North Korea – Asia Pacific Report

Why the draft ‘foreign interference’ bill is so dangerous for Aotearoa

APR editor — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:01:36 +0000

COMMENTARY: By Maire Leadbeater

Aotearoa New Zealand’s coalition government has introduced a bill to criminalise “improper conduct for or on behalf of a foreign power” or foreign interference that echoes earlier Cold War times, and could capture critics of New Zealand’s foreign and defence policy, especially if they liaise with a “foreign country”.

It is a threat to our democracy and here is why.

Two new offences are:

Offence 78AAA — a person thus charged must include all three of the following key elements — they:

know, or ought to know, they are acting for a foreign state, and
act in a covert, deceptive, coercive, or corruptive manner, and
intend to, or are aware that they are likely to, harm New Zealand interests specified in the offence through their actions OR are reckless as to whether their conduct harms New Zealand’s interests.

Offence 78AAB – a person thus charged must commit:

any imprisonable offence intending to OR being reckless as to whether doing so is likely to provide a relevant benefit to a foreign power.

New Zealand’s “interests” include its democratic processes, its economy, rights provisions, as well as its defence and security. A “Foreign Power” ranges from a foreign government to an association supporting a political party; “relevant benefit to a foreign power” includes advancing “the coercive influence of a foreign power over persons in or outside New Zealand”.

The bill also extends laws on publication of classified information, changes “official” information to “relevant” information, increases powers of unwarranted searches by authorities, and allows charging of people outside of New Zealand who “owe allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand” and aid and abet a non-New Zealander to carry out a “relevant act” of espionage, treason and inciting to mutiny even if the act is not in fact carried out.

Why this legislation is dangerous
1. Much of the language is vague and the terms subjective. How should we establish what an individual ‘ought to have known’ or whether he or she is being “reckless”? It is entirely possible to be a loyal New Zealand and hold a different view to that of the government of the day about “New Zealand’s interests” and “security”.

This proposed legislation is potentially highly undemocratic and a threat to free speech and freedom of association. Ironically the legislation is a close copy of similar legislation passed in Australia in 2018 and it reflects the messaging about “foreign interference” promoted by our Five Eyes partners.

How should we distinguish “foreign interference” from the multitude of ways in which other states seek to influence our trade, aid, foreign affairs and defence policies? It is not plausible that the motivation behind this legislation is to limit Western pressure on New Zealand to water down its nuclear free policy.

Or to ensure that its defence forces are interoperable with those of its allies and to be part of military exercises in the South China Sea. Or to host spyware tools on behalf of the United States. Or to sign trade agreements that favour US based corporates.

The government openly supports these activities, so it seems that the legislation is aimed at foreign interference from current geostrategic “enemies”. Which ones? China, Russia, Iran?

The introduction of a bill to criminalise foreign interference has echoes of earlier Cold War times as it has the potential to criminalise members of friendship organisations that seek to improve understanding and cooperation with people in countries such as China, Russia or North Korea.

It is entirely possible that their efforts could be seen as engaging in conduct “for or on behalf of” a foreign power.

There is also real concern is that this legislation could capture critics of New Zealand’s foreign and defence policy, especially if they liaise with a “foreign country”. There is a global movement of resistance to economic sanctions on Cuba and other countries including Venezuela, and North Korea.

Supporters are likely to liaise with representatives of those countries, and perhaps circulate their material. Could that be considered harming New Zealand’s interests? The inclusion of such vague wording (Clause 78AAB) as “enhancing the influence” of a foreign power is chilling in its potential to silence open debate, and especially dissent or protest.

The legislation is unnecessary
Existing law already criminalises espionage which intentionally prejudices the security or defence of New Zealand. There are also laws to cover pressurising others by blackmail, corruption, and threats of violence or threats of harm to people and property.

It is true that diaspora critics of authoritarian regimes come under pressure from their home governments. Such governments seek to silence their critics who are outside their jurisdiction by threatening harm to their families still living in the home country.

But it is not clear how New Zealand law could prevent this as it cannot protect people who are not within its jurisdiction. This is something which diaspora citizens and overseas students studying here must be acutely conscious of. This issue is one for diplomacy and negotiation rather than law.

A threat to democracy
The terms sedition and subversion have gone into disuse and are no longer part of our law.

They were used in the past to criminalise some and ensure that others were subject to intrusive surveillance.

In essence both terms justified State actions against dissidents or those who held an alternative vision of how society should be ordered. In Cold War times the State was particularly exercised with those who championed communist ideas, took an interest in the Soviet Union or China or associated with Communists.

Those who associated with Soviet diplomats or attended functions at the Soviet Embassy would often be subject to SIS surveillance.

Maire Leadbeater is a leading activist and author of the recently published book The Enemy Within: The Human Cost of State Surveillance in Aotearoa/New Zealand. This article is based on a submission against the bill and was first published in The Daily Blog.

Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill submissions due 16 January 2025

Pacific states could help ‘help prevent’ nuclear war, says advocate

APR editor — Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:29:17 +0000

By Eleisha Foon, RNZ Pacific senior journalist

Pacific nations and smaller states are being urged to unite to avoid being caught in the crossfire of a possible nuclear conflict between China and the US.

