By Chris Trotter*
New Zealand's decision to delay the formal recognition of Palestinian statehood is itself a recognition of profound geopolitical transformations. While the postwar international order held, New Zealand was proud to place itself in its diplomatic vanguard. As the old order has faltered, however, the struggle between idealism and pragmatism has sharpened. The fault lines of dissent run through institutions, generations and, as the weekend just past has demonstrated, nations.
At the core of the fading international order, and at the heart of the new one, stands the United States of America. Still less than a year old, the second administration of US President Donald Trump has made it clear that the idealism generated in the successful global struggle against fascism and given institutional expression in the United Nations Organisation and its agencies in the late-1940s, is no longer guiding global events. It has been replaced by the rawest calculations of national economic advantage and military strength. “Get used to it,” says Trump, “or get run over by it.”
What New Zealand’s Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, has made clear since Trump’s electoral victory in November 2024 is that the Coalition Government’s priority is to do everything it can to protect New Zealand from being run over. As the Trump Administration’s decision to impose a 15 percent tariff on New Zealand’s exports made clear, there are limits to how comprehensively this country’s interests can be protected. What New Zealand can do, however, is refrain from antagonising the USA and its mercurial leader unnecessarily.
Assessing the degree to which the Trump Administration is going to be affronted by the decision of three of the USA’s Five Eyes partners – the UK, Australia and Canada – to scale back their hitherto rock-solid support for Israel is challenging. Opting to do what the Trump Administration has set its face against (in this case recognising Palestinian statehood) is fraught with risk. While Trump himself sees nothing wrong with America having its cake and eating it too, such self-indulgence is not encouraged in allies whose national security is wholly dependent on maintaining Washington’s good will.
On this matter Foreign Minister Peters is clear-eyed. Over many years, he has developed close relationships with American foreign policy specialists from across the political spectrum. Peters needs little instruction in the core elements of Trumpian diplomacy. He understands that what the world is witnessing in 2025 is the return of the “imperial” American presidency – on steroids. In determining the likely response of Trump’s America, Peters need only ask: “What would Caesar do?”
The mindset of Trump’s staunchest lieutenants should also play a part in the New Zealand government’s deliberations. The reaction of Vice-President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to the diplomatic desertion of the UK, Australia, Canada, France and other hitherto reliable friends of Israel has been a caustic concoction of scorn and contempt. There were merit-points to be garnered for New Zealand by refusing to become a member of that particular club.
In the eyes of the American Right these deserter countries are seen as indulging in the same performative politics as the pro-Palestinian demonstrators thronging the streets of their capital cities. Indeed, the electoral clout wielded by the immigrant communities supplying so many of these demonstrators is held up as the principal explanation for the sudden spike of western governments’ recognising Palestine and condemning Israel. Conservative commentators are already characterising this behaviour as a twenty-first century example of “appeasement” – bowing to barbarism.
It is important to note at this point that the decision to delay recognition of Palestinian statehood is born of more than the idiosyncrasies of Foreign Minister Peters. The Washington faction within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has maintained its strength for more than 40 years. Its argument has always been that when push comes to shove there are only the Americans. In the eyes of this faction, the trick is to keep New Zealand in the front row of whatever game Washington is playing: free market capitalism; the War on Terror; globalisation; AUKUS; Trump’s neomercantilist realpolitik. Peters may have learned to play the Washington faction’s game better than most New Zealand foreign ministers, but he didn’t invent it.
In the wake of the Palestine decision, it is likely that Peters’ diplomatic efforts will be devoted to parlaying New Zealand’s conspicuous act of fealty to Trump’s Middle Eastern policies into an answering gesture of appreciation from the United States – the lowering of that 15 percent tariff on exports to the original 10 percent, perhaps?
It must surely be in the interests of the United States to demonstrate that the loyalty of traditional (albeit small) allies should not go unrewarded – anymore than the disloyalty of America’s much larger friends should go unpunished.
Where does all this cold-blooded calculation leave New Zealand’s “independent foreign policy”? Is this country now expected to remove all traces of morality from its diplomacy? Such questions betray not only a touching innocence, but also a fundamental mischaracterisation of what New Zealand has been doing on the international stage since the end of the Second World War.
