China's Relationship With The West

Authors Avatar

China’s Relationship With The West                                Nicola Reed

There is great concern in the West about the issue of human rights in China. Is the West able to have any influence over this issue?

1. Pressure On China

High-level visits to China from important political people such as the President, MPs and the Prime Minister, put extreme pressure on China and the government. As well as pressure, they also bring a mixture of criticism, praises, suggestions and proposals. President Clinton of the USA visited China in June 1998. While he was there, he made an impact on the country and the government and there were even suggestions that Mr Jiang was pondering the need for political reform. It was an achievement for Mr Clinton when the Chinese President took the unprecedented step of taking part in a press conference with Mr. Clinton, which was broadcast live on Chinese television. In 1997, Clinton used a “softer” approach on China to try to encourage them to sign a United Nations covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, obliging their country to protect people from discrimination. However, this rapprochement held a big risk for Clinton because a lot of people believed that he was being too “soft on China”. So when he went to China in 1998, he used a different tactical approach. He decided to be very critical and direct, laying down his opinions very firmly. He told China’s leaders that their treatment of political dissidents was “thoroughly unacceptable”. Human rights was at the top of his controversial state visit and by the time that he had left he had made sure that the Chinese knew exactly what the USA thought about that issue. President Clinton used some of the harshest American language against China for years. The USA put everything bluntly to the Chinese and Mr Clinton said “but their response so far has not been terribly satisfactory. They dispute the facts and otherwise explain these incidents away.” Emphatically shattering the careful language US officials have so far used to handle the subject, he added, “China’s record on human rights is terrible. It is an authoritarian country… there has been some progress, but not nearly enough.” This obviously made an impact on China because there had been nothing like it Chinese history. President Clinton avoided no issues, bringing up everything that was relevant to the topic of human rights. He often addressed the Tiananmen Square incident making references to it such as: they were wrong to kill their own people in quenching a rebellion against communist rule. The USA was delighted when Mr Jiang decided to allow nationwide transmission of the joint presidential press conference. This is because it brought public attention to human rights allowing more people to become aware of what was happening in China. Overall, Clinton’s visit was quite successful and a lot of people gave him their attention because he was so forceful, direct and very critical.

        In October 1998 the Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, also paid a visit to China. He began by speaking of the “differences” between the West and China over human rights. When he arrived in Beijing, Mr Blair said that human rights are “universal” and that the issue was bound to be discussed during his trip. When the Prime Minister left London he had many pressure groups such as Amnesty and Free Tibet and many dissident groups demanding that he too a firm tone with the Chinese Government during his talks. However, Mr Blair took a very different approach to that recommended by the pressure groups and to the one that President Clinton used. He began by praising China’s economic reforms, its “responsible” and “coherent” polices during the world financial crisis and its “right priorities” over the opening up of its financial markets and strengthening of its regulatory system. He then devoted some time to the issues of human rights. He praised China’s rich history and achievements, but he then added: “There is no point denying that we have our differences. I, like many in Europe, believe that human rights are universal and this is bound to be discussed. But I also believe, as I have said before that persuasion and dialogue achieve more than confrontation and empty rhetoric.” It is obvious that he believes in very different tactics to what President Clinton does. The main reason for Mr Blair’s conciliatory and diplomatic tactics was that he did not want to jeopardise trade routes, as this would affect the employment and the economy in Britain. It would be a very bad idea to upset China because it is a big money market.

        The last visit of extreme importance was from the US secretary of state, Madeline Albright. She opened a new diplomatic season in a critical year (March 1999) for the relationship between China and the USA. She began by raising the main issues and getting straight to the point by saying that human rights in China was “a question of grave concern” to the US. She also lectured the head of Chinese state television on the importance on the importance of a press, and said she would raise the recent arrests of democracy activists. It was obvious that Mrs Albright had made a major impact on China. However, the next day her verbal fireworks were offset by reassurances that the countries’ disagreements would not be allowed to wreck their relationship. She then said, “We determined some time ago that it’s not a good idea to link human rights with trade.” During her visit to China, she put a lot of pressure on them about the issues of human rights. However, she made a point of treating them better before she left so that it did not affect trade as this would affect the economy of the USA.

        From the above accounts, it is obvious that the visitors, who all have a lot of power, use different tactics towards China. Mr Clinton is often very direct and very critical towards China but Mr Blair is more conciliatory and diplomatic while Mrs Albright rangers from harsh to softer. When confronting China it is very important to approach them with a balanced method. There needs to be criticism of their human rights record but there also needs to be some positive aspects about China commented on. It is always very difficult to get a perfect balance. They cannot be too critical because all of their important trade routes with China will be ruined causing economic problems in their home country. However, opening up too much and concentrating a lot on pleasant dialogue can make the issue of human rights seem less important. To get perfect results there needs to be an exact balance between criticism of human rights and praise of other issues in China. Trade is a very important part of this deal as it could cause many economic problems but it cannot be put before the human rights of people.

Join now!

        Another source of extreme pressure on both China and the leaders who visit China is from pressure groups such as Amnesty International and Free Tibet. Before Mr Blair left for China, dissident groups demanded that he take a firm tone with the Chinese Government during his talks. They also issued an open letter appealing to him to protest to China’s leaders over human rights abuses, which was supported by the pressure group Free Tibet. These groups put enormous amounts of pressure on Mr Blair to try to encourage or force him into putting lots of pressure on China to do ...

This is a preview of the whole essay