The Australian government has taken the extraordinary step of inviting Chinese President Xi Jinping to address Parliament on November 17, presumably to help nudge forward the two countries' pending free trade agreement.
No consideration seems to have been given to the fact that, unlike the other heads of state accorded that privilege and unlike the members of parliament themselves - Xi has never bothered to submit to popular election. What's more, Xi has shown his hostility toward democratic rights with the largest crackdown on dissenting voices in China for decades.
Under Xi, China remains a one-party state. It has no free media, heavily censors the Internet, controls the judicial system to serve Communist Party demands, does little to address endemic torture, and presides over gross abuses in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Xi's leadership has actually shrunk the already-limited space for debate and popular participation in politics. In the past year, the domestically popular anti-corruption campaign has targeted "tigers and flies," as he has called the high-level and lower-level officials, but has also decimated popular efforts to help tame state corruption. Xu Zhiyong, a crusading lawyer, and other members of the New Citizens Movement, a group devoted to promoting civic values, had the temerity to suggest that officials should publicly disclose their assets. In January he was sentenced to four years in prison for “disturbing public order.”
Those who explicitly discuss democracy and the right to political participation have fared equally badly. The 82-year-old writer and democracy activist Tie Lu was detained in September for "provoking troubles," a gesture apparently designed to send a message to others trying to publish critical views. More than 70 people in mainland China have been detained for expressing support for pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong.
Chinese authorities don't just deny the rights of citizens. Australians, including a businessman, Stern Hu, have been on the receiving end of charges of violating state secrets. Gao Jian, an artist, was detained in late May, allegedly for creating art that commemorated the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. The international business community in China increasingly complains about being subjected to the same thuggish tactics activists have long endured. The EU Chamber of Commerce recently felt a need to hold a seminar on how employees should act in the event their offices are raided at dawn by police with no warrants. And these problems do not remain within China's borders. In recent months concerns about Chinese government surveillance of certain communities and threats to academic freedom have cropped up in Australia.
Australia has for the most part kept silent on these developments despite its claims to promote universal values and despite the unusual bilateral ballast of a strong two-way trade. Canberra maintains a flaccid human rights dialogue with China, which seems little more than a diversionary tactic to enable Australian and Chinese leaders to avoid uncomfortable discussions on human rights on state visits or other high-level interactions. Australian cabinet members and parliamentary leaders visiting China rarely bother expressing concern about the ill-treatment of individuals or lack of reform in key areas that are essential to China becoming a functional, predictable partner. Some Australian politicians and diplomats condescendingly insist that others must respect China's "different" political system. They would not tolerate such a system for themselves, yet have no trouble consigning their counterparts in China to it.
But giving the parliamentary stage to Xi Jinping is a bridge too far. Why give to someone who will not submit to popular scrutiny at home such an opportunity abroad?
It's true that China is Australia's biggest trade partner. But speaking before parliament is an honor, not to be rolled out as a cheap stunt for economic gain. The Australian government should consider how those in China struggling to exercise their political rights must perceive this invitation: that Australia is willing to sell them out for greed and a free-trade agreement. Moreover, this gesture will not lead to a reciprocal invitation, so it is likely to yield little meaningful gain in the relationship.
The only way to prevent this occasion from becoming a national and international embarrassment is for members of parliament to insist that they be allowed to put questions to Xi, and to ask what people in China are regularly imprisoned for raising: why does your government continue to detain the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo and his wife, Liu Xia? Why should a country with a strong respect for the freedom of association sign a trade deal with a country that allows the existence of precisely one state-controlled union? Why is peaceful criticism by lawyers, academics, journalists, and others about state policy treated as a threat? And when will you and the Chinese Communist Party finally begin to respect one of the most basic human rights, and therefore earn the platform you are enjoying today: the right to run for office and vote in genuine elections?
Sophie Richardson is the China director at Human Rights Watch.