What is it that New Zealanders do best? They win the admiration of the world by competing successfully at games that, on the face of it, are much too big for them. In diplomatic terms this means grasping the logic of international relations faster and more thoroughly than just about anybody else – and then applying it with intelligence and flair.
Who was a better global citizen, back in the days of the “rules-based international order” than New Zealand? Whose tariffs were lower? Whose UN peacekeepers more respected? And who has grasped the daunting fact that the “rules-based international order” no longer exists with more alacrity than the Kiwis?
Not the UK, Australia, Canada and France, that’s for sure. It’s what makes their diplomacy so weak and, frankly, so infantile. What part of the “rules-based international order” was Vladimir Putin honouring when he sent his tanks across the Ukrainian border? And which part of that same international order authorised Trump’s B2 bombers to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities?
Can it really be true that New Zealand’s traditional friends are expecting a clearly dysfunctional United Nations, and sundry toothless international courts, to resurrect a two-state solution out of Benjamin Netanyahu’s nightmarish wasteland of shattered homes and collateral human damage?
When Israel’s leaders are proceeding on the understanding that if a war cannot be avoided, then it must be won; and Hamas is certain it can triumph by revealing to the world the terrible human cost of such a victory; what can possibly be gained by recognising the blood-soaked earth beneath the combatants’ feet as a nation state?
The wisdom and the pathos of Peters’ address to the UN General Assembly lay in his understanding that there can be no peace in Israel/Palestine until both sides understand that the greatest obstacle to constructing a working alternative to war is their mutual enmity. A day may come when that realisation breaks through the razor-wire of hate and blame. When the leaders on both sides are finally convinced that Israelis and Palestinians have more to gain by ending their enmity than by fuelling it.
But it is not today.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
62 Comments
The address by Winston Peters was articulate and precise in its argument and fully explained, with a good deal of weight, the position being taken by New Zealand. In that regard it did all that was needed to be done.
Bollocks. And bollocks to Trotter, too.
We by lack-of-national-maturity were guilty of association with Sykes/Picot, Balfour, and therefore all the repercussions.
Hamas wouldn't exist if that hadn't happened - we caused Hamas to happen (why is it that folk don't think stuff through? Why don't they see we'a culpa?).
'At the core of the fading international order, and at the heart of the new one' is the US? Um, no. Trotter is energy/resource blind. The US is a failing state and will never again be the dominant global hegemony. We're hitched to a falling star. And there isn't enough remaining planet for a size-equivalent replacement - although there probably will be a lesser-and-lessening one...
How far back do you want to go? Archaeological Anthropology identifies that the Jews are of the tribes along the banks of the Jordan River and that those tribes have fought over possession of the land for centuries. Whoever is right or wrong is lost in the desert dusts of time.
You say the blame is ours, but to what extent are we guilty of the transgressions of our fathers? We had no say, we merely get to live with the consequences and there is no way to undo the crimes of the past or compensate for them. Money or land cannot heal historic trauma.
Israel did not occupy Gaza. It did blockade it in response to attacks by Hamas. And let's be very clear, Hamas designed a perpetrated an attack targeted on civilian women and children primarily and in the execution of it committed some extreme, unspeakable crimes that should forever stain anyone with any connection to Hamas. No amount of postulation can ever justify the acts that were perpetrated by them. But the Israeli response to that attack was planned for and wanted by Hamas. Israel has never been known to have restraint when it comes to protecting what it sees as it's own.
That Israel is openly stealing land and dispossessing Palestinians of their long held property is an internationally recognised crime, and that their response to the Hamas attack on their children is far beyond what anyone could argue is reasonable and is now officially labelled as being a war crime is undeniable. But recognising a Palestinian state at a time when the organisation that planned the attack is founded on a vow to do to Israel, what Israel is now doing to them would achieve what? Nothing at all other than giving Hamas more legitimacy that it does not deserve and risks the world forgetting what triggered this.
The shame belongs to those who would choose to forget and set aside what Hamas did, and won't call for Hamas's unconditional surrender to international authorities.
Self-defense
I need say no more.
If you are being repressed increasingly - and the pattern has been b-obvious for the longest time - then you lash out. Or die witheringly.
