A Second Chance For Autonomous Sanctions
Foreign Affairs
It was once dubbed ‘the least successful piece of legislation in New Zealand history’ – but a proposal to set up an autonomous sanctions regime will finally have its day in Parliament, setting up a fascinating debate on how to move against rogue actors
ANALYSIS: Where the Government taketh away, the biscuit tin giveth.
After spending roughly three-and-a-half years on Parliament’s order paper, the Autonomous Sanctions Bill was quietly killed off late last year without ever receiving a first reading.
Arguably ”the least successful piece of legislation in New Zealand history” in the eyes of Victoria University of Wellington law professor Geoff McLay, the bill would have created a way for New Zealand to impose sanctions against other countries or organisations without action from the United Nations Security Council.
What do you think? Click here to comment.
But rumours of its death have turned out to be greatly exaggerated, after National MP Gerry Brownlee succeeded in having a bill of the same name drawn from the member’s ballot on Thursday – meaning it will receive (at least) a first reading in Parliament later this year.
Speaking to Newsroom, Brownlee said his bill was largely identical to the legislation the Government had scrapped, aside from some minor technical changes.
“The reasons for having it, in my opinion, are just as strong today as they were when it was first put on [the order paper] … it’s hard to go out there and say New Zealand has an independent foreign policy, when we have only very limited options to place sanctions on any individuals who might be operating counter to the best interests of this country.”
While the UN had its strengths as a multilateral system, there were also times when New Zealand would be left “stranded” on a concerning international situation by the veto powers of the UN Security Council’s five permanent members.
“Two of the countries that hold veto rights on that council are Russia and China and the chances that they’ll give that away are, I think, zero, so in some ways we start to abdicate some of our foreign policy positioning to countries that are not exactly like-minded.”
“I would simply observe that … Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States all use this type of legislation to express dissatisfaction with the regime in Xinjiang – not necessarily China – and I think it’s the fact that we can’t do that is an interesting position.”
While the Government could impose some limited sanctions without UN approval on entry visas, diplomatic visas and aid programmes, an autonomous sanctions regime with Magnitsky-style powers could allow a government to take more targeted action, seizing their assets and “effectively shut them out of business activity in and around New Zealand”.
Asked whether New Zealand was lagging behind its Five Eyes partners on human rights issues like Xinjiang due to its inability to impose sanctions, Brownlee said he would not presume to speak for the Government but added: “What I would simply observe is that … Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States all use this type of legislation to express dissatisfaction with the regime in Xinjiang – not necessarily China – and I think it’s the fact that we can’t do that is an interesting position.”
While he had not yet received commitments from other parties to back the bill, a number of MPs had indicated they were supportive (although Brownlee said he would “rather not start naming names”).
Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta was non-committal when asked whether the Government would support Brownlee’s bill, saying Labour would consider the matter as a caucus.
“We’ll consider the bill, and we’ll have a full discussion I expect, but I’m in no position to make a comment now.”
However, Mahuta said autonomous sanctions were usually “a last port of call” for countries who had such a regime in place, with many preferring domestic legislation which allowed other action to be taken.
She confirmed she had spoken to MFAT about the issue in the past, and had also talked to other ministerial and caucus colleagues.
While Mahuta’s remarks were fairly reserved, they nonetheless suggest more openness to the idea of autonomous sanctions than earlier this year, when she told Stuff she was not considering any similar legislation.
Green Party foreign affairs spokeswoman Golriz Ghahraman has previously indicated her party’s opposition to an autonomous sanctions regime, a position which had not changed.
“The moment we set a precedent for nations to unilaterally sanction based on what they feel are their values is the moment we undermine the rules-based order, so we shouldn’t do that.”
Instead, Ghahraman said New Zealand needed to work with other like-minded nations to reach a consensus on human rights issues, suggesting veto reform was not beyond the realms of possibility.
“UN reform has never really been seriously attempted, so I think we can start that work in good faith.”
It may be an uphill battle for Brownlee to secure the parliamentary support he needs.
He may yet receive a hand from Aotearoa’s Five Eyes partners, who would presumably be keen for the country to have another weapon in its diplomatic toolkit, even though they are unlikely to say as much publicly.
On the other hand, the Government may be concerned about any perception from Beijing that it was supporting an ‘anti-China’ law, even if ministers could justifiably point to the country-agnostic nature of an autonomous sanctions regime.
At the very least, the idea will receive the parliamentary debate it never enjoyed last term.
