Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 86)
TUESDAY 13 JUNE 2000
MR JAMES
HARDING, MR
GRAHAM HUTCHINGS
AND MS
LORNA BALL
80. Ms Ball, would you like to add to that?
(Ms Ball) Yes. It is an intellectual contradiction,
I think both are right. There have been huge advances in freedoms
in China. In the past couple of years there have been roll backs.
I think the crucial divide from what I can see is that in China
you can say more or less what you like as long as you do not criticise
or attack the government or appear to undermine its power. You
might say that the Democratic Party in no way was a threat to
the Chinese government, and I think that is true, but that is
not how the Chinese government perceived it. Trying to distinguish
between economic freedoms and political freedoms is so difficult.
For me it was encapsulated by the head of a provincial radio station
who I was talking to and at the end he said "they are taking
away my money", they were taking away the budget they used
to give to provincial radio, "but they still want me to do
what they say and I am not going to". For him the contradiction
came together. He was being forced to be more economically independent
and to show his own initiative but at the same time he was being
required to make news bulletins and programmes which still toed
the party line and he was reluctant to do that because he saw
the contradiction between the two. For me that is where the economic
and political struggle between what you can say and what you cannot
say seems to reach a pitch.
81. Did he feel any pressure on him in relation
to his personal freedom by not toeing the party line?
(Ms Ball) That did not come out in that conversation,
that conversation was four years ago. I would be very interested
to hear what he has to say now because if you begin to say that
about how you operate at work, your profession, at some stage
you also start to ask questions about how it affects you as a
person. I think James' other point about people opening up to
the outside world, leaving China and going back, is also crucial
because it is true that the West cannot say to China "you
must do this" because it arouses so much anger and indignation
within China itself. They feel that they are at the centre of
the world, they are a world power that should be recognised and
people who tell them what to do are insolent and it will not go
down particularly well in China. As people from China itself have
more experience of the outside world, what it is like away from
China, by way of what they read or listen to or what they observe
themselves when they leave China, that does happen.
(Mr Hutchings) I think the Foreign Office view as
described by yourself is wrong, I think it is naive and I think
it is ahistorical because it implies that there were civil and
political and individual rights granted as a matter of policy
and purpose by the Chinese government which were subsequently
withdrawn. I am not aware of any measures of that kind. I believe
that such civil, political and individual freedoms of the kind
that we most value in the West have occurred in China by default,
always by default. They are the result of indecision among the
leadership about how to deal with a certain protest. They are
the result of an inability of the leadership to physically suppress
at any given time a certain problem.
82. An example?
(Mr Hutchings) Tiananmen Square would be such an example,
that there were in the six weeks beginning in early May, or rather
mid-April, extraordinary political and individual freedoms in
Beijing and one of the joys to be alive in that form one saw and
heard. They were a function of political paralysis and vision,
they were not based on constitutional guarantees. No Chinese leader,
even the most liberal of them, could have tolerated that kind
of thing. Tibet is witness to a degree of protest and demonstration
because it is a long way away and because military resources to
crush it cannot always be brought to bear. I think it is important
to understand that legal policy improvements, intentional improvements
on civil and political and individual rights, are conspicuous
by their absence. On the question of human rights generally, they
have improved and are improving constantly in very encouraging
ways. This sounds a little patronising but it is not a small thing
when one has had to seek permission to do things that most people
in the world, certainly in the West, regard as their natural right
every day without permission. When you have had to seek permission
and you no longer have to do so, you can work and live and travel
wherever and marry whom you choose, those things really matter.
They have increased most dramatically during the last 20 years
and that is the period when China has been most engaged with the
world. It is the business of the Chinese people to improve their
human rights record. Only they can do it, and the indications
are that their chances of doing so are improving every day China
is engaged with the outside world.
Sir David Madel
83. If the Chinese economy continues to improve
and if Taiwan plays it carefully and says it is only interested
in peaceful co-existence with Beijing, bearing in mind that Taiwan
has $50 billion invested on the mainland, given those criteria,
can a crisis be avoided?
(Mr Harding) I think yes. The question is, and I say
this word with some anxiety in this House, a federalist approach
to the future of China, which has some currency in academic circles
in Beijing, and this would enable them to move gradually towards
maintaining Taiwan within One China but at the same time devolving
powers to Taipei. So there is a model that enables them to maintain
the One China concept.
84. Does anyone else want to comment?
(Mr Hutchings) The possibility of very unfortunate
events taking place in the Taiwan Straits seems to me quite high
and the political risk in Taipei is considerable. I think, however,
on balance that the status quo can be preserved over the next
four or five years depending on the continued caution and moderation
that we have already seen from the new President of Taiwan, Chen
Shuibian, and a realisation in Beijing that the military option
would entail costs of the kind you hinted at in your reference
to Taiwanese investment in the mainland. It would also involve
very considerable conflict with the United States and worst of
all it simply might not work. That would be the biggest disaster
of all and if Jiang Zemin is hoping in the eventide of his political
career to salvage a reputation by recruiting Taiwan to the Chinese
nation he is going to play it very carefully.
Sir Peter Emery
85. Very quickly, each of the three of you who
are more hands-on with China than most people at this time, what
would you like to see us achieve as a Committee in this visit?
What do you think we could achieve and how do you think we could
best do that?
(Mr Hutchings) Since you offer that open cheque I
will write quite a large number on it which will, I think, be
difficult for you to achieve but nonetheless is worth striving
for, and that is to make clear to your hosts courteously on every
occasion the supremacy of Parliament, that the Foreign Office
is carrying out the bidding of an elected government, that it
is subject to enquiry, criticism, testimony and that you are quite
distinct from the diplomats and indeed political leaders whom
Chinese leaders and the Chinese foreign affairs establishment
usually deal with.
86. Mr Harding?
(Mr Harding) I would point to the two key events of
last year, the bombing of the Belgrade Embassy and the visit of
Jiang Zemin to this country and say in both cases we saw how our
Diplomatic Services failed us and our relationship. In the case
of Beijing of course the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the institutions
of the party whipped up anti-British feeling which appeared to
run very deep and it is a dangerous feeling to let run. Here by
failing to address the concerns that are alive in this country
about Tibet and human rights it seems that the government here
also allowed anti-Chinese sentiment to gain ground where it need
not have. The issue that I would raise both with the Foreign Office
and with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is how do we maintain
a sensible dialogue where we can both maturely address the shared
concerns that we have about each other's countries.
(Ms Ball) I would say raising those issues as constructively
as possible so that the dialogue can continue constructively without
that negative criticism which will only be taken in the wrong
way and will achieve nothing. I think in particular in relation
to the role of Parliament and the Committee, the questions that
are made of the Government can be made without weakening the country
as a whole because in China those sort of questions can sometimes
be seen as a sign of weakness that will lead to social upheaval
if the government is not seen as ruling with a firm fist. There
is an environment in which those questions can be asked and quite
pointed questions can be asked of government in power which is
not meant to undermine the government but is meant to strengthen
society as a whole.
Chairman: You have drawn from your vast experience
to the benefit of the Committee. May I thank the three of you
very much indeed.
|
