Correspondence with the German Section of the International Society for Human Rights about the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue

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

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.

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.

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

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

Correspondence with a Friend in Montreal about Dual Canadian and Chinese Citizenship

Yes that is right about the 1997 Canada-China Consular agreement. Basically the implication is that if a person born in China submits a Canadian passport with an application for a visa to enter China and gets the Chinese entry visa, then the Chinese Government has recognized this person as a Canadian. But quite a few Chinese-born Canadians enter China on Chinese passports with their acquired Canadian passport in their pocket. This way they need not apply for any visa and can retain their urban residency status (hukou) in China. When such people get in trouble with the Chinese police while in China they typically produce their Canadian documents and ask that the Canadian Embassy be contacted to provide them with consular assistance. Often this works despite the 1997 agreement. You may recall the case of Zhang Kunlun who had been a visiting scholar at McGill, stayed in Canada after 1989. and returned to China in 1996 using his Chinese passport. He later got imprisoned on the basis of being an unrepentant Falun Gong practitioner. In that case Canada successfully intervened and Mr. Zhang was eventually allowed to return to Canada. An interesting variation is senior Chinese Government officials who present public purposes Chinese passports to the Canadian Embassy in Beijing because they are part of official Chinese delegations to Canada. When they are checked the Embassy finds that a small number of these visa applicants are in fact Canadian citizens (citizenship usually acquired after a period of study in a Canadian university). Canadian citizens of course do not require visas to enter Canada so this presents a bit of a problem for us. But I believe the Immigration Section of the Canadian Embassy to China tends in these cases to simply stamp a visa into the Chinese passport anyway. To my knowledge these Chinese officials holding Canadian passports have deomonstrated no loyalty to Canada whatsoever.

Visiting my Childhood Home in Ottawa for the Last Time After My Parents Moved into a Retirement Residence

In 1963, my family moved from rooms in the basement of Rideau Cottage in Government House grounds to a new house my father built at 204 Lakeway Drive in the new section of Rockcliffe Park on the other side of MacKay Lake. It cost $55,000 to build. Last year we sold the house for $850,000 and my parents moved into two rooms in the Edinburgh Retirement Residence nearby.

Returning to my childhood home for the last time a few months ago after the sale had gone through was a signal moment for me. Memories flooded back of the exciting day we moved into the new house when I was 9 years old. It was so bright and clean and modern!

But 42 years later, the carpets were badly worn, the interior walls desperately needed a fresh coat of paint, the curtains threadbare, the furniture upholstery frayed; in general the house looked tired and old. The house where I had grown up was now a dingy and lifeless place and no one lived there any more.

Actually, I still have the keys to the front door that I took with me when I moved out to go to the U of T in 1974.  I imagine that by now the locks have been changed, fresh paint applied, new carpets laid, another family's photographs mounted on the mantlepiece.

Perhaps there is another child playing in the room where I once ran my clockwork trains?

Correspondence with a Friend in Cambridge about My Chinese Language Instruction There

When I was in Oriental Studies at Cambridge in 1976 while we did learn history under Denis Twitchett (who I later encountered again at Princeton), and some really fun classes in sociology with Barbara Ward (who had the eight of us to her room in College for tea one morning a week), etc. the stress was on modern language. We took classes in that jointly with a group from the Foreign Officer getting training for postings in China. We did the Classical Chinese with Michael Loewe along with students in the Japanese program. My main Chinese instructor was Richard King who later became a Canadian and actually succeeded me as Counsellor for Cultural Affairs after my first posting in Beijing. My memory of it was that the quality of instruction was pretty good then. Richard was a committed and patient teacher and we later became very close friends. The program had also developed its own textbook under the direction of a dynamic enthusiast, Captain Bob Sloss. I do remember having a tutor for written Chinese though, Peter Nancarrow who was evidently not much for pedagogy. My first assignment was get a Chinese dictionary and re-translate a passage from a Chinese translation by Chao Yuen-ren of Alice in Wonderland back into English and to see Mr. Nancarrow in his office with the upshot a week hence. It was very difficult to look up the characters without guidance. But I did manage it after a number of late nights. Nancarrow had me read back the Chinese original and my translation with some exegesis on grammar while he shuffled some papers on his desk. Evidently he was very busy with something else. At one stage he got up and headed for the door --- me in mid-sentence. As an after thought he looked back as he was striding out and said to me: "Do carry on, Mr. Burton, I'll be right back." I continued like this by myself for a couple of minutes and then paused and silently awaited his return which occurred about 5 minutes before our time was up.

