Foreign Policy and Human Rights
April 2009
We have been told that Foreign policy is bipartisan, and so it is in a number of areas. However, there have been recent developments in the United Nations which have been of concern. This item was included in the April 2009 newsletter:
The anti-nuclear policy is said to lie at the heart of this bipartisan approach, and it is certainly true that John Key’s unambiguous statements that it would not change was helpful in improving relations with the US, who decided there was no longer any point in waiting till lunchtime (or even supper) for a change of policy. Just look at National’s foreign policy statement from last year: http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28880 .
But the anti-nuclear policy surely does not exist in a vacuum, but lies at the heart of an independent and principled foreign policy, and there have been increasing signs that bipartisanship no longer exists here. And LGBT groups across the world became more involved when the issues turned to those of human rights.
First NZ dropped its long-standing campaign to gain a seat on the Human Rights Council, to leave the field clear for the US. Now it is certainly good that President Obama is abandoning many of his predecessor’s phobias, and wanting to become involved in improving and reforming multilateral institutions. And Murray McCully’s press release makes some valid points: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz+withdraws+human+rights+council+bid
But the point being made by many is that this action does not accord well with New Zealand’s long-standing commitment to human rights, which has been quite independent of whatever the US (or any other country) might be thinking at any one time. So this action has been criticized.
We were aware a while back that there were issues developing over the Durban Review Conference on racism, and alerted the Greens when we met them to the possibility of boycotts. However, it had seemed that the strenuous efforts to amend the language of the draft outcome document were paying off. But at the last moment the US, like several other countries under enormous pressure from some Jewish groups, confirmed their boycott, and after that the dominos began to fall rapidly. We were first alerted to this by an e-mail from ILGA, but within hours Mr McCully had followed the US, Canada, Australia and some European countries (9 in total) by announcing our boycott too: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz+not+taking+part+durban+review+conference .
His press release is puzzling, as the main reason given is the draft document’s endorsement of the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA). However, NZ signed up to that at the time with only one minor quibble, which was about colonialism, and I have found no evidence that the National Party opposed this at the time. Other areas of concern such as the “defamation of religion” were precisely those which had been amended in the draft declaration. So the main reason for NZ joining the boycott seems to be the government’s adoption of a new ANZUS-type foreign policy. “Where the US goes, we go”, as Michael Joseph Savage did not say! Again, it is good to see improvements in human rights policies in both the US and Australia as compared with their previous unlamented administrations, but NZ has traditionally been a leader not a follower in these matters, and we have achieved this by being much more consistent in our human rights policy than either of those two countries.
If we have to return to a form of colonial cringe, it might have been better to follow the old colonial power in this instance. Britain, along with France and most European countries stayed in the conference. Of course they walked out of President Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitic speech, but crucially stayed in the conference, and the next day participated in the ratification of the final outcome document. See the reasonings of the British Foreign Office for their policies: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=News&id=16643925 .
For more details of the ratification see: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jn5APpT2ZFAq0DxaRCOSnZNUfy-QD97N0VAG2
And all official documents, including the final outcome document, can be accessed via: http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/ .
But as far as UN policy against racism is concerned, New Zealand is now outside the tent. Why does this matter for LGBT groups in particular? For a number of reasons. We are aware that racism, anti-Semitism, etc. are closely aligned with homophobia, and the associated discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. It is true that UN documents tend not to address this directly, largely because of opposition from Muslim and African countries. But there are a number of elements in the document of relevance, notably the paragraph on discrimination against those with HIV/AIDS. And it certainly does not help the cause if some of those countries most likely to support anti-LGBT discrimination stay away, instead of participating. So thank goodness for our old Mother Country, Great Britain on this occasion, for being there for us, and being in a position to directly challenge those countries which would seek to deny us any rights at all. And again a reminder that those countries we now appear to be emulating mostly have a worse track record on these issues than we have had.
So Rainbow Wellington has written to the Foreign Minister Murray McCully, stating our disappointment at New Zealand’s actions for the reasons given above. We can but echo the comments of the UN Secretary after the final declaration was passed: “The fight against racism is a continuous process. I therefore hope that those member states who did not participate will rejoin the international community soon in the fight against the scourges of racism and racial discrimination." We hope this will include New Zealand – as soon as possible.