Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260
- 279)
WEDNESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2000
RT HON
ROBIN COOK,
MP, MS ROSALIND
MARSDEN AND
MR TONY
SPRAKE
Sir John Stanley
260. Foreign Secretary, your opening balance
sheet in relation to human rights in China was in considerable
contrast, I felt, to your own Department's paper to this Committee
at the outset of this inquiry. In paragraph 66 of the paper that
you submitted to the Committee it contains a really withering
description of the deterioration in human rights in China over
the last two years, including the sentence, "Over the last
two years there has been a marked deterioration in the respect
of key civil and political rights including the freedoms of expression,
assembly, association, conscience and religion." Do you still
accept that is a valid statement, Foreign Secretary?
(Mr Cook) Not only that but I actually requested that
statement to be put in. When this memorandum was first submitted
to me it did not have that paragraph and I requested it, so I
fully stand by it. If I may say so, I think it is entirely consistent
with what I said earlier about the increase in administrative
detentions and the vigour with which they are suppressing freedom
of expression and the harassment of the catholic members who do
not renounce the Pope. That is entirely consistent with what I
said and, yes, I fully agree with that. I requested it.
261. Given that your confirmation that there
has been a serious deterioration of human rights in China over
the last two years, could you tell us whether you have been considering
whether this is now the time to look fundamentally at whether
there should be a major change in policy on trying to further
human rights in China? In particular recognising that the British
Government cannot be on its own in trying to bring about such
a major change, recognising that some of our major EU partners
clearly have the pursuit of contracts very much in the forefront
of their minds in their bilateral relations with China, given
that the United States has now effectively normalised its trading
relations with China, is there not a case to think radically as
to whether a new approach might be more effectively based on developing
internet access, telecommunication access, broadcasting, television,
education, all of those key elements of the information age which
in the short-term as well as in the long-term could do far more
to advance human rights and a multi-party political system in
China than the sort of conventional battering on the door that
has been pursued over the last two or three decades?
(Mr Cook) I am not sure that I would recognise our
human rights dialogue as a battering on the door. Indeed, it was
very much a conscious decision that we should try to engage Chinese
interlocutors in dialogue on these issues, both to register our
concerns and to press them to justify their behaviour and to consider
ways in which they could improve that behaviour. In that sense
the key change was three years ago when we set up the structured
dialogue. I do not see that structured dialogue as in any way
incompatible with the rich and broad strategy that you outline
which I myself would entirely share, and indeed I think I said
something similar in response to Mr Rowlands. The more China becomes
involved in the modern technologies, particularly of communication,
the more they are exposed to the outside world and the more they
have to recognise that modern commercial and industrial success
comes from individual enterprise and individual skills and individual
access to knowledge and education, then the more we are likely
to see changes in the political structures. I would absolutely
agree with the proposal that you make, and I think it is consistent
with what we are doing, but it is not in any way compatible with
having a dialogue with those in the current political leadership.
Perhaps the two trends are complementary and reinforce each other
rather than compete with each other.
262. Thank you for your response as to the value
of the wider information age approach. Just following that further,
Foreign Secretary, can you give us your own views as to what the
British Government can do to try to further internet access, to
try to further free broadcasting into China, to remove the jamming
that is being imposed on the BBC, to try to get access for BBC
television in China? What more we can do in terms of making the
British Council still more effective in China and furthering the
advance of education and knowledge about freer systems, freer
political systems, freer systems of religious freedom and educational
freedom?
(Mr Cook) The latter point gets us to our concerns
on human rights and we have deep concerns about the suppression
of religious freedom. To take your earlier point about process,
I think we can say that we are actively engaged in all the processes
that you have outlined. The British Council is very active in
China and is a major channel for English language teaching throughout
China. It has also worked closely with us on our Human Rights
Projects Fund work, notably in the work for improvement in the
legal and judicial system within China within the limitations
of holistic resources. I think the British Council is doing a
first class job and as much as can be expected in both the human
rights and the communication fields within China. On the BBC,
we regularly raise the jamming of the BBC World Service. We raised
it again last week when our Chinese interlocutors informed us,
which is their standard response, that there was no jamming, it
was just an unfortunate coincidence with local Chinese radio stations.
