Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, for inviting Human Rights Watch to speak with you this morning as part of your evaluation of the China-Canada human rights dialogue.
Human Rights Watch is encouraged by Prime Minister Harper's increasing focus on human rights in China. As part of that attentiveness, we urge similar scrutiny of the human rights dialogue process.
Human Rights Watch believes the dialogue process as currently constituted has little if anything to recommend it. The problems include a shift of focus from year to year that precludes sustained attention to a finite number of serious, ongoing human rights abuses; open-ended discussion that lacks an agreed upon end goal, a timetable for achieving that goal, or a series of benchmarks to measure progress; a process divorced from either bilateral or multilateral diplomatic efforts; assignment of personnel with neither expertise related to the problems under discussion nor the political status to effectively lobby for change; and an almost complete lack of transparency as to either goals or progress.
We believe discussions of human rights violations should not be limited to a separate annual or semi-annual dialogue meeting, but should be part and parcel of regular diplomatic discourse and, should dialogue meetings continue, be but one initiative in an integrated, whole of government approach to China's problematic human rights record.
We also argue that dialogue must not be contingent on elimination of other approaches to problems, including public outspokenness and, where necessary, diplomatic confrontation. We do not agree with those who say it's better to talk than not to talk, particularly when talk is nothing but a substitute for action. To be even minimally useful, dialogues must establish end goals, benchmarks, and timetables.
Take, for example, elimination of so-called re-education through labour, a system of arbitrary detention designed to incarcerate, without benefit of any judicial oversight, those accused of minor crimes. China has stated that the aim of the system is to avoid the criminalization of those accused of certain infractions, but in reality, the system allows a re-education committee, the police, to detain people for up to three years.
An effective way of managing this within the dialogues could be—and please understand that this is an example—first, to map the categories of behaviours that make a suspect liable for re-education; second, produce a statistical snapshot by locale of the number of people sentenced in each category during a particular period; third, investigate by means of a random sample the precise reasons given by officials for why the non-criminal re-education procedure was applied in the sample cases; fourth, conduct a comparative survey of how other countries, including Canada, would deal with similar low-level infractions and in what circumstances penalties or sanctions can be imposed for offending behaviour that does not reach the level of a criminal defence; and, finally, agree on a timetable for completion of each of the foregoing phases, plus others, with the aim at the end of the phases to draft an agreed program for the progressive elimination of the re-education through labour system.
Each step requires extensive collaboration with Chinese counterparts, and should they fail to cooperate, Canada should consider suspending the dialogues.
In addition, other changes must take place to merit continuing the dialogues. They must first take up the most important issues, such as the death penalty, arbitrary detention, and torture. They should not move onto new issues until a resolution has been reached regarding the initial issue. They must be integrated with other aspects of rights promotion, such as Canadian funding for legal education programs and initiatives undertaken by the UN Human Rights Council. They must recognize that, given the complexity and persistence of each issue under discussion, it would be more effective to get the right people--experts and senior political personnel--involved from the outset and ensure they remain engaged with the issue as long as possible. Finally, plan for an ongoing monitoring process once a structured program for change is in place and for a finite time after end goals are achieved.
We urge that the Canadian government make it absolutely clear that should Canada refuse to cooperate in revamping the dialogue process within a reasonable length of time, such as six to twelve months, Canada will refuse further dialogue participation. Such revisions to Canada's bilateral dialogue should be combined with Canada's efforts at the multinational level. We urge Canada to work with other Berne process countries to come up with a group of key objectives and coordinate efforts to set up the necessary benchmarks, timetables, and monitoring mechanisms. We also urge Canada to advance dialogue goals to its membership on the UN Human Rights Council, for example, when China comes up for peer review. Incidentally, the Berne process starts in Berne tomorrow.
Human Rights Watch also believes that Canada must thoroughly review the goals and methods involved in the exchange of prisoner lists, an exercise that is now effectively meaningless. At one time, when avenues for information about prisoners were much more limited, responses from Chinese officials occasionally proved valuable. Today, the information supplied generally adds nothing to what is already known. Furthermore, because the requests for information do not challenge whether the individual should have been imprisoned in the first place, such requests may be construed by Chinese officials as legitimizing political sentencing and giving credit for reductions.
To determine whether the lists are effective, and therefore whether the practice should continue, the Canadian government should review the names submitted and responses received from the Chinese government since the dialogues began; compare the responses received against what was already known and against actions taken as a result of the repressed; measure results obtained through list submissions against results achieved through other means; and chart the results of the analysis over an extended timeframe.
To the best of our knowledge, most countries that engage China on the issue of political and religious prisoners undertake intense private diplomacy aimed at achieving releases. While we belive that it is a better approach than pro forma requests for information and expressions of concern about a prisoner's health, we remain concerned about the lack of public discussions and that this lack weakens leverage in pressing for change.
Thank you for providing Human Rights Watch with a formal opportunity to make our concerns known about the dialogue process. Please call on us if we can assist further.
Thank you.