Don't blame them.
And good luck defending genocide.
Ever. By anybody. This is important, because by 2100, there will be less than 3 billion of us, and maybe none. Uncontrolled, it will be chaos. Controlled, still unpretty, but I prefer controlled. And it has to be 'by other than psychopaths'. Which is why I think the UN should be supported, not dissed. It is those who make it toothless (mostly the US and attendant sycophants, but others too) who need to be challenged. And that we did not do. We kissed a .
This is important, because by 2100, there will be less than 3 billion of us, and maybe none
Or maybe about 8 billion, which is where it would end up if current fertility rate trends (which are falling) continue for the next 25 years, https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2025/09/11/humanity-will… :
Only about one-third of the world’s people live in countries where fertility is high enough to keep the population growing, and even in those places, rates are falling rapidly.
Who is justifying genocide?
That it was planned by Hamas is undeniable. They vow it for Israel and banked on Israel's response to their attack. Neither are a justification.
Nothing we say or do now will change the reality of what is happening over there, but as CT says, could have significant impacts on us as a very small country very much dependent on the good will of others.
Hamas's strategy of provoking Palestinian civilian deaths and suffering to inspire a global reaction against Israel is problematic, and I really wish Israel hadn't played into their hands so easily.
Agree, both Hamas and Israel have got blood all over their hands here. Neither we should consider legitimate IMO as they have both have lost their legitimacy by acting as terrorists.
Exactly. Israel's statehood should have been taken away long ago. The entire area should have become a UN protectorate. In order to do so, the UN Security Council veto needed to be amended (removed) and perhaps the structure of it changed as well. A bit like the US Constitution, the UN Charter needs amendment/update more frequently.
Somehow I suspect had Helen Clark got the Secretary General job in the last round, we'd have had a different history in this regard.
X is energy/resource blind
Here's a challenge for you - try writing a single comment that doesn't just boil down to repeating this ad nauseam. Bonus points if the comment doesn't also involve "you're all wrong and I'm right".
Most conflict is over either or both.
But the winners - and that has been contiguously us, the last 200 years - feel a tad squeamish if that is included in their narrative. So they invent nonsense narratives - that a rising tide lifts all boats, that economic growth is somehow unlinked, or un-link-able - to resource plunder. That they are bringing democracy to... and all the other a-covering nonsense.
Why do you need to shoot the messenger? Just asking. Don't like it?
:)
If we're not recognising Palestine for reasons, then we equally shouldn't recognise Israel for those same reasons.
As for sucking up to the US. They are not close friends and will shit on us five eyes or not.
I agree we need to be careful and diplomatic and pragmatic but that is not what this is. This is weak in the extreme.
I was thinking this very same thing over the weekend... I wonder if there is a process to "un-recognise" the state of Israel? My guts says there isn't...which is a shame...
To put this into a (dreadful, I admit) NZ-based perspective - we are the snivelling Wormtongue to the US' arrogant (and ultimately doomed) Saruman... and we look craven, cowed and helpless on the world stage as a result
Yes, agree with this. I mean Israel is essentially an illegitimate near terrorist regime to us now, if we are to follow international norms of defining genocide. We would already have to arrest Netanyahu (and others?) if he were to visit our shores.
If we don't recognise the 2 state solution, we probably shouldn't be recognising either state.
The two-state solution has been on the table for 40 years, it's just that one side is ruled by a terrorist organisation with a "mission statement" to wipe out Israel. The IDF hadn't been in Gaza for a decade, & pray tell what have the Gazans been doing with the billions in aid they have received? Armed themselves and built a network of terror tunnels.
Amongst the many attrocities of the 7th October attack was the rape of corpses. One of the Israeli women had dna from >50 men inside her.
The worst of this conflict may have been avoided if Hamas had just returned the hostages. Most of the Middle East do not recognise Palestine, why should we?
So, let's call the "Free Palestine" movement for what it is - hard left anti-semitisim.
And Israel hasn't got a mission statement to wipe out Palestine?
That's explain the constant incursions, the constant theft.
But it's OK if you call those 'settlements', right?
So much more homey...
No, it doesn't.
21% of Israel's population is Arabic (>2m). They are welcome to settle and practice their religion there. How do you think Jew's would be treated in Gaza?
