Despite the removal of wording about genocide, Parliament’s condemnation of human rights abuses in Xinjiang still represents a major move - the question now is what comes next, Sam Sachdeva writes
During his time as foreign affairs minister, the National Party’s Murray McCully made a point of opposing what he called "megaphone diplomacy". Such an approach, he said, was "not the New Zealand way".
But this week, National - and Labour, and every other party in Parliament - took out a proverbial loudhailer to decry human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims in China's Xinjiang province in a sign of just how concerned Kiwi politicians are about the actions of Asia's ever-expanding superpower.
The motion, prepared by ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden, followed two major speeches from Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern which made it more clear than ever New Zealand's overwhelming foreign policy priority is how it handles the China relationship.
While the pair have referred to concerns about large-scale detention camps, forced sterilisation and other abhorrent practices, it is likely the formal parliamentary debate was one the Government would rather not have had.
The delicate dance around the wording of the motion, and the multiple revisions before it actually made it to the floor of the House, were demonstrations of just how sensitive the issue is.
van Velden’s original phrasing, an identical version to that adopted by British MPs last month, would have effectively amounted to a parliamentary declaration of genocide in Xinjiang.
Genocide, or not?
That was apparently a step too far for the Government, with the Labour Party essentially vetoing the genocide wording at Parliament’s business committee.
Instead, to get the necessary unanimity for a debate to take place, MPs were asked to declare they were “gravely concerned about the possible severe human rights abuses taking place”.
Yet the wording changed again, with the word “possible” excised. It was an odd addition in the first place, given Mahuta had in March already gone further in declaring (with Australian counterpart Marise Payne) there was “clear evidence of severe human rights abuses”.
Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman attempted to reintroduce van Velden’s original motion, genocide references and and all, but her amendment didn’t even make it to a vote after she apparently erred in failing to put it in writing.
It would have been voted down regardless, but that would have put Labour on formal record as blocking the attempt; funnily enough, neither Speaker Trevor Mallard nor anyone on the Government’s side of the House went out of their way to explain the mistake and offer an opportunity to remedy it.
Their reticence has been mirrored in other countries, with the majority of Canada’s Cabinet abstaining in their parliamentary vote and UK minister Nigel Adams stating his government’s position that declarations of genocide were “a matter for competent national and international courts”.
Mahuta took a similar stance in her contribution, saying “a formal legal determination should only be reached following a rigorous assessment on the basis of international law” and noting New Zealand had relied on judicial findings in the cases of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda and Nazi Germany.
There has been some angst over the dilution of the motion, with van Velden arguing in her speech: “Genocide does not require a war. It does not need to be sudden. It can be slow and deliberate, and that is what is happening here.”
That is a fair argument - but the precise wording arguably does not matter as much as the cross-party support for what, in the end, still amounts to a significant condemnation of human rights abuses in the face of potential retaliation.
Certainly, the Chinese government seems unlikely to take a considerably more charitable view of the watered-down motion, although with similar acts from other countries it has largely resorted to “stern representations” about what it claims are malicious lies.
The big question now is whether the Government, and Parliament, will live up to Ghahraman’s proclamation that “we want action, not just words”.
Speaking after the vote, van Velden said she wanted New Zealand to keep calling for independent investigators from the United Nations to be granted unrestricted access to Xinjiang - but with the UN having had no success since its original request over two years ago, it seems unlikely Beijing will yield.
Parliament’s vote will provide some ballast against risible suggestions we are on the brink of expulsion from Five Eyes, or “the woke weak link” of the West.
We have no ability to impose autonomous sanctions, but measures like visa restrictions and the expulsion of diplomats could still be taken, while mooted modern slavery legislation could help ensure Kiwi businesses do not (unwittingly or otherwise) profit from the products of forced labour in Xinjiang, or other parts of the world.
But any of those measures could represent a marked escalation in aggressions to the Chinese, and retaliation in areas like trade.
Trade and Export Growth Minister Damien O’Connor conceded as much when asked about the parliamentary motion earlier this week (a case of a politician saying the quiet part out loud, as some noted).
That threat should not preclude New Zealand from taking further action if the circumstances dictate it, but nor is it meaningless either.
In any case, Parliament’s vote will provide some ballast against risible suggestions we are on the brink of expulsion from Five Eyes, or “the woke weak link” of the West.
But as China Business Summit attendees heard from an Australian speaker this week, the clash of values and views is “an era, not a passing moment” - and more pressure, from both sides of the debate, will come soon enough.
