An expert group has recommended that New Zealand introduce autonomous sanctions legislation to tackle human rights violations abroad, arguing a tool of last resort is needed to condemn the worst breaches of international law.
The group has also suggested the Government establish a standalone human rights division within the foreign affairs ministry – along with an official ambassador for human rights – and advocate for the creation of a Pacific human rights declaration.
Last year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade revealed to Newsroom it had set up an expert advisory group to advise the Government on how to best respond to international threats to peace and security and breaches of human rights – including the benefits and disadvantages of autonomous sanctions.
New Zealand is unable to impose sanctions against foreign individuals and entities unless they have been adopted through a resolution of the United Nations Security Council – a body subject to special veto powers from permanent members China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The group’s final report was presented to the ministry’s chief executive, Chris Seed, in May last year, and has finally been made public after officials rejected an earlier Newsroom request for its release under the Official Information Act.
Outlining the case for change, the group said New Zealand “faces a more challenging and dangerous international environment than it has for decades”, with the foundations of the post-World War II multilateral order being systematically weakened.
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reminded us that ideas of ‘might makes right’ have not gone away, and it has again underlined the limitations of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations Security Council when a permanent member is involved in a conflict.”
Though some in New Zealand held the view that “[the] Government should not be in the business of exporting our values, especially if this may make trading partners uncomfortable”, the public had shown they expected the country “to step up and to play its part” when responding to global crises.
“Given the heightened risks in the current global situation, the advisory group believes that it would be irresponsible and dangerous to ignore the lessons of history …
“What is at stake is the survival of an independent foreign policy. A passive approach that relies on others will not be sufficient to safeguard these interests.”
The group said sanctions had rarely been successful when viewed in isolation. Previous cases in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea showed their deterrent effect could be minimised or circumvented, while sometimes causing significant humanitarian crises among the innocent populations of the states being targeted.
Unilateral (or autonomous) sanctions had received criticism from a number of countries, with concern often driven by the fact that such measures were used “as much for domestic political reasons rather than as part of a rational foreign policy toolkit”.
The size of New Zealand’s economy and nature of its exports also meant the country’s participation – or lack thereof – in international sanctions had little impact on their overall effectiveness.
“Regardless, even if New Zealand’s support for sanctions has little material impact on a target state it can have important symbolic value, demonstrating important national interests and values. It is a way New Zealand can show solidarity with the victims of aggression, condemn unacceptable behaviour, and demonstrate support for like-minded countries and partners,” the group said.
The report expressed support for new, “carefully constrained” legislation that would provide a generic model for autonomous sanctions to be applied, based on the current sanctions against Russia but allowing customisations for specific cases.
The legislation would need to be drafted to comply with international law, covering not just autonomous sanctions but those approved through the UN and allowed by the World Trade Organization. A clause would ensure New Zealand could only impose autonomous sanctions if they met specific, high thresholds for action and were “in parallel with measures being taken by other countries”.
The group also recommended that sanctions only be triggered through a resolution of Parliament, which could be introduced by the Prime Minister or Foreign Affairs Minister.
In addition to its recommendation on sanctions, the group has suggested a range of other measures New Zealand could take for “a more proactive, preventive approach” to serious human rights abuses.
It said the Government should develop a comprehensive, long-term programme to strengthen human rights within New Zealand and across Asia and the Pacific.
“In the Pacific this could include advocacy for the development of a regional human rights declaration as a first step towards a Pacific human rights charter and related mechanisms.”
A standalone human rights division should also be set up within the ministry, with a human rights ambassador, increased resources for human rights initiatives in Asia and the Pacific, and the appointment of special envoys for specific situations.
The group also recommended that New Zealand launch a bid for membership of the UN Human Rights Council, arguing that “any strategy to be active in promoting human rights will struggle with credibility as long as Aotearoa New Zealand persists in not pursuing membership”. The country had never served on the council, and was perceived by some partners as “not pulling its weight”.
It is unclear how the group’s report will be received by the new Government, given several failed attempts to implement autonomous sanctions legislation under its Labour predecessor.
Asked by Newsroom about the group’s work last week, before the report was published, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said the Government was considering its findings but raised the “potential cost and expense” of autonomous sanctions as a concern.
The group was chaired by former New Zealand UN ambassador Colin Keating, with former chief human rights commissioner Rosslyn Noonan, Centre for Strategic Studies director David Capie, and University of Waikato law professor Valmaine Toki serving as the other members.
