Getting the balance right

China has undoubtedly failed to meet its commitments on improving human rights, but boycotting the games is not the way to respond, says Graham Watson

China’s Communist government has a long record of making human rights commitments and then breaking them.  It signed the universal declaration of human rights and even adopted human rights articles into its own constitution.  Despite this, China has restricted the liberties of its citizens with arbitrary arrest, extrajudicial violence, and its infamous one-child policy.

No-one should be surprised, then, that Beijing has reneged on the human rights promises that it made in its effort to win the 2008 Olympic Games. During the bid process, the Chinese government gave assurances that it would allow complete freedom for foreign media and Liu Jingmin, the vice president of the bid committee, stated that by awarding the games to China, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) would “help the development of human rights”.  

In reality, abuses have increased. Not only does China continue to execute more people than the rest of the world combined, but it has clamped down on internal dissent and media freedom. Press restrictions are not limited to the Chinese media - they are ruthlessly applied to foreign outlets too.

This month, the NGO Human Rights Watch published an astonishing report that exposed the often brutal tactics employed by the Chinese authorities to prevent foreign correspondents from pursuing stories. The behaviour of the Chinese authorities is not only a breach of their word, but also of the terms of the Olympic charter, which opposes “any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics (or) gender”.

How then should world democracies respond?  What we should not do is instigate a blanket boycott of the Olympics. The only material effect would be damage to the standing of the games. International athletes have trained hard for this, and we should not make the competition suffer as a proxy for our frustration with the Chinese authorities.

I do, however, understand the view that it is wrong for democratic leaders to attend the opening ceremony: we must be wary of appearing to accept Chinese hospitality without qualification. Many European leaders feel this way, and I am therefore disappointed that the EU’s president-in-office has chosen to attend. Europe should speak with one voice on this: in the absence of consensus, Nicolas Sarkozy should stay away.

But the issue of how to deal with China’s human rights violations runs deeper than the Olympic ceremony, and so must our response.  With the rise of China’s economic and political clout it has become increasingly hard to coax foreign leaders into making strong public criticism of Beijing. There is every reason to suspect that the prospect of trade deals is discouraging democratic governments from speaking out about China’s domestic policies. That is morally unacceptable.

China’s cultural, philosophical and technological contribution to world history is outstanding.  But today, its political development and its citizens’ liberties are stunted by a communist regime which is, in Bill Clinton’s words, “on the wrong side of history”.  Democracies would not accept Chinese-style human rights abuses within their borders, and we must not turn a blind eye when we see them elsewhere.  Our leaders should stand up for our values, not buckle under the weight of economic self-interest.

We must harness China’s embarrassment and push for reform. World leaders should take three steps. First, they should urge the IOC to publish its host contract with Beijing, which outlines the reforms that China committed to.

Second, they should exercise maximum diplomatic pressure on the Chinese authorities to permit total press freedom in the run-up to the Olympics and raise with them every single incident of violence or intimidation against foreign journalists.

Third, they should use every meeting with senior Chinese officials – up to and including Hu Jintao – to raise, publicly and in specific terms, concerns over both China’s general human rights record and its failure to keep its Olympic commitments.

If democracies speak together, the Chinese government will understand the premium that we place on liberty.  It will also become harder for China to retaliate with the threat of cutting its critics out of trade deals.

The EU has a clear role to play. Six months ago, on the 60th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights, the EU proclaimed its commitment to the “promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world as a cornerstone of our external action policy”.  We must follow those words with action.

When Sarkozy does go to the games he should unequivocally condemn the Chinese authorities’ brutality, including their violent response to unrest in Tibet earlier this year.  EU heads of government and the European commission should support him.
Speaking in 2001, Liu Jingmin assured the world that “China’s opening up is irreversible”.

That has proven untrue, but through dialogue, reform can go back on the agenda, and the Olympics are the means to do it.