This week, I attended my first ever Harper 'press availability,' and it reminded me of nothing so much as the hundreds of Chinese press conferences I’ve attended over the years. At lower levels of the Chinese government, such as the daily meeting with journalists at the Foreign Ministry, spokespersons never, ever, utter a single spontaneous, unscripted remark.
At the top, when the premier holds his one press conference per year, handpicked journalists have to submit their question in writing in advance. Harper’s news conferences are more frequent than his Chinese counterpart’s, but the underlying principle seems not so very different.
Journalists cluster together beforehand to decide on the fortunate few whose turn it will be to ask a question, and hold an informal editorial board to work out the wording of the questions. Only six questions are permitted, and no follow-ups are allowed, so every syllable has to count.
The horde of fawning bureaucrats and diplomats who accompany Harper line the walls of the room, to listen respectfully, but not to speak. If you ask them a question, they look guiltily around to see who might be in a position to overhear, and whisper that they will lose their jobs if they give anything but their name, rank and serial number. Only Harper is allowed to speak, exactly like any Chinese ganbu, or bureaucrat, whose subordinates live in mortal fear of his displeasure.
The ‘availability’ consists of six journalists putting their prepared questions in turn, each receiving a prepared answer which has been carefully redacted to give as little information as possible, paint as rosy a picture as possible, and claim as much credit as possible. All that’s missing is the ganbu’s signature Grecian Formula comb-over hairstyle.
When Chinese officials discuss their own wise and far-seeing policies, it’s customary to describe the Communist Party of China as “great, glorious, and always correct.”
It’s a phrase Harper might consider borrowing. Having spent a total of less than a week in China, including his first visit in 2009, he claimed on Wednesday to have developed new ways of dealing with his Chinese counterparts that have eluded his weak and foolish predecessors, to have negotiated an agreement on foreign investment promotion and protection which those same predecessors had tried and failed to negotiate for two decades, and to have wangled a couple of pandas where previous panda-seeking prime ministers had always been denied.
In fact, each of those great and glorious achievements was the result of long and patient work by diplomats since long before Harper moved into 24 Sussex Drive. Harper’s single achievement in this matter was to have listened, finally, to advice from those same diplomats who had been quietly saying since he took office, “Yes, Prime Minister, of course you’re always right, but we have found the Chinese to be more slightly more amenable if you don’t poke them in the eye with a stick.”
I’ve watched dozens of western leaders come to China since the post-Tiananmen freeze began to lift in the early-'90s, and none of them has come up with a truly satisfactory answer to the challenge of doing business with a one-party state which is resolutely impervious to persuasion on human rights. Harper has not done so either. In fact, his approach is directly out of the Liberal party playbook followed by Jean Chretien through all those epic “Team Canada” missions, which is to announce that you are going to raise human rights in meetings with Chinese leaders, and announce, after those meetings, that human rights were indeed raised, without giving any more details, explaining that ‘quiet diplomacy’ is the only way to handle this sensitive topic, and that progress is slowly being made.
The fact is, that in the two decades since visits were resumed after the Tiananmen massacre, China’s respect for human rights has diminished, and the situation is worsening by the day, with arbitrary arrests, disappearances, draconian sentences for expressing the slightest criticism, and lethal fire on demonstrators in Tibetan areas. The government, police and army pay not the slightest respect to China’s laws and constitution. The entire security apparatus is devoted to maintaining the party’s stranglehold monopoly on power, and protecting the vast wealth which officials and their families have amassed. And yet, no authority on China that I know of, and no democratically-minded Chinese that I have met argues that leaders and foreign businessmen should stay away. No matter how corrupt, greedy, and repressive China becomes, the only way forward appears to be engagement rather than isolation. But how to engage?
Last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel paid an interesting visit. She gave a speech at the Academy of Social Sciences, in which she laid out, publicly, Germany’s concerns on human rights. Her schedule included a visit to a progressive newspaper in Guangzhou, and a dinner to which Mo Shaoping, the brave lawyer who defended the imprisoned Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo, was invited. When the newspaper visit was cancelled by the Chinese government, and security agents prevented Mo from attending the dinner, the German delegation protested politely, firmly, and publicly. Despite an almost desperate need for Chinese help in dealing with the euro crisis, Merkel planned a schedule which drew attention to human rights, free speech and the rule of law. The sky did not fall.
Clearly, having grown up in East Germany, Merkel knows a thing or two about dealing this kind of country. The Chinese government’s response on the euro was positive.
Harper’s schedule of business roundtables, and visits to a temple and the zoo was by comparison, extremely deferential to China’s wishes.
In the Great Hall of the People, Harper told Premier Wen Jiabao that Canada and China enjoy “a strategic partnership based on respect and admiration.” Wen answered that Harper’s visits “opened a new page in our bilateral relationship,” which translated into English means, “We’re glad you finally got with the program.”
Then Harper said he would be raising human rights and consular issues. That’s when the journalists were ushered out of the room. It felt just like Ottawa.
Original Article
Source:
Author:
No comments:
Post a Comment