Wellington’s move over Xinjiang ‘will not ruin China ties’
Decision not to call Uygur’s treatment genocide suggests nation’s attempt to find middle ground
New Zealand parliament’s declaration last week human rights abuses were occurring in China’s Xinjiang province drew condemnation from Beijing, but the removal of the term “genocide” suggested Wellington is unwilling to jeopardise ties, analysts said.
They also said the attempt to find a middle ground between China and its “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance – which includes the US, Britain, Australia and Canada, who have all criticised China’s human rights record – will not be lost on Beijing.
Liu Zhiqin, a senior fellow of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at the Renmin University of China, said there was a “fundamental difference” between Wellington’s position and attempts by Western countries to “interfere in Xinjiang”.
Liu said there was no need for China to be “overly nervous and over interpret” Wellington’s motion, and that New Zealand had left itself flexibility to clarify its position through further exchanges with China.
Zhiqun Zhu, international relations department chair at Bucknell University in the US, said New Zealand had been pressured by its allies to be tough on China and it would have been “politically incorrect” for Wellington to not criticise Beijing.
“However, [New Zealand’s motion] will satisfy neither its critics nor China,” Zhu said.
Zhu said the omission of the word “genocide” from the declaration likely reflected disagreement within New Zealand about the situation in Xinjiang.
According to the United Nations, China has detained “upwards of 1 million” members of ethnic minority groups, including Uygurs in Xinjiang. Lawmakers in the US and several Western nations have labelled it “genocide”. Beijing has denied this, insisting it has been fighting terrorism and cultivating economic opportunity.
The parliamentary motion by a minor party was toned down to secure support from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party.
By the end of 2020, the value of New Zealand’s exports to China exceeded the combined value of exports by its next four largest trading partners: Australia, the US, Britain and Japan.
Ardern last week said differences with China were becoming “harder to reconcile” despite her insistence disagreements would not define the relationship.
Observers said this balancing act would be difficult to maintain as ties between Australia and China had declined because of a range of issues, including trade, human rights and the origin of the coronavirus.
China’s more benevolent view of New Zealand might help Wellington’s cause, analysts said.
China welcomes that New Zealand does not regard itself as the dominant player in Oceania and does not seek strategic control over the region, which includes Pacific island nations, where China’s influence has expanded in recent years, according to analysts.
He Weiwen, a senior fellow at Beijing’s Centre for China and Globalisation think tank, noted New Zealand had no desire to participate in “the confrontation of major powers”.
“New Zealand supports multilateralism and does not advocate exclusive cliques,” He Weiwen said, referring to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising the US, Japan, Australia and India that Beijing has accused of “driving a wedge” between nations in the region.
New Zealand’s stance has been criticised by its Western allies but Victor Gao, vice-president of the Centre for China and Globalisation think tank, said New Zealand had “better eyesight than others and better judgment”.
Gao said New Zealand should “refuse to become pawns of hostile forces in the United States bent upon preventing China’s peaceful development”.
He, from the same think tank, also dismissed criticisms made by former British politician Nigel Farage in April that New Zealand had “betrayed the English-speaking world” and “sold its soul to China”, suggesting instead “it is more appropriate to say Australia has sold its soul to the US”.
He said the parliamentary motion should be differentiated from diplomatic actions undertaken by the New Zealand government.
Within days of the motion being passed, New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said Wellington wanted a relationship with China that extended beyond trade ties and allowed room for disagreement.
“The New Zealand government has handled the matter in an appropriate way,” He said, adding Mahuta’s comments showed countries with completely different ideologies, values and social systems should seek peaceful coexistence, as reflected in the basic principles of the UN Charter.
“China and New Zealand should work hard to establish a useful example of correct handling of state-to-state relations,” He said.
Gao urged New Zealand to apply “reason, objectivity and fairness”, and support China’s fight against radicalisation, terrorism, extremism and separatism.
However,
[New Zealand’s motion] will satisfy neither its critics nor China