Appeal from Amnesty International to the Australian Government
(Clearwisdom.net) Mr. John Greenwell, from Amnesty International Australia,
delivered a strong speech to the Falun Dafa Hearing at the National Press Club
in Canberra, Australia, August 12, 2002. The Hearing was held to coincide with
the 6th Annual Bilateral China-Australia Human Rights Dialogue being held in
Canberra this week (August 12 to 16). The speech closes with the following
appeal: "Amnesty International Australia calls upon the government at the
talks this week to do something about this ineffectual dialogue process and
declare to the Chinese delegation that unless persecution of Falun Gong ceases
it is apparent the bilateral dialogue policy lacks reality and should be
abandoned." Full text of the speech follows: Amnesty International Australia is pleased to join with Falun Gong on this
occasion. What we have witnessed over the past 3 years is not some sporadic outburst of
brutality by an irritated and authoritarian government, but organized and
systematic repression designed to destroy once and for all non-conforming
belief. In all, some 50,000 practitioners have been detained in detention
centers, prisons or Labor Camps. The persecution of practitioners in such Labor
Camps as Masanjia, Wanjia and more recently in Changchun City has been horrific. Now a striking feature of the persecution over this lengthy period has been
the absence of a collective and public condemnation by those countries,
including Australia, which proclaim the universality of international human
rights. In April this year Amnesty International Australia asked the government to
approach like-minded countries to join with Australia in a public condemnation
of the treatment of the Falun Gong. That request was rejected. My brief comments
this morning examine that response. But first let it be noted there is no question about the facts. The
Australian Government accepts that the Falun Gong has been repressed and that
China has committed very serious human rights violations. Since 1997 the Australian Government, and other governments, have engaged in
annual bilateral dialogues with China on human rights. Another is to be held
here this week. What of the situation of the Falun Gong in the context of these dialogues? The first thing to note is that these are secret. No report upon them is made
to Parliament. No questions may be asked in the Parliament about what took place
or, at least, if asked, need be answered. No disclosure at all is made except to
selected NGO's who are bound by confidentiality. Neither Parliament nor public
is aware what the Australian delegation will say about the persecution of the
Falun Gong or what the Chinese delegation will say in reply; whether in the past
the Chinese have given any assurances to mitigate the persecution or whether, on
the other hand, they have refused to do so. It may be, though neither public nor
Parliament is aware, that the Chinese delegation will strongly defend the use of
torture against the Falun Gong and maintain China's intention to continue using
it. Certainly the three dialogues since July 1999 have not led to the slightest
change. It may be, in the face of all the evidence, that the Chinese delegation
has denied and will deny that persecution and torture is taking place. Neither you nor the Australian public generally will know. It may be said that notwithstanding the lack of accountability, international
and national, and the ignorance of what goes on, we should nonetheless trust the
dialogue process. In considering this we must look at its results. The Minister, speaking of the dialogue process, has himself said that of
course we must get results. His own response to this is less than encouraging. He referred to the worthy
Human Rights Technical Assistance Program. But to talk of seminars, training
courses and the erection of primary schools in the context of torture, deaths in
custody, strike hard campaigns, prohibition of political dissent and religious
freedom or denial of the claims of minorities, is ludicrously inappropriate. What have we witnessed since the inception of the dialogue process? The
unrelieved persecution of Falun Gong; the destruction in 1998 and 1999 of
political dissent. The China Democracy Party, which sought to express dissent
peacefully, is proscribed and its leaders imprisoned. Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, Qin
Yongmin, She Wanbao are all locked up for terms rather longer than a gang rapist
would receive in this country. But let us go further afield to the deaths in
custody, the death penalty, the procedural abuses of the strike hard campaigns,
the treatment of minorities -- the nuns in Drapchi prison or the Uighurs in
Xinjiang -- the protestants or Catholics, --- in whatever area the situation is
no better and is in some respects worse since the secret bilateral dialogue
began 5 years ago. Only the release of the occasional high profile prisoner -- a Wei Jing Sheng,
a Wang Dan or a Ngawang Choephel timed to coincide with Presidential visit. But it is said that outside the dialogue, representations are made at
ministerial or diplomatic levels on behalf of Falun Gong. We cannot of course
know what has been said. As a matter of literal accuracy Amnesty does not
question such representations that have been made. But it is not consonant with
commonsense to suppose that a diplomat will, with the slightest degree of
firmness, be exhorting his Chinese counterpart about Falun Gong one day and
discussing an economically important trade negotiation the next. The two things
are incompatible. Lady Thatcher, who knew a thing or two about this, recently wrote that 'some
western leaders adopt a relaxed demeanor in private discussion with the Chinese
leadership, making no more than a few mild admonitions about Chinese abuses.
Then they tell the outside world that they behaved like lions'. The Minister in discussion with his Chinese counterpart may have been a lion
regarding Falun Gong. We do not know. Perhaps though one would not have expected
a lion to have issued certificates under the Vienna Treaties Convention
restricting Falun Gong's protests on the occasion of the visit of the Chinese
Minister for Foreign Affairs. I mentioned that there was no international accountability. It is of the
essence of this policy that there should be no collective discussion of these
issues in international forums. It is important for China that the issues be
discussed severally when maximum economic leverage may be deployed and it comes
down rather heavily on any nation transgressing this imperative. Chris Patten
recounts what happened to Denmark when it sought to raise the matter in the
Commission on Human Rights. Contracts were cancelled. Both Denmark and the
Netherlands were in Patten's words scolded and sent to the doghouse. Sweden has
been similarly treated and Canada threatened with the loss of power station
projects. None of this will surprise Falun Gong practitioners who recently
witnessed the pressures put upon the government of Iceland by the Chinese
government in connection with a Falun Gong gathering. There have been some defensive comments made by the Minister about this. He
says that it is no use shouting at the Chinese all the time. That is not the
proposition. Indeed the proposition rejected is the converse of that. It is the
assertion that the human rights violations of the Chinese should never be
raised publicly which is in question and which is rejected. Let me then sum up the position in this way. If you were a dictator and an inveterate human rights abuser and you had to
devise the most effective system to enable you to perpetuate your human rights
abuses, I suggest you could hardly do better than: Amnesty International Australia calls upon the government at the talks this
week to do something about this ineffectual dialogue process and declare to the
Chinese delegation that unless persecution of Falun Gong ceases it is apparent
the bilateral dialogue policy lacks reality and should be abandoned.
Yearly Archive
Printer Version
feedback@clearwisdom.net