Angry Chinese Blogger

Angry Chinese Blogger: The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you

The is no single truth

Menu: Home

Engagement, or a Betrayal of Principles?: Is Britain Lending legitimacy to Beijing?

« H E News and Politics :: Sino-British :: Human rights and personal freedoms :: Includes Translations :: News and Perspectives :: email
posted Monday, 4 July 2005

Though Britain Government has, in recent years, become well know for maintaining questionable alliances, its choice of bedfellows has is again hit the headlines with the announcement that the Blair administration has extend a cordial invitation to President Hu of China to make an official state visit in the spirit of friendship.

The visit, currently scheduled for November, comes at a time when many are becoming increasingly concerned that countries like Britain are finding themselves able to overlook the less palatable activities of the Chinese Government if it means that they are able to strengthen their economic relationships.

If Britain says its OK, then it must be

While most countries now have full diplomatic relationships with China, many western nations stop short of issuing formal invitations to its leaders if they are are not part of wider negotiations because of concerns over Beijing’s past and present conduct, and fears that accepting China in such a manner may be seen as accepting the actions of the Chinese government.

For many China watchers and human rights campaigners one of the great worries about Hu's forthcoming visit to Britain, at the bequest of the elected British establishments, is that acts to strengthens Hu’s position as a mainstream leader, while reducing the pressure on him to reform by giving the impression that the Blair administration sees nothing wrong with his policies and leadership, or at least sees nothing so wrong that it can’t be ignored.

Better in than out?

However, despite objections to Britain’s invitation, China remains a rising force that the international community is increasingly being forced to recognize as an important world player, both in terms of trade and political influence.

Defenders of Britain’s stance towards China, many of whom are European, have voiced that a policy of containment and subversion is no longer a viable way of dealing with China, and that the only way to encourage Beijing to reform is through active engagement, with defenders holding that if the international community moves to try and isolate China, it will foster distrust rather than openness, which in turn will lead to further restrictions on human rights by Beijing.

Critics of Britain’s style of engagement, many of whom are US based, have however voiced that Britain is more concerned with ensuring a constant supply of cheap consumer good, to fuel internal consumer sending, than it is with actual engagement, and that by giving China an almost free ride it is not putting sufficient pressure on Beijing to reform. Some of these critic voice that heir views have been born-out by recent steps backwards that have been taken by Beijing, which has become more authoritarian and not less in recent years, despite the wests policy of engagement.

Freedom is what we say it is

Despite the trade and economic advances made during Hu's presidency, and a relaxation of laws governing a handful of social freedoms, many China watchers feel that his tenure has been regressive rather than progressive in terms of human rights. Of particular concern to China watchers are efforts that Beijing has made to curtail and freedom of speech and association on the Internet.

In March 2004, the Hu administration ordered a number of prominent Chinese language blogging services to cease operation until they had removed all political content that did not support the official state line. Services effected included Blogbus, BlogCN. Their censure was reportedly related to users posting an open letter by Dr.Jiang that called on Beijing to rethink its line over the suppression of pro democracy campaigners in 1989.


“网站因故暂停服务, 我们将尽快恢复. 由此给各位用户带来的不便, 我们深表歉意, 请大家谅解. 2004年3月14日”

“This website has stopped its service, we will restore it as soon as possible, we apologies for the inconvenience that this brings to users, and ask for everybody to understand. 14 March 2004”

BlogCN



More worrying though, than the direct suppression of freedom of speech have been efforts by Beijing to direct and channel what freedoms of speech there are into a form that matches and reinforce the state line by ensuring only the right people get to speak and that only the right words are heard when they do.

Prior to the anti-Japanese riots in Beijing and Shanghai, accusations were levelled that Beijing was censoring moderate comments on websites and BBSs while allowing nationalists and right wing elements free reign to promote their ideas; dangerously skewing public perceptions by making it appear that moderates and were the minority rather than the majority, and that few people held opinions that diverged from the state line.