On the question of the BBC world television, we did secure agreement
from China at the same meeting very recently that BBC world television
will be made available in hotels throughout China. This is welcomed
by BBC world television but it does not actually meet our objective,
which is to get through to the Chinese population itself.
263. Is there any further assistance you can
give on the issue of jamming? As we on this Committee know, the
idea that there is some unfortunate technical conjunction is complete
hogwash and there is deliberate jamming of the BBC World Service.
(Mr Cook) I merely report what we were informed, I
did not endorse it. We know from the BBC World Service that many
of the frequencies are deliberately jammed. We will continue to
press this upon the Chinese authorities. It is both objectionable
in principle that there should be that suppression of access to
people, an expression of freedom of information, and it also prevents
us from sharing with the Chinese population an objective impartial
view of the wider world over which, as the Committee will be aware,
I personally have no editorial control nor any wish to exercise
editorial control.
Chairman
264. Foreign Secretary, will you confirm that
the internet, far from opening new windows for the Chinese, has
made it more restrictive because the Chinese are on the point,
if they have not already done so, of introducing new restrictions
in terms of foreign ownership, in terms of keeping records of
those who have consulted the internet? Again, one is going backwards.
(Mr Cook) I am not sure that I necessarily assent
to the term "going backwards" but you are quite right
to highlight the limited extent to which internet usage has opened
up China. For a start there are only 15 million people with access
to the internet in China out of an enormous, large population.
They are, of course, a very influential, potentially pivotal 15
million people. I would not underrate the difficulty of limiting
access through the internet, it is a very difficult medium to
control or to regulate, and some seepage, despite any efforts
of the Chinese authority, will take place. There was a similar
reaction when the fax machine first arrived but they have now
more or less abandoned their original restrictions on the fax
machine. In the modern world it is impossible to develop a skilled,
knowledgeable, educated workforce, which the Chinese are doing,
and they put a high stress on education, and prevent them from
getting access to information from the outside world.
265. They are doing their best.
(Mr Cook) I would not deny that they are not making
it easy but it is impossible to succeed in that task and I think
many in the Chinese regime would understand that.
Ms Abbott
266. You have explained to the Committee about
the progress that has been made at the level of high diplomacy
on human rights. You have conceded to the Committee though that
at the level of the reality of the lives of ordinary Chinese people
their experience has been a deterioration on the question of human
rights and you explained about the increase in detentions and
so on. I just wondered then about our strategy in relation to
the UN Commission on Human Rights and the resolution that was
tabled by the United States in April. Obviously we voted against
the Chinese no action motion but we ourselves did not actually
co-sponsor the US resolution. Do you think there is any possibility
that the European Union will co-sponsor or will be willing to
sponsor such a critical resolution next year? If the European
Union is not willing to do so, will the United Kingdom be willing
to do it on its own?
(Mr Cook) On the latter point, I personally would
not welcome a situation in which we split the position of the
European Union. I hope that we can try and retain a common European
Union position. In answer to your question, the strict answer
is, yes, there is that possibility because the decision we took
in March made it plain that this was a decision for this year
and a decision for any future year would be reviewed in the light
of the progress of the dialogue. That is why in September I did
make it clear to the Chinese authorities that our decision on
the dialogue and the continuation of the dialogue will depend
on getting concrete results from the dialogue. I would just stress
to the Committee that we have to be open-eyed about this. If we
do co-sponsor such a resolution it will be the end of the dialogue,
there will be no further dialogue, and that requires a subjective,
balanced judgment as to whether ending the dialogue for the sake
of a resolution which may not even be debated is the right way
forward.
