Just embarrassing

John Key is in China at the moment, and while over there, he's taken the opportunity to apologise for Russel Norman protesting about Tibet:

Mr Key said he mentioned the topic later in the meeting and while he did not apologise for New Zealanders' right to protest, he expressed regret that Mr Xi was not able to enter the building unimpeded.

This is just embarrassing. We should not be apologising for having human rights. We certainly shouldn't be apologising to dictators for holding them to account on their shitty human rights record. But for Key, everything comes second to trade - even our freedom of speech.

No freedom of speech in Nepal

Today, Tibetan women demonstrated peacefully in Kathmandu, calling for a free and independent Tibet.

They were arrested. Over 500 of them are now in a government detention centre, simply for peacefully expessing their views.

This is an outrageous denial of freedom of speech, from a government which should know better. In case they've forgotten, they are only in power today because so many Nepalese took to the streets to defend the right to speak out against their absolute monarch. But like their (almost former) king, the Nepalese government claims the right to jail any who disagree with it. I guess nothing has changed there after all.

Hilarious

'Free Tibet' flags made in China:

Police in southern China have discovered a factory manufacturing Free Tibet flags, media reports say.

The factory in Guangdong had been completing overseas orders for the flag of the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Workers said they thought they were just making colourful flags and did not realise their meaning.

But then some of them saw TV images of protesters holding the emblem and they alerted the authorities, according to Hong Kong's Ming Pao newspaper.

Ah, the joys of globalisation...

Protest for a free Tibet tomorrow

The Friends of Tibet and the Tibetan Solidarity Network will be holding a public rally for peace and autonomy for Tibet tomorrow in Wellington.

When: 12 noon, Saturday, April 5
Where: Frank Kitts Park, Wellington

Speakers will include MP's Keith Locke and Peter Dunne, Friends of Tibet speakers, and members of the Buddhist community.

China exports oppression

The Olympic torch made it to Athens today to be officially handed over to China. There were the expected protests, and the expected arrests - which is fair enough when people charge a police cordon and try to block a road. But reading the media reports, the Greek police seem to have gone well beyond what was necessary to allow the event to proceed. According to BBC,

Police had warned they would confiscate all banners, signs or objects that might be thrown.

While the New York Times reported that

[E]ven before the hand-over began, three supporters of the Falun Gong spiritual movement were detained outside the sprawling all-marble Panathinaiko Stadium for distributing leaflets on the movement, which is outlawed in China.

“They continue to remain in police custody and we have been given no reason by the authorities for their arrest,” the Falun Gong supporters’ lawyer, Ignatios Tatoulis, said.

The latter in particular is simply outrageous. Greece is a modern democracy, a member of the European Union, and a party to various human rights instruments (including the UDHR, ICCPR and ECHR) which affirm the right to freedom of speech. And they're arresting people for quietly handing out leaflets?

It sounds as if rather than aiming to ensure the event goes ahead safely while protecting the rights of all their citizens, the Greek authorities are primarily interested in protecting China's image. And rather than ensuring China improves its human rights under the glare of global scrutiny (as originally advertised), the oppression Olympics are instead exporting Chinese oppression around the world.

Drowning out protest

The moment the Olympic torch-lighting ceremony was upstaged by protest, it became clear that wherever the torch went, it would face protestors aiming to highlight the Chinese regime's abuse of human rights. This threatens to undermine China's propaganda exercise, so they've organised a response. When the torch visits London next week, they will have thousands of Chinese students lining the route to drown out any hint of dissent.

It certainly shows the lie behind those claiming that politicians boycotting the opening ceremony will make no difference. Neither, supposedly, will a few people waving a flag. But China is so image conscious that they will massively overreact to that possibility. Which just shows how important it is to keep up the pressure and deny them the happy propaganda images they are seeking.

The boycott is on

Since China's crackdown in Tibet, pressure has come on governments and leaders around the world to show their disapproval by refusing to attend the "oppression Olympics". Now that pressure has borne fruit, with a number of European leaders refusing to attend the opening ceremony:

Donald Tusk, Poland's prime minister, became the first EU head of government to announce a boycott on Thursday and he was promptly joined by President Václav Klaus of the Czech Republic, who had previously promised to travel to Beijing.

"The presence of politicians at the inauguration of the Olympics seems inappropriate," Tusk said. "I do not intend to take part."

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany's foreign minister, confirmed that [German Prime Minister Angela] Merkel was staying away. He added that neither he nor Wolfgang Schäuble, the interior minister responsible for sport, would attend the opening ceremony.

It's a small gesture, but a significant one, which hits the Chinese where it hurts: by denying them the prestige they hope to gain by hosting the games. And with Merkel out, the pressure is now on other major European leaders such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown to follow suit.

