Different strokes for different folks

The rise of China is one of the major themes at the World Economic Forum in Davos this year, writes Irene Khan, the secretary-general of Amnesty International. At the opening ceremony, Zeng Peiyan, the Chinese vice-premier, received top billing, along with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor. But while Chancellor Merkel faced a panel of business leaders to answer probing questions, Mr Zeng was allowed to get off with no questions asked.

At Davos and beyond, there is one set of rules for China, and another for the rest of the world. True to that pattern, earlier this week Google caved in to China, joining Microsoft and Yahoo. While Google has put in some safeguards to protect its consumers, it has reinforced the trend in the IT industry of kowtowing to Chinese demands of censorship. Last year, Yahoo provided the Chinese with details leading to the arrest and sentencing of a journalist; Microsoft has barred a blog critical of the Government and launched a portal blocking the use of words such as “freedom” and “democracy”. Now Google has weeded out websites that China does not like.

At a dinner here on Wednesday night about business and human rights (which was attended, unsurprising, by only a minority of business leaders, and a majority of NGOs!), the discussion returned to Google and China. While acknowledging that Google has taken some steps to be transparent about self-censorship, I said that it is being short-sighted and has gone against the core values of the IT industry to promote access to information. As I see business leaders defer to the Chinese government’s restrictive policies, I remember Chris Patten’s strategy: don’t give in, stare them down. Treat China like you would treat any other country, and the Chinese will then respect you more.

I later participated in another Davos event about China and its emerging civil society. Of the expected 40 or so participants, only 13 turned up, among them only two business people, the rest being media persons, academics and activists like myself. A Chinese editor who was to have been a key speaker did not come, claming another more important engagement. We discussed the accepted wisdom that as the world increases its economic engagement with China, the economy will grow, enlarging the middle class who in turn will encourage democracy and respect for human rights. An academic who speaks Chinese and knows China well disagreed. Look around, he told us: democracy follows repression, not economic growth. The urban middle class in China is comfortable with economic growth; the current unrest is among the rural underclass. There are now nearly 300 disturbances a day in the world’s most populous country.

I pointed out how difficult it is for independent civil society to emerge in China. Chinese civil society is not an abstract concept. It is about brave individuals who risk being shut down, detained, harassed, prosecuted and thrown into re-education labour, who pay a heavy price to exercise their right to expression and information. Where do they fit in the cost-benefit analysis of Western firms that do business in China?

This is not to say that there is no civil society allowed to operate in China. The government is encouraging NGOs – but only to the extent that they are compliant and under control. Can China sustain economic growth without political reform that allows respect for human rights?

Later that night, as I left for my hotel, a CEO who runs a “reputation management” company with an office in China told me that Western technology companies could have faced off the threat of censorship if they had taken a united stand on China.

China cares about its image internationally: face is important. Let’s engage with China, not on its restrictive terms, but on the basis of international principles of the rule of law and human rights. That’s what we would expect of any other country. What’s so special about China?

--Irene Khan
Secretary-General, Amnesty International

Read Irene's blog on The Times Online