|
EDITORIAL: Diplomacy
the Chinese way
Just days before Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was to embark on an
official state visit to China, Beijing announced that one reporter who was to be
part of the delegation would not be allowed to enter the country and denied him
a visa.
China and Canada signed various agreements on Wednesday covering the energy,
investment and other sectors, as relations between Ottawa and Beijing continue
to improve following a decision by the Harper government to soften its rhetoric
on Chinaˇ¦s human rights situation.
Looking on as a delegation led by Harper brushed elbows with Chinese officials
during the three-day visit were oil and business executives, as well as a
retinue of reporters. However, one figure was missing: Matthew Little of the
Epoch Times, an accredited member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
Beijingˇ¦s decision was hardly surprising, given that the paper has a long
tradition of criticizing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its treatment of
activists, religious groups and ethnic minorities in China.
Predictable though this was, the denial of Littleˇ¦s entry visa is yet another
example of the manner in which, little by little, China uses its influence to
warp liberal democracies by imposing a series of conditions for conducting
business.
The visit was far too important for Harper to have allowed the issue of one
hapless reporter to derail everything ˇX and Beijing knows that. As long as
countries seeking to build a relationship with China continue to approach it as
beggars rather than equals, CCP officials will have little compunction in
drawing red lines over free speech or human rights.
Weˇ¦ve now entered a period that we could call ˇ§diplomacy with Chinese
characteristics,ˇ¨ where the promise of profit through ˇ§strategicˇ¨ relations with
China is accompanied by silence on a variety of issues. This is an age where it
has become customary and increasingly acceptable, it seems, for China to request
that partners exclude potential critics like Little, who is just one among many
journalists, writers and academics who have been sidelined for refusing to hold
their silence.
It is interesting to note that rarely, if ever, have liberal governments
answered Beijing in kind whenever top Chinese officials visited their country.
When was the last time a Western country denied a visa to a Chinese reporter
from, say, the CCP-run Peopleˇ¦s Daily, for promoting Han chauvinism in a manner
that borders on the xenophobic, or encouraged the use of force against Tibetans,
Uighurs, Taiwanese, Falun Gong practitioners ˇX or any of the claimants to
disputed islets in the South China Sea? China takes, while the rest of the world
gives, slowly bringing about the ˇ§Beijing consensusˇ¨ that Stefan Halper warns
against in his book of the same title.
Taiwan under President Ma Ying-jeou (°¨^¤E) has also jumped on the bandwagon,
allowing in a number of CCP officials, mayors and thinkers who, under normal
circumstances, should probably have been barred entry. In Taiwan and elsewhere,
it has become permissible for governments to deny visits by figures such as the
Dalai Lama or Uighur leader-in-exile Rebiya Kadeer, but whoever called for
similar measures to be taken against Chinese officials is accused of ˇ§hating
Chinaˇ¨ or irrationality.
There is nothing wrong with conducting business with China. Such a development
is, in fact, natural and inevitable, given its economic growth and increasing
importance on the international stage. However, this doesnˇ¦t mean that in the
process of engagement we should lose the courage to stand up for what we believe
in. Some countries, like Canada and Australia, have an abundance of natural
resources that are coveted by China. Could this not be used as leverage in
negotiations with China, allowing these countries to negotiate from a position
of strength and principle, rather than as supplicants?
|