It's the same old ignorance and anti-semitism. While we are at it, what country has the most Nobel peace prizes per-capita, is the only country to recognise gay marriage & have democracy in the region?
Israel have done more to advance technology and science in a year than we have in 100 years.
Try reading 'The Other Side of Israel' - or borrow my copy.
Note my comment re democracy, this thread.
And do you think those advancements have helped us be a long-term-maintainable species, or not?
Not that I agree with your 100x posit.
Te Kooti,
Sadly, what you say isn't so. The governing principle of the current Israeli government is that; The Jewish people have an exclusive and indisputable right to all the areas of the Land of Israel. Members of the current government include Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar ben Gvir and they are just as much terrorists as Hamas. I agree with the views of Ehud Olmert, the ex PM that war crimes are being committed in Gaza and I believe in the illegal settlements.
Israel has a general election next year and my hope is that the Israeli people will choose to remove this appalling government from power.
There are Jewish who think Israel have gone too far in Gaza, and there are Jewish who don't think they have gone far enough.
After 9/11 the US invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel have invaded Gaza. When you commit terrorist attrocities on the soil of a heavily armed adversary, you are going to get a disproportional response.
TK. And given Hamas's entrenched policy of eradicating Israel, what purpose would 'proportionality' serve?. Endless tit for tat attritional minor clashes is exactly what Hamas would want. As cynically brutal as it is Israel is (probably correctly) calculating that world opinion will reasonably quickly move on to the next cause célèbre once Hamas suffers its now inevitable destruction.
They are both as bad as each other. Israel has been forcing palestinians into smaller and smaller zones over the last 70 odd years. That's by design, by a country who is has recently expressed that genocide of palestinians is a what they desire. Seems like you are concentrating on the horrors committed by Hamas but don't forget Israel is intentionally blowing children to pieces and systematically starving millions of people. So you can say that one side is hard left anti-semites all you want, that doesn't stop the other side being hard right religious zealots hell bent on the destruction of a people as much as their enemies. Both their religions teach violence begets violence, but they all seem to conveniently forget about that.
Jews have a right to a homeland and Israel is it. Geographically, it's miniscule in relation to the Arabic neighbours. Palestine could have been a state, 2m Arabs already live in Israel. Hamas is the problem, backed by the terrorist block of Iran etc.
Why is Palestine such a prominent issue when the atrocities in neighbours such as Yemen get a free pass? Why does the murder of Christians in Nigeria get a free pass?
Because Palestine is 99.9% about antisemitism is why. It's also about the increasingly important Muslim vote in UK, Australia and Canada - that's why those countries have come forward.
Nice whataboutism. Sounds like you support genocide of a people, maybe just reflect on that.
And you support the rape of corpses, nice.
Nope, I said both are as bad as each other, the violence of both sides is to be abhorred. You say that Hamas is bad, but don't recognise Israel actions as being terrible, so condemn one perpetrating violence, but not the other.
I didn't say Hamas were bad, I said they are a proscribed terrorist organisation who have committed attrocities and should be wiped out.
Historically, I have been critical of Israeli settlors in the West Bank. Stolen land should be returned and a Palestine state formed if and when Hamas are removed and a new regime formed that agree to peaceful co-existence with Israel.
TK. Claims that Israel is on a mission to wipe out the Palestinians are rendered nonsense by the growing population of 2m people of Arab extraction who live in Israel proper. To that you should add the 4m palestinians living under effective Israeli control in the annexed west bank, whose numbers are also growing.
No correlation.
The numbers are not growing from any action taken by Israel.
The population would not be growing if Israel was, as falsely claimed, operating an official policy of genocide towards palestinians as a people group.
Given the sheer complexity of the geopolitics, a careful non decision is probably the wisest path: when the buffalo fight, the small animals get trampled.
When things like Hamas' status as a client of Iran, and the likelihood that this war was precipitated at least in part by their desire to break the detente that was developing with the wealthy gulf states that are hostile to Iran and Israel, coupled to a bunch of ultra-nationalist, intransigent, trigger happy over-reactors in power on the other side, whose elections are not for another year - it all gets very murky indeed.
