New Zealand's Response to UN Report

Office of Hon Murray McCully

Minister of Foreign Affairs

8 FEB 2010

Dear __________

Thank you for writing to me regarding the UN resolution on the Goldstone Report considered by the UN General Assembly in New York, on 5 November 2009.

The New Zealand Government's decision to abstain from voting on the resolution was based on our concern about the process in which the Report was considered and on aspects of the resolution text. Following the vote, New Zealand delivered a statement explaining our abstention, stating that we seek a just, enduring and comprehensive peace settlement based on the two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side-by-side, in peace and security. New Zealand has consistently called for investigations into alleged violations of human rights and humanitarian law arising from the Gaza conflict, and called for perpetrators of such violations to be brought to justice.

New Zealand stated that Israel has a right to defend itself and its people. However, we also noted that this should be done in a way that avoids harm to civilians and that is consistent with international law. New Zealand condemned Hamas' indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, and also the use of populated, urban civilian areas as rocket launch sites.

We stated that the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination, consistent with international law. We also called for an end to Israel's settlement building, which we regard as a serious impediment to the peace process. We expressed deep concern at the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including the need to ease border and movement restrictions.

The New Zealand Government will continue to stress the importance of bringing to account perpetrators of human rights abuses or war crimes, wherever they occur. The Government agrees that serious allegations were raised by the Goldstone Report, and we called for all parties to begin credible, independent and domestic investigations into those allegations, conducted to internationally accepted standards. New Zealand will, however, not pre-judge the integrity or the outcome of those investigations.

The allegations in the Goldstone Report have not yet been subjected to the independent investigation recommended in that report, and we should not pass premature judgment. Israeli and Palestinian authorities have indicated they will undertake their own investigations of alleged breaches of international law. Following the conclusion of these investigations the international community wi" be in a better position to review this matter and consider what actions may need to be taken.

A copy of New Zealand's statement on the Goldstone Report, delivered in the UN General Assembly on 5 November 2009, is attached.

Yours sincerely

(Signature)

Han Murray McCully

Minister of Foreign Affairs

NEW ZEALAND STATEMENT

New Zealand takes this opportunity to explain its abstention on this vote.

That position must be seen in the wider context of the Middle East peace process, and our long-standing support for international justice, and is based on a number of principles:

• New Zealand seeks a just, enduring, comprehensive peace settlement based on the Two-State solution, with Israel and Palestine living side-byside, in peace and security; and we call on the parties to resume negotiations to that end.
• New Zealand has consistently called for investigations into alleged violations of human rights and humanitarian law arising from the Gaza conflict. There should be no impunity.
  Perpetrators of any such violations must be brought to justice
• We would have preferred that this issue be considered by the Human Rights Council in Geneva in March next year, as originally agreed; as this could have created a better climate for the required investigations.
• We object to the continued bias against Israel in the handling of this important question in the Human Rights Council.
• While we can appreciate its position, we regret that Israel did not to present its version of events to the Fact-Finding Mission, particularly after the Mission's original, biased mandate was changed by agreement between the President of the Human Rights Council and Justice Goldstone.
• All that said, the Report is here, and we must deal with it.
• We strongly support Israel's right to defend itself and its people from attack of any kind and from whatever quarter, in a way that avoids harm to civilians and is consistent with international law.
• Equally, we strongly support the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination, consistent with international law.
• We call for an end to Israel's settlement building, and regard this as a serious impediment to the peace process.
• We are deeply concerned at the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including the impact of border and movement restrictions, and repeat our calls for these to be eased. We welcome the fact the nearly 80 truckloads of goods entered Gaza from Israel through the Kerem Shalom crossing, and call for that to continue.
• We condemn Hamas' indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, and also the use of populated, urban civilian sites as rocket launch sites.
• Any jurist who accepted the Mission's brief would have fully understood the legal and political path ahead — and it is to the credit of Justice Goldstone and his colleagues that they did not flinch from that task.
• We consider that serious allegations are raised by the Goldstone Report, and we call for all parties to begin credible, independent, domestic investigations into those allegations, conducted to internationally accepted standards.
• We will not pre-judge the integrity or the outcome of those investigations. We agree that ‘this was a Fact Finding Mission and not a judicial enquiry’. The allegations in the Goldstone Report have not yet been subjected to the independent investigation recommended in that report - and we should not pass judgment as though they have - but they must be properly and independently investigated.
• Although we call on Israel and Palestine to investigate the alleged violations, we cannot support a resolution that, in its first Operative paragraph, endorses a Human Rights Council report on a Special Session that includes a biased, one-sided resolution.
• Against that background, an abstention was the appropriate course.