HOME   >   OUR MPS   >   PHIL GOFF   >   SPEECHES

Firstly, congratulations to Amnesty International New Zealand on its sixtieth anniversary and thank you for your invitation to speak at your annual meeting.

You have asked me in particular to talk today about some of the issues that come within my responsibility as Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, and human rights implications around the free trade agreement with China for which I am responsible as Minister of Trade.

I would like to say firstly that as a long-term member of Amnesty International I support the vital role Amnesty plays in speaking out for political prisoners, individually and collectively, and in its advocacy for human rights generally.

Here in New Zealand we take for granted the fundamental rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on both Civil and Political Rights, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

While the application of those rights in New Zealand may not have always been perfect and vigilance is always needed to ensure their preservation, we rate highly on human rights in international comparisons.

Amnesty fulfils the role of working to extend to others the rights we enjoy, to advocate on behalf of those deprived of their human rights and to expose situations where rights are abused.

The New Zealand Government has a parallel role in promotion and in defence of human rights, multilaterally and bilaterally.

The government’s goals are consistent with those of Amnesty, though how it pursues them will differ from that of an NGO.

New Zealand has strong credentials in terms of its track record in shaping and promoting international human rights law and practice.

Under Peter Fraser, we played a key role in the United Nations in advocating for the relevant Charter provisions.

More recently we were also prominent in the establishment of the Human Rights Council in 2006. New Zealand will be standing for election to that body next year.

Multilaterally we have recently pushed at the UN specific country resolutions on Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

We have also promoted key thematic issues, recent examples being the rights of people with disabilities and the abolition of the death penalty. We can be proud this week of our receipt at the UN of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt International Disability Award for 2007.

We are also active internationally in other areas which have human rights implications such as disarmament and arms control.

On the Non-Proliferation Review process, we are currently chair of the New Agenda Coalition which promotes a stronger global stand both for disarmament in relation to weapons of mass destruction and for non-proliferation.

At last year’s UN General Assembly, New Zealand led the charge for

de-alerting of nuclear weapons, a common sense position to reduce the risk of launch on command of nuclear warheads, which could be the result of misunderstanding, misjudgement or technical error. We achieved a vote of 139 for, 3 against and 36 abstentions.

And last year, together with Norway, we started what is known as the Oslo Process to seek a binding treaty to prohibit the use of cluster munitions which cause unacceptable harm to civilians.

This process was taken outside of formal UN channels which have been stalemated for a long time. Hopefully later this month we will achieve a breakthrough at the Dublin Convention and a legally binding instrument.

The Oslo Process aims to parallel the impact of the Ottawa Convention on landmines ten years ago. To make a real difference on the ground, we need both strong provisions in the Treaty and as broad as possible buy-in from other countries to get critical mass. As the Ottawa Convention showed, you don’t need every country in (Israel, China, Russia and the US have shown no inclination to participate) in order to create an environment where the use of such weapons carries a stigma, which deters all countries from utilising them.

In the area of the proposed Arms Trade Treaty. New Zealand was a co-sponsor of the UN General Assembly resolution which put the issue on the UN agenda.

The objective is to set legally binding standards that states must apply before transferring conventional arms to another country.

This would help prevent arms transfers to countries where they would be used to commit violations of human rights or international law.

This issue is also relevant in the Pacific where illicit trade in small arms can destabilise states and seriously aggravate local conflicts.

I welcome the campaign run jointly by Amnesty International, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms in launching the Parliamentarians’ Declaration for an Arms Trade Treaty.

I would like to come back now to the question of human rights in relation to the International Covenants and address the question of how best we can positively influence upholding of such human rights through bilateral relationships.

This is an issue both for Amnesty and for the New Zealand Government.

There are at least two alternative approaches. One is the use of sanctions and the endeavour to isolate the target country.

New Zealand tends not to use such an approach, acknowledging that for sanctions to be effective, they would need to be applied multilaterally.

The second approach, engagement rather than isolation, is seen as generally a more effective way of making a difference.

For every rule there is an exception.

In relation to apartheid South Africa, New Zealand from 1984 did promote isolation of the regime through use of export, economic and trade and political sanctions.

The breadth of support for such an approach made it ultimately effective.

But in other instances, efforts to isolate a country have been not only ineffectual but also counterproductive.

American sanctions against Cuba for more than 40 years is one such example.

In our own case, our failure to recognize the reality of the Communist Government in China from 1949 to 1972 is another such example.

Today, New Zealand will where it is deemed effective impose targeted sanctions such as it does on the particular personnel in the Mugabe regime, the Burma junta and the military regime in Fiji.

In relation to trade sanctions, we impose these only in response to Chapter 7 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

This year, the issue in profile has been human rights in China in particular because of its hosting the Olympic Games.

Riots in Tibet have also highlighted issues regarding the rights of religious and cultural observance, and the place of minority groups within a country’s territorial boundaries.

The Free Trade Negotiations recently concluded with China have led some to question whether we should have a trade agreement with China while questions of human rights there remain unresolved.

You have asked me to address these issues.

Firstly, New Zealand very obviously has a different position on human rights from that of China.

