How NZ Really Makes Foreign Policy: A Sir Humphrey Analysis

Five minutes to read

What would Sir Humphrey Appleby say about NZ’s foreign policy regarding Israel? Few political comedies have aged as gracefully as Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. Decades after their original broadcast, the shows still feel uncomfortably current. Their satire works because the behaviours they lampoon — bureaucratic inertia, diplomatic hedging, the art of sounding principled while avoiding consequences — are not relics of the 1980s. They are structural features of government itself.

One episode in particular, A Victory for Democracy, has become a cult favourite among foreign‑policy watchers. In it, Sir Humphrey Appleby explains to Jim Hacker why Britain votes the way it does on Israel‑related resolutions at the United Nations. His explanation is a masterpiece of dry, bureaucratic cynicism: six “principles” that supposedly guide British diplomacy, each contradicting the others, yet all recognisable to anyone who has worked in or around government.

If you distil Sir Humphrey’s six principles, you end up with five deeper forces that still shape Western foreign policy today:

• The pressure to maintain alliances
• The fear of taking a clear stand
• The comfort of precedent
• The bureaucratic instinct to avoid blame
• The use of moral language to mask pragmatic calculations

These forces are not unique to the UK. They are structural. And when you apply them to New Zealand’s foreign‑policy behaviour on Israel, the parallels are striking. One additional factor matters enormously for NZ: trade, which interacts with all five forces and often reinforces them.

Why New Zealand Aligns With the EU

It’s not that the EU’s foreign‑policy positions are uniquely wise. It’s that they offer New Zealand the lowest‑risk, highest‑cover, most diplomatically efficient path.

EU alignment gives NZ:

• Diplomatic cover: NZ is never isolated at the UN.
• A middle‑of‑the‑road Western stance: acceptable to the US, tolerable to Arab partners.
• A legalistic, multilateral vocabulary: which fits MFAT’s institutional worldview.
• Low political cost: the EU absorbs the heat; NZ quietly votes with them.
• Trade protection: EU alignment avoids jeopardising markets in Europe or the Middle East.

For a small, export‑dependent state that values stability and predictability, EU alignment is the equilibrium point. It is the safest place to stand.

With that in mind, here is how the five structural forces — plus trade — shape NZ’s behaviour across the major Israel‑related issues.

Applying the Five‑Factor Framework to NZ’s Israel‑Related Positions

Israeli Settlements

• Alliances: EU strongly opposes settlements; Arab partners expect opposition; US varies.
• Fear of clarity: NZ condemns settlements but avoids leading or escalating.
• Precedent: NZ has voted this way for decades.
• Blame avoidance: Voting with the EU majority avoids isolation.
• Moral language: “International law,” “illegality of settlements.”
• Trade: Aligning with EU and Arab expectations protects key markets.

Jerusalem

• Alliances: NZ rejects unilateral moves (e.g., US embassy shift) to stay aligned with EU and Arab states.
• Fear of clarity: Avoids taking a position on sovereignty.
• Precedent: NZ has never recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
• Blame avoidance: Stays with overwhelming UN majority.
• Moral language: “Final‑status negotiations.”
• Trade: Avoiding offence to Arab markets is a major consideration.

UNRWA

• Alliances: EU and Arab states strongly support UNRWA; US fluctuates.
• Fear of clarity: NZ supports UNRWA but avoids controversy.
• Precedent: Long history of support.
• Blame avoidance: Supporting UNRWA avoids criticism from the Global South.
• Moral language: “Humanitarian need.”
• Trade: Supporting UNRWA aligns with Arab expectations, protecting export relationships.

Ceasefire Resolutions

• Alliances: EU pushes; Arab states demand; US often resists.
• Fear of clarity: NZ avoids assigning blame.
• Precedent: NZ consistently supports ceasefires.
• Blame avoidance: Votes with the majority.
• Moral language: “Protection of civilians.”
• Trade: Ceasefire support aligns with Arab partners’ expectations.

The Gaza War

• Alliances: NZ balances EU criticism, US support, and Arab outrage.
• Fear of clarity: Avoids legal judgments; uses cautious language.
• Precedent: Follows past Gaza‑war patterns.
• Blame avoidance: Avoids being an outlier.
• Moral language: “Deep concern,” “restraint.”
• Trade: Criticising humanitarian impacts without condemning Israel outright protects both Western and Middle Eastern relationships.

Hamas

• Alliances: Western partners designate Hamas; Arab states differentiate.
• Fear of clarity: NZ avoided full designation for years.
• Precedent: Partial designation became the default.
• Blame avoidance: Avoids appearing too soft or too hard.
• Moral language: “Consistent with UN listings.”
• Trade: Full designation risked alienating Arab partners.

Genocide Allegations

• Alliances: Western partners avoid the term; Global South uses it.
• Fear of clarity: NZ avoids the term entirely.
• Precedent: NZ rarely uses “genocide” outside clear cases.
• Blame avoidance: Avoids alienating any partner.
• Moral language: “Impartial investigation.”
• Trade: Avoiding inflammatory language protects relationships with both Israel’s allies and Arab markets.

Apartheid Allegations

• Alliances: NGOs and some UN bodies use the term; Western states avoid it.
• Fear of clarity: NZ avoids the term to prevent diplomatic fallout.
• Precedent: NZ has never used it.
• Blame avoidance: Avoids being the only Western adopter.
• Moral language: “Human rights concerns.”
• Trade: Using the term would jeopardise relationships with Western partners and risk backlash from Israel’s allies.

Two‑State Solution

• Alliances: The only position acceptable to US, EU, Arab states, Israel, and the UN.
• Fear of clarity: Avoids specifics on borders, refugees, Jerusalem.
• Precedent: Deeply entrenched in NZ policy.
• Blame avoidance: Universally safe fallback.
• Moral language: “Just and lasting peace.”
• Trade: Offends no one; protects all markets.

So What Does This All Mean?

Across all issues, a consistent pattern emerges. New Zealand’s Middle East policy is:

• EU‑aligned
• US‑sensitive
• Arab‑market‑aware
• Precedent‑driven
• Risk‑averse
• Morally framed but pragmatically executed

In other words, New Zealand behaves exactly like a small Western state trying to keep every partner slightly satisfied and none of them angry, while sounding principled throughout.

Sir Humphrey would recognise it instantly.