Dear Ms. Lippmann,
Canada began bilateral human rights dialogues with China in 1997. The most recent dialogue was held in the fall of 2005. The same year the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs commissioned me to do an assessment report of the Dialogue. My report entitled “Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue” was released by the Department of Foreign Affairs in May 2006. It is available in English at this URL:
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/Assessment%20of%20the%20Canada-China%20Bilateral%20Human%20Rights%20Dialogue%2019APR06.pdf
and in French at this URL:
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/Evaluation%20du%20dialogue%20bilateral.htm
My report received quite a lot of publicity in the national media in Canada. An article about this report published on page A1 of the Globe and Mail on June 16, 2006 entitled “Rights dialogue in China blasted as futile: Canadian deplores empty annual ritual.” can be found at http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/Rights%20Dialogue.htm. An editorial about this in the same paper on page A24 entitled “China Isn’t Listening” can be found at http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/China%20Isnt%20Listening.htm. There is a lot more relevant information on my webpage: http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/
The Canadian House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights began hearings on my Report and related matters about human rights in China last fall. They have held 8 sessions about this so far. These can be see at:
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&SELID=e22_.2&STAC=1728265 The Subcommittee will release a report to Parliament shortly, possibly as soon as next week. The content of that report will presumably dictate if the Dialogue with China will resume and if so in what form. And if not what the new Canadian approach will be.
Yours sincerely,
Charles Burton
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Reflections on 500 Days Until the Beijing Olympics
This week the Chinese media have been breathlessly reporting on activities being undertaken to mark that there are just 500 days until the opening of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The Chinese Communist régime has gone to extraordinary lengths to make this Olympics compare favourably to the recent Olympics in Athens, Sydney, Atlanta and Barcelona. Wonderful new sports stadiums based on cutting-edge designs are being unveiled early. Beijing itself has been transformed by expensive landscaping and infrastructure including new subway lines. China hopes that the 2008 Olympics will mark a signal moment in its national development comparable to what the 1964 Tokyo Olympics did for Japan and the 1988 Seoul Olympics did for South Korea. Excitement is building in the hearts of Chinese nationalists throughout the land.
But what if things go horribly wrong instead of wonderfully right in Beijing in 2008? To ensure that there is no political "disruption" the Chinese police will round up "the usual suspects" of Tibetan and Uighur independentists, political dissidents, AIDS activists, etc., etc. to prevent them from attempting to contact the large numbers of foreign dignitaries and media expected to travel to Beijing for the Games. Their foreign supporters who may come to Beijing will be similarly thwarted from trying to bring the profound systemic injustices of Chinese Communist rule to the attention of the world. But I wonder how the Beach Volleyball competition scheduled for Tian'anmen Square will play out? Will the sunny temporary ersatz beach to be created for the event, Chinese flags of the Great Hall of the People flapping proudly in the background, successfully replace in the collective mind the popular images of burning tanks gunfire and death on the same ground in 1989? Or will be the television coverage of tanned muscular athletes clad in swimsuits punching their volleyballs over the net be overwhelmed by interspersed archival footage of the evening of June 4th at the same place? In their post-victory press conference, will athletes comment not just on the modern facilities they enjoyed in Beijing but also speak out about the oppression of the rights of Tibetans, Roman Catholics, Falun Gong, and the multitudes arbitrarily imprisoned and mistreated, thus bringing deep discredit to their Chinese Communist hosts and deep shuddering embarrassment to the hearts of proud and patriotic Chinese people throughout the world? What would be the political aftermath if the Olympics "failed"? Could things go from bad to much worse?
The coming of the 2008 Beijing Olympics fills my heart with uneasy foreboding.
But what if things go horribly wrong instead of wonderfully right in Beijing in 2008? To ensure that there is no political "disruption" the Chinese police will round up "the usual suspects" of Tibetan and Uighur independentists, political dissidents, AIDS activists, etc., etc. to prevent them from attempting to contact the large numbers of foreign dignitaries and media expected to travel to Beijing for the Games. Their foreign supporters who may come to Beijing will be similarly thwarted from trying to bring the profound systemic injustices of Chinese Communist rule to the attention of the world. But I wonder how the Beach Volleyball competition scheduled for Tian'anmen Square will play out? Will the sunny temporary ersatz beach to be created for the event, Chinese flags of the Great Hall of the People flapping proudly in the background, successfully replace in the collective mind the popular images of burning tanks gunfire and death on the same ground in 1989? Or will be the television coverage of tanned muscular athletes clad in swimsuits punching their volleyballs over the net be overwhelmed by interspersed archival footage of the evening of June 4th at the same place? In their post-victory press conference, will athletes comment not just on the modern facilities they enjoyed in Beijing but also speak out about the oppression of the rights of Tibetans, Roman Catholics, Falun Gong, and the multitudes arbitrarily imprisoned and mistreated, thus bringing deep discredit to their Chinese Communist hosts and deep shuddering embarrassment to the hearts of proud and patriotic Chinese people throughout the world? What would be the political aftermath if the Olympics "failed"? Could things go from bad to much worse?
