Why Gillard should talk human rights to China
Originally published by The Australian, April 26 2011
By Dan Ryan
ONCE it was into radical left-wing politics, but through the years its thinking has evolved. It now appreciates markets better. It has become non-ideological, pragmatic, in favour of what works. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t understand “the real China”.
As Julia Gillard makes her first official visit to Beijing there are certain parallels that one could draw, in my opinion.
Relax. I’m not one of those crazies who thinks “the real Julia” is secretly a communist. But let us also admit the present leadership in Beijing, while it still clings to the name, is not quite the same as the Communist Party of yesteryear either. What, then, is the governing philosophy of China today and how does it differ from that of our Prime Minister? How would Gillard run things differently?
I like to believe she would rule China differently, but I’m not entirely sure. What I am certain of is that a large number of Australia’s political class would not.
Take businessman Dick Smith. He argues openly that the Australian government should impose a birth limit on the women of Sydney in the same way as they do in Shanghai. If he were put in charge of China’s National Population Commission he would fit right in.
Take Sam McLean, the campaign director of left-wing advocacy group GetUp! He thinks conservative talk-show host Alan Jones should not be entitled to express his views on global warming. “We have standards in this country which demand the truth from our broadcasters,” says McLean, auditioning for a role in China’s Ministry of Propaganda.
Take celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins. If he were placed in charge of China’s State Administration for Religious Affairs would, say, Catholics or evangelical Protestants fare better or worse than they do today?
Take Greg Rudd, brother of our Foreign Minister. He wonders how Australia would perform “if we could draw a federal board of government from the best and brightest . . . One-third would rotate every five years” and would be “rewarded handsomely for that service”. I like to think what the Chinese Politburo would make of that: “Greg, maate, you really understand us!”
A few years back I happened to be sitting next to China’s former ambassador to Australia, Fu Ying, at a small, off-the-record business round-table in Hong Kong. She is someone you want to like: urbane, intelligent and good-humoured. She vaguely reminded me of one of the nice little ladies from my Mum’s book club.
And yet she believes in locking up mild-mannered professors of Chinese literature for advocating non-violent political reform. In her present role as China’s Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, she travelled to Norway to lobby against awarding the Nobel Peace Prize last year to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.
If you’re going to have a real conversation with someone such as Fu, then pro-forma statements raising your concerns about human rights are simply inadequate. You need to be able to articulate China’s governing philosophy, contrast that clearly with your own, and tactfully but forcefully argue why yours would lead to better outcomes for China. Otherwise the Chinese are rightly entitled to consider your views superficial and condescending.
A week before Liu Xiaobo was awarded the peace prize, John Howard told a high-powered audience in Washington, DC, that the key to dealing with China is “not to obsess about our philosophically different approaches to the challenges of the world”.
With the greatest respect to the former prime minister, I don’t think that is right. One finds it hard to imagine, for example, human rights activist Natan Sharansky saying quite the same thing.
If Howard meant that we should not needlessly publicly lecture China, then it is a reasonable point. Privately though, I think we should definitely give much more thought to the precise nature of our differences.
China is not just authoritarian (as it is routinely described); it is authoritarian with a distinct left-wing hue.
A government in China with a different governing philosophy may not be perfect but it would behave differently, evolve differently and lead to better outcomes for its own citizens, Australia and the world. It should be one of the goals of our diplomacy to try to convince them of this. Change the government, you change the country.
Dan Ryan is an Australian lawyer who has spent more than 10 years in China.