Different Rules for Different Rulers.

Our foreign policy doesn't have strict rules on dealing with rogue nations. Each situation is different, but we do appear to have more tolerance for misbehaviour among nations with whom we trade

How to deal with rogue nations is complex to say the least. Why protect human rights in one country and ignore far worse examples elsewhere in the world? There also are issues of sovereignty, the possibility that military action could make things worse, and the improbability that bombing on its own will change anything.

But, people in the affluent West have become increasingly aware of the nastiness in much of the rest of the world. It's an uneasy knowledge, and we feel something should be done. But what? The options range from using diplomacy to put forward ideas about rights and government as we see it, humanitarian aid, sanctions against the party most to blame, the presence of observers, to air strikes and an armed peacekeeping presence on the ground. The choice varies with each situation, but a diplomatic solution is usually at the top of the list.

For example, Myanmar's (Burma) military rulers continued to ignore Western demands to respect basic human and democratic rights. So, Canada announced its plans in 1997 to impose economic sanctions on the country. Officials in Ottawa said Canada's options at the time included banning exports, ending the preferential-tariff treatment Burma enjoyed, and prohibiting investment. Sanctions were seen largely as a symbolic move because there was little trade between the two countries. However, some felt if Canada worked with other major economic powers such as the United States, and the European Union, the resulting international pressure might have some impact.

The military rulers, who came to power in 1988 in Myanmar, are considered by Amnesty International and other human rights groups as one of the world's most oppressive regimes. More than 2,000 people were arrested in 1996 for calling for human rights.

But, if it's okay to put the squeeze on Myanmar, why not China? Why allow Canadian companies to do business in China, and Cuba, but not Myanmar? The abuse of human rights is about the same in all three countries.

The government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien has aggressively pursued trade with China. By 1995, however, there was growing criticism from some MPs over the delinking of human rights from trade and foreign policy. Mr. Chretien argued that Canada is such a small country that it has little influence on large countries such as China. He said that by expanding trade links and improving economic conditions in China, democratic reforms would inevitably follow. This logic supports the view that trade should come first, regardless of a country's poor record on rights. In diplomatic circles this is called "constructive engagement."

Others say it is more likely to work the other way around: respect for human rights produces political stability that, in turn, creates conditions for economic growth and prosperity. Critics don't buy the argument that if Canada doesn't do business with regimes with questionable human rights records, other countries will grab the trade. At some point, they say, we have to take a principled position and recognize that money is not the only consideration.

Still, in April 1997, Canada rejected overtures by the Nordic countries and the Dutch to join them, Britain, and other EU Countries in censuring China in the UN Human Rights Commission. We declined, along with France and Germany, which had big trade contracts at stake.

For years after Chinese troops crushed pro-democracy protests in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in June 1989, EU member states backed a joint resolution at the UN Human Rights Commission critical of China's human-rights record. But, by 1998, the European Union was talking about cooperating with the Chinese government rather than making public condemnations of its human-rights record.

Some Chinese dissidents have denounced what they see as a trend among Western governments to play down human-rights concerns in return for favourable trade ties with China. Business opportunities abound in China with its booming emerging economy of 1.2 billion people.

In June 1998, U.S. President Bill Clinton paid a visit to China, the first by an American president since the Tiananmen Square massacre of democracy demonstrators. America's view too apparently had shifted to a policy of constructive engagement.

Critics say Mr. Clinton's China policy is an example of U.S. foreign policy toward developing nations being dominated by the interests of U.S. companies. By June 1998, U.S. companies had invested $17.3 billion in China and signed contracts to invest $23 billion more. This is not really big money in the U.S. context where the Gross Domestic Product for 1997 was over $8 trillion. But, China does represent the world's biggest potential market where few people, as yet, own much in the way of consumer products.

Looking for cheap labour and growing markets, U.S. and Canadian companies are cutting deals with some of the world's most repressive regimes - Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia among them - all with the help of their governments. The argument that democracy naturally flows from open markets doesn't sit well with critics who say democracy does not come naturally. People have to struggle for it and countries that don't move in the direction of democratization and respect for human rights should have harsh economic sanctions imposed upon them.

But, as one Canadian scholar observed, cooperation or "dialogue" does not mean pressure, such as denial of trade preferences, can't be used as well. "The human-rights impact of dialogue without leverage is monumentally unimpressive," wrote Irving Brecher, emeritus professor of economics at McGill University in Montreal in 1998. "It would be a gross understatement to characterize China's human-rights record in 1997 as bleak. Nor is there any evidence of profound change in 1998."

One person who has openly challenged the view that quiet diplomacy is the best way to improve human rights (in China) is former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten. In an interview with the Globe and Mail in September 1998, Mr. Patten said China uses the fear of losing contracts to play Western countries off against each other, threatening to penalize countries that speak out and showering contracts on those that stay quiet. But, he says the best way to stop that kind of manipulation is to form a common front.