The coming of the 2008 Beijing Olympics fills my heart with uneasy foreboding.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development Minutes of March 20, 2007
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
Meeting No. 11
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development met at 11:08 a.m. this day, in Room 701, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Jason Kenney, presiding.
Members of the Subcommittee present: Hon. Irwin Cotler, Hon. Jason Kenney, Wajid Khan, Wayne Marston, Mario Silva and Caroline St-Hilaire.
Acting Members present: Peter Goldring for Kevin Sorenson.
In attendance: Library of Parliament: Marcus Pistor, Analyst.
Witnesses: As an individual: Lu Decheng. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Sylvie Blais, Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Cabinet and Parliamentary Liaison.
Pursuant to the motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, May 10, 2006 and the motion adopted by the Subcommittee, October 24, 2006, the Subcommittee resumed its study on Human Rights in China.
Lu Decheng made a statement and answered questions.
At 12:23 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 12:25 p.m., the Committee proceeded to sit in camera.
Sylvie Blais made a statement and answered questions.
Caroline St-Hilaire moved, — That the Subcommittee on International Human Rights report to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development the following motion: The Subcommittee on International Human Rights expresses its profound disapproval at the failure of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Development to comply with the motion of Caroline St-Hilaire, adopted by the Subcommittee on November 7, 2006, requesting a copy of a report prepared by Professor Charles Burton;
Therefore, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights demands the unconditional production of the unedited and original version of the report prepared by Professor Charles Burton, based on Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Letter of Agreement Number 12800 CB of August 1, 2005, on the Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue, no later than the morning of March 26, 2007 .
After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was agreed to.
On motion of Wayne Marston, it was agreed, — That the Deputy Minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade be invited to appear before the Subcommittee to explain the Department’s failure to comply with the motion of Caroline St-Hilaire, adopted on November 7, 2006, requesting copy of the report of Professor Charles Burton.
The Subcommittee commenced consideration of a draft report.
At 1:00 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned to the call of the Chair.
2007/03/22 10:22 a.m.
Meeting No. 11
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development met at 11:08 a.m. this day, in Room 701, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Jason Kenney, presiding.
Members of the Subcommittee present: Hon. Irwin Cotler, Hon. Jason Kenney, Wajid Khan, Wayne Marston, Mario Silva and Caroline St-Hilaire.
Acting Members present: Peter Goldring for Kevin Sorenson.
In attendance: Library of Parliament: Marcus Pistor, Analyst.
Witnesses: As an individual: Lu Decheng. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Sylvie Blais, Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Cabinet and Parliamentary Liaison.
Pursuant to the motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, May 10, 2006 and the motion adopted by the Subcommittee, October 24, 2006, the Subcommittee resumed its study on Human Rights in China.
Lu Decheng made a statement and answered questions.
At 12:23 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 12:25 p.m., the Committee proceeded to sit in camera.
Sylvie Blais made a statement and answered questions.
Caroline St-Hilaire moved, — That the Subcommittee on International Human Rights report to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development the following motion: The Subcommittee on International Human Rights expresses its profound disapproval at the failure of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Development to comply with the motion of Caroline St-Hilaire, adopted by the Subcommittee on November 7, 2006, requesting a copy of a report prepared by Professor Charles Burton;
Therefore, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights demands the unconditional production of the unedited and original version of the report prepared by Professor Charles Burton, based on Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Letter of Agreement Number 12800 CB of August 1, 2005, on the Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue, no later than the morning of March 26, 2007 .
After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was agreed to.
On motion of Wayne Marston, it was agreed, — That the Deputy Minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade be invited to appear before the Subcommittee to explain the Department’s failure to comply with the motion of Caroline St-Hilaire, adopted on November 7, 2006, requesting copy of the report of Professor Charles Burton.
The Subcommittee commenced consideration of a draft report.
At 1:00 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned to the call of the Chair.
2007/03/22 10:22 a.m.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Another E-mail from an Immigration Lawyer Suggesting that Reports I Wrote for the Government Some Time Ago Continue to Be Used in Refugee Cases
Dr. Brock,
I am an academic, and practice law as well, doing pro bono asylum cases. I currently have a case coming before an immigration judge that involves a young man whose parents are members of an underground Catholic church in Changle (Fujian), who were arrested and have gone into hiding. The case will be rather difficult for a number of reasons, and it would be very helpful to the opinion of an expert on government policy toward underground Catholics to bolster the case.You have written two reports that I hope will be helpful to the case, but which I have not been able to locate. The first is listed on your website as the following: A report [from] 2000 about conditions of Chinese nationals repatriated to the Fuzhou area after failed illegal emigration is available on the International Refugee Board of the Government of Canada website: http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/refinfo_e/query=burton/doc/%7B@5%7D/hits_only? Unfortunately the link is no longer active. Do you have a copy, digital or otherwise, that I could include in the materials that I submit to the court? Another piece of yours is frequently cited, but I have not been able to locate it. The title is: Heaven is High and the Emperor Far Away: Report from the Fuzhou Metropolitan Counties of Lianjiang, Mawei, Fuqing, and Changle. The information here would seem to be site-specific for my case, so if you have a digital or hard copy that you could forward, I would also be much appreciative.
