RIGHTS-CHINA: US Rights Groups Pressure Clinton

By Jim Lobe Reprint | | Print |

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Mar 3 1998 (IPS) - Human rights groups, dismayed by a European Union (EU) decision not to support a resolution on China at the U.N. Human Rights Commission, are pressing U.S. President Bill Clinton to propose a resolution unilaterally, if necessary.

The U.S. administration, which last year pledged to make a decision on its attitude to human rights in China still has not done so. And there is just two weeks before the Commission convenes for its annual six-week session in Geneva.

The State Department is urging the president to go ahead with a critical resolution, but this is opposed by Clinton’s National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, according to political sources. That means Clinton, who is scheduled to travel to China later this year, will have to make a final decision in the coming days, the sources say.

“This will be a test of courage for Clinton,” says Abigail Abrush of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Centre for Human Rights, which is leading a consortium – including Amnesty International USA and the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights – in pressing the administration on the issue.

They are not fighting alone as lawmakers in Congress from both major sides of the house are demanding that Washington leads an effort to register renewed international concern with Beijing’s human rights performance in Geneva.

One proposal, that could be voted on by the House of Representatives before the Commission convenes, calls on Washington to wage “an immediate and determined” effort to secure passage of a human rights resolutions at the Commission and expresses “profound regret” at the EU’s decision in Brussels last week.

China’s human rights record has been a major source of contention within Washington since Beijing’s crackdown against ‘pro- democracy’ forces in June 1989. In 1992, Clinton ran against then- president George Bush on a platform that promised a much tougher policy, including denying trade benefits to China if its rights performance did not improve.

But after one year in office, and under heavy pressure from business interests whose stake in China was growing by leaps and bounds, Clinton abruptly shifted course by adopting what his administration called a policy of “comprehensive engagement.” In May, 1994, Clinton announced that he would no longer link trade benefits with China’s human rights record.

To reassure Congress and rights activists that he was not abandoning them, however, Clinton pledged to take five steps on the human rights front: launch ‘Radio Free Asia;’ increase aid to independent groups in China; encourage U.S. business in China to adopt a code of conduct; extend economic sanctions against some Chinese military-controlled companies; and press Beijing on human rights issues in multilateral forums, notably the U.N. Commission.

The United States already had co-sponsored resolutions in Geneva when Clinton took office. They called on China to release political prisoners, protect Tibetan culture, and abide by international standards on human rights.

In 1995, Washington, with the EU’s support, succeeded for the first time in bringing such a resolution to a formal vote. While it ultimately failed 20-21, the effort was seen as a major breakthrough by most activists.

“China obviously takes this extremely seriously,” noted John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights at the time.

Two years later, however, EU unity on the issue broke down. France, Germany, Italy and Spain last year opposed a U.S.-backed resolution put forward by Denmark and strongly supported by the Netherlands. U.S. officials and human rights activists blamed trade and commercial interests for the defections.

If last year’s EU split marked a major human rights setback, this year’s decision by group’s 18 foreign ministers not to back any resolution on China, would appear to doom any any proposal that may be introduced.

At a meeting in Brussels Feb 23, the ministers agreed on a “new approach” for promoting human rights in China. “Neither the (EU) presidency nor any other member state should table or co- sponsor a draft resolution of the next UN Commission of Human Rights,” they said.

British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said last year’s split proved damaging to the cause and insisted that the EU’s dialogue with Beijing had “shown some progress,” including last year’s release of long-time dissident Wei Jingsheng and China’s invitation to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Right Mary Robinson who is to visit there next month.

He added that the EU may review its decision next year if China fails to “take seriously” Robinson’s visit, permit the International Red Cross to resume prison visits, release some political prisoners, and accord freedom of movement to an EU delegation that is planning to visit Tibet this year.

While the administration has failed to react to the EU action officially, rights groups have expressed outrage. “It settles for far too little, fails to link specific progress in human rights to improved relations between the EU and China, and basically lets Beijing off the hook,” says Human Rights Watch.

“The resolution of the EU foreign ministers has sent the Chinese a government and people a message.’ according to Wei, who is now based at Columbia University in New York. “The Communist human rights standard is entirely acceptable to the standard of European politicians.” Wei has stated repeatedly that his release and exile to the United States should not be considered evidence of an improved human rights situation in China.

With the Commission scheduled to begin work Mar. 16, the groups are intensifying their efforts to get Clinton behind a resolution. “I would hope they’re not going to walk away from pursuing what is, after all, Clinton’s own long-term commitment,” says Abrush.

“When this year we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it would be very ironic that we see an abandonment of principle publicy by the EU an possibly by the United States,” she notes.