As for New Zealand, I doubt Helen Clark will follow. She's already demonstrated that she's willing to walk over Tibetan corpses to get her free trade deal; after that, boycotting the opening ceremony would simply seem hypocritical.

A politician with ethics

Next month, Helen Clark will be flying to Beijing to sign a preferential free trade agreement with the Chinese regime. Several other MPs are supposed to accompany her, but there's a fly in her ointment: United Future leader Peter Dunne is refusing to go in protest at China's bloody crackdown in Tibet. It's good to see that someone in Parliament (a Minister, even) has a backbone over this.

Meanwhile, what I want to know is who else has been invited - and whether they will also refuse to go, or whether they are willing to cuddle up to a regime which imprisons dissidents, denies freedom of speech, and murders protesters in the streets?

Demand action on Tibet

Avaaz, the global civic activism group, has an online petititon calling on the Chinese government to show respect for human rights in its actions in Tibet, and to open a meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama. It reached its initial target of a million signatures in a week, and they're trying to boost it to 2 milion in the next for days. You can sign it here.

Why we should boycott Beijing

Writing on Slate, Anne Applebaum presents a compelling argument that the west should boycott Beijing. As she points out, sporting boycotts have been effective in the past (particularly against South Africa) and there is a long history of politics at the Olympics (Mexico City, anyone?). But more importantly, she points out the truth that everyone wants to deny: that the Beijing Olympics are not just about sport. Like the 1936 Berlin Olympics, they are being hosted as a giant act of political propaganda, with the aim of improving China's standing on the world stage, and announcing its arrival as a global superpower. And every national team which attends, every athlete which competes there, is helping that purpose.

What the west needs to make clear is that countries which deny political freedom and murder their own citizens will never be accepted as members of the international community, no matter how rich and powerful they are. If China wants that status, if it wants respect as well as fear, it will need to clean up its act. Sadly, our politicians are likely to be too spineless to make that argument - so we will have to do it for them.

Worth a thousand words

Mike Moreu once again demonstrates that a picture is worth a thousand words:

Meanwhile, a group of 15 monks who were disappeared after parading peacefully through the streets of Lhasa carrying the Tibetan flag are still missing. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which New Zealand is a party, this sort of forced disappearance is a crime against humanity - so this is very clearly something Helen Clark should be raising with the Chinese authorities. But somehow, I don't think she will.

China to India: thankyou for your oppression

The world's largest dictatorship is thanking the world's largest democracy for suppressing pro-Tibet protests:

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has said he "appreciated" the steps taken by Indian authorities in handling protests by Tibetan refugees in the country.

More than 100 refugees were detained in India while attempting to march to the Chinese border last week.

[...]

India has not allowed large-scale public protests for fear of embarrassing Beijing.

I wonder if Helen Clark will be receiving a similar thankyou for her efforts to whitewash the issue?

Meanwhile, Chinese human rights activist Hu Jia has gone on trial in Beijing. His crime? Passing information on Chinese human rights abuses and environmental problems to the media. In New Zealand, that's an essential part of the democratic process. In China, they call it "inciting subversion of state power and the socialist system", and stick you in jail for five years. But again, you won't be hearing any complaints about this from Helen Clark - she has a trade deal to think of.

How many people does China have to kill?

The Chinese regime's crackdown in Tibet and our government's lacklustre response has raised an important question: where do we set the line on human rights and free trade? How many people does a regime have to kill or torture or force to work in sweatshops before we decide that we will do no favours for them and we do not want their tainted money? The Greens' Keith Locke will be trying to get an answer on the government's moral limits in Question Time today:

3. KEITH LOCKE to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What human rights abuses, if any, would lead him to advise the Prime Minister to reconsider the April signing of a preferential trade agreement with China?

Unfortunately, I don't expect any real answer. Instead, I expect Locke will be showered with abuse for daring to ask such an uncomfortable question. Which in itself will speak volumes about the immorality of the government's position.

Update: As predicted, evasion and abuse. Our government seems to have no moral limit in trade policy at all. "Fuck the morals, does it make any money" seems to be the name of the game.

National vigil for Tibet

It seems that tonight's vigil for Tibet at parliament isn't the only one. Amnesty International and other groups have also organised vigils in Auckland, Christchurch, and Dunedin. Here's the details.

Auckland: 17:30, Aotea Square
Christchurch: 17:00 Cathedral Square
Dunedin: Dunedin: Union Lawn, Otago University, 12:30
Wellington: Parliament, 17:30.

Please show your support for human rights and the Tibetian people.

More mealy-mouthed bullshit on China

Today, the government put up a motion at the beginning of Question Time on the situation in Tibet. Unfortunately, as with their previous responses, it's more mealy-mouthed bullshit:

I move that this House express its deep concern at reports of violence and riots in Tibet and subsequently elsewhere in China; call on all sides to show restraint; express its strong support for the right of people to protest peacefully; urge the Chinese authorities to react carefully and proportionately to protest; and urge China to engage in meaningful dialogue with representatives of the Tibetan people in order to achieve a lasting resolution of problems in Tibet.