267. We have taken a lot of evidence, both verbal
evidence and written evidence, in Hong Kong, although not in China,
on the human rights question. Professor Rosemary Foot told us
that "the draft resolution in the past prompted several positive
developments in China's response to the international human rights
regime...." and she went on to say that it "helped prompt
Beijing's 1997 and 1998 decisions to sign the International Covenant
on Economic and Social Rights..." There is a view that China
does take the threat of such resolutions going through seriously
and does take action in response to them. If we simply do not
push the issue in that way at that level we are losing a further
opportunity to put pressure on China.
(Mr Cook) Let us be clear, it is not a further opportunity,
it is an alternative opportunity. The dialogue vanishes the moment
you take that step. I will study with care the paper to which
you refer. I am not sure that what you quote supports the contention
because the announcement about China in relation to both the Covenant
on Economic and Social Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights came after we started the dialogue, not at the time when
we were co-sponsoring resolutions in Geneva.
268. So you would argue then that the concrete
results of the dialogue in relation to the experience of the ordinary
Chinese on the ground justify failing to sponsor these resolutions?
(Mr Cook) Those are two separate issues. First of
all, in terms of how we proceed on human rights, either through
the dialogue we have at the present time or through co-sponsorship
of resolutions, as I said that is a matter of judgment and necessarily
these issues are subjective. Our judgment hitherto has been that
we have made more progress through dialogue than we would by co-sponsoring
a resolution which has never yet actually made it on to the table.
But, at the same time, we are making it clear to the Chinese authorities
that we expect concrete results from that dialogue. I personally
never use the phrase "high diplomacy", I find it frankly
really rather pointless and distasteful. I do not think when we
talk about the death penalty or we talk about rights in Tibet
that we are engaged in something called high diplomacy. In terms
of the impact on the lives of the ordinary people it is certainly
the case that there is no pluralism or freedom of expression for
them. On the other side of the balance sheet I think one should
add that there has been a dramatic improvement in the standard
of living of the ordinary Chinese.
269. I was talking about human rights. I deliberately
did not talk about the standard of living.
(Mr Cook) The economic and social rights are also
human rights and I think one should not ignore this.
270. I think if you spoke to activists in Hong
Kong—we could not talk to activists in China—they
would make a very clear distinction between economic rights and
human rights.
(Mr Cook) And they would be perfectly right to make
such a distinction. I accept that there is such a distinction,
I make it myself. If we are talking about the lives of the ordinary
people, which is your phrase, I do not think we can entirely ignore
the improvement in the standard of living.
271. The Human Rights in China Group have said
a number of concrete ways in which dialogue could be improved,
amongst them a clear, substantive agenda, discussed in advance,
or a transparent and accountable process or independent participation
in the dialogue, co-ordination between dialogue partners at the
international level and an integrated strategy, with no compromises
on human rights standards, with a willingness to exert pressure
and a willingness to withdraw from the dialogue if no progress
is made. I do not know whether you are aware of their proposals.
Are you in any way sympathetic to them?
(Mr Cook) I have already said that we will continue
to review with a dialogue a resolution to a better way forward
and we will be doing that before the next round at Geneva. I think
we have got to be careful. This is not, as I said, high diplomacy,
it is a working meeting between officials from both sides, it
is not a party conference we are devising here. Having said that,
on some of these points we have tried to open up the dialogue.
I think I am right, and Ms Marsden can correct me if I am wrong,
that we have invited participation of NGOs, some of whom have
refused participation.
272. I do not want to pursue this much longer
but you seemed to be suggesting earlier—I may have misunderstood
you—that if we sponsor the resolution, if the EU sponsors
the resolution, the dialogue falls, but the United States sponsored
the resolution and they still have a dialogue.
(Mr Cook) They do not have a human rights dialogue
as far as I am aware.
Ms Abbott: Could I just ask a couple of questions
on Hong Kong?
Chairman: Let us continue with human rights.
Mr Chidgey
273. Foreign Secretary, if I could just turn
the discussion to China's application for accession to WTO, the
World Trade Organisation. You are familiar with the fact that
there has been a stalling, temporary or otherwise, currently in
negotiations—and I phrase that very carefully—over
how China's application should be treated. The question I want
to ask you is do you believe that concessions should be made to
facilitate the entry of China into the WTO at an early date within
the framework of the dates that were originally considered, ie
by the end of this year?
