out set on Sunday that that was not the plan.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Take a listen.
Speaker 6 (05:43):
This mission was not and has not been about regime change.
The President authorized a precision operation to neutralize the threats
to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear program.
Our view has been very clear that we don't want
a regime change.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
And you touched on this before, but a lot of
the Iraq War became about deposing Saddam Hussein and pushing
through a regime change. Donald Trump has now contradicted previous
statements that the US is not seeking a regime change
in Iran, but he also wrote that if the current
Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why
(06:24):
wouldn't there be a regime change?
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Now?
Speaker 1 (06:26):
How concerning is this?
Speaker 3 (06:28):
So I think I would speak for just about everybody
in you Zealand if I said, and I will, that
their Iranian regime is not a nice one, and nor
was Saddam husseins that the problem is that when change
is forced on a country by outside forces, that in
itself becomes very, very destabilizing, as we saw with Iraq.
(06:51):
And the chances are that if Israel and the United
States were to succeed with quote regime change in the
short term, you you may have a very unpredictable and
volatile country, even a failed state, which Iraq in effect
became after the destabilization of two thousand and three. So
(07:12):
it may be a question of be careful what you
wish for. In the end, it's the people of a
country that must determine who governs them, not outside forces.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Yeah, and when it comes to regime changes, I suppose
I'm thinking of that ancient Greek myth of Hydra with
the heads, and once you cut off one head, another
one grows.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Yes, you can envisits from the rhetoric at the moment
that those responsible for these attacks now are doing their
best to locate the supreme leader, and it hasn't been
ruled out that he may be on an assassination list.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
But what next.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
You know, they have already assassinated senior military and signed
nuclear science figures. But there's a whole structure under them.
So it may be that you go from the devil,
you know, as it were, to then down to the
captains and sergeants of the operation with a lot more unpredictability.
So it's just not as simple as saying we will
(08:11):
remove act and why and somehow there'll be a democratic
regime in the image of the West.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
That's not going to happen.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
And this is the folly of these kinds of military adventures.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
A lot of countries are calling for a return to
the negotiation table as a solution to things at the moment,
do you think that would work or has the horse
bolted so to speak?
Speaker 3 (08:41):
So look, it has to work in the end. We
have to get back to talks. Otherwise a balloon goes
up with entirely unpredictable consequences. What if no oil can
leave the Gulf, the world economy is thrown into turmoil.
You know, what if the war expands, What if American
hit What if then there's more widespread US bombing Parana,
(09:04):
it's unthinkable.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
So Winston Peters was absolutely.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Right to call for an end to the conflict and
return to the negotiating table. That's what everyone's calling for,
and it's not easy to achieve that in the circumstances.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
We're now in. And you know, the Iranians, you know, obviously.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Are in a mood where they want to strike back,
but every time they strike, more of their capacity is
taken out, and you know this could spiral on and on.
So I think all voices, including our countries, must be
heard for an end to the bombing, both science and
getting back to talks.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Given the Iraq War is widely seen as an abject failure,
do you think we are at risk of falling down
the same path again?
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Have we learned anything?
Speaker 3 (09:49):
Well, it's clear that nothing has been learned at all
because the Iraq War had disastrous consequences. So one loses
track of the great many people who died of starvation, hunger,
poverty in Iraq after the invasion, let alone they spin
out with isis the huge security threats in the countries
of this day? Who would wish that on the people
(10:11):
of Iran? What I have been noticing is that even
people who have been terribly persecuted by the Iranian regime
have come out in social media and so please do
not bomb my country.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
This is not the way.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Diplomacy is the way, and that's what we have to
hang out for.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
I think there's another important point too.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
New Zealand has been for a very long time, half
a century or more strong voice for nuclear disarmament. We
don't support actually anyone having a nuclear weapon. The five
permanent members of the Security Council have them the other
acknowledged club. But India, Pakistan, Democratic Republican, North Korea so
called have nuclear capacity. Iran it has not been demonstrated,
(10:53):
but it could go that way, which is what.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
The inspections have been about.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Israel is estimated to have some ninety plutonium based nuclear
warheads and enough plutonium for one hundred to two hundred weapons.
