Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T03:28:33.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking Human Rights to China: An Assessment of the EU's Approach*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2011

Katrin Kinzelbach  and
Hatla Thelle
Katrin Kinzelbach
Affiliation:
Global Public Policy Institute.
Hatla Thelle
Affiliation:
Danish Institute for Human Rights. Email: hth@humanrights.dk (corresponding author).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A human rights dialogue between the European Union and China has been going on since 1995. It runs on three tracks and includes a diplomatic level, expert seminars and technical co-operation projects. The three levels are supposed to interact with and benefit from each other. This article focuses on the conduct of the dialogue and the interaction between the three levels, and aims to investigate the merits and obstacles of the set-up. It also discusses how the dynamic of this interaction affects the collaboration between European and Chinese human rights experts. The conclusion is that the dialogue's three-tiered set-up is counterproductive and the aims of the two sides are too different to fully attain the envisaged goals.

Type
Articles
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 205 , March 2011 , pp. 60 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cohen, Roberta, “People's Republic of China: the human rights exception,” Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1987), pp. 447–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See the extensive study by Kent, Ann, China, the United Nations, and Human Rights: The Limits of Compliance (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 In criticism of such decisions, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Greece were nick-named “Airbus Club.”

4 Grimheden, Jonas, Stearns, Lisa and Thelle, Hatla, “Menneskerettighetspolitikk overfor Kina: Konfrontasjon eller dialog?” Mennesker och Rettigheder, Vol. 1 (1999), p. 47Google Scholar (“Human rights policy towards China?” in Nordic Journal of Human Rights; English version on file with Hatla Thelle).

5 See e.g. Council of the European Union, EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues with Third Countries: Update (Brussels: Council of the EU, 2008, Doc. No. 16526/08), p. 12Google Scholar.

6 Confidential interview by Katrin Kinzelbach, 7 May 2009.

7 See in particular Kent, China, the United Nations, and Human Rights; Foot, Rosemary, Rights Beyond Borders: The Global Community and the Struggle over Human Rights in China (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baker, Philip, “Human rights, Europe and the People's Republic of China,” The China Quarterly, No. 169 (2002), pp. 45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lempinen, Miko, The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Different Treatment of Governments: An Inseparable Part of Promoting and Encouraging Respect for Human Rights? (Åbo: Åbo Akad. University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

8 Katrin Kinzelbach, “The EU's human rights dialogue with China – constructive engagement or failure?” PhD thesis, University of Vienna, 2010.

9 An overview is provided in Baker, “Human rights, Europe and the PRC,” pp. 59–60.

10 Commission of the European Communities, Commission Communication to the Council and Parliament: Human Rights, Democracy and Development Cooperation Policy (Brussels: Commission of the EC, 1991, Doc. No. SEC(91) 61 final), p. 6Google Scholar.

11 Council of the European Union, European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues (Brussels: Council of the EU, 2001, Doc. No. 14469/01), p. 2Google Scholar.

12 Ibid. p. 5.

13 EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues with Third Countries: Update, p. 6.

14 See Council of the European Union, Press Release, 2327th Council meeting, General Affairs: EU–China Dialogue on Human Rights (Brussels: Council of the EU, 2001, Doc. No. 5345/01), p. 4Google Scholar.

15 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, China's EU Policy Paper (Beijing: PRC MFA, 2003)Google Scholar, point I.5; http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/ceupp/t27708.htm, accessed 19 February 2009.

16 As already indicated, the EU engages in the dialogue in response to public demands on a principled foreign policy vis-à-vis China after the crackdown on Tiananmen Square in 1989, seeking to influence China's human rights policy and practice through communicative engagement. China, on the other hand, seeks to polish its international image and put an end to public criticism of its human rights record, particularly at the UN Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council).

17 The EU member states take turns over the external representation of the community. The Troika includes representatives of the present and incoming presidency of the Council of the European Union; Secretary-General/High Representative for the common foreign and security policy; and European Commissioner in charge of external relations. This will change with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty but at the time of writing this arrangement was still in place.

18 They are also called expert seminars, EU–China human rights seminars, expert meetings, the expert dialogue or legal network.

19 Matthias Burell, “External evaluation of the EU–China human rights network program activities, January 2002–July 2003,” unpublished document, Uppsala, 2003, p. 17.

20 Ibid.

21 Council of the European Union, Fifth EU–China Summit: Joint Press Statement (Copenhagen: Council of the EU, 2002, Doc. No. 12335/02 (Presse 287))Google Scholar.

22 Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union, Germany, 23rd Round of the EU China Dialogue on Human Rights on 15/16 May in Berlin: Press Release, Berlin, 18 May 2007, http://www.eu2007.de/en/News/Press_Releases/May/0518China.htm, accessed 21 September 2007; Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union, Portugal, Press Release of the 24th Round of the EU–China Dialogue on Human Rights, Lisbon, 17 October 2007, http://www.eu2007.pt/UE/vEN/Noticias_Documentos/20071017UEChina.htm, accessed 15 January 2009; as well as two NGO perspectives: FIDH, China Misses Key Opportunity on Human Rights, Brussels, 16 May 2007, FIDH: http://www.fidh.org/spip.php?article4295, accessed 14 January 2009; Dui Hua Foundation, “Standoff in Berlin: why Dui Hua was excluded from the EU–China legal seminar,” Dialogue, No 28 (2007), p. 4.

23 Sharon Hom, “Beijing police undermine human rights dialogue,” The Wall Street Journal, 1 July 2005, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112016574756374569.html, accessed 2 September 2009.

