John Bowie, LawFuel publisher
New Zealand has never been shy about exporting its former prime ministers, Jacinda Ardern being the major star-turn on this stage at present, but the latest double-act is something to behold. In a masterclass of geopolitical gymnastics Helen Clark and John Key have demonstrated the fine art of selective moral outrage.
For John Key, the China love is a matter of business and always has been. For Helen Clark, the doyenne and cheerleader of human rights, last seen protesting the oppression of human rights by Gazans given to their go-pro killing of babies and grandparents, along with those at a peacenik dance party, seems to have lost true north on her moral compass.
Both former PMs were sitting amid the red flags – surely they could see them waving at their decision to attend – alongside some of history’s most accomplished authoritarians. Amid the flag waving were the heroically-configured despots – Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un. Quite the pivot.
Had Helen Clark in particular with her great pretence over fostering human rights simply forgotten the systematic oppression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang (with over one million detained in “re-education” camps), the crushing of Hong Kong’s democracy, aggressive moves by China against Taiwan, the silencing of dissidents, severe internet censorship, religious persecution, or its neat trick of disappearing journalists.
But why let a little genocide, forced labor, organ harvesting allegations, and the disappearance of inconvenient critics spoil a good photo op with Xi Jinping? After all, consistency in human rights advocacy is so terribly limiting when there are trade deals to consider and military parades to attend.
The sight of both former leaders grinning alongside the world’s most accomplished despots is a reminder that moral consistency tends to buckle under the weight of prestige invitations and red-carpet hospitality.
When human rights can be set aside for a military parade, perhaps we should stop pretending they were ever more than a prop in the first place.
Perhaps the real lesson here is that moral outrage, like fine wine, travels poorly—and apparently doesn’t age well either.
