Lisa Owen interviews Foreign Minister Murray McCully

Headlines:

Murray McCully says New Zealanders can expect a 5-10 year engagement against Islamic State if we join military action in Iraq and the government will take that “very carefully into account”

“Very difficult” to say if we would even be considering joining the war against Islamic State if not for the beheadings of westerners. The images have “stirred public sentiment”.

America has asked for “nothing specific” and given no indication of what support it wants in the fight against Islamic State. “They’ve shown great respect”.

But we are already part of the coalition of the willing against Islamic State because we are supplying humanitarian aid

“No relationship” between taking a seat on the Security Council and committing to military action in Iraq, but “There are plenty of countries who want to see New Zealand and other countries sign up to do more in relation to the challenges in Iraq”.

“A lot of small things” can be done to reform the Security Council and he’s already started talking to the French about relinquishing the veto

McCully says we won’t need to choose between US and China but concedes “we’re going to have to choose to annoy some of our friends sometimes, and that’s what we’ve signed up for”.

Lisa Owen: Good morning, Mr McCully, and congratulations.

Murray McCully: Good morning, and thank you very much.

So, what clinched it for us?

Oh, two things, I guess. Firstly, you can't win at the United Nations unless your country's got a pretty good reputation, and New Zealand has a great international reputation built up over many years of participating in international activities. Secondly, of course, you've gotta run a good campaign. And we had a great team here in New York and elsewhere and ran a good campaign.

Did Turkey actually lose it in a sense that— the way it's dealing with the situation in Syria might have experienced some backlash in that respect?

Oh, look, there are going to be lots of debates about this. I guess the analysis will show that some of the troubles in their country and their region haven't helped them. The fact that they were on the Council back in 2009-10 and are going again so early. And there were some countries that thought that was just a bit too soon to be occupying the seat again.

So, in your recent speech at the UN, you were quite critical of the Security Council. You pointed to paralysis over Syria and handling the situation with the Ukraine. So, realistically, how do you hope to change that?

I think the sort of sentiments I was expressing were very much in line with the mood of many countries. I think a lot of countries voted for us identifying with those criticisms and hoping that we would at least make an honest attempt to improve things. I don't think there's one sort of silver bullet here. I think there are lots of small things that need to be done to improve the way the Security Council works. One is simply to be better listeners. That's one of the things we talked about a lot in our campaign — that countries that have their own situation or the neighbours before the Council don't have a right to be heard, listened to by some of the Council members, and that's the first thing that we want to try and achieve. It's worth remembering—

You've talked specifically about veto, haven't you, Mr McCully? And there's been concerns expressed about the permanent five having the right to veto. So what can you do in that regard?

Yeah, well, that's a really interesting question, because in recent months, the French, who of course are one of the permanent five members, have said they would voluntarily relinquish some of the opportunities to use the veto. They've talked about particularly when there's a threat of mass atrocities, which has been the first step forward by a permanent member to move down this path of voluntary relinquishment, and that's something New Zealand's been talking about. I've been talking about it for a few years. I met with the French ambassador here to talk about how we might take that forward.

So, what's in this for us? Now that we're on this council, what do we get out of it?

Well, we get two things out of it. We get a chance to sit at the big table, and having criticised the way the Security Council's worked, we have a chance to show that we can work hard to try and improve things. If you want to ask that question more selfishly, I guess it means we're sitting at the big table with the big guys who are listening to us and talking to us much more often than they normally would be, which is a chance to advance virtually all of the interests you have, including your trade and economic interests. So it's two years where New Zealand really is going to be listened to a lot more than we normally would be.

When you talk about advancing trade and economic opportunities, though, the fact is that there will be things that we have to take sides on — in fact, some of the most contentious issues that we are facing in the world at the moment. We will have to take sides. Might we come to regret being on the Security Council?

Oh, look, um, this is the sort of question that's often asked about our relationships in the region as well, where people pretend that we have to choose between our good friends the US and our good friends China. And I don't think we do have to make those choices. We just need to be honest and behave with integrity and show some good principles about the way in which we—

But you have to vote in this case, don't you? You have to cast a vote. So your choice is on the table. You're forced to make a choice.

And— and— that’s right. And we're going to have to choose to annoy some of our friends sometimes, and that's what we've signed up for. And frankly, that's what needs to happen. How you do that is of course important. Behaving with courtesy and showing respect, even though we disagree, is an important part of this process, and that's part of the New Zealand brand as well, I think, that serves us well today here.

You don't think that that could potentially have serious consequences for us, annoying our friends, as you put it?

Oh, look, I am sure there'll be days when we will annoy our friends, and I am sure that there'll be commentators in New Zealand who'll say that we should never have bothered going on to the UN Security Council. I think the issues that go before the Council are important and we should do our best to try and improve the way in which they're dealt with.

