On The Nation: Patrick Gower interviews John Key
Youtube clips from the show are available here.

Headlines:
Prime Minister John Key says ‘big countries' told New Zealand that focussing the UN Security Council meeting on Syria would be "risky"
Key says his comment about countries having blood on their hands over Syria was directed at Russia
Key says NZ intelligence may be used in some way to support air strikes, but not in Syria and not part of a dedicated international effort
Key says it’s his intention to stay on as Prime Minister for a full fourth term, but “firstly, you’ve got to win it”

Patrick Gower: Prime Minister, thank you for joining us. New Zealand’s moment on the Security Council – you know, how does it stack up in history, in diplomatic moments for New Zealand, in your mind?
John Key: Oh, I think in diplomatic terms, one of the biggest things we’ve done. I mean, I don’t think there’s been an occasion when we’ve ever been on the Security Council and been present at Leaders Week and then faced an issue as significant as this. We did fantastic work in the ‘90s around Rwanda, but, you know, to actually be the president while you’re dealing with an issue like Syria is, you know, very important. And it just shows New Zealand’s credentials. I think, in a way, you know, for a lot of people, it’s a sort of a bit of an esoteric argument about whether we should be on the Security Council. It was ten years of work. It was a huge campaign. But, you know, yesterday was an opportunity for people to see actually that there was New Zealand, this, you know, honest little country at the bottom of the world, you know, trying to resolve the plight of 13 million displaced Syrians. I think that puts it in some context for them.
Sure. And choosing Syria, choosing Syria as the topic to debate in Leaders Week here at the United Nations, that was a risky decision.
Yeah, risky. I mean, look, the number of countries, a number of our friendly countries said to us they thought it was pretty risky.
What countries?
Well, because it can go wrong. I mean, you know.
What countries?
Well, you know, I probably can’t say the ones that are telling us in our ear.
Big ones?
Big ones, yeah. And the reason for that is because it can go, at one level, terribly, terribly wrong, because you can get a situation where, you know, rather than take the situation forward, people start pointing fingers at each other, and it goes back. But, you know, as we saw, you had a ceasefire that was negotiated between Russia and the United States. It’s stumbled. No one’s saying it’s perfect, and no one’s saying that as a result of yesterday’s meeting it will absolutely get back on track, but we gave it a chance to get back on track. And, look, it’s a very challenging situation out there. It’s been five years. It’s a huge loss of life, massive displacement of people and potentially, you know, an incredibly serious situation for the world. Because if Syria turns into a failed state, then Syria turns into a place where you would be exporting terrorists. And that has implications for all of us in a very large way.
Sure. Is there a counter-argument there, though, that we should have put something forward at that meeting that we could tangibly achieve? Because Russia was always going to block whatever we tried there. And in fact, in the end, we didn’t even try for a resolution on anything.
You know, over time, a resolution might come, but you can have a resolution at a UN Security Council meeting and A – it can just get blocked; or B – you know, ultimately, it doesn’t do enough. There’s a resolution sitting there, without getting really technical, 2254, which sets out actually where, you know, where we want to go. I think people understand the pathway. The challenge isn’t understanding what you need to do; it’s the political commitment to get all of the players involved here to sign up to that. And what you’ve got actually in Syria is essentially Al-Qaeda’s group out there. They don’t want peace there. They want the opposite. You know, they want all the things that are going on. They want the breakdown of the basic institutions in Syria. And for Assad, you know, he can see that, you know, there’s potentially a very bad ending for him here. So while on the one hand, he’s playing war with the Russians, on the other hand, you know, he is also trying to take out his own opponents. So it’s a sort of complicated and messy situation where it’s just not as simple as saying here’s a resolution – go and follow that, click your fingers, everything’s okay.
Sure. And on that, why don’t we do something militarily there? Why don’t we help in some way militarily? Why don’t we help the US and others there?
Well, firstly, you’d have to have the capabilities. If you think about the Australians, the reason they’re involved there, I suspect, is firstly, because they’re, you know, actually a military ally of the United States and are heavily involved in Syria, but secondly, they have the capability through their air strike wing.
Yeah.
So that’s the first thing. The second thing is we’ve sort of taken the view that we’re better placed in Iraq, and we’ve got a mandate in Iraq, because the Iraqi government’s asked us to help in terms of training people and the likes. So it becomes a bit of where we think we’ve got the expertise and where we think we’ve got the mandate.