A government which truly supported human rights would condemn, rather than merely "express concern", and would aim that condemnation clearly at the Chinese regime, rather than seeking to blame their victims. But its already abundently clear that our government has been bought,and that their eyes are firmly fixed on the FTA, and bugger how many protestors the Chinese shoot or run over with tanks.

During the subsequent debate, several parties expressed a desire for a stronger motion. Judy Turner's speech is a fantastic read, not just for the rhetoric, but also for what it reveals about NZ's "response". Apparently, our government hasn't even summoned the Chinese Ambassador to express its disappointment or "concern" directly. They're so scared of upsetting the Chinese that they can't even do that.

I'm utterly disgusted by Labour's inaction on this issue. They've sold our souls to an authoritarian regime, compromising our fundamental values so our farmers can sell more milk. They've betrayed themselves, they've betrayed us, and hopefully they'll be paying a price for it at election time.

Protest China's crackdown in Tibet

Frogblog has word of a vigil for Tibet in Wellington tomorrow:

When: Wednesday, 19 March, 17:30.
Where: Parliament

If you want to remind our MPs that we expect a stronger stand on human rights than we've seen so far, then please go along.

A shameful straw man

In the wake of her failure to properly criticise Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet, Helen Clark has attempted to defend her government's unconscionable decision to continue pursuing a free trade agreement with the Chinese regime. Her basic argument?

If New Zealand traded and entered into trade agreements only with countries with which it had identical interests and views, "then apart from Ireland and Switzerland and Scandinavia, it would be pretty thin pickings".

This of course is a straw man. It's not a question of us only trading with countries with "identical interests and views" (something which doesn't exist between individuals, let alone countries); its a question of us going out of our way to offer preferential access to a country whose actions clearly put it beyond the international pale. While Clark shamefully attempts to paper over this difference, it's real, and reflected in our foreign policy. We're not negotiating an FTA with Zimbabwe. We're not negotiating an FTA with Uzbekistan. We're not negotiating an FTA with Belarus or Burma. So why the hell are we negotiating one with China?

A condemnation that isn't

So, after two days of weasel words and dithering, the New Zealand government has finally come out with a formal statement condemning China's brutality in Tibet. Except, if you actually read it, it does no such thing - rather than condemnation, New Zealand simply "expresses concern", and rather than calling on China to respect the right of peaceful protest, it notes that we respect that right and calls on China to "react carefully and proportionately". There's not even a call to release the political prisoners China has detained.

Again, if this was happening in Zimbabwe or Burma, we'd be screaming about it. But again, the cost of that FTA is our complicity and silence, and Helen Clark has just proven it in spades.

Mealy-mouthed bullshit

Despite a death toll of at least 80 and eyewitness reports that Chinese police have gunned down protesters in the streets of Lhasa and Aba, our human rights supporting Prime Minister is still refusing to condemn the Chinese government's crackdown in Tibet. Instead she's waiting for "more accurate information" and calling on both sides "to exercise restraint". This is the sort of mealy-mouthed bullshit issued by the US when their Israeli proxies show their usual disregard for civilian lives, not what I'd expect from a Prime Minister who leads a government which claims to be a strong advocate for human rights.

Meanwhile, both the government and opposition are claiming that human rights are "independent" of the Chinese FTA. They should have no trouble condemning the current abuses then. Their failure to do so suggests that the Chinese see the two as linked, and that the profits of our farmers must be bought by our complicity and silence.

The government must condemn China's brutality in Tibet

On Friday, Tibet erupted in protests against the continuing Chinese occupation, drawing the expected crackdown from China's authoritarian regime. So far at least ten people are dead, and Tibetan sources put the figure much higher. And with protests continuing and the Chinese regime declaring a "people's war" against democracy in the region, the death toll is likely to rise.

Normally when an authoritarian regime abuses human rights and murders protestors, the New Zealand government speaks out about it. It's what we did over Burma, and over Zimbabwe. But the government has been conspicuously silent over Chinese human rights abuses of late, because it is negotiating a free trade agreement with China. It does not feel it can criticise China openly for fear of upsetting the deal and costing the country (actually, farmers) hundreds of millions of dollars in potential exports. So we get embarrassments like Winston Peters' torturous exercise in Parliament last week as he struggled to avoid saying what everyone knows: that China is an authoritarian regime which denies basic human rights. In other words, the cost of the deal is our complicity and silence, even when China abuses human rights right here in New Zealand.

This is too high a price to pay. It was too high when China was merely conducting oppression as usual, and its certainly too high now that they're shooting people in the streets. Our government must condemn China's crackdown. Otherwise, screw the airport - Labour will have sold our souls.