"Instead of running a mile whenever one of these paper tigers growls, I don't understand why the G-7 [group of industrialized nations] and others don't get together and say, 'This is intolerable. You can't any more play off Airbus against Boeing, you can't play off Canadian power contractors against American ones, because we have a common position."

As for Canada being too small to have much influence, Mr. Patten says: "I think China cares passionately about Canada and others not speaking out. In fact, it's one reason why we should. Almost the only leverage we have over them is speaking out about human rights, because it goes right to the heart of the thing they're most concerned about, which is political control."

By January 1999, the dialogue was losing its lustre, and relations with China had cooled. Ross Munro, a Canadian who is director of Asian Studies at the Center for Security Studies in Washington, was quoted as saying: "Engagement policy is based on the great myth that we in the West can change China. It holds that if we are nice enough, and trade enough, and invest enough, China will slowly but surely evolve into a market economy, a pluralistic society and, voila, one day it is a moderate middle democracy. It may take a while for people to realize it, but engagement with China is failing."

Experts on China see trouble ahead. China isn't changing. It continues to jail pro-democracy activists and it's placing more restrictions on Western business operations, giving itself a trade surplus. China also continues to build its military strength. It's given the West reason to rethink its philosophy of engagement.

In the words of one journalist, "China continues its pattern of economic liberalization and political totalitarianism. It knows from ... experience that protests from abroad about human-rights abuses are predictable ... No sooner is the ink dry on the protests than the ... offended governments send another trade mission ..."

An activist group has criticized Ottawa for being all talk and no action on the issue of human rights in Indonesia as well. They cited the sale by Canadian companies of $1.6 million in military goods to Indonesia in 1996 as proof that their criticism was warranted.

While in opposition, the federal Liberals repeatedly called on the Progressive Conservative government to take a tougher stand toward the Indonesian regime. In 1992, the Tories suspended military sales after Indonesian forces massacred scores of East Timorese during a protest demonstration. But in 1994, shortly after being elected, Prime Minister Jean Chretien's government began approving export permits for military sales to Indonesia. In 1994, $1.2 million in sales was recorded.

Three years later, in July 1997, Canada signed an agreement with Indonesia that gave Ottawa "greater opportunity to discuss human rights and other contentious issues there."

The agreement was similar to an agreement that Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy signed with China earlier the same year rather than denounce human-rights abuses.

And, this was the same year sanctions were imposed on Myanmar.

Again, the question arose: why Myanmar but not Indonesia? The only answer appears to be trade volume: annual two-way trade with Myanmar is about $16 million. Indonesian trade amounts to about $1.5 billion a year, 93 times our trade with Myanmar.

Canadian and U.S. foreign policy of "cooperation" and "constructive engagement" may be good news for trade and investment but it's had little effect on human rights. As Human Rights Watch has observed: "The question of striking the right balance between economics, security, and human rights [is] a real issue, but some countries [including the United States and Canada] seem more concerned about striking deals."

Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng agrees. Mr. Wei had been in prison for a total of 18 years when China released him in November 1997 to receive medical treatment in the United States. "Trade is very important," he said in a newspaper interview. "However, I don't think we should abandon our principles in order to make a lot of money."

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. According to Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy, "The very same countries that argue against humanitarian intervention on the basis of sovereignty are the most anxious to join trade and commercial organizations, which by their nature, involve ceding a certain amount of national control. It is hard to understand why it is acceptable to sacrifice sovereignly for economic interests, but not in the human interest.' Do you agree or disagree that economic interests should not be separated from human rights issues?

2. Appoint students to role play the following in a discussion about trade and human rights: a Canadian trade official, a Chinese government leader, a Canadian manufacturer hoping to win a contract in China, a Canadian worker in a factory whose job depends on exporting to China, a Canadian human-rights activist, and a jailed Chinese dissident.

FACT FILE

When Canada recognized China in 1970, relations were all about wheat sales and nobody asked about human rights, according to former External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp.

RELATED ARTICLE: A WORTHWHILE IDEAL

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and right." The Declaration was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 (the Soviet Union, the nations of Eastern Europe, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia abstained).

In 30 brief articles, the Declaration states the right of humans to:

* be free from any discrimination;

* enjoy equality before the law;

* have access to unhindered travel;

* a nationality and the right to change a nationality;

* work;

* equal pay for equal work;

* rest and leisure;

* adequate medical care and security in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability;

* education;

* "a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized."

Websites

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade http://www.infoexport.gc.ca/ section4/missions/ china/china-e.asp

Canada China Business Council http://www.ccbc.com/