About Appearing On-Stage in Toronto at the 2007 Chinese New Year Show and Impressing my Twelve Year Old Daughter

Due to my minor celebrity among the Canadian Chinese community because of my occasional appearances on the Toronto Omni-2 TV's Mandarin News program as a political commentator, I was approached about the possibility of my co-hosting the Toronto "2007 Chinese New Year Show." This gala show is modelled on the enormously popular TV variety show broadcast every year on the eve of the lunar new year in Mainland China to an audience of close to 1 billion. The "2007 Chinese New Year Show" was originally scheduled to be put on at the Hummingbird Centre in Toronto. With some trepidation, I agreed to do it. It appealed to my vanity to see if I could pull off an ersatz Dashan and also because the Hummingbird Centre is the new name for the O'Keefe Centre for the Performing Arts which has a family connection for me. It was re-named "The Hummingbird Centre" in 1996 in recognition of a major gift from a Canadian software company. But the O'Keefe Centre was originally built in 1960 as a project of my relative, E.P. Taylor, who had committed the funds for it in 1954 (I have posted more details about E.P. Taylor at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcfd6fxz_143hj2ksn). So appearing on stage at the Hummingbird Centre aspect appealed to me because of this past connection. But in the end the show was moved to the Toronto Centre for the Arts in 5040 Yonge Street. That is the former North York Centre for the Arts. But it seats 1,727 and the show did sell out.

Later, after had I committed to do the show, I was asked to also perform a Chinese comedy dialogue (xiangsheng) as an addition to the program. About a week before, the scripts with my lines were e-mailed to me by Jin Dong. Jin is a well-known personality from Mainland Chinese TV now working in Chinese language TV and radio in Toronto. After looking over the scripts, I started to seriously worry about whether I could really carry all this off and decided to seek advice from the real Dashan, Mark Rowswell, by e-mailing him all the scripts. Mark's replies and reassuring advice considerably set my heart at ease, but Mark also suggested that to be one of the hosts as well as doing a crosstalk all in one show was a lot to ask. It turned out he was quite right about that. I found it hard to memorize the Chinese lines, especially the Crosstalk. Fortunately Jin Dong is really a very generous and kind man who worked hard with me on the Friday and Saturday. My success in performance owes much to his patience.

Basically all I has to do was to walk into the spotlight on stage wearing a Chinese style silk jacket and say a few simple sentences along the lines of "A new year, new events, new beginnings!" (新年新事起点新!) and "In the Pig Year may your every wish be fulfilled!" (猪年万事都如意!). The Crosstalk was about how maybe we should be nicer to pigs in their year, cut out pork and change disparaging sayings about pigs to more positive ones. Much of it involved making plays on words about the Pig character in the Chinese classic novel Journey to the West. Essentially while a Chinese press article published afterwards (see http://torcn.com/cache/43863.html) characterized me as a "2nd Dashan" my performance did not require much talent. Mark Rowswell is genuinely talented. To be frank about it: me, not so much. But the crowd gasped and laughed at my every word because white people speaking good Chinese is to them an affirmation of China's civilization and this means a lot. Well I am happy and honoured to perform this function as I have so much admiration for Chinese culture myself.

Jason Kenney, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship attended the show along with a number of other federal members of Parliament, members of the Provincial legislature, municipal mayors, PRC Consul-General in Toronto, etc. I know Mr. Kenney well and had testified before the Parliamentary Sub-Committee on International Human Rights and Development that he chairs last fall. He seemed surprised (maybe even mildly stunned), but I think, pleased to see me there and to have me introduce him on-stage. But most of all my daughter Lucy loved the show--- the dragons. the brilliant performance by Li Teng who is principal violist of the Toronto Symphony, the Chinese flute solo, the Cantonese opera selection. But she also seemed truly pleased to see the audience reaction to her Dad performing on stage. So, my 12 year-old daughter was evidently genuinely impressed by something her old Dad did! As I am sure most fathers of pre-teen girls would agree, this rare moment made it all worthwhile for me. I think I will draw my performing career to a close now.

