On Voting Against China in Next Week's Human Rights Meeting

LONDON–All the dons sitting around the tea table with China’s most famous dissident, Wei Jingsheng, seemed decidedly nervous and unusually quiet by the everyday standards of Britain’s most revered university. It took me a few minutes to figure out why and then I guessed if your brain is telling you that this may be the Nelson Mandela of China, future ruler of one third of the world, then a little awe and a roomful of silence are to be expected.
After the tea there was the speech to students. Direct, eloquent, his 18 years in jail on a wind-swept, bitterly cold, 10,000 feet high plateau, behind him, he tore into the Chinese communist regime and to the western governments who give it so much comfort and assistance. With almost serene self-confidence he appeared to predict that his cause will triumph sooner rather than later–“every ordinary Chinese now recognises the need for a complete change in the dictatorship inside China.”

This is a bold claim, but even if exaggerated one can see already manifestations of the democratic impulse: the village level elections just completed, aided by poll watchers from Jimmy Carter’s Centre in Atlanta working under an official contract; the dissident votes on quite important issues in the National People’s Congress; the tolerance of an underground press in Shanghai; and the personal and often political empowerment that has been the inevitable bi-product of growing economic freedom.

But it is in choosing the tactics of how to best develop these signs of incipient democracy that Wei Jingsheng and the most powerful western governments diverge. It was with a sigh of great relief that Washington joined its European Union friends in announcing on Sunday that it was dropping American sponsorship of a resolution condemning China’s record on human rights. The annual resolution, first introduced at the UN Human Rights Commission in 1990 after the massacre of unarmed students in Tiananamen Square the year before, has always infuriated China. The commission opens its meeting in Geneva next week.

The Europeans got themselves off the hook a few weeks ago. In the words of British prime minister Tony Blair, current president of the EU, “it was not the right way to proceed.” In Washington, at least, the decision making seemed to be more measured, an apparent response to Beijing’s announcement last week that it was going to sign the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which lays down precepts on freedom of expression, religion and movement. A senior administration figure was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the decision not to vote against China “is being done as a calculation. It is being done because we believe it is the way to make progress in the future.”

But is it? Wei Jingsheng’s own belief is that “when Beijing’s relations with the West improve conditions get worse for the dissidents inside China’s jails.” This, of course, begs the question why Mr Wei was eventually released. It was surely a sweetener to follow up President Jiang Zemin’s visit to Washington last autumn and pave the way for Bill Clinton’s China summit, now moved up to June.

China’s dissident policy doesn’t have the clear-cut pattern that Wei Jingsheng suggests. It is both sweet and sour, almost unpredictably so, and the art of dealing with China is knowing how to bring out the sweet and how to protest the sour.

There IS an argument for getting closer to China. Diplomatic recognition by Richard Nixon was the first and necessary step. Trade on the most favourable terms, the Clinton policy, another major step. There is no good to be had in treating China as a pariah and everything to be said for binding it closer to the West both economically and politically. There is no reward for wilfully undermining Beijing’s self-esteem.

But the West must also stick to its principles and the most important at issue is China’s disrespect for human rights.

Standing up for human rights should not normally involve economic penalties–though the “go-slow” after Tiananmen Square was a necessary punishment for an outrageous event. But it should involve regular diplomatic pressure, plain public speaking and certainly voting the right way when these issues come up in public fora, as they will at the UN next week.

Democracy feelings are bubbling up from beneath as Wei Jingsheng so lucidly argues. Outsiders need to keep the steady pressure on, just as was done with Soviet Union. Perhaps suddenly and unexpectedly the dam will break, as it did in eastern Europe. Wei Jingsheng, doubtless, will be ready and prepared. Will we be?