On the cusp of a new missile age in the Indo-Pacific, a nuclear policy specialist suggests countries at the centre of the brewing geopolitical storm must rely on diplomacy to hold the superpowers accountable.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Ankit Panda said it was crucial smaller states and Pacific nations concerned about potential nuclear conflict “engage in meaningful risk reduction, arms control and broader diplomacy to reduce the possibility of war.”

LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: The stakes are potentially nuclear conflict.

“States [which] are not formally aligned with the United States or China were more powerful united,” and this “may create greater incentives for China and the United States to engage in these talks,” the think tank’s nuclear policy program Stanton senior fellow said.

North Korea and the United States have been increasing their inventories of short- to intermediate-range missile systems, he said.

“The stakes are potentially nuclear conflict between two major superpowers with existential consequences for humanity at large.”

The US military’s newest long-range hypersonic missile system, called the ‘Dark Eagle’, could soon be deployed to Guam, he said.

Caught in crossfire
A report issued by the Congressional Budget Office last year suggested the missile could potentially reach Taiwan, parts of mainland China, and the North Korean capital of Pyongyang if deployed to Guam, he said.

“Asia and Pacific countries need to put this on the agenda in the way that many European states that were caught in the crossfire between the United States and the Soviet Union were willing to do during the Cold War,” Panda said.

In 2022, North Korea confirmed it had test-launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of reaching Guam.

Guam is a US Pacific territory with a population of at least 170,000 people and home to US military bases.

Guam’s unique position
Panda said it could be argued that Guam’s unique position and military use by the US as a nuclear weapons base makes it even more of a target to North Korea.

He said North Korea will likely intensify its run of missile tests ahead of America’s presidential election in November.

“If [President] Biden is re-elected, they will continue to engage with China in good faith on arms control.

“But if [Donald] Trump gets elected then we can expect the opposite. We’ll see an increase in militarism and a race-to-arms conflict in the Indo-Pacific,” he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Vanuatu PM Salwai seeks UN probe on West Papua human rights violations

Pacific Media Watch — Sat, 23 Sep 2017 00:08:41 +0000

UN video sourced from the West Papua Liberation Organisation.

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Vanuatu Prime Minister Charlot Salwai Tabimasmas has expressed his country’s concern about the vast flows of refugees and migrants, noting that in 2016 the number of displaced people around the world stood at 65 million during his speech today to the 72nd United Nations General Assembly.

He also appealed to France to honour the will of the people with the 2018 referendum on independence in New Caledonia due next year and appealed to the UN Human Rights Council to investigate violations in West Papua.

UN summary
An exodus to cities and a high rate of urbanisation was a challenge as well. There was a clear link between forced migration and the responsibility to protect. As a small island developing state facing rising sea levels, Vanuatu appealed to the international community to consider a legal framework to address the issue of climate change refugees.

For Vanuatu, the United Nations represented the best hope and catalyst for peace and security, as well as for lifting millions out of poverty, he said. To remain relevant, however, strategic reforms were needed. Being a permanent member of the Security Council was a responsibility and it was incumbent on the organ to move beyond the political interests of its members and to find compromise solutions. Vanuatu supported Council reforms which reflected current geopolitical trends with fairer regional representation, he said.

Vanuatu’s graduation from least developed country status did not eliminate its vulnerability to natural hazards, nor must it upset or hinder its development, he said. The transition mechanism for graduating countries must be strengthened. Conveying his government’s concern about threats to peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region, he urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to halt its missile and nuclear development programme, reaffirmed Vanuatu’s commitment to the denuclearization of the Pacific and welcomed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Hurricanes and tropical cyclones around the world were warnings from Mother Nature that climate change was happening faster than efforts to respond to it, he said. Deeper thought and greater efforts were needed. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions would make a difference, he said, urging the United States to review its decision on the Paris Agreement and to implement it. He emphasized his country’s commitment to reverse the decline of the health of the world’s oceans, including through a ban on plastic bags by 2018.

Looking ahead to the 2018 referendum in New Caledonia, he urged the administration there to honour the will of its people. The Human Rights Council should meanwhile address the situation in West Papua, he said, calling for decolonisation to be put back on the United Nations radar.

Full address in French

Transcription by ETAN
16:55:

My government, Mr President, is worried to note that the UN has lost a lot of its capacity and will to implement Resolution 1514 of 14th December 1960 which expressed the need to put an end swiftly and unconditionally to colonialism in all of its forms and manifestations.

Ending colonialism has to reappear on the UN radar and all efforts in this regard have to be free of international political pressure. We all have a collective responsibility to guarantee self-determination to people who are under colonial yoke …

18:10:
Mr President,

For are half a century now, the international community has been witnessing a gamut of torture, murder, exploitations, sexual violence, arbitrary detention inflicted on the nationals of West Papua perpetrated by Indonesia. But the international community turned a deaf ear to their appeals for help.

We urge the Human Rights Council to investigate these cases. We also call on our counterparts throughout the world to support the legal right of West Papua to self-determination and to jointly with Indonesia put an end to all kinds of violence and find common ground with the nationals to facilitate putting together a process which will enable them to freely express their choice.

Vanuatu’s full UN address summary
West Papua ignored by most NZ major parties
More West Papua stories
Solomon Islands statement to UN
Tonga’s statement to UN – no mention of West Papua
Kiribati’s statement to UN – no mention of West Papua