Photos of the show can be found (in the folder "Spring Fest Show 2007") at http://photos.yahoo.com/cburton001

Comment to a Friend in China about the Celil case

I think it is important that Canada make no sign of accepting the Chinese Government claim that Canadian citizenship acquired by refugees from China is invalid. So regardless of "success or failure" Canadian diplomats should just remain in Urumqi as a objective gesture of protest. After reading the Chinese MFA press briefing I realize that this is also about the Chinese authorities unhappiness that we give refugee status to people from the PRC that are deemed to be at risk of political persecution if returned to China.

The Chinese language release posted below uses word "nanmin" (refugee) and reads in part:
"Yushanjiang was born in Xinjiang. In 2001 he was accepted by Canada as a refugee. In 2006 while in Uzbekistan he was arrested by the Uzbeki authorities. He was deported back to China on the grounds of suspicion that he participated in terrorist activities" Yushanjiang is Celil's Chinese name. The reference to being accepted by Canada as a refugee is not a random comment in there in my view.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Statement on Celil Case of February 8, 2007

外交部发言人回应玉山江案

---

央视国际 www.cctv.com　　2007年02月08日 17:41 来源：

　　新华网北京２月８日电（记者马文博　孙侠）外交部发言人姜瑜８日表示，中国公民玉山江是国际恐怖组织“东伊运”的骨干成员，他涉嫌参与了一系列暴力恐怖组织活动，是国际通缉犯。

　　有记者问，据加拿大一家报纸报道说，新疆法院日前正开庭审理加拿大籍维吾尔族人士玉山江涉嫌参与恐怖主义活动一案，加拿大外交官希望旁听受审，中方有何评价？

　　姜瑜说，玉山江是中国公民，《中加领事协定》不适用于此案。中国有关部门目前正依法对此案进行审理。

　　玉山江生于新疆，２００１年被加拿大接收为难民，他于２００６年赴乌兹别克斯坦时，被乌当局以涉嫌参与恐怖活动为由引渡回中国。

　　“东伊运”是“东突厥斯坦伊斯兰运动”的简称，是“东突”恐怖组织之一。２００２年９月，联合国将其列入国际恐怖组织名单。

Comment to a Friend about the Celil case

I quite agree that the Chinese authorities will likely finger Mr. Celil for things that he did not do in a future proceeding. As we know Mehmet believes that the whole thing is about trying to intimidate Uyghurs abroad, so it is not actually about anything specifically Mr. Celil did in China, Canada or anywhere else. Certainly the Canadian Government has already requested his immediate return to Burlington. But from a human rights prespective there is by international treaty supposed to be due process of law extended to Canadians (and of course Chinese citizens as well) who are arrested while abroad. My feeling is that simply demanding Mr. Celil's release does not serve our cause as well as demanding that the Chinese Government get into compliance with its international obligations. Of course if the trial turns out to be inconsistent with international norms for openness and proper use of evidence as is most likely then the Canadian Government should demand he either gets a proper hearing or immediate release as we don't think there is sufficient basis for his imprisonment. It would be ideal if the Chinese authorities acknowledge he is innocent of all charges and releases him, but that happy result would be well-nigh unprecedented. But they are less likely to respond to our simply telling the Chinese Government what it should do unconditionally, in my view.

My Responses to my Department's Ph.D. Program Retreat Discussion Questions

1. What do you think are the key themes, debates, issues, foci of research that characterize the discipline of political science, understood in its broadest sense?
I don't think it is possible to meaningfully characterize political science as a discipline in a broad sense at this time. This question presupposes an answer based in a coherent consensus on an orthodox theory of political science. But liberal political philosophy is becoming more and more removed from the empirical realities addressed by political scientists today and there is no indication that current political theory offers us a usable framework to come to terms with emerging trends in domestic and international politics.

