China, Australia and Human Rights

With the Chinese government’s latest reinforcement of its intention to maintain an iron grip on Taiwan there’s been some talk in the press over the role Australia should play in the event that China and US relations turn sour over Taiwanese independence. John Howard believes that Australia can remain neutral in the coming years and act as some form as mediator, “continually identifying, and advocating to each, the shared strategic interests these great powers have in regional peace and prosperity”.

Howard’s slavish commitment to the Bush administration is well understood and there is little doubt that he and his cabinet will offer apologetics for any course of action the US may undertake, dismissing local and international concerns (no matter how overwhelming) as mere “anti-Americanism”. The government’s desire to present Australia as a nation entirely united behind the US was on display when the PM’s boss visited Australia in October 2003. George Bush essentially spent his entire visit in a dissent free bubble, with the only voices of discontent emanating from Greens senators Brown and Nettle during his address to parliament. In the meantime, protestors outside parliament were kept well away (and kept quiet with sound devices being banned), and journalists were not permitted to access the president. The Bush administration would probably be confronted with more dissent in Crawford, Texas.

President Hu Jintao toured Australia at the same time as Bush, and he received similar treatment. It was somewhat ironic that while conservative voices on the letters pages of Australian newspapers dared those protesting against the Bush administration to protest against China’s human rights abuses, the Howard government was busily assisting Chinese officials in excluding members of Australia’s Tibetan community and Chin Jin (of Federation for a Democratic China) from Hu Jintao’s parliamentary address. The US government had been protected from scrutiny and voices they did not want to hear, and the visiting Chinese officials were shielded from dissenting voices in precisely the same way.

The reasons for this are obvious. Australia is looking to forge a trade deal with China in the near future, and we can’t let trivial things like human rights abuses get in the way. Indeed, the Australian government is extremely attentive to the sensitivities of Chinese officials. For example, Alexander Downer sees to it that Falun Gong demonstrators are banned from displaying banners and making too much noise outside the Chinese embassy in Canberra. Talks between Australia and China concerning human rights are held yearly behind closed doors.

With trade talks looming government ministers continue to stress that there is nothing to be gained from scrutinizing the human rights record of China or including provisions for human rights improvements in any FTA. But if now “isn’t a good time”, when is it appropriate for the Australian government to be frank about China’s use of the death penalty, its treatment of political dissidents/Falun Gong practitioners/Tibetans etc etc? My guess is that in the coming years Australia will approach China’s human rights record in the same way it approaches Indonesia’s. That is, we’ll hear lots about how China is “making promising steps towards reform” but virtually zero criticism in an effort to maintain beneficial economic ties.