It seems so many nations are being shoved in to firm decisions based on public noise, which may or may not be the actual will of the people, and only elections answer that question.
Moral codes are simpler to describe.
:)
Does anyone really believe that this will make any difference to how Trump (et al) acts towards us, or anything else?
Aye, and anybody else for that matter. New Zealand, well the media mostly, likes to present New Zealand as the little battler punching above its weight and in many ways historically on the world stage, that is true but when the message is broadcast stridently it risks the label of being that of a little country with a big opinion. Internationally it is not imprudent to just keep things in perspective.
Yes. Aotearoa likes to think of itself as holier than thou and more important than it actually is. People like Helen Clark don't do us any favors.
You both appear to taken the opposite meaning of the comment......Trump will not be placated by this type of signalling (grovelling) and his (US) treatment of us will continue to be based on his own interests/mood.
You both appear to taken the opposite meaning of the comment......Trump will not be placated by this type of signalling (grovelling) and his (US) treatment of us will continue to be based on his own interests/mood.
I think my comment aligns with this. Trump doesn't give a rats about any virtue signaling from Aotearoa. Similarly, China doesn't care about us telling them the difference between right and wrong.
But are we any different when it comes to self interest? Also, I think our relationship with the U.S. is driven by self interest - how much beef can we sell in their market. It's definitely not based on us imparting moral guidance and leadership to the U.S. and the Anglosphere.
"But are we any different when it comes to self interest? Also, I think our relationship with the U.S. is driven by self interest - how much beef can we sell in their market. It's definitely not based on us imparting moral guidance and leadership to the U.S. and the Anglosphere. "
I would suggest a couple of differences....our self interest has driven our support for the (previous) rules based order contrary to the current US regime and while our political leadership may be wanting in quality we dont yet have anything that resembles the corrupt, mercenary and vindictive shambles growing in the US.
The 'self interest' (and corruption) of the past order operated within boundaries and when transgression was exposed there was consequence (albeit often nominal) whereas now there is a blatant and shameless flouting of such boundaries and a perverse pleasure in doing so.
Aint gonna end well.
The US are the only country capable of defending us from China, end of story. We will always need to save a functioning relationship with them.
Are you aware that China conducted a live round training drill in the Tasman recently? They gave no notice to either ourselves or Australia, Qantas passenger planes saw it and had to divert.
Am aware of that incident in international waters.
"The US are the only country capable of defending us from China, end of story."
Do you think the US will honour article 5 to NATO?....if the US is an unreliable partner within a formal mutual defence treaty why do you trust they will defend a non ally in the remote Pacific?
All part of the usual to & fro by many navies over many years. There has been plenty of passage through the Straits of Formosa by vessels on a different tack, to those of China. The vital point though was the conjecture going on frenzy about whether or not the flotilla in the Tasman included a nuke sub. That in itself identifies why Australia sees it as being necessary to so arm themselves too. Reminiscent in a way of the early 20th century the Kaiser versus the Royal Navy. What is intended is deterrence in so much that if you hit me I am quite capable of retaliating in kind and more.
"The vital point though was the conjecture going on frenzy about whether or not the flotilla in the Tasman included a nuke sub. That in itself identifies why Australia sees it as being necessary to so arm themselves too"
I think not....
"The announcement in 2021 that Australia would acquire nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) signalled a significant shift in Australia’s defence policy. For many it seemed as if it was a decision and discussion without precedent, but this is not the case. The question of whether Australia should acquire nuclear-powered submarines was first asked in 1959 during the simpler discussion of whether Australia should acquire submarines at all. Over the years that followed the nuclear propulsion question was raised several times, including in 1965 as the construction program for the RAN’s first four Oberon class submarines was well underway in the UK."
https://seapower.navy.gov.au/publications-and-research/nuclear-powered-…
Yes I went to see HMAS Oxley at Port Chalmers. Obviously Australia has not come to consider acquiring nuke submarines only in recently . The point is why they have now decided to proceed and the intended purpose.
Really, what other navies have conducted live exercises in the Tasman without notifying Australia and NZ? So what did we do about it? Zip, The Chinese flag would be on the Harbour Bridge before lunch if they sailed into the Waitemata.