But surely, we do have expertise in terms of intelligence and stuff like that, you know?
Yep.
SAS. Do you rule it out, actually helping out the US-backed forces in Syria?
Well, as I know in life, you know, you rule things out, and then it comes and bites you. But the reality is that’s not what’s been asked for. And it’s not what’s likely to happen. I mean, ultimately, the point of having a Security Council meeting, but also the work that’s happening is to stop the need for military capability. It’s really the political solution that’s required is diplomacy.
And you used a term that countries who stand in the way of that solution have blood on their hands or will have blood on their hands, including the Security Council.
Well, it has to. I mean, the Security Council’s the only place, really.
So if nothing happens, those countries will have blood on their hands?
Well, I think so in so much that if you take step back and say look, what is the body in the world that could ultimately, you know, send the message and formulise the way that a resolution and a positive achievement in Syria can be the outcome? And the only place you can do that is the UN Security Council. So if a country, you know, uses its veto to stop that happening, and actually, the threat of the veto, as I said in my remarks, has been there right the way through in the Syrian crisis, and so the problem that you have is that because of that, things don’t happen. And that’s really our fundamental issue with the veto. It’s not even solely unique to Syria. What we’re saying is, you know, when we set up the United Nations in 1945 and the permanent five countries had the veto right, it wasn’t intended to be used, you know, when mass atrocities were a real genuine threat. And so if you get to that situation, you have to say that you have some culpability. And that’s our point.
Well, the country that we’re talking about here, the threat of the veto, we’re talking about Russia.
Yeah.
We’re talking about Russia.
Yeah.
Russia are the ones that are stopping this. Russia are the ones that are threatening the veto. Russia, to use your words, will have blood on their hands or pretty much already do. Is that right?
Well, the Russians would argue they’re part of the solution. And they would say they’ve stepped in with military capability to try and back up the Assad government and give it some support. They would say that between them and the Americans, they are negotiating the solution.
Yeah, but we don’t need you to argue for Russia. I mean, we’re talking here... Are you saying that Vladimir Putin and Russia have blood on their hands because of Syria?
Well, what I’m saying is everybody has some responsibility here. And yes, ultimately, if you stop progress being made, then you’re causing the loss of life in Syria. And if that’s because of the threat of the veto or the use of the veto or the inability to get things done, you have to take some responsibility.
So the answer to that is yes?
In my view, yeah. And, you know, look, these things are never as simple as all of this stuff. But as I said, you know, and I think the Americans and the Russians fundamentally are coming at this for different reasons, but with the united goal, which is to stop the conflict in Syria.
Sure. I want to clear up one other area, and that’s intelligence.
Yep.
Can you rule out New Zealand soldiers helping target air strikes through intelligence, be it out in the field or somewhere in the world on a computer, helping guide in air strikes? Can you rule that out?
Yeah, I’m pretty sure I can. You know, if you think about what we’re doing.
So our soldiers don’t do that?
Well, in terms of what we’re doing at the moment, no. I mean, the air strike capability’s happening in Syria; it’s not happening in Iraq. And our energies are focussed in Iraq.
So our spies aren’t helping with intelligence for air strikes either?
Well, our intelligence guys do work, not in Syria, but they do work in Iraq. But by definition, these things again are always very broad. Because people are in lots of different locations.
So New Zealand does not give intelligence that helps guide in air strikes, full stop?
Well, we’re not part of it.
Because that’s the question.
Yeah, the answer is we’re not part of the group that sits there, you know, with a planning capability. So we did do that in, I think, Afghanistan, from memory. We were part of a coordinated team. That’s not our role in Iraq. And we’re not involved in Syria.
Or anywhere else in the world?
Well, we gather intelligence where it makes sense. We’re part of an integrated Five Eyes network.
You see where I’m sort of going here? You can’t actually say no to this question about intelligence.
Well, I can, I think, in the way that you’re asking it. So you’re essentially sitting there saying are our people part of a coordinated effort that’s seeing, you know, air strikes happening in Syria? And the answer to that’s no.
What about a wider question, you know, does our intelligence get used for air strikes, yes or no?
Well, I’m pretty sure the answer to that’s no, but again, I don’t sit there and see, you know, what goes through and how it all works. And ultimately, if we’ve got intelligence that we thought would make sense, because sometimes, you know, people could use a network, could use some particular way why it would be useful, we would feed that into the Five Eyes network.
