Textes de référence (en anglais)

Voici quelques éléments d'information qui peuvent être utiles à ceux qui participent à la Campagne de l'ITSN pour la 57^ème Commission des Droits de l'Homme de l'ONU.

Why should a Resolution be sponsored at UNCHR?

• because the situation in Tibet is getting worse, not better. There are many human rights concerns, and China is currently realising its policy of destroying the identity and culture of the Tibetan people, because China sees this as the only way to make the Tibetan problem go away (see DIIR report).
• because other policies (eg formal Dialogues and quiet diplomacy) are not delivering results, especially for sensitive issues like Tibet. The lack of progress through dialogue means that the use of other strategies is not only justified, but necessary.
• because Governments should not be "lazy", or allow themselves to be restricted to only one strategy, but should be using ALL measures at their disposal. Dialogue and pressure are not mutually exclusive and China responds to a position of strength.
• because the mechanisms of the UN are being devalued and undermined. China has flouted and abused these systems for many years, eg use of the no action motion, the failure to give the Special Repporteur on Torture the commitments he needs for his visit to proceed and the exclusion of the Dalai Lama from the UN-supported Spiritual Summit.
• because China is concerned about what happens in Geneva. Activity at the UN puts pressure on China to work hard, and can produce beneficial concessions, which are in the interests of human rights in China.
• The EU and her member states must not hide behind each other. (The EU blames the member states for lack of support, and the member states blame the EU for its common position)
• Because countries would benefit from a position of moral authority if they take a strong stand on human rights in China.
• There is political support for a resolution (eg Parliamentarian support, European Parliamentary Resolution, UK Foreign Affairs Committee for 2001)
• There is public support for a resolution (our supporters want it). 
• There has been 10 years of silence in the UN (apart from 1995!)
• There has been 50 years of inaction by the United Nations.

• Dialogue has so far failed to deliver progress, and the moderate position adopted at past Commissions by these countries/the EU has not been reciprocated with improvements in China. The dialogue has helped aspects of international relationships move forward, but human rights have gone backward. We can also say that China’s understanding about the role of Dialogue is different from the international community’s. The West sees the role of dialogue as a way to make the human rights problem go away. China sees its role as a way to make the international criticism problem go away!
• The threat by China to cancel Dialogue should not be given credence. Agreeing with this statement is handing China a victory on a plate. China MAY cancel Dialogue, but this is not guaranteed and is less likely if countries act together. Note that the USA sponsored a resolution in 1999, when it had a human rights dialogue, but China did not cancel the dialogue until after the Commisson (in May, when NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade). USA and China agreed to restart dialogue after only an 18 month break. Since dialogue is in any case an ineffective policy, this short break is nothing.
• The Swiss Government have studied dialogue and made some interesting findings (ask our Governments to request a copy of this study by the University of Bern). The Swiss have concluded that dialogue should not preclude other forms of action.
• China uses the desire of the EU/other countries to keep the dialogue as a way to keep the upper hand in its bilateral relationships. This is unhealthy.
• There is no substantive evidence that China carries out threats of punitive action to countries who are critical. See Anders Andersson’s report on what happened to Denmark in 1997 (see delegate pack). Ironically economic and diplomatic relations with China have, for some countries who have been critical in the past, IMPROVED – China has incentive to sweeten them in the future. Also point to our trade deficits with China. They need us more than we need them.
• There is no substantive evidence that co-operation projects would be cancelled.
• If our governments say a resolution is not needed and that China is making progress, and points to the signing by China of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU – see delegate pack) with High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, and the possible signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we need to point out that these are no substitute for a resolution. China took 2 years to sign the MOU and is likely to put major reservations on the ICESCR. China has yet to show it is willing to cooperate with all arms of the UN and enforce proper human rights protection.