Unfortunately for Australia, Morrison dropped the French for the US and it's almost certain the latter will never deliver them as they simply don't have the capacity to produce them.
I imagine if the Chinese wished to do so that may well be the case, but my question was why do you trust that the US would do anything to prevent that because as said even their own senior military dont think they will honour article 5 in europe.
You may be right, there would be a heavy price if they did. What is the alternative?
Maybe life under Chinese rule is the reset we need? I mean, the benefits bill will shrink!
I dont see China wanting to invade these fair isles anytime soon.....not militarily in any case. They have more important things to do at the moment.
Agreed. It's Taiwan that will be the catalyst, that's going to be the defining moment for us this century.
Holy cow, this is reds under the bed stuff, truly fantastical. Does anyone really think China could take over and hold NZ? It's a laughably idiotic suggestion. Massively long supply lines, a country reasonably well armed and sparsely populated whose population you would need to subjugcate to hold properly. Then you would also have to contend with a huge Chinese diaspora who have recently migrated to NZ, essentially treating them as second class citizens of your own country somehow.
The greatest military the world has ever seen (the US) tried to hold a reasonably hostile country (Afghanistan) for more than a decade and really only held small parts of the country. They left with their tail between their legs after the toll of continuing to try to hold onto a place became far too high, for very little benefit.
Besides, why would China need to? They are bounding ahead so fast economically and technologically, we simply won't have a choice but to be joined to them more and more as the USA eats itself.
Certainly a long stretch both logistically and geographically. The thing is if it were to happen it would be foreshadowed by the overwhelming and occupation of many island nations and including American territory such as Hawaii. That in itself draws a state of the world bordering on Armageddon well before any arrival at these shores.
The greatest military the world has ever seen (the US) tried to hold a reasonably hostile country (Afghanistan) for more than a decade and really only held small parts of the country.
You realise that if the US was serious about Afghanistan, they could have taken it in a week? It was more about regime change. They took Iraq under BAU without a single nuke being fired.
The threat from China is not direct, it's us being dragged in via Taiwan. It will be Sophies Choice, our economy or our military allies.
our self interest has driven our support for the (previous) rules based order contrary to the current US regime
You mean like the "rules based order" under the likes of Obama? I suggest you do some reading. If you don't know where to start, begin with the U.S.-led NATO intervention in Libya - justified by humanitarian claims but ultimately involved regime change in a sovereign nation, violating the principle of non-aggression and the sovereignty norms enshrined in international law. Critics argue this contradicted the U.S.'s professed commitment to legal norms and exacerbated instability in the region.
The rules based order under any number of previous US presidents but as stated what is developing in the US currently is far removed from (and in excess of) the problematic past regimes.
Because you "don't like Trump" doesn't mean "Trump is worse than past presidents." You can only frame it subjectively and emotion takes over.
I dont just dislike Trump....I'm not that keen on those he surrounds himself with either, nor those in senate and congress who facilitate him.
That being said the actions of this regime since inauguration speak for themselves....objectively.
I could take your words, interchange Obama for Trump, and nobody could argue to the contrary.
You can try
I still occasionally read on international sources people remembering how NZ ruined the 1976 Montreal Olympics because of our wrong-headed approach to sporting ties with South Africa.
We are on the wrong side of history again and people will remember.
I also assume that there was a back room trade off. Not that anyone would talk openly about that.
We are on the wrong side of history again and people will remember.
Bit of a stretch. 45 countries - including the United States, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Panama, Cameroon, and a majority of countries in Oceania and western/northern Europe - do not recognize Palestine as an independent state.
Palestine will be recognised both those countries when they return the hostages and boot Hamas out.
Who is going to 'boot out' the illegal settlers in both Gaza and the West Bank?
Still less than a year old, the second administration of US President Donald Trump has made it clear that the idealism generated in the successful global struggle against fascism and given institutional expression in the United Nations Organisation and its agencies in the late-1940s, is no longer guiding global events.
Wrong-headed mis-characterisation there. I would re-write it thus;
Still less than a year old, the second administration of US President Donald Trump has made it clear that the successful global struggle against fascism in the late 1940's, is at an end and his administration will succeed at its re-incarnation where others have failed.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.