Harper's Gowned Grandstand
Harper’s Gowned Grandstand
By Iain Marlow
Stephen Harper, a man who called human rights commissions an act of totalitarianism in 1999, has been considered tough on human rights of late.
The country with which he has been tough is China – a country that by some estimates has lifted 300,000,000 people out of poverty in the past few decades.
The reality is that Harper has not been tough on human rights at all.
He has simply tried to cement his image as a no-nonsense, straight talker, and he has succeeded. The dichotomy is not, as critics have asserted, between human rights and trade. The real divide is between frivolous moral posturing and an honest, realistic pursuit of human rights in China.
Because of Harper’s toughness, it is presumed, the Chinese president saucily refused to meet him. Harper got his meeting – granted, first with Vietnam – and denounced religious persecution and lack of press freedoms.
It is unknown whether Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung asked Harper about gay marriage and Canada’s parliamentary press gallery. Regardless, Harper had his warm up round.
The media back home rallied in his corner, and emblazoned their newspapers with cries of people before profit, morality before trade. Journalists actually printed the phrase “not selling out to the almighty dollar.” This should have been the first sign something was being staged.
Canada’s PM met with Chinese President Hu Jintao behind closed doors. We have been told it was a very frank discussion, and that the Chinese clearly did not expect this sort of frankness from Canada – a country as roundabout as it is large.
But buried in all these articles – as it is in this one – is the quiet Liu Jianchao, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman who said the meeting was brief and human rights were not discussed.
Canadians have ignored him because we are kidding ourselves into a punching-above-our-weight euphoria.
Harper did raise the case of Huseyin Celil, the Chinese-Canadian tossed from Uzbekistan deep into the bowels of China’s famously gulag-like prison system. He did so, however, not because of human rights – but because it was a consular case.
He did save Celil from a death sentence, apparently. For this we should rejoice. But Celil is a Uyghur. Talking about Celil in the context of human rights would involve discussing China’s brutally repressive crackdown on the Muslim minority of which he is a part. Hundreds upon hundreds of Uyghurs have been sentenced to death since the late 1990s – in what clearly has been a profoundly racist and deeply repressive abuse of human rights.
Harper has not discussed this. They do not, unfortunately, hold Canadian passports like Celil.
The media and Harper’s handlers have framed the recent tough stance on China in a misleading context, one that points to this as a continuation of policy. This is false.
Peter MacKay said the Chinese engaged in industrial espionage. What has that do with human rights? Monte Solberg also granted an honorary Canadian citizenship to the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader-in-exile. But let us be honest.
The Dalai Lama is to ethnic minority struggle what Bono is to poverty. Both are good and needed, perhaps, but the Conservatives who granted him citizenship are as self-serving as the Liberals who brought Bono to their convention.
Praising the Dalai Lama, like hugging Bono, does not promote human rights. These are photo-ops, not moral platforms from which to launch abuse.
Harper has managed, incredibly, to put his chest before his stomach on this issue. He has acted in Vietnam like a diplomatic cowboy. This is quite un-Asian, and must have been unbecoming to the Chinese.
It is off-putting back home, too, to those of us in Canada who care deeply about China and its people, who want realistic dialogue and progress on human rights issues in that country. We also resent leaders who play politics with human lives, and those who cast a vibrant nation of 1.3 billion people as some monolithic, Stalinist cesspool of organ harvesting.
The bitterest part of all this, is that the only people crying out against Harper are doing so in the name of trade. Doing this takes guts, because it is so morally bankrupt that it is painful to watch.
Canada needs to be frank with itself first – and with China later. We need to start a sensible dialogue about human rights, and this requires an acknowledgement of our shriveled carrots and sticks.
Canada should talk about coalitions with moral allies. It must discuss trade rules with moral dimensions and legislative teeth. Our government should tackle the human rights-detesting corporate sector, in our country and in others, and join efforts to promote ethical corporate behaviour abroad.
Making these intellectually honest steps towards Chinese human rights requires more courage than making diplomatic asides, because it is actually within our power. Taking on China alone is not. This fact has been lost on too many.
