Canada must not ignore shameful death of Chinese dissident

China’s human rights violations demand trade consequences, writes Bela Szabados.

The melancholic case of Liu Xiaobo throws into sharp relief a morally disastrous but little-noticed feature of Canadian foreign policy toward China.

Namely, that we most effectively promote human rights and democracy if we engage with, rather than alienate, China. This way it is possible, it is alleged, to use backroom channels for our diplomats to persuade rather than make empty public gestures. Liu’s case makes it evident this “policy” has been a dismal failure: it disables us from meaningful action and robs us of our integrity.

Liu, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, a non-violent activist for democracy and human rights, and an architect of Charter 08 calling for the abolition of the one-party Communist system, was found guilty of “subverting the Chinese state” and was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Recently diagnosed with terminal liver cancer, he did not receive the necessary medical checkups to detect cancer early enough. In spite of his wife’s request, the Chinese government denied Liu’s release on compassionate grounds. Now he is dead.

All this and a deafening silence from the Liberal government in Ottawa. Why? Ottawa’s reason for this quietist attitude appears to be that the “policy” enables us to play a double game: serving our economic interests while giving a perfunctory nod to human rights. This self-serving distance between profession and performance is staggering hypocrisy. Are we really credible when we “endorse” universal human rights?

The history of our relations with China supports the claim that we have no influence. For the past 30 years or so we have had “backdoor channels,” yet the abuse of peaceful dissidents did not stop. For more than a quarter of a century, from the Tiananmen Square massacre to Liu, the Chinese government continues to insist the issue of human rights is an internal matter and interference in their internal affairs is mere western arrogance.

All this time we have indirectly aided and abetted China, who in turn aided and abetted North Korea’s nuclear program. Now think of it. Does Liu’s and other dissidents’ call for freedom of expression, democracy and human rights really subvert the Chinese state? Do our core values, if practised, count as acts of sabotage against the Chinese state? Add the irony that we are at present exploring a free-trade agreement with this dark state. This looks more and more like a sellout of our integrity for a few dollars more. Are we a nation of traders with “no ethical holds barred?”

On a recent visit to Ottawa, the Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi berated a reporter and evaded legitimate questions about China’s human rights record. He angrily declared that human rights issues are not going to be on the table when negotiating a free-trade agreement between Canada and China. Further, he claimed only Chinese citizens, not westerners, are able to responsibly assess China’s human rights record.

Is it really impossible to learn about oneself from others? Suppose, contrary to fact, that he is right. Even then the question stands: What about Liu, a Chinese citizen, an academic, and critic of China’s human rights record and the one-party Communist state? Why was he not a competent candidate for the role of critic? We do not have to alienate the Chinese government: it is rather good at alienating itself!

If we are going to trade with China on a wider basis, the exploration of a free-trade deal must include not only economic merits and demerits, but the issue of human rights violations. No more economic reductionism! Moreover, there have to be consequences for China’s continuing abuses: our policies have to have teeth. Otherwise, we are not credible no matter the rhetoric.

And, yes, a free-trade deal should be put off for some time in honour of Liu and other dissidents in China. Our values should guide — and Liu’s and other dissidents’ callous mistreatments should haunt — such explorations. Canadians need and deserve an ethically coherent foreign policy free from the present sort of moral ambiguities.