New Zealand should approve a large intake of refugees from Afghanistan - and then work on refoming the UN to help prevent one country deciding how to sort out the world's problems through military action
In the wake of the al Qaeda conceived attack on the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2001 the United States President George W Bush launched two military operations - Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom – to rid the world of al Qaeda's terrorist influence.
He sought to establish a "Coalition of The Willing" of America's traditional allies and friends to fight these campaigns alongside American forces. The objectives were simple: Operation Enduring Freedom was about ousting the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom was about toppling the despotic Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.
Afghanistan, under the Taliban, drew America’s ire because it was an al Qaeda training ground and the home of Osama bin Laden.
Iraq had been seen as a shelter for so-called "weapons of mass destruction" - although none were ever found - and a haven for Islamic terrorists, including al Qaeda. Bush considered that Iraq and North Korea, later joined by Cuba, Libya and Syria, formed an “axis of evil” that needed to be brought back within in the international (American imposed) world order.
Although the American response was understandable in terms of a reaction to the serious attack on its sovereignty, and a massive embarrassment to its security that the events of 9/11 represented, its unilateral reaction to seek to assemble a multinational force to destroy the nations perceived as responsible, was a major departure from the international rules-based approach to world order that had prevailed since the end of World War II. Since 1945, the primary focus has been on a multilateral approach to resolving global tensions, with any military actions of this type being undertaken under a United Nations mandate.
While this had not prevented intra-regional conflicts like, for example, the Arab Israeli conflicts of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, or more specific incursions like the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, or the American invasion of Grenada in 1983, the rules-based system had generally worked between nations.
It had, however, failed dismally in preventing the growth of international terrorism. The Middle East was the most obvious area of prolonged failure to curb terrorism. The United Nations failure in the Bosnian crisis in the mid-1990s and particularly the events surrounding the Srebrenica Massacre in 1995, which the Dutch United Forces’ commander subsequently described as “the greatest failure in human history”, was arguably its most spectacular overall failure.
Some might wish to include the prolonged Vietnam war from the early 1960s through to 1975 in this list of aberrations, but that arose originally from a South Vietnamese government approach to the Americans to help control Viet Cong insurgents. The United Nations became involved much later during the 1960s as the conflict intensified, and human rights concerns grew, because of prolonged American bombing of North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
But, generally speaking, the rule of thumb was that large multilateral operations should normally be sanctioned by the UN. That approach has, by and large, preserved peace on a grand scale since 1945.
New Zealand declined to become a direct part of Operation Iraqi Freedom when it began in 2003, but later that year it did send a frigate and air force maritime surveillance aircraft to help patrol the Persian Gulf, under American command. After that, in accordance with a United Nations Security Council resolution, New Zealand sent army engineers to help with post-war reconstruction.
New Zealand’s role in Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom was more intense, prolonged and costly. In 2001, a joint force of army engineers to focus on provincial reconstruction and SAS forces to carry out special operations were despatched. By the time they were completely withdrawn in May 2021, just months before the collapse of the Afghan regime, 10 New Zealand soldiers had been killed on active service, and the whole operation had cost more than $300 million.
In retrospect, both Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to be expensive and dramatic failures of American foreign policy. Both interventions have also been extremely costly in lives and dollars. Nearly 4,500 American military personnel were killed in Iraq, and just under 37,000 were wounded. Afghanistan has so far caused 2,200 American soldiers’ deaths, with 22,000 personnel wounded. In addition, the Costs of War Project estimates 295,000 Iraqis, including more than 204,000 civilians were killed up to the end of 2018, although it conceded this figure is likely to be an under-estimate. In Afghanistan, it is estimated Operation Enduring Freedom has cost more than 72,000 Afghan lives.
Despite Operation Enduring Freedom’s eventual failure, the New Zealand involvement and sacrifice should not be considered in vain. Our personnel made a significant contribution over the years and appear to have been generally well-regarded. Even a Taliban spokesman in recent days has praised New Zealand as “the first, the leading country, as it has always been during humanitarian causes, has been the leading country to announce humanitarian aid to the Afghan people.”
Although Afghanistan’s immediate future under the Taliban is unclear, the emerging humanitarian crisis is obvious. The harrowing scenes on television each day of frightened Afghans and others desperate to leave the country before the deadline of August 31 is one thing, but the responsibility of countries like New Zealand, who were involved for so long, is something else. We have a moral and humanitarian obligation to help, especially those still in Afghanistan who helped and supported New Zealand personnel over the years and who now want to leave the country. We cannot turn our backs on them now.
In 2012 the previous government agreed to allow Afghan nationals who had worked with New Zealand personnel as interpreters and other employees to resettle in New Zealand if they wished to do so. Under that programme, 44 personnel and 96 members of their wider families have been resettled here, although there have been media reports that applications from many others have been declined over recent months.
Since the current crisis unfolded, the Royal New Zealand Air Force has been deployed to make evacuation flights out of Kabul, taking New Zealand and Australian nationals to safety in the United Arab Emirates. But these have now stopped, and it is estimated that over 500 people with links to New Zealand still remain in Afghanistan. It is not clear what plans, if any, there are for their repatriation. What is clear, though, is that New Zealand has a responsibility to do far more than appears to have been the case so far.
Refugee support groups here are already calling on the Government to emulate the example of the Key government in 2015, which agreed to accept 750 refugees from Syria, and a good case can surely be made to do at least as much today for Afghani refugees seeking to make new and safe lives for themselves and their families.
At the international level, the Afghanistan catastrophe again raises questions about the effectiveness of the UN and how the organisation can be reformed to respond best in such situations. As a founding member of the UN, and a country with a long tradition of commitment to its principles, New Zealand has an opportunity to leverage its respect and relatively independent foreign policy to play a role here. For many years, we have been in the vanguard of countries seeking reform of the cumbersome institution, and we should seek to promote that role now. While the UN will always be far from perfect, however it is structured, it is still the best mechanism available for multilateral conflict resolution, and a global approach to the world’s overarching educational, scientific, environmental and development challenges.
The Afghanistan conflict of the past 20 years is appallingly graphic proof of what happens when powerful countries abandon that framework and instead decide that what they consider best for their own interests should be imposed on everyone else. As a nation with a commitment to freedom and upholding human rights, New Zealand must ensure its voice is always on the side of upholding the UN's rules-based approach and supporting the victims of oppression where it can.