In other words, in this context in the Middle East,
this war is like putting a match to dynamite.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
We do not know what could happen.
Speaker 7 (11:17):
We talked about a lot of subjects. We talked about
the importance for the United States and New Zealand to
work cooperatively and helping democracy in places like Afghanistan. We
talked about North Korea and Iran, our mutual desire for
these problems of our nation's wanting to have nuclear weapons
to be solved in a peaceful way by using the
(11:37):
diplomatic process.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
All in all, I.
Speaker 7 (11:39):
Found to be a construct for conversation, such a good conversation.
I've decided to invite her for lunch.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
And you've been in the room when these kind of
talks have happened in the past. Is there anything to
suggest here that there is some kind of intelligence about
that Iran was further along in its manufacture of nuclear
weapons than perhaps we're led on to believe.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
So let's have some context here. Back in the twenty tens,
United States and the Europeans negotiated with Iran a joint
and comprehensive program of action through which Iran agreed to
limit its nuclear program in return for relief from sanctions.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
When President Trump came to office, he scuttled that agreement
in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Now, the International Atomic Energy Agency has continued to carry
out its inspections for the best that it can in Iran,
but it did report on the twelfth of June that
Iran was not responding with adequate explanations about its nuclear materials,
and they haven't really had adequate site access either, So
that's a concern, but that is a very different matter
(12:53):
from saying though on the brink of firing a nuclear weapon.
I would also point out that Israel is not a
signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty, so the International Atomic
Energy Agency never reports on Israel's nuclear program because it
has no capacity to.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Does this kind of show the flaws with the United Nations?
If there's a charter that can be broken and ignored
so easily by a permanent member of the Security Council,
is there a point to the organization?
Speaker 3 (13:24):
We're in a very very fragile position with the multilateral system. Now,
look on the Security Council you have Russia sitting, which
invaded Ukraine, totally illegal under international law and a breach
to the UN Charter. This bombing now by the United
States of Iran will also be deemed illegal under international law.
(13:46):
So if those who hold the veto on the Security
Council willfully breach international law, what hope for the rest
of US and for New Zealand, which has always stood
by international law because as a small state.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
That's all we've got. That's all we've got.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
It is extremely worrying and we need to be holding
hands with a vast majority of the world's countries who
are appalled by this, because most of them don't have
much might either and do depend on an international order
based on international law.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
It does seem quite archaic that the Five Countries can
veto decisions, you know, like a call for peace in Ukraine,
for example, can obviously.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Be vetoed by Russia.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
Can that be changed, well, yes it should.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
And again New Zealand can hold its head high because
going back to the drafting of the UN Charter in
ninety forty five, Peter Fraser, leading the New Zealand delegation
as Prime Minister, stood out against the veto. Now, I
think we ended up with a veto because the League
of Nations, which had failed to stop World War II
(14:52):
and had gone out of business. The Americans were never
a member of it, and it seemed that the only
way the Americans were going to come into the UN
was have a veto right in the Security Council. But
here we are, you know, this is the eightieth year
of the UN Charter. Here we are the five victor
countries from World War II have a veto. To this day,
(15:13):
they are using it in a way which also was
not envisaged by the UN Charter, which is that there
should not be its use where the matter at hand
directly concerns the country casting the vito. But that course
is all lost in the mist of time. So we
have a security Council that's highly polarized, highly dysfunctional, and
unable to make a useful contribution to international peace and security.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Helen, if Christopher Luxen called you tomorrow asking for your
advice on what New Zealand should do next in this situation,
what would that be?
Speaker 3 (15:45):
What I would say is have New Zealand's voice firmly
heard for international law and for a return to diplomacy, quickly,
call for the cease fire, core for the negotiations, called
for disarmament as we always have, put your stake in
the ground and what New Zealand's stood for for a
(16:06):
very long time.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Thanks for joining us, Helen.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzdherld.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Dot co dot nz.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Is also our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Subscribe to the front page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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