After the death of Pope John Paul II it was revealed that some a number of prominent Chinese web portals had placed advanced censorship software on their servers that allowed the author of a ‘problem message’ to see their own post, while keeping it hidden from the rest of the world.  Leading many poster to believe that they were free to post messages voicing alternative views, but that nobody was interested in replying to them, and that nobody else was posting similar messages.

On top of direct censorship of blogs and message boards at the service level, the Hu administration has also recently enacted legislation to remove anonymity, one of the foundations of the web as a medium for free communications, from Chinese surfers and bloggers by forcing authors to register their real world identities agaisnt their blogs and websites, and users to enter a personal ID number before being allowed to use a Internet cafe. Both of these moves have been widely denounced as being designed to intimidate people into censoring themselves or risk government action by allowing reader and writters to be identified, an dte materials that the consum or create to be tracked back to them, leaving them open to state sensure.

Learning from the Masters

While President Hu's visit is of concern to China human rights watchers, because of its potential to be used as a propaganda tool, it is also of concern to Britain's domestic human rights groups because of the fear that, in attempting to ensure that Hu's trip runs smoothly, the Blair administration may act to silence lawful demonstrations aimed Premier Hu and his party so as to give the impression that the wider British public supports the Hu administration, when in fact many find it to be a distasteful regime with questionable policies.

During a previous state visit by Chinese officials the Blair administration ordered British police to clear city streets of Tibetan flags and slogans and to prevent free Tibet campaigners from demonstrating in proximity to Beijing's delegates. The Blair administrations moves to curb the highly embarrassing demonstrations were broadly condemned in Britain, where freedom of speech, association, and the right to demonstrate peacefully are enshrined in the country’s laws.

Fears over the suppression of human rights demonstrations in Britain come at a time when the country is undergoing a downwards trend in the Blair administrations tolerance for freedom of speech that clashes with its own state line, and at a time of concern that the British post 9/11 anti-terrorism laws are ripe for abuse because they can be used to prevent a  wide range of legitimate activities, including peaceful protests in the presence of Hu and his party.

Despite being a modern constitutional democracy, and a signatory to the European convention on Human Rights, British anti-terrorism laws are worded in such a manner that they could allow the London to detain an exiled Tibetan if they tried to publicly promote Tibetan independence during Hu's visit even if they posed no threat to Hu, the public, or to public order.

Under British law, a detained Tibetan exile could be held indefinitely without trial or recourse on the grounds that they could go free if the opted to return to Tibet, which many may constitute a death sentence for some.

Likely protesters include:

  • FLG practitioners and supporters
  • Human rights activists
  • Freedom of speech activists
  • Pro democracy activists
  • The Free Tibet Movement
  • Pro independence Taiwanese

All are likely to face strict restrictions on when, where, and how, the are permitted to protest, and none are likely to be allowed to present their protests to Premier Hu in stark contradiction to British law and tradition.

There are similar concerns that Britain’s anti-terrorism laws may be against protesters during the forthcoming G8 meetings in Scotland.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit


View Comments/Add a Comment (1)


1. lifeinjiangxi left...
Tuesday, 5 July 2005 10:39 pm

I remember the Free Tibet fuss from when Jiang Zemin visited the last time. I think I must have been in the UK at the time, because I heard all about the protestors being hidden behind police vans, and then being prosecuted (or at least threatened with prosecution) because apparently you aren't allowed to protest in a royal park. Yes, the government looked very bad over that one...but the thing that made me laugh was the news covered outraged protestors complaining about their human rights, and then the Chinese ambassador being angry because the UK hadn't done more to remove the protestors! I felt like telling Tony Blair that no matter what he does, he's still going to annoy all sides in this dispute. Luckily most of the protestors are likely to be UK nationals, rather than ethnic Tibetans or chinese FLG followers, so at least they can't be deported.