America or Europe? Why Trump’s Ukraine U-turn is a fork in the road for New Zealand
- Written by: Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato
The aftermath of one of the most undiplomatic – and notorious[1] – White House meetings in recent history reveals a changed world.
Having berated Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky for supposedly not wanting peace with Russia and failing to show sufficient gratitude to the United States, President Donald Trump has now paused all military aid to Ukraine.
This equates to about 40% of the beleaguered nation’s military support. If the gap is not quickly covered by other countries, Ukraine will be severely compromised in its defence against the Russian invasion.
This has happened while the Russian army is making slow but costly gains along the front in eastern Ukraine. Trump’s goal appears to be to force Zelensky to accept a deal he does not want, and which may be illegal under international law.
New Zealand is a long way from that front line, but the implications of Trump’s unilateral abandonment of Ukraine still create a serious foreign policy problem.
Aside from its unequivocal condemnation[2] of Russia’s actions, New Zealand has provided Defence Force personnel for training, intelligence, logistics and liaison to the tune of nearly NZ$35 million. The government has also given an additional $32 million in humanitarian assistance.
At the same time, New Zealand has supported global legal efforts to hold Russia to account at both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. With Trump undermining these collective actions, New Zealand faces some stark choices.
Allies at war
While a genuine ceasefire and eventual peace in Ukraine are the right aims, Trump’s one-sided proposal has involved direct talks between Russia and the US, excluding all other parties, including the actual victims of Russian aggression.
With eery parallels to the Munich Agreement of 1938[3] between Nazi Germany, Britain, France and Italy, peace terms could be dictated to the innocent party. Ukraine may have to sacrifice part of its territory in the hope a wider peace prevails.
In exchange, Ukraine may be given some type of “security assurance”. But what that arrangement would look like, and what kind of peacekeeping force might be acceptable to Russia, remains unclear.
If the current UK and European ceasefire proposals[4] fail, Europe could be pulled more directly into the conflict. Since the Trump rebuff, European leaders are embracing Zelenskyy more tightly, wary of an emboldened Russia threatening other states with substantial Russian populations such as in Estonia and Latvia.
European boots on the ground in Ukraine could escalate the existing war into a much larger and more dangerous conflict. The complexities of this new reality are now spilling over in the United Nations.
A fork in the road
While the Security Council finally agreed on a broad statement in favour of a lasting peace[5], just what that might look like has seen opposing resolutions in the General Assembly.
On February 18, 53 countries, including New Zealand, voted in favour of a resolution condemning Russian aggression[6] and calling for the return of Ukrainian territory. The resolution passed, but the US, Russia, Belarus and North Korea voted against it.
The US then put up its own resolution[7] calling for peace, without recognising Russian aggression or the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory. New Zealand supported this, too.
Those two votes clearly signal a fork-in-the-road moment for New Zealand.
As well as the wider consequences and potential precedents of any Ukraine peace settlement for security in Europe and the Pacific region, there is the immediate problem of supporting Ukraine.
With the US and Europe – both traditional allies of New Zealand – now deeply divided, whatever path the government chooses will directly affect present and future security arrangements – including any possible “pillar two” membership of AUKUS.
Potentially complicating matters further, Trump’s civilian lieutenant Elon Musk has publicly advocated[8] for the US leaving the UN and NATO. Whether or not that happens, the threat alone underscores the gravity of the current situation.
No option without risk
Ultimately, if Trump decides to force Zelensky to the negotiating table against his will, and Europe continues urging and supporting him to fight on, New Zealand will have to take sides. It cannot take both.
The National-led coalition government will either have to abandon the stance New Zealand has taken on the Russian invasion over the past three years, or wait for Europe’s response and align with efforts to support a rules-based international order.
The first option would mean stepping back from that traditional foreign policy position, cutting military support for Ukraine (and trusting the Trump process), and probably ending sanctions against Russia and diplomatic efforts for legal accountability.
The other path would mean spending more on military aid, and possibly deploying more defence personnel to help fill the gap Trump has created.
No option is without risk. But, on balance, the European approach to international affairs seems closer to New Zealand’s worldview than the one currently articulated by the Trump administration.
References
- ^ and notorious (www.bbc.com)
- ^ unequivocal condemnation (www.mfat.govt.nz)
- ^ Munich Agreement of 1938 (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ UK and European ceasefire proposals (www.reuters.com)
- ^ broad statement in favour of a lasting peace (docs.un.org)
- ^ voted in favour of a resolution condemning Russian aggression (docs.un.org)
- ^ own resolution (docs.un.org)
- ^ publicly advocated (www.huffpost.com)
Authors: Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato
