Recently, criticism of China's human rights situation has escalated. The European Parliament criticized the Chinese Government for not keeping its promise to improve human rights and freedom of the press. A resolution has been passed calling for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to urge China to improve its human rights. Prior to this, I had raised the question of the IOC's responsibilities during my presentation before the European Parliament. Organized by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Group of the European Parliament, the meeting centered on European efforts to promote peace and democratization in other countries. The main topics of the meeting involved China's upcoming Olympics, human rights status, and European Union (EU)'s arms embargo on China.
After the EU meeting, representatives of China's Pro-Democracy movement gathered in Geneva, Switzerland and held a press conference on these issues. Eleven reporters from western media participated in the conference and asked sharp, adroit questions, despite technical interference from Chinese Communist authorities.
The representatives discussed the responsibilities IOC has in this, and the stance it should have taken. Some believe China's human rights situation is solely the responsibility of the Chinese government, not of the IOC, which merely organizes Olympic Games. While this statement may have held true in the past, things have changed over time, especially after China lost the chance to host the Olympics in 2000.
IOC officials explained that it was China's terrible human rights record which cost them the 2000 bid, but for various reasons the IOC helped the country secure the bid in 2008, provided that changes would be made. Chinese Communist authorities publicly assured the IOC that they would substantially improve human rights conditions, and the IOC in turn claimed they would verify that the promise had been kept. With this agreement in mind, principal IOC officials bypassed the human rights issue, and convinced committee members to give China the 2008 Olympic Games.
Due to this agreement, the Chinese government is obligated to fulfill its promises, and the IOC—as the guarantor—is obligated to urge China to improve its human rights situation and its record on freedom of expression. These are responsibilities that the IOC made on its own in helping China to win the bid. The IOC President can be replaced, but the responsibilities of the organization cannot. It has a duty to fulfill: to urge the Chinese government to improve human rights, and to protect the rights of the freedom of its citizens; to report the status of China's agreement to the international community and clearly point out where China has failed to keep its promises. Without the IOC's supervision and oversight, the Chinese government will, of course, not take its responsibility more seriously, and will definitely not abide by its promises.
While it helped Beijing win the bid for hosting the 2008 Olympics, the IOC has never expressed any view regarding China's human rights, nor has it regularly reported on the country's human rights record or improvements as promised. Does this mean that leading IOC officials colluded with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in deceiving the world? It's not clear. But we can see that both past and present IOC personnel have been lax in their supervisory responsibility and commitments in monitoring China's behavior. And it is painfully obvious that the CCP has not fulfilled its obligations.
Following a news conference in Geneva, overseas pro-democracy representatives drove to IOC headquarters in Lausanne. They met with IOC officials and submitted a letter signed by tens of thousands of Chinese who lived both in and out of the country. AFP and Swiss television crew reported the event. At the IOC headquarters, communications director Giselle Davies and her assistant accepted the letter, and talked with the representatives for 15 minutes. Looking nervous, Davis asked TV news reporters to stop filming, angering the reporters accustomed to press freedom. When the cameras were switched off, Davis failed to take the letter seriously. Faced with the names of tens of thousands of Chinese peasants who had lost their land, and others forced to leave their home, she repeatedly dodged any responsibility with the excuse that the IOC is a sports organization. She seemed to forget the Chinese government's commitment to the Olympic bid and the IOC's guarantee on this commitment. However, she did not repeat the stance that Olympic Games have nothing to do with human rights, and expressed that she would convey a message to the IOC President.
The writer,as Chairman of the overseas pro-democracy movement, expressed that the IOC should take responsibility for its role in overseeing that the CCP make good on its commitments. Adding that, it should be made public if China's human rights situation has substantially improved as promised. I also asserted the need for full disclosure concerning China's bribing IOC officials. Davis expressed concern for these allegations, but hoped to get more information. I also told her that we intend to contact the IOC in the future and provide them with greater detail on these issues, and that I hope the IOC is a responsible institution.
After the activities in Geneva and Lausanne, overseas friends of the pro-democracy movement returned to the EU headquarters in Brussels to attend another meeting held by the ALDE. The theme of this meeting—titled "China's human rights—no gold metal"—focused on China's human rights record and boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. People from mainland China, Xinjiang and Tibet met with Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders and European experts of the International Society for Human Rights. We made detailed comments on all aspects of China's deteriorating human rights situation in recent years. It was agreed that the IOC should not continue to ignore this issue and should instead criticize and push the Chinese government to keep its promise. The meeting produced a clear description of what the Chinese government should improve its promotion and protection of human rights to fulfill its promise.
Just before our meeting, relations between the EU and China changed significantly. Following European general elections, the Hu Jintao regime engaged in a round of targeted trade diplomacy, taking the opportunity to influence new and less experienced government officials. Upon visiting Beijing, the newly elected French President Sarkozy received a US$30 billion contract for airplanes and nuclear power plants. The Sarkozy government was overjoyed, and tried lobbying other European Union countries to look the other way from the human rights problems in China. Moreover, Sarkozy claimed that he would persuade EU countries to agree to lift the arms embargo against China. Sarkozy's political standing has created a separation among the European countries including the German ruling coalition. The Vice President of the German Social Democratic Party and the Minister of Diplomacy had publicly criticized German Prime Minister Merkel for losing such a big businesses deal to France, due to her concerns over China's human rights problems and her meeting with the Dalai Lama. Doing business with China suddenly became so hot that many public officials with a conscience were forced to hold their tongues.
I had addressed the CCP's plot in my presentation to the European Parliament and promptly pointed out that the CCP's ability to assign trade contracts stems from unfair trade policies. These tightly manipulated practices were also responsible for the $200 billion EU-China trade deficit each year. Even if Sarkozy made good on the $30 billion order, it would not be able to counterbalance the ever-growing deficit. The other reason for this massive trade imbalance is that Chinese workers do not have the rights to fight for fair wages and labor protection. China's human rights have a great deal to do with the European economic benefits. Helping the CCP violate human rights for a comparatively paltry contract is costing the European people benefits, not gaining them.
Of course, the $30 billion contract has solved problems for a small portion of French enterprises and workers, but how does it affect French small and medium businesses and the benefits of other European countries? These short-sighted politicians have overlooked this immense problem. On the surface, the CCP's trade diplomacy seems to have succeeded, as Sarkozy has joyfully served as Hu Jintao's loyal advocate, and some European officials are shaking. But the side-effect of this self-centered diplomatic strategy is to follow the expectations of Hu Jintao. Sarkozy's selfishness has incurred extreme anger from other European countries, which continues to escalate. It has isolated France even further from other European countries, and has cost the country its dominant position among EU foreign policy makers. Despite its intentions, the CCP seems to have harmed both itself and its new French ally with this $30 billion contract.
During the parliament meeting, an EU parliament member assured me that while we were visiting the IOC headquarters in Lausanne, the European parliament has passed a resolution resisting the 2008 Beijing Olympics and continuing its arms embargo against China. Unlike past resolutions, this one was passed unanimously—revealing that not a single European country would listen to Sarkozy regarding the arms embargo, and would instead pressure the IOC more actively on boycotting the Beijing Olympics.
My presentation was not only considered to benefit Chinese people, but also Europeans. Even the European political community and media have taken my views very seriously. The CCP's so-called strategies which always calculate harm to others will for sure harm itself.
Feeds