A delegation of Liberal International visited the People’s Republic of China, led by Liberal International Deputy President Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck MEP. The delegation visited Beijing, Lanzhou and Shanghai, between 2 and 9 March 1997.

The Liberal International delegation came to China at the invitation of the Chinese Association for International Understanding (CAFIU), and also met with high level representatives of the National People’s Congress (NPC, which commenced it’s annual session that week), the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and the Communist Party of China (CPC), as well as local and specialised officials. In the visits to different cities the delegates observed the diversity of developments in China.

The discussions during the visit concentrated on Chinese reforms in economy, law and democracy, workings of government, development of public policy, political accountability, balance of power, the role and function of elections, on human rights, and on future relations of mainland China with Taiwan and with Hong Kong and Macao, as well as the situation in Tibet.

This delegation visit was the first official visit of Liberal International to China, and indeed the first official visit of any Political International Organisation to that country. The initiative for the visit was taken by the CAFIU.

Particularly in recent years the Liberal International has taken a critical view of developments in China, especially as regards the Human Rights situation and the situation in Hong Kong and in Tibet. The Prize for Freedom 1996 was awarded to the democracy activist in Hong Kong, Martin Lee. The Liberal International has a party with observer status in Taiwan, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Liberals in the European Parliament and elsewhere have taken numerous initiatives critical of policies of the Chinese government.

Chinese embassies and the CAFIU were well aware of all this, and the Bureau found it therefore of significance that an invitation was extended. The Liberal International has a lot to discuss with the Chinese, and the Bureau welcomed this opportunity to start a dialogue both on issues of agreement and of disagreement. The Bureau also took into account the significant economic reforms that have taken place in China in the past decade, as well as the fact that for many Western governments the economic position of China is an important factor in their decision making regarding relations with China. Another important aim was also to get a direct impression on how the Chinese discussion partners would discuss with us and how they would explain the events and developments in China, and to get a first hand feel for the political realities of China.

The delegation did not set out to find agreement with the Chinese partners on all outstanding issues. The main purpose was to assess whether a basis exists to establish and continue a dialogue with Chinese organisations and officials. The discussions during the visit were characterised by their directness and openness, and the delegates believed that this and the cordial reception of the delegation, offer a basis for further, much more detailed conversations in the future.

This report will briefly deal with some of the issues discussed during the visit:

Economic reform: Three members of the delegation had previously been in China, and they were all impressed with the extent of the economic progress that had been made. This is visible in Shanghai, and also in Beijing. In some areas in the periphery, such as Lanzhou poverty continues to be a problem and the pace of economic reform is significantly slower. The diverse economic development in this vast country is in part the product of a conscious policy of trial and error by experimenting with different types of reforms in different regions. Undoubtedly, the political direction is one of continued economic reform and continued openness of the Chinese economy. Some of our discussion partners considered that this will have to go hand in hand with political reform. (In fact, they were able to point at words of the late Deng Xiao Ping to underline this position.) China is now also confronted with the down side of market economic reform, such as increase of differences of income and urban poverty. This leads to a political debate in which two sides emerge; one that insists on radical economic reform towards market economy and another that insists on social measures and therefore slower economic reform. The principle of reform however does not appear to be contested. On several occasions the Chinese reiterated their desire to enter the World Trade Organisation.

Legal reform: In the past two years significant developments have taken place in the Chinese legal system. The main changes are a strengthening of the position of suspects including the principle that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty, as well as a strengthening of the position of lawyers. The NPC, which is the Chinese equivalent of a Parliament, discusses measures to decrease the number of offences which are punishable by capital punishment, as well as the elimination on the statutes of “counter-revolution” which will be replaced by the crime of “jeopardising state security”. This last change will reduce the number of crimes punishable as crimes against the state. While the number of crimes punishable is reduced it is not clear if not those remaining to be punishable (or those added) can be punished more severely. Among those crimes added are partly crimes that are also punished in most democratic counties, such as corruption and economic crimes. The delegates found that the positive element is that more clarity is created and that more laws (articles) are introduced as a clearer law limits some possibilities for political misinterpretation or misuse. However, as Human Rights Watch-Asia and Human Rights in China have pointed out this will not necessarily lead to a fundamental easing of restrictions on expression or association and the “splitting of the motherland” or “conspiracy to overthrow the government” will remain punishable under this law. Until a narrow definition of legitimate national security interests has been made, such as those protecting “the country’s existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the threat or use of force” (Johannesburg principals, article 2-a) there is still ample reason for concern. The general trend however is in the positive direction, and the delegation found interest and openness on the side of our Chinese partners in discussing the pros and cons of different approaches. These debates are crucial, since the existence of a State of Law in China is at best embryonic, and this is fundamental to the further development of democracy and Human Rights in the country.