Foreign affairs columnist, film-maker and author

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Peace is promoted by constructive proposals and dialogue Four preceding PressInfos have expressed concern over — and criticised — the ongoing, militarisation of the EU. Some will say: but there are no alternatives. We believe that there are always alternatives, that democracies are characterised by alternatives and choice, and that openly discussed alternatives will improve the quality and legitimacy of society’s decision–making. In addition, it is an intellectual and moral challenge to not only criticise but also be constructive. If we only tell people that we think they are wrong, they are not likely to listen. However, if we say: what are your views on this set of ideas and steps? — we may sometimes engage them in dialogue and sow a seed. Most people in power circles live their daily lives in in a time frame and a social space where certain ideas, viewpoints and concepts are just not...
Photos © TFF 2000 Read PressInfo 90 “Lift the Sanctions and Bring More Aid to Yugoslavia” See Pictures from Belgrade © TFF 2000 Please reprint, copy, archive, quote or re-post this item, but please retain the source.
Av FRANK SØHOLM GREVIL 16 augusti 2004  Vi er nu nået til tredje akt i det absurde teaterstykke, der i analogi med de store skueprocesser i Moskva 1936-38 er blevet døbt ‘Grevil-sagen’. Første akt bestod i min anonyme fremlæggelse af egenhændigt nedklassificerede rapporter i Berlingske Tidende i februar og marts. Andet akt udgjordes af min fremtræden med navn og billede i Information i april samt den efterfølgende mediestorm, som uden min direkte medvirken kostede en forsvarsminister taburetten samt en sigtelse for brud på tavshedspligten. Tredje akt bliver en retssag, hvor jeg står tiltalt for at have overtrådt straffelovens bestemmelser om uberettiget videregivelse eller udnyttelse af fortrolige oplysninger. Statsanklageren har ovenikøbet valgt at påberåbe sig særligt skærpende omstændigheder. Da jeg aldrig har modtaget betaling for at stille rapporterne til rådighed eller lade mig interviewe, må det skærpende bestå i, at “videregivelsen eller udnyttelsen er sket under sådanne omstændigheder, at det påfører...

Recent Articles

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.

TFF on Substack

Discover more from TFF Transnational Foundation & Jan Oberg.

Most Popular

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Read More
Screenshot-2026-05-15-103534
Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Screenshot-2026-05-12-104023
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (2)
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (1)
Jan Oberg, TFF director April 28, 2026 In this third TFF Peace Pulse, I make the important distinction between the violence and the conflict that violence is a symptom of. If you want peace, focus on the underlying conflict because that is the key to resolution, peacemaking, and a better future for the parties. The West is obsessed with violence, just look around you – and 90+ per cent of the public debate is about military issues and other violence – totally wasted for peace. These Peace Pulses will only be published here a few times. You will also not find them on YouTube and Vimeo because both platforms have blocked TFF and me; you know, peace is dangerous these days. Most TFF’s videos since 2007 are now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551
In contrast to most, we’ll bring alternatives, solutions, hope and strategies for a better future. Times are dangerous, yes, but that only intensifies the need for constructive thinking and action! Jan Oberg, TFF director April 13, 2026 The new TFF Peace Pulse uses video messages in a new way: Max 3-5-minute-long comments, ideas or perhaps mini-lectures, all about peace – positive peace. We launch them today on April 13, 2026 with a carefully crafted visual aesthetic fitting the content. We hope to publish them regularly from now on. We launch Peace Pulse (PP) – for a number of reasons. The world is in chaos, and there are countless reasons to feel concerned, frustrated, even angry. The atmosphere is saturated with doom and gloom, with negative energy and rear‑mirror thinking, while vision, imagination, alternatives, strategies and genuine future‑mindedness remain in short supply. And without them, we simply can’t save the world. Looking at problems from a hundred angles will...
IMG_5165 (1)
PART II — Publishing Peace in a System That Prioritises Militarism Jan Oberg, TFF director April 10, 2026 How TFF Maintains a Daily Voice in a Digital World Built for Noise This article is part of the series “TFF at 40″ and it invites you to learn about Four Decades of Publishing Peace. It takes a look at how a small, people‑financed peace foundation has communicated across four generations of technology — from wax stencils and fax machines to mass email and Substack — and why TFF continues to publish every single day in a system that rewards noise, conflict, and militarism. ◆ What it means to publish peace every single day in a digital system built for 24/7 news and other noise, confrontation, and militarism. How TFF’s independence, continuity, and global readership defy algorithms, donor cycles, and Western media censorhip — and why the Majority World keeps listening. When the...