So we could technically give this intelligence or have we given this intelligence?
Well, only because we live in a very broad world where information could flow, you know, theoretically we could be. But not in the way that I think you’re sitting there saying. If you think about a package of an effort to go and, say, strike a particular area in Syria, no.
Okay, we don’t do that, but we might give information that helps that package, is what you’re saying?
At the outer extreme, maybe, but I don’t think so really.
Sure. Moving on to refugees.
Yep.
Now, that was an omission from your speech. You didn’t mention it at all. But you went to the summit held by Barack Obama. Now, he basically called out countries like New Zealand in his speech to the general assembly, saying countries with geographic advantage, countries that were wealthy need to take more refugees. But not one cent from us, not one more refugee, and you went to a pledging summit. Why?
Yeah, well, firstly, I think if you go and have a look at the numbers, I did just a bit of a quick calculation when he was talking, and on a per capita basis, on the numbers I ran, they’re taking about 1240. We’re taking the equivalent of 1000, but by the time we take a bit around family reunification, we’re about the same.
But if you look at per capita, actually, New Zealand takes 0.3 and the United States takes 0.85. So that’s nearly three times, or over double.
Well, the numbers he was talking about at the pledging conference was 80,000. You know, so you can go away and work out all the numbers, but I just did a very quick calculation when I was there. I guess the main point here is two things. Firstly, one – we’re part of actually a fundamentally very small group of countries that take refugees permanently under the UN ACR programme.
Why don’t we take more? Why don’t we take more, like what Barack Obama’s asking? Why don’t we give more money?
Well, we are, but isn’t the fundamental point here New Zealand could stand up tomorrow and say we’ll take another 103 refugees - let’s just argue that for a moment - of course we could do that, there’s always capability, there’s always possibility, but you’re talking about 13 million people that are displaced, and they’re talking about 21 million people who are refugees around the world. If you really want to make a difference, it’s the things that we were doing yesterday. It’s give the people of Syria who are in camps in Turkey, who are in camps in Jordan the opportunity to go home.
But they’re two different things, aren’t they? Because refugees give real people a chance now.
But these are real people that are living in a camp in terrible conditions half the time who want to go home. We are helping fund, you know, where we can.
A political solution in Syria is years away, prime minister.
Well, maybe, but I’m not as negative as that. I mean, ultimately, if you get a ceasefire to hold, people would start returning. In fact, you know, you do see these comments from leaders all the time, and I think Kerry might have made those comments that, you know, very quickly -or Obama did – very quickly when the ceasefire held at one point early on, normality started to resume, actually, in a place like Syria. So yeah, at the margins, you can always take a few more.
Sure. And quickly now on Helen Clark - a reality check for Kiwis on her chances. Russia, as we’ve discussed, will most likely use that veto against her, won’t they?
Yeah. I mean, ultimately, one thing that’s important to understand is a candidate actually could get a veto; in fact, a number of countries could veto them; and they could still ultimately get through. I know that sounds truly bizarre, but this is just a process of elimination over time. And so, you know, sometimes the French veto people because you don’t speak French, and then they negotiate with you. So my main point with all of this is yes, she’s got an uphill job. Yes, the Russians absolutely want an Eastern European. And yes, she needs her numbers to improve if she’s going to get there. But it’s, again, not impossible that the landscape changes quite dramatically when other candidates do genuinely get knocked out.
I want to ask you a final question about your future.
Yeah.
You’re obviously going for a fourth term.
Yeah.
Will you see it out? Will you stay for the whole fourth term if you win it?
Well, firstly, you’ve got to win it.
Yeah, so if you do win it, will you stay for the whole fourth term?
Well, that would be my intention.
So you’re telling New Zealanders today that if you get a fourth term, you’ll stick around for the whole thing?
Yeah, that’s my intention. But, I mean, the first point I’d make to you is you’ve got to win a fourth term.
Yeah, yeah.
And you’ve got to get there. And yeah, of course, we’re polling well and things.
So there won’t be a situation for Kiwis, prime minister, where they vote for John Key, you win that fourth term, and then you pull the pin and they get some other prime minister?
Well, that’s not my intention.
Thank you very much, prime minister.
Thanks a lot.
Transcript provided by Able. www.able.co.nz

© Scoop Media