- 30 -
By Iain Marlow
Stephen Harper, a man who called human rights commissions an act of totalitarianism in 1999, has been considered tough on human rights of late.
The country with which he has been tough is China – a country that by some estimates has lifted 300,000,000 people out of poverty in the past few decades.
The reality is that Harper has not been tough on human rights at all.
He has simply tried to cement his image as a no-nonsense, straight talker, and he has succeeded. The dichotomy is not, as critics have asserted, between human rights and trade. The real divide is between frivolous moral posturing and an honest, realistic pursuit of human rights in China.
Because of Harper’s toughness, it is presumed, the Chinese president saucily refused to meet him. Harper got his meeting – granted, first with Vietnam – and denounced religious persecution and lack of press freedoms.
It is unknown whether Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung asked Harper about gay marriage and Canada’s parliamentary press gallery. Regardless, Harper had his warm up round.
The media back home rallied in his corner, and emblazoned their newspapers with cries of people before profit, morality before trade. Journalists actually printed the phrase “not selling out to the almighty dollar.” This should have been the first sign something was being staged.
Canada’s PM met with Chinese President Hu Jintao behind closed doors. We have been told it was a very frank discussion, and that the Chinese clearly did not expect this sort of frankness from Canada – a country as roundabout as it is large.
But buried in all these articles – as it is in this one – is the quiet Liu Jianchao, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman who said the meeting was brief and human rights were not discussed.
Canadians have ignored him because we are kidding ourselves into a punching-above-our-weight euphoria.
Harper did raise the case of Huseyin Celil, the Chinese-Canadian tossed from Uzbekistan deep into the bowels of China’s famously gulag-like prison system. He did so, however, not because of human rights – but because it was a consular case.
He did save Celil from a death sentence, apparently. For this we should rejoice. But Celil is a Uyghur. Talking about Celil in the context of human rights would involve discussing China’s brutally repressive crackdown on the Muslim minority of which he is a part. Hundreds upon hundreds of Uyghurs have been sentenced to death since the late 1990s – in what clearly has been a profoundly racist and deeply repressive abuse of human rights.
Harper has not discussed this. They do not, unfortunately, hold Canadian passports like Celil.
The media and Harper’s handlers have framed the recent tough stance on China in a misleading context, one that points to this as a continuation of policy. This is false.
Peter MacKay said the Chinese engaged in industrial espionage. What has that do with human rights? Monte Solberg also granted an honorary Canadian citizenship to the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader-in-exile. But let us be honest.
The Dalai Lama is to ethnic minority struggle what Bono is to poverty. Both are good and needed, perhaps, but the Conservatives who granted him citizenship are as self-serving as the Liberals who brought Bono to their convention.
Praising the Dalai Lama, like hugging Bono, does not promote human rights. These are photo-ops, not moral platforms from which to launch abuse.
Harper has managed, incredibly, to put his chest before his stomach on this issue. He has acted in Vietnam like a diplomatic cowboy. This is quite un-Asian, and must have been unbecoming to the Chinese.
It is off-putting back home, too, to those of us in Canada who care deeply about China and its people, who want realistic dialogue and progress on human rights issues in that country. We also resent leaders who play politics with human lives, and those who cast a vibrant nation of 1.3 billion people as some monolithic, Stalinist cesspool of organ harvesting.
The bitterest part of all this, is that the only people crying out against Harper are doing so in the name of trade. Doing this takes guts, because it is so morally bankrupt that it is painful to watch.
Canada needs to be frank with itself first – and with China later. We need to start a sensible dialogue about human rights, and this requires an acknowledgement of our shriveled carrots and sticks.
Canada should talk about coalitions with moral allies. It must discuss trade rules with moral dimensions and legislative teeth. Our government should tackle the human rights-detesting corporate sector, in our country and in others, and join efforts to promote ethical corporate behaviour abroad.
Making these intellectually honest steps towards Chinese human rights requires more courage than making diplomatic asides, because it is actually within our power. Taking on China alone is not. This fact has been lost on too many.
- 30 -
posted by iain.e.marlow at 2:10 AM
1 comments
