Where’s our boldness on China?
Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta recently asserted that New Zealand doesn’t ‘‘need the Five Eyes to articulate where we stand on human rights issues’’. And on some significant issues she is right.
In 1993, New Zealand was the only United Nations Security Council member to argue for reinforcing peacekeeping operations in Rwanda in an effort to stave off mass violence. In December 2016, New Zealand helped ensure that a key resolution reaffirming the illegality under international law of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was adopted by the Security Council despite intense pressure from the incoming Trump administration to oppose it.
But on China the Ardern Government has not consistently shown comparable boldness – or boldness commensurate with the Chinese government’s human rights abuses. As authorities erase democracy in Hong Kong, imprison independent activists, commit crimes against humanity targeting Uyghurs and other Turkic communities, and try to undermine the UN human rights system, it’s precisely that sense of courage and commitment to ‘‘values-based’’ policy that’s called for.
New Zealand has signed on to a number of key initiatives led by other countries criticising the Chinese government’s appalling track record, including joint statements condemning human rights violations in Hong Kong and calling for an independent United Nations investigation into human rights crimes against Uyghurs.
New Zealand references China in some of its periodic statements to the UN Human Rights Council. Jacinda Ardern and Mahuta have referenced some concerns in some recent public remarks.
Yet these remarks tend to be in the passive voice, sending a mixed message of wanting to criticise without irking Beijing. That squeamishness is reflected in other recent policies and remarks, including Labour’s peculiar position in the parliamentary debate over whether to use the term genocide to refer to Beijing’s policies towards Uyghurs, and Mahuta’s relatively gentle He Taniwha He Tipua, He Tipua He Taniwha speech.
The Government’s decision not to join a January 10 statement with Five Eyes allies on arrests of democracy activists in Hong Kong, saying it had communicated its concerns bilaterally to Beijing, raised eyebrows when a few weeks later Wellington and Beijing agreed to upgrade a free trade agreement.
Ardern has had to publicly defend her government against allegations New Zealand was giving Beijing a free pass on its human rights record.
The prime minister recently said it was ‘‘becoming harder to reconcile’’ the two countries’ ‘‘differences’’ on ‘‘values’’. What then could New Zealand do to uphold its legacy of boldness – to shake off the sense of uncertainty, to consistently join others’ tough initiatives, and to initiate a few of its own?
In the international arena, New Zealand could offer to lead on a multilateral initiative pressing Beijing to release from Xinjiang the family members of diaspora Uyghurs; several New Zealand Uyghurs – like those in other diaspora communities – recently described the need for greater diplomatic pressure. New Zealand could also kick-start a coalition of democracies committed to protecting against further Chinese government efforts to erode the UN’s human rights ecosystem.
As a country well regarded in the international system precisely for its independence, it should invest significant diplomatic effort in generating broad international support for a full-scale UN investigation of human rights crimes in Xinjiang, something top UN officials have been reluctant to undertake.
Domestically, authorities should urgently review whether New Zealand firms do business in Xinjiang, where concerns about surveillance technology are well established. Similarly, the Government should assess whether any imports from Xinjiang–from apparel to solar panels– may have been made with forced labour.
No New Zealand government has thoroughly confronted Chinese state and Chinese Communist Party influence in New Zealand. Former politicians, parties, universities, and companies across the country have been shown to have problematic ties to Beijing, yet there is little movement towards a broad, thorough public examination of these relationships.
In 2018, the Chinese embassy in Wellington hosted a reception for the People’s Liberation Army – a force deployed to crush peaceful speech from Tibet to Tiananmen Square – not at its own premises but at Te Papa, a public institution devoted to multiculturalism.
Some will argue that New Zealand is too small and economically exposed to take such tough positions. Leaving the tough positions to others fails to account for Xi Jinping’s international aspirations, and to examine the future: if Beijing proceeds at home and abroad as it has in the past decade, the global consequences may well be grim.
New Zealand has – both on its own and in concert with like-minded governments – confronted complex human rights challenges before, and been willing to bear the cost for doing what it thinks is right. Whether it manages to do so now with a Chinese government committing human rights crimes at home and threatening human rights abroad is a critical test for the Ardern Government.
If Beijing proceeds at home and abroad as it has in the past decade, the global consequences may well be grim globally.