Human rights dialogue remains a one-sided affair

"Australian Financial Review" 17 August 1999 "Freedom of the person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable'' Article 37, Constitution of the PRC.

Australian officials shook hands yesterday with their counterparts in Beijing as they began their third annual Human Rights Dialogue, which concludes on Thursday. The talks help to frame the visit to Australia from September 6-11 of China's President Jiang Zemin, in theory covering the areas most likely to raise controversy and prompt demonstrations during his visit.

No-one knows for use what the officials will talk about, though it's possible to make an educated guess.

On the agenda may be judicial training, the drafting of legislation, measures to upgrade the status of women, and mutual exchanges between government institutions. Off the agenda will be the fate of members of banned groups such as the Falun Gong faith healing movement, the Roman Catholic Church, and the China Democracy Party, and of the non-Han communities such as Tibetans, described in patronising officialese as minorities".

The grim plight of an Australian businessman, Mr James Peng, who is still in jail after being kidnapped from Macau and arraigned on charges that would have no standing in a common law court, may be more actively examined than previously. President Jiang may offer his freedom as an imperial gesture to warm Australian relations before his visit.

The focus of talks, from the Australian end, is on contributing where invited to improve the readiness and capacity of people in the legal system to effect the "rule of law".

From the Chinese perspective, the focus is on process - the goal is fuzzy. While Beijing's leaders now and then pledge to implement the rule of law - the phrase was written into the Constitution in March - their understanding of it varies hugely from Australians'.

The chief task of China's lawmaking body, the National People's Congress, especially under Chairman Li Peng, is to formalise policies determined by the central committee of the Communist Party. The Constitution is routinely over-ridden by party fiat, as maintaining one-party rule is the absolute bottom line.

The chief reasons for the current focus on the rule of law are the need to contain protests from the armies of unemployed shed by failed State enterprises, and the widespread flouting of party discipline by provincial leaders let off the leash 20 years ago so that they could promote economic spending and growth.

The degree of corruption is not only an affront to honest brokers such as Premier Zhu Rongji and President Jiang, but evidence of a breakdown of the chain of command. This is apparent as, for instance, the posts of mayors, party secretaries and directors of government firms are auctioned off without authorisation.

Sometimes due legal process is applied in such cases, as against the former Beijing boss Chen Xitong; sometimes the party deals with its own through internal disciplinary processes. Sometimes, as with the billions unaccountably missing from collapsed companies such as Gitic and Guangdong Enterprises, no-one knows who's to blame or if anyone is even asking the questions.

The latest attacks on Falun Gong and its leader Li Hongzhi, which resemble witch-hunts for all their vaunting of science against religion, include an account of Mr Li's "luxury" flat in his Changchun, Jilin, hometown (he is now based in New York). The 120 square metre, two-bedroom flat features an "expensive hi-fi" and a large TV.

The response of the average viewer or reader would be amazed amusement. Just about any mainland Chinese knows of dozens of cadres who would dismiss such "high living" as slumming. Money, Marx might have observed, is the true opium of the people of China today.

What, in such a climate, can and should a country such as Australia do? Do we have to choose between row and kowtow, to use the phrase of Labor's Mr Gareth Evans? What can Australia deliver? For the stake of persecuted Chinese citizens, greater regional stability, and its own self-respect. The Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown, who recently visited Tibet, says Australia should scrap the talks and "insist on the ability to freely go into Tibet with a fact-finding mission".

Regrettably, no agency beyond China's borders can "insist" on any such thing.

The Australia Tibet Council attacks the dialogue as lacking benchmarks, time frames, transparency, accountability, resources and inclusivity. True. This list encapsulates China's process of government. Australia should after three years expect greater reciprocity, at least in the method of dialogue.

The State Council, China's cabinet, published a report four months ago which stressed the improvement economic progress had brought to human rights. There's something in that. Living standards and personal freedom have grown in the past 20 years, though within party-set limits.

Australia can best help by showing mainland tourists the merits of a fair society, by speaking frankly, and by opening as many channels of communication as it can.