Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

222
Beijing became interested in this prolonged exchange as it saw this as an
alternative to a critical resolution in the Commission on Human Rights. The
Chinese have made clear that they may terminate the dialogue if the EU
sponsored such a resolution – and the EU countries in the Commission
have not opted for sponsorship for several years now. When Denmark once
did, Beijing threatened, in strikingly rude language, to terminate business
contracts. 4
The jury is still out on the wisdom of the EU dialogue with China. No
doubt it has had some positive effects; it probably has helped the Chinese
administration to focus on some reforms in the judicial system and to
push for ratification of some international standards, notably the Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Likewise, it has had some
informative value for the EU partners. The side discussions on individual
cases of prisoners have provided at least some factual information of relevance.
The downside has been the impression that the dialogue itself is a
‘deal’ and that EU has paid a price of inaction at UN level. Several nongovernmental
groups have been critical towards this which in turn has made
the EU foreign ministers anxious to show that the dialogue has indeed
produced result. They have therefore defined bench marks for Chinese
progress on key issues, which the Beijing delegation has seen as unwarranted
dictating and ‘conditionality’.
It has been obvious that the time perspective has differed between the
two parties. While the Europeans requested fairly rapid progress, the Chinese
pointed out that established procedures could not be shortcut. In particular,
they emphasized that the People’s Congress, the parliament, needed
time to scrutinize government proposals. The implication was that the EU
delegations demonstrated insufficient respect for the independence and
working practices of the parliamentary body. EU representatives saw these
arguments as less than genuine.
I took part in the EU-China dialogue at two meetings 2000–2001 and
concluded afterwards that these meetings could be meaningful if they were
taken seriously by both sides. The constant rotation of EU delegates is problematic,
the competence among the EU negotiators has varied and there is
an obvious lack of continuity. Also, a strange feeling developed that EU was
more dependent or keen on the dialogue than the Chinese, which contributed
to the cautious approach by the EU in the Commission on Human
Rights. The interest in some EU countries of entering the Chinese business
market amplified that impression.
4 In reality, the Chinese “sanctions” against Denmark were minimal and short term.