2. What do you think are the the key themes, debates, issues, foci of research that need to be addressed by the discipline in the next five to ten years, in order to take into account the changed and changing nature of the political world?
I think that we need to do more teaching to make students aware that the political world is in fact changed and changing. My general impression is that our course offerings could use a major overhaul to bring us back up to the cutting edge of PoliSci. Of course this process would not exclude my own offerings. Having already passed the half-century mark, I realize more and more how easy it is to forget that political events and new ideas of 10 or 20 years ago may not be the most relevant and most important content when a lecture has to summarize the state of knowledge in a subject in just 50 minutes. We may wish to de-emphasize some focuses to make way for new content.

3. What are your research and scholarly interests and aims at present and in the next and five to ten years?
I expect to continue to work on the challenges to Canada of China and Northeast Asia and other "non-Western" areas to human rights discourse, development theory and international relations.

RE: Canadian prof in China infuriates censors (Globe and Mail, December 30)

As a student in Fudan University's Philosophy Department's History of Ancient Chinese Thought program, I read a lot of Confucianism and the contemporary commentaries on those writings. There was much debate in China in the early-20th century about whether certain passages in Mencius and in Mozi could be rightly interpreted to suggest latent support by the ancients for liberal democratic institutions and the rights discourse. My Canadian interpretation of the classical Chinese texts supports this idea too. My reasoning is simply that human rights doctrine has at its core respect for human dignity and because dignity is the central Confucian value, modern Confucians should oppose authoritarianism. Political democracy is defined by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a key entitlement of all citizens of every country. At the very least there is nothing in the Confucian classics that suggests that Confucius would not be a supporter of democracy and human rights were he alive today. But there are lots of reasons to suggest that Confucius would not apply for membership in the Chinese Communist Party.

Charles Burton
Brock University
905-329-9477

Jean-François Lesage: "Sous l’ombre chinoise…"

Sous l’ombre chinoise…

Monsieur André Pratte,

Dans votre éditorial du 20 novembre (Ombres chinoises) vous affirmez que les démarches du gouvernement canadien en matière de droits la personne en Chine devraient être fondées sur « un dialogue soutenu, large et respectueux ». Un tel dialogue sur les droits de la personne existe déjà entre nos deux gouvernements depuis près dix ans. En 1997, le Canada cessait de parrainer une résolution condamnant la Chine à la Commission des droits de l’homme des Nations unies, pour se lancer dans une politique de diplomatie tranquille. Une évaluation indépendante de ce dialogue bilatéral, commandée par le gouvernement précédent, a été rendue publique en avril dernier *. On y conclut que les résultats de ces échanges sont désolants. Après neuf rondes de dialogue, l’évaluateur, le professeur Charles Burton de l’Université Brock, constate que le processus fait l’objet d’un cynisme généralisé. L’interlocuteur du Canada dans cette démarche, le ministère des Affaires étrangères chinois, ne semble pas être le bon. En effet, le mandat de ce ministère est de défendre les intérêts nationaux de la Chine à l’étranger et non de promouvoir les droits de la personne sur le territoire chinois. L’évaluateur observe également que les responsables du Parti communiste chinois, qui disposent d’un pouvoir décisionnel sur ces questions, n’ont jamais participé au dialogue. Ce processus n’est donc pas satisfaisant dans sa forme actuelle et peut être amélioré.

Devant un tel constat, une nouvelle approche, moins tranquille, plus véhémente, qui ferait place à des critiques franches ne serait pas mal venu. L’amitié sino-canadienne, symbolisée par le médecin montréalais Norman Bethune, exige, comme toute grande amitié, que les critiques ne soient pas simplement balayées sous le tapis. Comme vous le soulignez, il ne suffit pas d’une déclaration fracassante, il faut aussi adopter une politique cohérente incluant tous les aspects de notre relation avec la Chine, dont le commerce et les droits de la personne. La théorie à l’effet que les droits de la personne et le commerce ne font pas bon ménage est fausse. Ceux qui redoutent les conséquences économiques d’une approche plus ferme en matière de droits de la personne ne devraient pas sous-estimer le pragmatisme des Chinois : ils achètent toujours le meilleur produit au meilleur prix (même si celui-ci devait se trouver au Soudan…).