Democratic reform: The most significant and encouraging discussions of the delegation in all three cities took place on the issue of democratic reform. On lower levels such as village and county in many places there is now an established system of direct elections, in which non-party members are also elected. Most of our discussion partners expect this system to expand gradually to higher levels of government, including the NPC. Both within the NPC and the CPC there is a trend towards more elections in which there are more candidates than positions. Within the government there is now a maximum term of 10 years, making a change of individuals in the government part of its system. The CPC is still the main determining factor in Chinese politics, however it has given up it’s absolute monopoly on Chinese politics by allowing the eight “democratic parties” (which resemble the former block parties in Central and Eastern Europe, where these parties used to represent specific groups of society) to participate in the government. As the “democratic parties” have the same aims as the CPC this is not likely to lead to a change of policy. However, seen as part of a trend it is not without significance. Mr Wu Jieping, the leading NPC member with whom the delegation met, was a member not of the CPC but of one of the Democratic Parties. In their conversations the delegates found a fascination and genuine interest on the part of Chinese politicians in the workings of democratic government, coalition governments and how they function, political accountability, the role and function of elections, the alternation between government and opposition and the role of political parties. China is not a democracy but there are some positive developments; our Chinese partners mention a timeframe of 50 years after which China would be a democracy.

Human Rights: As a signatory of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, China can be held accountable internationally for the protection of human rights. There are signs that in specific cases there is a willingness to respect other human rights protocols which it has not signed (for example in Hong Kong, which is a signatory to additional UN protocols). However when confronted with facts and figures on Human Rights violations as researched by organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the Chinese are very sensitive to what they describe as interference in internal affairs. This rigid and even dogmatic position did not allow for much else than an exchange of well known positions. On top of that there is a strong pre-occupation with the maintenance of political stability, and a fear of chaos. This appears to be in part a sincere notion, but is also used to hinder democratic initiatives that do not fit into the official concept of democratisation., and thus stifles attempts for democratic renewal. Possibly in the context of discussion on legal reforms a more useful dialogue can be established.

Taiwan: The Chinese repeated their position that they look for a “one country, two systems” situation, in which Taiwan would return to the “motherland”, and would maintain a high degree of autonomy and would also maintain and further develop its democratic system. Until then China would not block Taiwanese participation in international institutions, including the WTO, as long as this would not imply international recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign state. At the same time there was fierce criticism of our affiliated party the DPP for taking a position in favour of permanent separation of Taiwan and China. The delegation and the Chinese partners disagreed over the right of self determination for the people of Taiwan.

Hong Kong: The Chinese see the development of Hong Kong in the short term purely in terms of their agreements with the British government, and they wish to stick to their agreement on the development of democracy. They see the recent democratic changes, initiated by Governor Patten as an ambush and as contrary to earlier agreements in particular with former Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd. The Chinese sensitivities towards the position of the British government and their sense that the British wish to leave the Chinese a legacy of “chaos”, can be understood on historical grounds, however the LI delegation argued that democratic rights once given should not be withdrawn and in any case the positions taken by the British government are much less interesting than the interests of the people of Hong Kong themselves. There was heavy criticism on the part of the Chinese of the role played by Martin Lee, to the point were he was accused of violating the Basic Law. If this is indeed the position that will be taken by the incoming Chinese government of Hong Kong, this could have serious consequences for Martin Lee and other democrats.

Annemie Neyts seized the opportunity to contradict Mr C.W. Tung’s allegations in the international press accusing Martin Lee of painting a negative picture of Hong Kong and calling for a stop of foreign investment. She testified that Martin Lee had done no such thing, not in the European Parliament, nor during private meetings like the one she had with him.

Tibet: On this issue there was no discernible movement on the Chinese side. Tibet is a province of China and that is what it will remain. The events during the cultural revolution in Tibet were condemned. The CAFIU invited Liberal International to include Tibet in the itinerary of a future visit.

Conclusions:

The delegation recommends that Liberal International continues an exchange with the CAFIU. In the field of legal and democratic reform there are issues of mutual interest. It  could be interesting and possibly also useful to discuss these further. The same is true in the area of economic and related social reform, and there is an interest from the Chinese side to learn more about our views on these issues. On issues such as human rights, in the context of general dialogue and the concern of Liberal International over what will happen in China, Hong Kong and Tibet and other parts of China, the delegation believes that the opportunity of having a direct channel of communications to the Chinese authorities should not go wasted.

One suggestion could be for a CAFIU delegation to visit Europe later this year (including the European Parliament and the International Federation of Liberal & Radical Youth). The CAFIU is also keen to develop exchanges with individual member parties of Liberal International, and the LI office in London would be able to establish contacts of interested parties with the CAFIU. These exchanges will have to take place on a reciprocal basis.

The exchanges should in due course also have a thematical element, such as an emphasis on democratic, legal or economic and social reform.

The Liberal International could send another international delegation to China, however in view of the programme in 1997 it is unlikely that this will be possible before the Spring of 1998.

The members of the delegation apart from Annemie Neyts, were Julius Maaten (LI Secretary General), Martina Gredler, MP (Member of the LI Bureau), Jesse Flis, MP (Liberal Party of Canada), Imke Roebken (President of the International Federation of Liberal & Radical Youth and Vice-president of Liberal International), Uwe Johannen (Regional representative of the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung for East and South East Asia) and Anita Dumfahrt (Assistant of Martina Gredler, Austria).