AWSJ: Looking Toward Geneva

International Commentary

February 19, 2001

The new administration of U.S. President George W. Bush faces its first major decision on China policy next month with the annual convening of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. In past years the U.S. has sponsored a resolution condemning China's failure to live up to its promises, and while the resolution has never passed, it has come as close as one vote. Will Secretary of State Colin Powell choose to expend the diplomatic effort to give it a reasonable chance of passing this year?

Doing so would be an important signal that the new administration will pursue a balanced policy of engagement, and Beijing will not be allowed to push Mr. Powell around on human rights as it did Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright. It's true that passage of the resolution most likely wouldn't bring with it economic sanctions or other forms of punishment. But it would be an indicator that while the U.S. and other sponsor nations want to maintain cooperative relations with the Beijing regime, they are not prepared to wink at the more unsavory aspects of its rule.

Some might reasonably question how a resolution in far-off Geneva can have an impact in, say, rural Sichuan. After all, increased trade and economic freedom mean conditions for the average Chinese citizen are already improving. This holds out hope that in the future a growing middle class will demand greater participation in government. Why bother with diplomatic wrangling that just creates ill feeling?

The best answer is that changes in China will be much slower to come unless Chinese individuals take a courageous stand by telling the truth about government misdeeds and demanding their rights. The representatives of free nations have a responsibility to support those who would do so by recognizing where the Chinese government has failed to live up to its international commitments. Telling the truth is a powerful act that inspires others to do the same.

The Chinese government recognizes this. True, Beijing tries to deflect criticism on human rights grounds with a moral relativist argument; last November President Jiang Zemin told the U.N.'s high commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson, that "each country has its own way" and "the world should be a colorful one." It has its allies in Geneva, many of them countries like Cuba with their own human rights abuses, who will parrot the line about "interference in China's internal affairs." Yet Beijing makes a major effort to defeat the resolution every year, and then celebrates when it succeeds, suggesting that it, at least, feels that censure in Geneva would carry a cost.

That's because moral relativism isn't being accepted within China itself anymore. One reason the evidence of tortures and political imprisonment is mounting is because society is becoming more open. Activists and human rights organizations can talk to families of those imprisoned. Rights consciousness is growing, meaning that more citizens are demanding their inalienable rights, a significant number of them by suing the government. The difference between "rule by law" and "rule of law" and the need to evolve from the former to the latter is a topic of debate in intellectual circles.

Yet at the same time, the government is as ruthless as ever in using the tools at its disposal to stifle those who try to form opposition political parties or free labor unions. As Robin Munro writes nearby, some of these people end up in government-run psychiatric hospitals, labeled crazy because they won't toe the political line. Recently the world learned about the case of Cao Maobing, who tried to form a union at a silk factory in Jiangsu. He is no win such a hospital and his family says he has been heavily medicated. As this paper has reported, local officials have been pushed by Beijing to control the Falun Dafa spiritual movement by any means, which has led some to torture practitioners to death.

These abuses suggest that the government is becoming more desperate in its fight to snuff out any organization that could raise a challenge to Communist Party rule. Official work units no longer control all details of Chinese people's lives, meaning individuals have the power to choose how to live their lives. The Party wants to set political limits on their choices, but it is fighting a losing battle.

The Bush administration has an opportunity to help tip the balance in this battle. In 1998, the Clinton administration agreed not to sponsor are solution in Geneva in return for Beijing signing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That was a reasonable trade-off, as long as the U.S. can now hold China to its promise to ratify the covenant and bring its legal system into compliance. The Helsinki Accords gave courage to dissidents within the Soviet Union; the same kind of dynamic can be created within China. But only if the U.S. and other nations have the courage to tell the truth.