J’ai vécu six ans à Pékin et je me suis souvent enthousiasmé pour le miracle économique chinois et pour cette société en mutation qui progresse indéniablement vers une ouverture de plus en plus grande. Mais derrière ce miracle, se profile une ombre qu’on ne peut ignorer.

Je pense d’abord à cette ombre dans la neige tracée par le corps de la novice Kelsang Namtso, une Tibétaine de 17 ans, tuée par des gardes frontières chinois le 30 septembre dernier, alors qu’elle tentait de quitter le Tibet pour le Népal, afin d’y poursuivre son éducation religieuse. Nous avons été informés de cette disparition uniquement parce que des alpinistes occidentaux passaient par là.

Et que dire de l’obscurité dans laquelle est plongé Chen Guangchen, un juriste aveugle, emprisonné pour avoir voulu plus de justice dans son pays. Après avoir identifié des cas de stérilisation et d’avortements forcés, il avait intenté un recours contre les autorités de la ville de Linyi. On l’a accusé d’avoir troublé l’ordre public. Ses avocats ont été arrêtés pendant le procès et il a été condamné à quatre ans de prison. À la suite de pressions internationales, Chen attend un nouveau procès.

Je pense aussi à la silhouette d’Huseyin Celil sur le mur de sa cellule. Il s’agit d’un Canadien de 37 ans, père de quatre enfants. Celil est d’origine uïgour, la minorité musulmane et turcophone de la région autonome du Xinjiang au Nord Ouest de la Chine. Celil a été admis au Canada en 2001 à titre de réfugié politique. Le gouvernement chinois ne fait pas de différence – surtout depuis le 11 septembre 2001‑ entre une personne qui milite pacifiquement pour l’autonomie du Xingjiang et un terroriste. En août dernier, il a été déporté en Chine par l’Ouzbékistan, où il était allé visiter sa famille. Il est depuis détenu incommunicado en raison de présumés liens terroristes. En contravention de la convention de Vienne, la Chine a refusé tout accès à ce détenu aux diplomates canadiens. Les risques que Celil soit torturé en détention sont élevés.

Enfin, je pense à ces centaines de prisonniers de conscience en Chine qui passeront les Olympiques de 2008 en prison. Pour eux, les remarques, sans doute un peu intempestives, du premier ministre Stephen Harper, après l’annulation d’un rendez-vous avec le président chinois, offrent une lueur d’espoir, peut-être vacillante, mais une lueur quand même, sous l’ombre d’un géant.

Les droits de la personne ne sont pas des valeurs canadiennes devant être exportée vers la Chine mais des droits universels. Nous ne pouvons pas appuyer uniquement la Chine des affaires, il faut appuyer les citoyens chinois dans leur quête de plus de démocratie et d’un plus grand respect des droits de la personne.


Jean-François Lesage

* Évaluation du dialogue bilatérale Canada-Chine sur les droits de la personne, rapport préparé en exécution de la lettre d’entente 12800 CB du ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Commere international datée du 1^er août 2005 par Charles Burton.

L’auteur est agent régional de programme pour l'Asie à Droits et Démocratie. Il développe en Chine des projets qui font la promotion des droits humains et du développement démocratique avec la société civile chinoise et des institutions gouvernementales

Consensus on China Policy Forming

My website http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton has links to the Canadian Coalition on Human Rights in China letter to Prime Minister Harper of October 6, 2006 which urges the Government to implement my report on the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue and to the media reports on the Prime Minister's comments to the press that he made on the 'plane while heading to the APEC meeting in Vietnam.