24 Commission of the European Communities, European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR); EU-China Human Rights Network; Guidelines for Grant Applications (Brussels: Commission of the EC, 2008, Doc. No. EuropeAid/126960/C/ACT/Multi), p. 3, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/tender/data/d92/AOF85192.doc, accessed 11 August 2009.

25 Ibid. p. 6.

26 Commission of the European Communities, Response Given by Commissioner Benita Ferrero Waldner to Written Question by Vittorio Agnoletto (GUE/NGL) to the Commission: European Parliament Debate “Defense of human rights in China” (Strasbourg: Commission of the EC, 2007, Doc. No. E-1285/07).

27 Commission of the European Communities, Statement by Commissioner Christopher Patten in European Parliament Debate “Next session of UN Human Rights Commission” (Strasbourg: Commission of the EC, 2000), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20000216+ITEM-003+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN, accessed 11 August 2009.

28 Confidential interviews by Katrin Kinzelbach, 16 April 2008, 14 November 2008, 6 December 2008, 2 April 2009.

29 This interpretation is also shared by Lempinen who views technical co-operation projects as “a third part of the dialogue.” See Lempinen, The United Nations Commission, p. 322.

30 Kjaerum, Morten, “EU, China and human rights: main themes and challenges,” in Pentikäinen, Merja (ed.), EU–China Dialogue: Perspectives on Human Rights – With a Special Reference to Women (Rovaniemi: Lapland's University Press, 2000), p. 4Google Scholar.

31 Personal notes: Katrin Kinzelbach.

32 Commission of the European Communities, Action Fiche 3: Human Rights Network EU–China (2007), http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/worldwide/eidhr/documents, Point 10, accessed 15 January 2009.

33 Confidential interviews conducted by Katrin Kinzelbach with EU officials and officials from European member states, 13 November 2008, 9 February 2009 and 18 May 2009.

34 HRIC, From Principle to Pragmatism: Can “Dialogue” Improve China's Human Rights Situation? (New York: HRIC, 1998) p. 32Google Scholar.

35 FIDH, Open Letter to EU Member States: The EU/China Human Rights Dialogue (27 September 2000), from http://www.fidh.org/spip.php?article1112, accessed 14 January 2009.

36 Commission of the EC, Action Fiche 3, Point 10.

37 Commission of the EC, European Instrument for Democracy, p. 3.

38 Personal notes: Katrin Kinzelbach.

39 Confidential interview by Katrin Kinzelbach with seminar participant, 16 March 2009.

40 Director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, Vienna.

41 Then director of the Institute of Law at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, now deputy director of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

42 Nowak, Manfred and Chunying, Xin, “Introduction,” in Nowak, Manfred and Chunying, Xin (eds.), EU–China Human Rights Dialogue: Proceedings of the Second EU–China Legal Expert Seminar held in Beijing on 19 and 20 October 1998 (Wien: Verlag Österreich, 2000), pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

43 Confidential interview by Katrin Kinzelbach with long-term seminar participant, 9 December 2007.

44 Svensson, Marina, Debating Human Rights in China: A Conceptual and Political History (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), p. 269Google Scholar.

45 See e.g. Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Public Intellectuals in China: Roundtable before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session (Washington, DC: Congressional-Executive Commission on China, 2005)Google Scholar, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:20180.wais, accessed 20 January 2009.

46 See press release by HRIC, Vocal Government Critic Dismissed from China's Top Think Tank, New York, 21 December 2009, http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/172628, accessed 22 December 2009.

47 Council of the European Union, Joint Statement of the 12th EU–China Summit Nanjing, China, 30 November 2009 (Brussels, Council of the EU, 2009, Doc. No. 16845/09 (Presse 353))Google Scholar, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/er/111567.pdf, para 8, accessed 22 December 2009.

48 www.chinaview.cn, 30 October 2003, accessed 25 May 2009.

49 Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament; EU–China: Closer partners, growing responsibilities (Brussels: Commission of the EC, 2006, Doc. No. COM(2006) 631 final), p. 4Google Scholar.

50 Ibid. p. 5.

51 For three different positions in this debate see Stephenson, Matthew, “A Trojan Horse in China?” in Carothers, Thomas (ed.), Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: In Search of Knowledge (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2006), pp. 191–215Google Scholar; Woodman, Sophia, “Driving without a map: implementing legal projects in China aimed at improving human rights,” in Bell, Daniel A. and Coicaud, Jean-Marc (eds.), Ethics in Action: The Ethical Challenges of International Human Rights Nongovernmental Organizations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 132–50Google Scholar; and Birgit Lindsnaes, Hans-Otto Sano and Hatla Thelle, “Human rights in action: supporting human rights work in authoritarian countries,” in ibid. pp. 121–31.

52 Personal notes: Hatla Thelle.

53 Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.

54 Woodman, Sophia, “Bilateral aid to improve human rights: donors need to adopt a more coherent and thoughtful strategy,” China Perspectives, No. 51 (2004), p. 29Google Scholar.

55 Tiziana Tota, “Dialogue or ‘in the tunnel at the end of the light’: an apology in defense of some bilateral human rights dialogues with China and their ‘tangible’ results in terms of change in China's human rights cognitive behaviour,” unpublished master's thesis, Venice, 2004, p. 50.

56 Then director of the Danish Institute for Human Rights, now director of the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency.

57 Kjaerum, “EU, China and human rights,” p. 9.

58 Ibid. pp. 9–10.

59 Personal communication by an official from an EU member state to Hatla Thelle and Katrin Kinzelbach, 11 May 2009.