Canada-China Bilateral Dialogue

Presentation to

The Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Parliament of Canada

31 October 2006

Thank you for the invitation to address the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development. Normally, it would be the President of Rights & Democracy, M. Jean-Louis Roy who would address the committee. However, on this occasion I would have to replace M. Roy since he is currently abroad.

Rights & Democracy believes that the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue should continue, but not in its current form. It is better to talk, than not to talk. However, the conversation has to lead somewhere, and not be used as a decoy in addressing fundamental human rights issues.

In this context, Rights & Democracy makes the following five suggestions to improve the effectiveness of the Dialogue:

1.

The purpose of the Dialogue should be clearly defined. What are its objectives? What is it trying to achieve? After 9 sessions, the answers to these key questions are still unclear. There is some confusion, not to mention discrepancy, between the views of the Chinese authorities and the Canadian representatives. It is time to move beyond a “talk shop” format and into a more focussed approach, with clearly articulated goals. One of the main findings of Mr. Burton’s report is that after nearly 10 years, the Dialogue cannot even demonstrate one significant outcome.

True, each of the dialogue sessions have had a theme – equality, UN mechanisms, racism, condition of detention, women’s rights, etc. – and yet there are no concrete outcomes.

Hence, the Dialogue could greatly benefit from a mutually agreed upon long term action plan. This will enable both parties to gauge outcomes, to evaluate progress based on benchmarks, and to link general discussions to specific changes on the ground. (For example, specific steps can be taken on the issue of prisoner lists and support for human rights defenders).

We therefore recommend that Canada and China first define the purpose of the Dialogue, develop a plan of action aimed at specific and measurable outcomes.

As such, if and when there is progress on an issue, it can be demonstrated. If there is regress or no change, it too can be demonstrated and appropriate measures taken.

2.

The Dialogue should take place with the appropriate interlocutors in China, and within a framework of “whole-of-government” approach in Canada. This entails three elements: (a) the Dialogue should engage the higher level representatives of the two countries – i.e. it should take place at the Deputy Ministerial level, at the very least.

(b) It should involve Chinese ministries that actually have a domestic mandate. The Chinese MFA does not have a mandate to improve the human rights situation within the country, but to defend the country’s interests abroad. Other ministries can play a more relevant role: Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Education, or Communication, etc.

And (c), within Canada, a “whole-of-government” approach will make the dialogue much more effective. Coordination between the various branches of the Canadian government will enhance Canada’s message (e.g. CIDA’s human rights programming in China can be adapted or linked to the Dialogue subjects).

We therefore recommend that the Dialogue be expanded to include various other Chinese ministries with the relevant jurisdiction, and use a “whole-of-government” approach in Canada.

3.

Open and efficient communications is key to the success of any dialogue – from the publication of documents in appropriate languages, to good interpretation, to sharing of information with interested parties outside of the formal Dialogue process.

There are two elements in this: first, the Dialogue process so far has been rather secretive, with not much information being shared with the wider community that could benefit from the content of the discussions. And second, formal civil society input or participation in the Dialogue process has been inadequate (e.g. lack of follow up with civil society in Canada, hand picked pro-government NGOs in China, and so forth.).

We believe that civil society organisations with expertise on human rights issues in China should play a valuable role in the Dialogue process. Moreover, it will open the door to direct links and collaboration between Canadian civil society and Chinese civil society organisations.

We therefore recommend that the participants in the Dialogue on both sides regularly share information with their respective societies, incorporate civil society participation in the Dialogue process more thoroughly and encourage direct civil society to civil society links.

4.

The Dialogue should be situated within the wider context of raising concerns regarding the human rights situation in China. For one, it should not be Canada’s only vehicle to help improve human rights in that country. Multilateral mechanisms such as the Human Rights Council remain effective instruments in this regard.

Moreover, there are other countries engaged with China on similar human rights dialogues – the US, the UK, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Japan (to name some). Canada’s coordination with these countries on the Dialogue – known as the Berne process – is important for the sake of effectiveness and should be enhanced.

We therefore recommend that the Canadian government not view the Bilateral Dialogue as an “either/or” policy and explore other complimentary ways of engaging with China on human rights. Improved coordination through the Berne process should continue.

5.

Finally, this is an obvious point, but worth making: if the Bilateral Dialogue process is to be effective with real impact, the Government of Canada must invest more resources into it.

Conclusion

Rights & Democracy believes that human rights should be at the heart of Canada-China relations. We do not view human rights in contrast to business opportunities, and we do not believe that the relationship between human rights and national interests is one of a zero sum game.

In fact, we would argue that human rights, the rule of law, due process and other democratic practices are good for business, for investment, for trade and development – in China and elsewhere.

The Canada-China Bilateral Dialogue as it stands is not serving human rights in China. This is not to say that it should be scrapped altogether – perhaps temporarily suspended – but it should be revamped and enhanced with a clear focus, vision and organisation.

It is cliché to say that China is emerging as a superpower. Canada must engage with it, constructively, through a clear strategic partnership, and the Dialogue has the potential to be one of the vehicles for that – but not in its current ineffective form.

Thank you.

Razmik Panossian

Director – Policy, Programmes and Planning, Rights & Democracy

References:

Much of this text is derived from existing research and publications related to the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue. Please see:

1) Letter to Prime Minister Harper, Canadian Coalition on Human Rights in China, October 6, 2006

2) Preliminary Comments on the Government of Canada Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue, Rights & Democracy, June 16, 2006 (unpublished draft)

3) Canada's Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue with China: Considerations for a Policy Review, Rights & Democracy, June 2005

4) The Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue with China, Undermining the International Human Rights Regime, Rights & Democracy, January 2001