Now senior Liberal Party policy advisor, Tom Axworthy has issued his The Four Key Questions: An Essay on Liberal Renewal (http://www.queensu.ca/csd/publications/Axworthy_4_Key_Questions.12.4.06.pdf). It says: "We need a two-part strategy in dealing with China: first, people-to-people exchanges, scholarships, and business partnerships should be encouraged. As many Chinese citizens as possible should be exposed to a real democracy and to our thriving civil society. The peaceful transition of China from autocracy to democracy is one of the great potential 'what ifs' of world history, and anything Canada is able to do, in a modest way, to help this along, would be useful. Inviting large numbers of Chinese students, for example, to study our legal system – and especially the Charter of Rights – could have very beneficial impacts within China itself. So Canadians must work on developing friendships with the Chinese people. But the same does not apply to the Communist regime. The Communist regime abuses its own people at home, and supports autocracies abroad. There is no question that life in China has greatly improved in recent decades, and life today does not compare to the horrors of Mao and the Cultural Revolution. But, civil liberties are still not respected and the current regime has embarked on a severe crackdown on journalists, internet users, and dissidents. Many Canadian businessmen worry about raising human rights abuses, but they should also realize that there is no such thing as property rights in China. The state-owned business sector in China, far from being autonomous, still follows the dictates of the Party. The Communist regime cannot be isolated; it must be dealt with because it controls China. But it is also a mistake to treat it as if its dictatorial tendencies do not matter. The future of the regime will be decided within China. But any potential Chinese Gorbachevs should be able to use international legitimacy as one reason why the existing regime should reform. In particular, Canadian assets should not be allowed to be sold to state-owned Chinese companies. Security considerations should be added to the criteria of Investment Canada. Human rights should be raised in a forceful and regular way with the Communist leadership so that they know that such values are central to Canada and central to the relationship. Our strategy toward China should be – engage, but never kowtow."

Most recently, BDO Dunwoody has issued a CEO/Business Leader Poll by COMPAS published in The Financial Post on November 27 entitled "Human Rights in China: Harper's Public Diplomacy Outperforms Chretien's Quiet Diplomacy; Excellent for Human Rights, Neutral for Business" which can be accessed at http://www.bdo.ca/library/polls/documents/27Nov06-FPCEOPoll-HumanRightsinChina.pdf


It appears that a national consensus on Canada's future China policy is forming.

Fragment of E-Mail from a Student Who Saw Me on Chinese TV being interviewed by Diana Xiaoping Dai

From: XXXX
To: Charles Burton
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:10:28 PM
Subject: XXXX is very impressed!
I don't want you to think that this is a big surprise to me, but I saw you fluently speaking Chinese on OMNI 2 (channel 15). In fact, it seemed as though you were more fluent than the hot Chinese babe who was interviewing you! I sat and watched you for 10 minutes, not understanding a word but incredibly impressed.

Comment: a surprising number of non-Chinese speakers have contacted me to say that they were taken aback to see me on Chinese-language TV news programs. It seems that people channel surf more than one might think.

E-Mail about Citizenship & Immigration Canada PRRA decisions and my Report

From: XXXX
To: Charles Burton
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:32:15 PM
Subject: Citizenship & Immigration Canada PRRA decisions and your Report:

Pre-Removal Risk Assessments Based on your July 14, 2004 Report entitled "Report on Matters relating to Canadian-born Children Resident in China Whose Parents are Citizens of the People's Republic of China"

I am the lawyer for a number of failed refugee claimants in Vancouver, B.C. who had made claims based on the one child policy in China. This report above had been used on a number of instances as reasons why these claimants who have had children born here in Canada should be returned to China. Are you at liberty to e-mail me or direct me to a copy of this report? Moreover, would you like to see excerpts of decisions (mostly from the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Unit of CIC) based on your Report? Thanks in advance.

Mr. Harper, Mr. Hu, Mr. Celil, Human Rights, Trade and Canada-China Relations

Charles Burton
Associate Professor, Political Science Brock University
Former diplomat at Canadian Embassy in Beijing
Author of “Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue” report released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and current subject of review by the Parliamentary Subcommittee on International Human Rights and Development
Burton@ncf.ca
(905)329-9477
FAX: (209)231-4087

