Nothing could have been more revealing of the ambiguities at the heart of western policy towards China than when, in March 1997, the annual vote came up at the UN Human Rights Commission to condemn China's record on the treatment of its dissidents and minorities. Denmark, with strong support from the Netherlands, had tabled a critical motion. The Chinese lobbyists went into overdrive.
Denmark was told by Beijing that its criticism would be a "rock that smashed down on the Danish government's head." Several Danish contracts were canceled and, as Chris Patten, now the EU commissioner responsible for foreign affairs, wrote in his book, East and West, "And what did anyone do? Nothing. What in particular did members of the EU do? They looked the other way."
By Yu Sha
In 1998 Europe went one step further or, as Human Rights Watch described it, "a major step backwards." Rewarding China for its bad behavior the previous year, the European foreign ministers threw in the towel. The president of the EU's Foreign Affairs Council, the British foreign secretary, Robin Cook, cited the token release of Wei Jingsheng, China's most well known political prisoner, as an example of the results of the dialogue, a proposition roundly denounced by Wei himself.
In conversation with me, Wei observed, "When Beijing's relations with the West improve, conditions got worse for the dissidents inside China's jails." It was with an almost audible sigh of relief that Washington joined Europe in dropping its sponsorship of the resolution.
Making progress
A senior Clinton Administration figure was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "It is being done as a calculation. It is being done because we believe it is the way to make progress in the future." As Wei shrewdly added, "The Chinese government's concept of human rights has not moved towards the universal standard of human rights. On the contrary, the human rights values of Western politicians have moved closer to those of communist China?."
It is quite pathetic, it is laughable, but above all distasteful that Western countries regularly betray each other and, in so doing, the human rights activists inside China, in an effort to better position themselves in this quite modest marketplace.
If Western governments could stand shoulder to shoulder and say to Beijing and mean it: "Stop using economic and trade threats. You are in no position to do so. It is unacceptable behavior," Beijing would get the message. Sometimes, as Patten once said (before he took his present post) one has to pinch oneself to remember who needs whom most.
To begin with, we should never forget that China represents only 1.7 percent of all Western exports added together.
Only quite recently have cracks appeared in the unseemly union between the old time leftist/liberals fantasists who have supported "revolutionary" China through thick and thin and the rightist, realpolitik, habitual of the White House and European capitals who first came to Beijing to balance Moscow and who stayed on, enthralled by its vast "potential" market.
Just over a year ago the mood began to change. In February last year the US State Department in its annual report noted that China's human rights record had worsened over the past year. For the first time, the State Department's reporting was as vigorous as that of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Two months later the US (but not the EU) cast its vote against China at the annual meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission. At last the human rights lobby had broken through the left-right consensus that had protected China for so long. At the same time President Bill Clinton balanced this by finally deciding that the time had come to support China's entry into the WTO and by successfully persuading Congress to give China permanent most-favored-nation trade status.
This is the right mix: the continuous drumming and tattoo of human rights lobbying, at the same time as trading, commercial and educational links are being strengthened. Over time it might work, if anything will, to loosen up the dictatorship and widen the political space for dissidents.
Follow clinton's lead
Perhaps rather surprisingly, given previous Republican administrations' lack of concern about Chinese internal behavior, the White House has indicated it is going to follow Clinton's lead and cast its ballot to censure China on March 19th when the vote comes up at this year's UN meeting.
But it appears the EU, still more anxious about gaining commercial favors from Beijing (not least for the Airbus super-jumbo plane) than giving support to important principles (despite Patten's own, now internal, lobbying efforts) will not follow suit.
On such an important issue of the day does Europe want to be seen as lagging behind the US? For the moment the answer is a very disappointing and quite counterproductive "yes."
Jonathan Power is a freelance columnist based in London.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.
RSS