I’ve been quite critical of the New Zealand China Council, which uses taxpayer money to champion an emollient, in effect subservient, relationship with the People’s Republic of China.  Doing so, of course, serves the business interests of the other corporate and academic members of the Council.   Whatever the intent, I’ve argued that their approach serves the interests of the PRC, one of the most awful regimes on the planet.

As part of that I’ve noted that it has been hard to find any examples of a case where the China Council has ever said anything critical of the PRC.  They will benignly note, in principle, that our systems differ, our interests differ, but will never articulate specific areas where they are critical of the PRC stance on anything, whether directly affecting New Zealand or otherwise.

And so it is only fair for me to draw attention to a welcome, if somewhat surprising, exception.

A couple of days ago a group of US foreign policy experts issued a joint statement calling for the immediate release by the PRC of Michael Kovrig.

You may recall that Kovrig is the Canadian former diplomat who was detained in China just before Christmas, apparently as “retaliation” over the detention and extradition proceeedings against the Huawei CFO in Canada.  No charges have been laid, and Kovrig is being held without access to a lawyer and with little consular access either.    It looks a lot like a state-sponsored abduction, presumably intended both to intimidate foreigners more generally, and perhaps as some sort of “bargaining chip”.

Late yesterday, I noticed that that tweet (above) had been retweeted by Stephen Jacobi, the Executive Director of the New Zealand China Council, with this comment added.


Not only does he associate himself with the call by the US foreign policy experts, but he goes further, adding an unequivocal call also for the release of Michael Spavor, the second abducted Canadian.

Sure, this message isn’t being sent out on the China Council’s own Twitter account, but when you are the chief executive of a body, writing about areas closely related to your employer’s interests, no one is going perceive very much difference.   The Executive Director of the China Council, their high profile public spokesman, has made a public statement that can only be read as unequivocally critical of actions of the PRC.   There might be some price to pay –  perhaps a certain barely-detectible frostiness when next he encounters the PRC Consul-General? – but he did it anyway.

For a picture of what sort of detention Kovrig and Spavor are undergoing, you might want to read this article from someone who was subjected to the same treatment:

The law in China allows for these disappearances. Yes, as reported, Michael’s whereabouts are being kept secret. Yes, he will not be given access to a lawyer. But more so, even China’s prosecutor, who is supposed to monitor these secret detentions, will be denied the right to visit him. In a database that the NGO Safeguard Defenders keep, for which I’m the director, we have never come across a single case where the prosecutor has visited, even though it’s prescribed in law that they should.

Mr. Kovrig, and Mr. Spavor, and future American and European victims can, without any court order, be kept incommunicado, in solitary confinement, for six months. Actually, solitary confinement is only half true – he will have two guards sitting inside his cell 24/7, working in six-hour shifts. These guards, most of whom are civilian-dressed trainees for the Ministry of State Security, will not be allowed to speak to him, but will take notes on his every single movement. They will also stare him down as he uses the toilet, or when he is (rarely) allowed to shower.

Numerous foreign governments (including all our Five Eyes partners) have weighed in in support of Canada and the detained Canadians.  But not New Zealand.

I wrote about the contemptible silence of our government a couple of months ago

Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters head the New Zealand roll of shame on this issue, since they are the most senior figures in the current government.   But the shame isn’t just theirs.  There is no sign of anything from Simon Bridges, Paula Bennett (perhaps both rather keen on those donations Yikun Zhang was arranging?), or Todd (“vocational training centres in Xinjiang) McClay.   Nothing from the Green Party or ACT leaders.   Nothing from the Minister of Justice (rule of law and all that). And of course nothing from our PRC-born and educated MPs.  In a decent society, they’d be at the forefront of condemning the abuses in the land of their birth.  In our society, it seems to be just fine that they keep very very quiet –  a silence that suits Beijing –  and help ensure that the donations keep flowing.  Perhaps a journalist might consider asking Raymond Huo his opinion on the abduction of the Canadians.  He was, after all, formerly a lawyer with a leading local law firm, and now he chairs the Justice select committee in Parliament.  You’d hope the rule of law meant a lot to him.  But, like his bosses, deferrring to Beijing, and never ever upsetting the murderous rogue state, appears to matter more than the rule of law, or standing by our friends and allies when they (almost inadvertently in Canada’s case) incur the wrath of a tyrant.

By their utter silence, on this as on so many other PRC issues, our MPs and ministers dishonour this country and its people.   Cowering in a corner, deferring to Beijing, is simply unbecoming people who purport to lead a free and independent country.

But credit where it is due.  Well done Stephen Jacobi.  On this, an example to others.

7 thoughts on “Kudos

    • It seems to be a first even if it is only a first echo of what other respectable countries have said. So a little more than a token gesture.

      Even the most besotted lover of China has to point out how their behaviour is harming their reputation. It is similar to telling your child that certain behaviour in public will win them no friends.

      Good on Michael for bring this to our attention. The PRC is sensitive to criticism – who knows they may begin to accept the concept of the rule of law.


  1. I don’t see this as tokenism. Small acts matter. Good on Michael for recognising specks of light in the darkness. Casablanca wouldn’t be such a good movie if it was obvious that there was substantial virtue within the police chief’s venality all the way through.


  2. Cones of Silence – abuse of power by the powerful

    These are relevant to this article because it shows the depth and breadth of the abuse of power

    Two news article appeared today dealing with the activities of powerful people, telling the rest of society what to do and how to think

    1. About Cardinal Pell and high level protection
    “Now there’s anger, but it’s not just about Pell. He is a lightning rod for anger against the church, that is true. But he is also a lightning rod for anger about powerful people abusing power, throwing their weight around, acting hypocritically, telling the rest of society what to do, and sticking together when things go wrong. He represents discussions behind closed doors, secret meetings, the dead hand of legal documents and confidentiality clauses, the denial of public accountability. And that way of doing things extends beyond the Catholic Church into too many elements of Australian life. Anger and resentment by many Australians towards powerful institutions that have failed them – think governments, corporations, banks, bureaucracies – helps explain why people objected to John Howard and Tony Abbott speaking up for Pell after his conviction was finally made public”

    2. Hide and Seek: How politicians seek to hide information
    Manipulation of the Official Information Act (OIA) by Andrea Vance


  3. The detention of the two Canadians, under circumstances that the legal system in all Western countries, and many non-Western, would not tolerate, needs to be protested strongly. And it is to Jacobi’s credit he recognizes here is one of those messy moments where our values do not align with China’s. Our politicians should follow Jacobi’s example, but they are still hand wringing and in damage control mode fearing further poking the dragon will not come off well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It is clearly a tit for tat. Arresting a high profile Chinese national, a daughter and a mother on a transit flight subject to a search without evidence does fall below most western countries legal system. This is another repeat of our own Kim Dotcom never ending saga of clearly an arrest without evidence with the US abusing its extradition privileges.

      You need to remember that we are trying to show China the lawful and less brutal way of doing things. If we abuse our own laws, don’t forget China can easily revert to totalitarian brutality.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s