The unexpected cancellation of a scheduled meeting between our Prime Minister and the President of China while both were in Vietnam for the APEC Meeting has stimulated much public debate over Canada’s foreign policy toward China. The belief among many is that Mr Harper’s office had advised Mr. Hu’s office that Canada wanted the leaders to address matters related to human rights and that the Chinese refused to have human rights put on the agenda. Sso Canada was “snubbed” by China. But it appears that it was not human rights that the Chinese President did not want raised by Canada, but rather a consular case of a Canadian citizen, Huseyincan Celil, who is currently languishing in a Chinese jail. Despite many requests, the Chinese Government refuses to abide by the Vienna Convention and let Canadian diplomats meet with Mr. Celil at the prison so that they can know that he remains in good health. Canada also has a right under international law to attend any court hearing held for Mr. Celil to ensure that Mr. Celil is extended due process of law and a fair trial. So far China has refused to respond to Canadian requests for this consular access to Mr. Celil. It is therefore reasonable as some months have passed without any resolution, that we try and get some answers out of China at the most senior level. Mr. Celil’s fate is probably in the hands of China’s Security Ministry. Mr. Hu is not a democratically elected president but relies on the support of the military and security apparatus to remain in power. So President Hu may be in the embarrassing position of being unable to do the right thing by Canada in this matter. So perhaps his people decided on balance it is best Mr. Hu not meet with Mr. Harper at all. .This is regrettable in the sense that meeting is always preferable to not meeting, but in the final analysis it probably does not matter much one way or the other. The fundamentals of Canada-China relations do not depend on whether or not our leaders have a bilateral get together at APEC.

Actually there is no evidence that there is any relationship between human rights and trade in our bilateral relationship with China. Whether we choose to address our concerns over China’s human rights record through “quiet diplomacy” or through frank, open and effective engagement is unlikely to have any impact on Canadian and Chinese economic relations. The Chinese are pragmatists. They will always want the best product and the best service at the best price. If Canada offers the best deal, they will buy from Canada regardless. China will not sacrifice its economic interests because it is losing a debate with us or any other nation over whether or not China is compliant with its obligations to the UN Human Rights Covenants that China is signatory to: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. China may accuse Canada of betraying the traditional friendship between our nations. This sort of lament and implied threats if we do not follow China’s prescriptions with regard to Tibet and Taiwan is standard procedure in China’s public diplomacy to deflect foreign criticism of its human rights record. But in the end the Chinese authorities know very well that in international relations there are no true friends, only national interests. Anyway it is better to that we be respected by the Chinese regime for holding to our deeply held principles than praised by them for our implied support of their rule. It is in the interests of Canada to stand up for people in China who are suffering from social injustice and cannot speak out for themselves due to China’s repression of their right to organize and to speak their minds out to an authoritarian Government that prefers not to hear from them. That China should be governed in accordance with the universal norms of human rights is something that all Canadians believe is best for the Chinese people. In fact it is the firm entitlement of all Chinese citizens as members of the human family. Canadians must demand that their Government make this a policy priority. This is not a politically partisan issue. It is what all Canadians know is the right thing to do.

China has changed dramatically in recent years. It is a more mature and confident nation as it rapidly rises to major power status. There are more and more new opportunities for Canada to grasp in trade and investment, political and cultural exchanges, and immigration month by month and year by year. But in recent years other nations have passed us by continuously updating their approach to relations with China while Canada’s engagement with China has stagnated. Canada’s loss of market share in China trade over the past years compared with Europe, the US and Australia is just one indicator that there is urgent need for us to be doing our China policy better. It is time that Canada renovates its China policy in all aspects to meet the challenge of the 21^st century. This is very important to Canada’s future as a leading economy and responsible member of the global community.

My Appearance before a Parliamentary Subcommittee

On October 31, 2006 I was invited to appear before the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the House of Commons Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on October 31, 2006. I presented the report I wrote for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled "Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue" and responded to questions from MPs about human rights programming in Canada 's relations with China over a two-hour session held in the West Block of the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa. Representatives of Amnesty International and Rights and Democracy also urged the Subcommittee to support implementation of the “Burton Report.”

Before I booked travel to Ottawa, the Clerk of the Subcommittee referred me to the "Guide for Witnesses Appearing Before Committees of the House of Commons." One fragment from this document that gave me pause to think is given below:

"Summoning Witnesses

In the vast majority of cases, committees are able to obtain the evidence they seek by inviting witnesses to appear before them. However, if a witness has declined an invitation to appear, a committee may issue a summons to that witness by adopting a motion to that effect. If a proposed witness fails to appear when summoned, the committee may report the fact to the House. The House then takes any action it deems appropriate."

This document is available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/WitnessesGuides/Witness-e.htm