OK, well, seeing as you are sitting at the big table now, does that mean that we're committed to some kind of military action or military commitment in Iraq as a consequence?

No, there's no relationship between these two things, and can I tell you that no one here has pressed me before the vote today for an answer on what we're going to do in relation to Iraq. We've given some humanitarian assistance in Iraq, and we'll do some more of that, but the Prime Minister's made it clear that we've got to as a new government a process of consideration underway to look at what our response should be based on our own interests and our own perception of risk to New Zealand, and no one here has tried to force us to answer that question early so they can take that into account in the way—

In saying that, what are they telling you? In saying that they're not pressing you, what are they telling you about what kind of action is required; how to deal with the problem?

Oh, look, let's be clear. There are plenty of countries who want to see New Zealand and other countries sign up to do more in relation to the challenges in Iraq and also in relation to Ebola in Africa, actually. And we are looking to do more in each of those areas, but people were good enough, countries were good enough to vote for us today based on what they thought we could do on the Security Council, not the resources they thought we could bring to any one problem or conflict.

OK, well, you say countries are asking. What is America asking for?

Well, the answer to that is nothing specific. They know what—

Are they giving you an indication, though, Mr McCully? Are they giving you some—?

No, they're not.

Not even broad-brush—?

They've shown great respect— No, they've shown great respect for the fact that New Zealand's got a new government. Our prime minister has actually been very transparent and very public about the process we're going to use for dealing with what New Zealand's interests should demand we do, and America and other countries have shown respect for the decision-making process that's underway.

So, there are so many countries that are involved in this. What is it? 60 in the coalition? Are we really not part of this already?

Yes, we are part of this already, and if you look at what's being said by the US and other countries, they're naming us as part of the coalition because we've been from the beginning a contributor of humanitarian aid, and we're going to do more of that.

So, this meeting that happened outside of Washington, what was that all about, then?

Well, you're stepping outside my portfolio interest there. That was a defence meeting, and so I can't describe the nature of it to you, and I wasn't in New Zealand—

The American Defence Force has described it as 'to coordinate strategies for the fight against Islamic state', so that sort of sounds like we're committed to more than humanitarian assistance.

Well, I can tell you the commitment to humanitarian assistance is one that I signed off on and will do more of it as we can do it. On the defence matters, I don't sign off on those. Obviously, I am party to the discussions, but if you want to deal with the details of precise meetings, you'll need to go to the Defence people. The Defence Minister can tell you the details around that.

Do you think we would even be considered getting involved in a situation like this, the one in Iraq and Syria, if there hadn't been beheadings of Westerners?

(SIGHS) I think that's a very difficult question to answer. I think people have watched some of these images on television and it has stirred public sentiment, and I know in New Zealand, there's a great deal of interest in what the sort of security threat is to us. And there's been debate on that while I've been away.

Cos I find it interesting, you see, Saudi Arabia in the last month, they beheaded eight people as punishment for non-lethal crimes like sorcery and adultery, but we're not considering going into a war with them. In fact, they've been invited into this coalition.

Yeah, look, let's just accept that we've got a new government in place in New Zealand that is going through a process of asking its ministries to give it the best advice that can be given about the threat that we subject to ourselves, the sort of steps we can take to deal with that at home, and the sort of things we should look at doing as part of the international effort.

But the thing is, Mr McCully— Mr McCully, this is a question of principle, isn't it? Can you explain to me the distinction between those two situations?

I am not going to try and describe the difference for you. What I am going to do is say that when it comes to the sort of steps that New Zealand should take, both to protect its own interests at home and what is perceives to be its international interests, we go through a careful and considered process; we get good advice from officials; we talk to other countries; and the Prime Minister, I think, has been as open as you could expect him to be.

Well, President Obama says that he want to 'defeat and degrade’ Islamic State. Those are his words. So, what do you think that looks like in reality?

Well, I think President Obama has described fairly clearly the sort of steps that his country is going to take, and the US authorities need to respond to any questions about that. Our Prime Minister's been very clear about the process that we're going through, and it's not a completed process yet. So I think it's appropriate that we should be thorough, careful and moderate about this. And that's what the Government's trying to do.

But what does defeat look like against an organisation like this? How do you know that you've won?

Well, I am not sure that our prime minister or I have used those words, and if others have, obviously, the question can better be directed to them. We are going through, as I say, a process of looking at what we think we should do as a country, and we're going to be answering those questions for New Zealanders over the coming weeks.

Well, if we do choose to involve ourselves in this, a senior Iraqi Cabinet minister has said that this could be a five- to 10-year project. How long are we prepared to commit ourselves to this?

Well, I agree with that statement, and that's one of the factors the Government is going to take very carefully into account, I can assure you.

All right. Thank you very much for joining me this morning, Mr McCully, and congratulations again.

ENDS

© Scoop Media