Many thanks for your consideration.
All the best,
XXX
I am an academic, and practice law as well, doing pro bono asylum cases. I currently have a case coming before an immigration judge that involves a young man whose parents are members of an underground Catholic church in Changle (Fujian), who were arrested and have gone into hiding. The case will be rather difficult for a number of reasons, and it would be very helpful to the opinion of an expert on government policy toward underground Catholics to bolster the case.You have written two reports that I hope will be helpful to the case, but which I have not been able to locate. The first is listed on your website as the following: A report [from] 2000 about conditions of Chinese nationals repatriated to the Fuzhou area after failed illegal emigration is available on the International Refugee Board of the Government of Canada website: http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/refinfo_e/query=burton/doc/%7B@5%7D/hits_only? Unfortunately the link is no longer active. Do you have a copy, digital or otherwise, that I could include in the materials that I submit to the court? Another piece of yours is frequently cited, but I have not been able to locate it. The title is: Heaven is High and the Emperor Far Away: Report from the Fuzhou Metropolitan Counties of Lianjiang, Mawei, Fuqing, and Changle. The information here would seem to be site-specific for my case, so if you have a digital or hard copy that you could forward, I would also be much appreciative.
Many thanks for your consideration.
All the best,
XXX
Correspondence with a Student on the Human Rights Dialogue
Dear XXX,
I have some information relevant to your questions on my website:
Click here for my report “Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue” released by the Department of Foreign Affairs in May 2006. Click here for an article about this report published on page A1 of the Globe and Mail on June 16, 2006 entitled “Rights dialogue in China blasted as futile: Canadian deplores empty annual ritual.” Click here for an editorial about this in the same paper on page A24 entitled “China Isn’t Listening.”
You can see from the introduction to my report that you are right to think that "China negotiated with other UN countries and offered a bilateral annual human rights meeting to prevent each country from voting in favour of UN action regarding human rights in China." Canada has "temporarily" suspended its dialogue pending the upcoming Parliamentary report on my report and other aspects of Canada's policy on human rights in China. I predict that other countries will likely follow Canada's lead in this regard and the dialogue process as currently constituted will collapse. After that I think we will decide to speak honestly in the UN about our perceptions of China's compliance with the UN human rights norm as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the associated UN covenants, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Then it will be incumbent on Canada and like-minded nations to do what we can, consistent with the norms of international diplomacy, to stand up for those denied social justice in China and to encourage a culture of democracy and rule of law there that will ensure the entitlements to human rights of all Chinese citizens. This would probably include more programming on a people-to-people basis as it is unrealistic expect the Government of China "under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party" to collaborate on such projects in a sincere way as their current system does not allow for effective protection of the rights of individual citizens. So the system that sustains the power of the ruling Communist Party élite would be transformed if ordinary Chinese were empowered with the rights of citizenship. But it is time for democracy in China. Not later, but as soon as possible.
Take care,
Charles
I have some information relevant to your questions on my website:
Click here for my report “Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue” released by the Department of Foreign Affairs in May 2006. Click here for an article about this report published on page A1 of the Globe and Mail on June 16, 2006 entitled “Rights dialogue in China blasted as futile: Canadian deplores empty annual ritual.” Click here for an editorial about this in the same paper on page A24 entitled “China Isn’t Listening.”
You can see from the introduction to my report that you are right to think that "China negotiated with other UN countries and offered a bilateral annual human rights meeting to prevent each country from voting in favour of UN action regarding human rights in China." Canada has "temporarily" suspended its dialogue pending the upcoming Parliamentary report on my report and other aspects of Canada's policy on human rights in China. I predict that other countries will likely follow Canada's lead in this regard and the dialogue process as currently constituted will collapse. After that I think we will decide to speak honestly in the UN about our perceptions of China's compliance with the UN human rights norm as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the associated UN covenants, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Then it will be incumbent on Canada and like-minded nations to do what we can, consistent with the norms of international diplomacy, to stand up for those denied social justice in China and to encourage a culture of democracy and rule of law there that will ensure the entitlements to human rights of all Chinese citizens. This would probably include more programming on a people-to-people basis as it is unrealistic expect the Government of China "under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party" to collaborate on such projects in a sincere way as their current system does not allow for effective protection of the rights of individual citizens. So the system that sustains the power of the ruling Communist Party élite would be transformed if ordinary Chinese were empowered with the rights of citizenship. But it is time for democracy in China. Not later, but as soon as possible.
Take care,
Charles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)