(Mr Cook) I would not favour concessions, no. We have
had extensive negotiation with China both from the European Union
and also from the United States in order to find terms of accession
which are realistic but also ones with which we are comfortable
and can live with.
274. What in your view are the most important
sticking points that you would not wish to concede?
(Mr Cook) Personally I am not aware of any sticking
point from a European Union perspective. We did reach an agreement,
we expect that agreement to be honoured and, of course, it is
a sequential agreement whereby we expect China to be doing things
before entry into the WTO.
275. For example, Pascal Lamy says that there
are major areas which have to be resolved before the Chinese entry
application can be proceeded with and particularly the main sticking
points are China's readiness to commit itself to transparency,
which I think touches on the freedom of speech areas we went through
earlier.
(Mr Cook) I am not quite sure that that is what the
Trade Commissioner meant when he referred to "transparency".
I think he was referring here to transparency in commercial and
financial matters. I will refer this to Mr Sprake who may be able
to help us.
276. To take it a little further, your colleague,
Mr Byers, the Industry Secretary, has said, I believe, that it
is more important to settle outstanding issues than meeting artificial
deadlines for Chinese entry. Can you help us on what some of those
outstanding issues might be?
(Mr Cook) As part of its agreement to enter to the
WTO China did agree to make a number of commercial steps, for
instance the granting of licences for the insurance industry,
for the financial sectors. As far as I am aware those steps have
not yet been taken and we wish to see them resolved before China
proceeds. That is not an issue for further negotiation, that is
a matter of honouring steps that were agreed as part of the process
to WTO. Possibly I could bring in Mr Sprake here who has been
more in contact with the negotiations.
(Mr Sprake) I have to say that I am not an expert
on the WTO negotiations but I understand that part of the difficulty
now, of course, is bringing together all the bilateral agreements
that have been reached, as you know, within a common framework
agreement. In other words, all the concessions which are granted
to one country are then extended across the board. In doing that
one is, as you know, drawing up an agreement. There are now problems
essentially of definition. To take one example, there is the question
of retailing and distribution within China and how this is defined.
It is very largely, I think, now a matter of definition and going
into greater detail of how these agreements are going to operate
in practice.
277. Thank you very much. I think, if I may
say, it is also an issue of freedom in the marketplace in its
more general sense.
(Mr Cook) Yes.
278. In that context can I ask you whether in
your own role you have offered any advice in terms of foreign
policy and the implications of WTO membership of China to your
colleagues and what advice that might have been?
(Mr Cook) First of all, the pursuit of the WTO accession
has been a matter in the hands of the General Affairs Council,
which as Foreign Minister I attend and so do the Foreign Ministers
of the other European countries, so it has been very much driven
by the foreign policy consideration. The strategic foreign policy
issue for us here is we want to see China a member of the WTO
but not at any price. We want to see it a member of the WTO partly
because in order to achieve that membership it will have to face
up to some of these issues of financial and commercial transparency,
it will have to open up some of its markets, as it is now committed
to doing on the insurance market, and it will facilitate the kind
of increase in access to the outside economy through communication
technology of the kind that I referred to earlier and which I
think will be beneficial in promoting those other political freedoms.
In a sense I would agree with you that one cannot pigeonhole transparency
of the financial markets and freedom of commercial activity and,
on the other hand, freedom of expression and freedom of information.
You cannot have a transparent financial market without access
to information about the market. So the one will have an effect
on the other but they are not explicit political conditions on
the application.
279. Have you any idea in your own mind when
these issues might be resolved and China might become a full member
of the WTO? Will it be months or years?
(Mr Cook) I would not wish to make a prediction. Indeed,
one of the reasons I am reluctant to make a prediction is primarily
that it is in the hands of the Government of China and the quicker
they get on with implementing the steps we have undertaken, the
quicker they will come into the WTO.
|