New Zealand accepts and implements United Nations’ instruments on human rights observance, which China has yet to do.

China has come a long way from the days of the Cultural Revolution. It has begun more strongly to implement the rule of law. Its leadership has expressed the commitment to move towards ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In terms of previously endemic levels of poverty and economic backwardness , it has taken impressive steps forward, lifting an estimated 500 million people out of poverty.

Its people today have access to study abroad, travel and despite intermittent censorship, access to international media.

All of these things should be recognised and acknowledged as progress, but we should also recognise the areas where basic disagreements still exist on fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to vote a party out of government etc.

China is of course not the only country or trading partner with which we have such differences.

Human rights has been a consistent area of discussion between New Zealand and China. I know that better than most because in my six years as Foreign Minister I raised it in almost every bilateral dialogue that I had with my Chinese counterpart.

It’s not ‘quiet diplomacy’ but nor is it ‘megaphone diplomacy’, which does not work if you want to have an ongoing dialogue and hope to influence the country you are working with.

In respect to Tibet, I raised the issue frequently with Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jia Xuan, we have never called for Tibet’s independence. Not even the Dalai Lama does that.

But rather we have pressed China for improvement in the rights and ability of Tibet’s people to maintain their language and their cultural and religious identity, and to give real meaning to the title Tibetan Autonomous Region.

Tang finally responded by inviting me to visit Tibet which I did in 2001 keeping an open mind, talking to as many people in and outside of Tibet as I could about Tibetan issues.

I also took to Tibet a list of the names of dissidents imprisoned for their views which I had received from Amnesty to enquire after their well being and to reflect our awareness and concern about their imprisonment.

I had done the same thing with regard to Timorese dissidents when I visited East Timor back in 1994.

Our position on Tibet has remained consistent. We acknowledge it as part of the territorial area of China. We recognise the social and economic progress in the region which China has funded.

We also promote the religious and cultural rights of Tibet’s people and, without indulging in hypocrisy as a country which itself has seen its indigenous people become a minority, pressed for as much control by local people over local affairs as is possible.

We have also pressed, as Helen Clark did in Beijing in the last few weeks, pushed for the opening up of dialogue with the Dalai Lama and for any response by the State to disorder to be proportionate.

New Zealand’s stance on human rights in China is not lessened or altered by the coming into existence of a Free Trade Agreement.

Having a Free Trade Agreement does not lessen our ability to press for improved recognition of human rights in China. If anything, it may enhance it through increasing engagement with China.

Our refusal to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement would do nothing to influence or enhance human rights.

We enter into free trade agreements and seek to negotiate them with a range of countries essentially to enhance the trading position of our exporters and therefore to raise growth, living standards and promote jobs in New Zealand.

This is as true about China as it is about other existing or intended FTAs for example with Thailand, Singapore, the Gulf States or the United States.

China is important to us for obvious reasons. It is the world’s largest country population wise, the world’s fastest growing economy and our fourth largest market for exports as well as providing a growing number of tourists and students who are coming to New Zealand.

At present New Zealand has a relatively open market for imports from China while there are significant tariff barriers of 10-20 per cent into that country. It is sensible to try to level the playing field which is what the FTA does.

Free trade agreements do not involve chapters to human rights, they relate to trade matters.

Human rights are dealt with separately.

Nevertheless, we did succeed in signing with China parallel agreements to the FTA relating to trade and environment and trade and labour.

These agreements contain commitment to principles set out in multilateral agreements such as those promoted by the International Labour Organisation and the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

They create a basis for cooperation and a basis for resolving issues.

Our agreements with China and other countries such as the P4 are not tightly prescriptive nor do they contain sanctions.

They are however a first step and a useful basis to move forward.

The agreements with China are legally binding and the first time China has agreed to enter into any such agreements with another country.

They were hard fought for.

With respect to prison labour, entry of goods produced in this area can be prohibited from any country under our Customs Act and in accordance with Gatt.

We are working with the New Zealand Parliamentary Select Committee in relation to the question of goods from any country potentially produced by slave labour.

Finally, with respect to the Olympic Games if countries which are part of the International Olympic Committee object to holding the Olympic Games in China on human rights grounds, the time at which to deal with that was before the decision was taken on the Games venue.

New Zealand accepts the decision that Beijing will host the Olympic Games and will participate in those games.

It is in the nature of free discussion in a pluralistic society that not everything I have said will meet your agreement nor for that matter that everything that Amnesty might say will be agreed with by every member.

However, I want to finish as I began by applauding the role and the 60 years of determined efforts by Amnesty to uphold the highest standards of human rights and support those who are oppressed and who are prisoners by virtue of their peaceful expression of political views and opinions.

Everyone who is here today is by their membership of Amnesty committed to a better world where rights are respected and upheld, and I thank all of you for that commitment.

Thank you again for the chance to be here with you.

 

• OUR MPs | 
• FEATURES | 
• LATEST NEWS | 
• SPEECHES | 
• PORTFOLIOS | 
• POLICY | 
• MULTIMEDIA | 
• SEARCH | 
• CONTACT US