Memorandum submitted by The Rights Practice

 

1. The focus of our submission is the absence of a strong human rights component in DFID's engagement with China. We acknowledge that the political context in China is challenging, but recommend DFID adopts a higher visibility commitment to reducing poverty within a human rights framework and plays a more active role in encouraging China to meet its international obligations.

 

2. The Rights Practice is an independent not-for-profit organisation working to help realise international human rights standards. Our work is currently focused on China and we work to support local partners - largely from civil society - advocate for reform of law, policy and practice to improve the protection of human rights. Our priorities are to improve human rights protection for those in conflict with the law, for the poorest and the most vulnerable. We are currently working on a range of issues including enhancing access to legal assistance in rural areas and also for children; combating torture and the independent monitoring of places of detention; promoting public participation in urban planning and raising awareness of the human rights of persons living with disabilities. Current projects are funded by DFID's Civil Society Challenge Fund, the FCO's Global Opportunities Fund, the European Commission and the Big Lottery Fund. The Director of The Rights Practice is the former Director of the Great Britain-China Centre and has over 20 years experience working with China.

 

3. We applaud China's significant achievement in bringing such a large percentage of its population out of poverty, but we note that the majority of the estimated 135 million who continue to experience real poverty live in remote areas, come from ethnic minorities, have disabilities or are the elderly, women or children. Although China is now a lower middle income country growing inequality and the profile of the poorest suggest that the hardest part of its poverty alleviation work remains to be done.

 

4. Official development assistance represents an insignificant amount of China's GDP, but engagement with international development agencies and their partners continues to bring invaluable experience from other countries as well as knowledge, skills and new ideas to challenge China's own development discourse. As DFID embarks on a new phase in its relations with China we hope that it will continue to support mechanisms which facilitate engagement on policy debates and will promote a pluralistic, participatory and rights-based approach to development in China.

 

5. We are, nevertheless, concerned that DFID's engagement with China has not been taking place within an explicit human rights framework. We acknowledge that China is a challenging environment for human rights, but submit that DFID's approach has been too tentative and it has not used its political capital as effectively as it could. We accept that much of DFID's programming has a human rights dimension in so far as it aims to improve the situation for the most vulnerable, but by not situating its country strategy in an explicit human rights framework we suggest that not only have entry points for rights-based approaches been overlooked, but DFID has failed to support human rights as a normative concept in China. Leaving human rights, at the rhetorical level, to the Foreign Office strengthens the position of critics within China who argue that human rights are a Western notion being used to constrain and condemn China internationally. Reference to human rights commitments by DFID, and other government departments and aid agencies, would contribute to the normalisation of this concept within China. We suggest that DFID may be demonstrating a misplaced caution in not more publicly committing to working within a framework of international human rights obligations. Unless DFID is globally consistent in its reference to human rights obligations there is a real danger that the concept will become increasingly polemical. In this respect the presentation of policy may be as important as its substance.

 

6. Recent events in China have already illustrated the extent to which human rights have become politicised. While China clearly has a poor human rights record we all share some culpability in allowing the debate within China to become politicised to the detriment of real engagement and progress. Domestically, human rights are too often associated with American foreign policy and a, sometimes virulently, nationalist rhetoric. It is worth noting, however, that China does not resort as much these days to the idea of distinct Asian Values which characterised the debates of the 1990s. Instead, we encounter, through our own work, a growing commitment among officials, as well as scholars and activists, to the idea of human rights and the rhetoric of step by step progress towards realising many human rights commitments. Although we may debate the exact nature of the relationship between social and economic rights and civil and political rights, evidence from many countries clearly demonstrates that the two sets of rights are closely related. DFID's analysis, in its White Paper Making Governance Work for the Poor and underlying the establishment of the Governance and Transparency Fund, clearly favours the view that government accountability, an outcome of civil and political rights, is a key factor in pro-poor policy making. International comparisons indicate that China's score on civil and political rights indicia falls below the level expected by its income indicating that there is scope for a much faster rate of progress towards realising many civil rights. The obstacles to progress in China are clearly political rather than economic.

 

7. We are not advocating that DFID should use human rights to condemn or, publicly, criticise China. Instead we would like to see human rights acknowledged as both shared universal values and a set of obligations which all countries should strive towards: obligations which should underpin all aspects of policy making and most particularly, the development agenda. We can, and indeed should, acknowledge this country's failings both in its domestic practice and internationally, but our mea culpa should also provide us with an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to international standards and the practical steps we need to take. Programmatically DFID in China should be doing more to support international human rights mechanisms as a cross-cutting measure in its work on health, water and sanitation and education as well as gender. Such assistance might include greater moral and practical support for the participation of Chinese civil society in, for example State Party reporting and the follow up to Treaty Body recommendations. It should also include support for the development of the institutions of good government including an independent judiciary and legal profession, greater public participation in policy making and more open access to information. We recognise that DFID is withdrawing from bilateral programming in China, but we hope that DFID will provide mechanisms to support practical engagement with China on implementing its international human rights obligations and back this up by high level policy support and political commitment.

 

8. The Rights Practice notes China's growing involvement in Africa as well as the political leverage it enjoys within the region, notably in Burma. China's international role is, however, intrinsically related to the challenge of securing energy and markets to ensure continued economic growth at home. Domestically there are voices in China questioning the growth at any cost model and calling for a more equitable and "harmonious" society that shows greater respect for civil rights as well as the environment. We urge DFID not only to engage with the new challenges posed by China's international activities, but to support advocates within China of a more rights-based development. A more open, politically plural China that respects democratic rule of law at home is also more likely to be a China interested in making a positive contribution to the international community, to addressing climate change and the alleviation of poverty elsewhere.

 

17^th April 2008