Wellington: New Zealand’s high commissioner to the UK, Phil Goff, was dismissed after questioning Donald Trump’s understanding of history.
Speaking at Chatham House, Goff referenced Winston Churchill’s 1938 speech criticizing Britain’s appeasement of Hitler.
He compared Churchill’s words to Trump’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, implying a lack of historical awareness.
Goff noted that Trump restored Churchill’s bust in the Oval Office but doubted his comprehension of history.
The statement drew immediate backlash, leading to Goff’s removal from his diplomatic position.
Minister’s Response
Foreign Minister Winston Peters justified the dismissal, citing diplomatic neutrality.
He stated that making such remarks about any country would have resulted in the same action.
Peters called the decision difficult, expressing regret over firing a long-time colleague.
He emphasized that diplomats represent government policies, not personal opinions.
“Envoys cannot freely express personal views; they embody New Zealand’s official stance,” Peters explained.
Criticism Emerges
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark criticized the firing on social media.
She called Goff a respected figure and questioned whether his dismissal was justified.
Clark pointed out that similar historical comparisons were made at the Munich Security Conference.
Many global leaders have drawn parallels between Munich 1938 and current U.S. foreign policy.
Her remarks added fuel to the debate over Goff’s removal.
Historical Comparison
Goff’s reference to 1938 alluded to the Munich Agreement, which allowed Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia.
He suggested that Trump’s approach to Ukraine mirrors past appeasement strategies.
The Munich Agreement ultimately failed, leading to World War II after Germany invaded Poland.
Goff’s remarks implied that Trump’s diplomatic moves might result in similar consequences.
His comparison stirred controversy, sparking both support and criticism.
Diplomatic Standards
Peters stressed that neutrality is key in diplomacy, requiring representatives to avoid personal commentary.
He stated that maintaining New Zealand’s credibility relies on adherence to diplomatic norms.
Despite Goff’s experience, Peters argued that his comments jeopardized diplomatic relations.
Clark and others, however, believe the firing was unnecessary and politically motivated.
The debate continues over whether Goff’s remarks warranted his removal.
