New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi — which upholds Maori rights over their land — has long been seen as an important precedent in the global fight for recognition of First Nations people.
That is now under threat from a draft law that seeks to redefine the principles of the 1840 agreement between hundreds of Maori chiefs and the British Crown. The divisive move drew tens of thousands of protesters outside New Zealand’s parliament in Wellington on Tuesday in one of the largest demonstrations in the nation’s history. Even 184 years later, the shadow of the empire still hangs over the former colony.
Although it is unlikely to ever become law — New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s National Party has said it would not support the bill beyond the first reading which it already passed — it has brought an ugly side of Kiwi life to the surface: race politics. The leader’s party sits in a conservative coalition, joined by the right-of-center ACT Party and the New Zealand Party. To get ACT’s support, Luxon agreed to allow the bill to be deliberated, acknowledging internal debate had caused “tension.”
The Maori are not sitting by quietly. In scenes that have now gone viral across the world, Maori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke led her colleagues in a haka, a traditional Maori dance performed in battles and ceremonies that has been made famous by the All Blacks rugby team. It brought Parliament to a halt on Thursday last week, briefly stopping members from voting on the Treaty Principles Bill, which is now open for public submissions.
The controversy over one of the nation’s founding documents touches a raw nerve. The agreement has two versions, one in English and the other in Maori, leaving the two sides with differing interpretations about what it means in practice for indigenous rights. The confusing arrangement put much of the power in the hands of the Crown. By the mid-20th century, Maori owned only a fraction of their original land. Just like colonized First Nations populations elsewhere, they became marginalized minorities in their own country.
Some redress was granted in the 1960s and 70s under a reparations tribunal, and as the treaty’s core values were gradually incorporated into national laws. As a result, indigenous communities in New Zealand are mostly better off than their Australian, Canadian and US counterparts, with more representation in government and public life. However, this progress risks being undone. Luxon’s new center-right coalition government, which took office last year, has unwound some of the policies that gave the community prominence.
A Guardian investigation in July revealed the effect of legislative and policy changes in six key areas, ranging from health, treaty and language, justice, social and housing, to environment and education, that experts say would adversely impact Maori and might deepen existing inequalities. The administration also plans to wind back world-leading anti-smoking laws that would have made it illegal for anyone born after 2008 to buy cigarettes — a decision experts say would affect the community more, because of higher smoking rates than other New Zealanders.
Maori make up about 20 percent of New Zealand’s 5 million people, but are worse off in comparison to fellow citizens. They are jailed in much higher numbers, accounting for more than half of the people in prison, and are disproportionately represented in crime and poverty statistics. The community also fares badly when it comes to life expectancy rates, with Maori males at the bottom of the table.
Despite that, ACT leader David Seymour, who has Maori ancestry, said the community gets greater privileges on the basis of race. He wants to redefine the founding document, and is pushing for “equal rights” for all, contending that special provisions for people based on ethnic origins are divisive.
For some Kiwis, Seymour’s argument might resonate. Perhaps they feel the Maori hold unfair advantage over land claims and fishing rights. For those with no historical context, these perceived privileges chafe.
However, Seymour’s assertions are Trumpian in nature, as Sir Ian Taylor, a prominent tech entrepreneur and the founder and managing director of Animation Research Ltd, said in a recent editorial.
“Seymour is setting himself up as the victim, the man of the common people,” he wrote. “It’s a role he played to perfection on the first reading of his bill, even going as far as suggesting that members of the Maori party threatened to shoot him with their gestures. Ring any bells?”
New Zealanders are right to be wary of these cynical political games. Even if Seymour does not succeed in getting the treaty renegotiated, he has ignited an emotive issue that he would use to win support from more conservative voters ahead of elections in 2026.
Education, particularly about the atrocities of the empire, is one way out. Under the administration of former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern, the curriculum was changed to ensure that from last year, schoolchildren would understand colonization’s lasting effects. An honest reckoning is necessary, no matter how uncomfortable. In this way, New Zealand is far ahead of the UK, its former colonial master, which until today struggles to come to terms with the legacy of imperialism.
Discussions about why the Maori are disproportionately represented in poverty and prison metrics also need to take place. None of this is easy, but it could bring to the surface viewpoints that need to be carefully thrashed out, before they are exploited for political gain. The alternative is an environment where Seymour’s dangerous rhetoric can thrive.
From India to Indonesia, colonial history has been difficult to confront. The debate over indigenous rights shows how deep these old wounds can run. In comparison to their global counterparts, Kiwis are still doing relatively well. It would be a tragedy to lose so much progress.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS