Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09CANBERRA231
2009-03-06 06:16:00
CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN
Embassy Canberra
Cable title:
12TH AUSTRALIA-CHINA HR DIALOGUE: SOME PROGRESS,
how-toVZCZCXRO1554 PP RUEHCN RUESLE DE RUEHBY #0231/01 0650616 ZNY CCCCC ZZH P 060616Z MAR 09 FM AMEMBASSY CANBERRA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1167 INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 9394 RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 1071 RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN PRIORITY 1524 RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS PRIORITY 3568 RUEHUP/AMEMBASSY BUDAPEST PRIORITY 0268 RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN PRIORITY 1133 RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI PRIORITY 0600 RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 2017 RUEHLE/AMEMBASSY LUXEMBOURG PRIORITY 0514 RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO PRIORITY 0328 RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY 1308 RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 2296 RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM PRIORITY 1087 RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE PRIORITY 2376 RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 3443 RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA PRIORITY 0297 RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 5659 RUEHBN/AMCONSUL MELBOURNE PRIORITY 6113 RUEHBAD/AMCONSUL PERTH PRIORITY 4376 RUEHDN/AMCONSUL SYDNEY PRIORITY 4327 RUEHCN/AMCONSUL CHENGDU PRIORITY 0004 RUEHGZ/AMCONSUL GUANGZHOU PRIORITY 0008 RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG PRIORITY 8127 RUESLE/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI PRIORITY 0025 RUEHSH/AMCONSUL SHENYANG PRIORITY 0051 RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0765 RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1993 RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 CANBERRA 000231
NOFORN
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EAP, DRL, AND G
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/02/2019
TAGS: PHUM PREL CH AS
SUBJECT: 12TH AUSTRALIA-CHINA HR DIALOGUE: SOME PROGRESS,
DESPITE SETBACKS
Classified By: Political Counselor James F. Cole. Reasons: 1.4 (b)(d).
SUMMARY
-------
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 CANBERRA 000231
NOFORN
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EAP, DRL, AND G
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/02/2019
TAGS: PHUM PREL CH AS
SUBJECT: 12TH AUSTRALIA-CHINA HR DIALOGUE: SOME PROGRESS,
DESPITE SETBACKS
Classified By: Political Counselor James F. Cole. Reasons: 1.4 (b)(d).
SUMMARY
--------------
1. (C) Australia saw some incremental progress in its latest
Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue, particularly in
China's agreement to admit more NGOs into meetings, including
for the first time Amnesty International and the
International Commission of Jurists; in the range of topics
it was prepared to address (except for Tibet); and in a
greater willingness to engage in real dialogue. On the
negative side, the Chinese took a hard line on Tibet,
resisting engaging with the GOA and refusing to allow
participation of an Australian-Tibetan NGO. End summary.
2. (U) Steve Waters, Assistant Secretary for East Asia,
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT),gave us a
belated readout of the 12th Australia-China Human Rights
Dialogue, which took place in Canberra on February 10, 2009.
The Chinese delegation was led by Vice Foreign Minister Liu
Jieyi. Gillian Bird, DFAT Deputy Secretary, headed the
Australian delegation, which included Waters.
3. (C) Unlike previous dialogues, in which the proposed
agenda was subject to extensive pre-negotiation, sometimes
lasting up to the start of the meeting, Waters said, the
Chinese settled relatively quickly on the agenda for this
round, opting to keep the agenda items broadly worded.
Beijing insisted, however, that Tibet not appear as a printed
agenda, the only issue of protracted pre-negotiation.
MORE NGO PARTICIPATION
--------------
4. (C) Two notable positive improvements in 12th Dialogue
involved broader NGO participation. Waters explained that
the usual format consisted of a government-to-government
meeting, followed by a formal meeting of delegations with a
small number of selected NGOs, and a reception that included
the delegations and a larger group of NGOs. He noted that,
while the Chinese had limited to six the number of NGOs in
the previous formal government-plus-NGO meeting, they agreed
to allow up to 11 NGOs to attend the most recent meeting.
Moreover, they did not object to raising the number of NGOs
at the reception to 17, up from 11 previously. Most
remarkably, Waters pointed out, China agreed for the first
time to allow both Amnesty International and the
International Commission of Jurists to participate in the
QInternational Commission of Jurists to participate in the
formal meeting. In a setback, however, the Chinese vetoed
participation by representatives of the Australian-Tibetan
Association, which had joined the meetings in previous years.
Waters added that NGOs participated only in Dialogue
meetings held in Canberra; China did not adopt a parallel
practice when meetings were held in Beijing in alternate
years.
BROAD AGENDA
--------------
5. (C) The Australians raised concerns that included: the
death sentence/executions (officially opposed by Australia);
CANBERRA 00000231 002 OF 003
organ harvesting; torture; forced re-education; freedom of
speech; freedom of the press; freedom of religion; rights of
women and minorities; forced labor; Falun Gong; Tibet;
Uighurs; international human rights agreements; and treatment
of human rights advocates. On their side, the Chinese sought
answers from the Australians on such concerns as: the
judicial mishandling of the case of Mohammed Haneef (an
Indian-born physician accused of aiding terrorism against
whom charges were later dropped); treatment of migrants;
conditions at Christmas island detention center; treatment of
indigenous Australians, including abrogation of rights in the
GOA's Northern Territory intervention; and media freedom
(specifically, GOA attempts to block pornography on the
internet.) Waters acknowledged that the agenda was far too
long, resulting in curtailed treatment of some topics,
particularly as the conference was wrapping up.
TIBET AND FALUN GONG
--------------
6. (C) On Tibet, however, Liu resisted discussion, insisting
it was not a human rights issue. He also pushed back on the
dealth penalty, pointing out that a majority of the Chinese
public supported it, and contending that the numbers of
executions had been decreasing. Liu became more animated
during the discussion of the Falun Gong, stressing it was not
a religion but a cult, and the state had a duty to protect
people (referring to refusal of medical care by some Falun
Gong adherents). The Chinese delegation complained about
four court cases filed by the Falun Gong in Australian
courts, charging the Australian government was responsible
for advising the court that Chinese officials had immunity in
such instances. The Australian side disputed this, urging
the PRC to engage private legal representation to assert
immunity directly with the courts. (Note: An Australian
lower court recently handed down its first ruling among the
four cases, dismissing a case filed against former President
Jiang Zemin, but an appeal remains possible. End note)
PERSONS OF CONCERN
--------------
7. (SBU) The GOA handed over a list of 29 persons of concern
to the Chinese government in advance of the government-only
meeting, Waters noted, adding the GOA had not yet received a
response from the PRC.
Qresponse from the PRC.
ATMOSPHERICS
--------------
8. (C/NF) Waters assessed the 12th Human Rights Dialogue to
have achieved incremental gains, despite a few setbacks. He
observed the Chinese seemed more willing than previously to
have a real dialogue, and exhibited an increased level of
comfort and confidence in calling on the Australian
government to account for perceived domestic human rights
issues. In another positive development, Waters observed,
the Chinese refrained from their usual filibustering tactics
on some topics, and made an effort to respond to most
questions. At the same time, the Australian delegation
perceived a palpable desire on the part of the Chinese for
international acceptance of how they treat their citizens, a
CANBERRA 00000231 003 OF 003
possible point of diplomatic leverage.
CLUNE
NOFORN
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EAP, DRL, AND G
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/02/2019
TAGS: PHUM PREL CH AS
SUBJECT: 12TH AUSTRALIA-CHINA HR DIALOGUE: SOME PROGRESS,
DESPITE SETBACKS
Classified By: Political Counselor James F. Cole. Reasons: 1.4 (b)(d).
SUMMARY
--------------
1. (C) Australia saw some incremental progress in its latest
Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue, particularly in
China's agreement to admit more NGOs into meetings, including
for the first time Amnesty International and the
International Commission of Jurists; in the range of topics
it was prepared to address (except for Tibet); and in a
greater willingness to engage in real dialogue. On the
negative side, the Chinese took a hard line on Tibet,
resisting engaging with the GOA and refusing to allow
participation of an Australian-Tibetan NGO. End summary.
2. (U) Steve Waters, Assistant Secretary for East Asia,
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT),gave us a
belated readout of the 12th Australia-China Human Rights
Dialogue, which took place in Canberra on February 10, 2009.
The Chinese delegation was led by Vice Foreign Minister Liu
Jieyi. Gillian Bird, DFAT Deputy Secretary, headed the
Australian delegation, which included Waters.
3. (C) Unlike previous dialogues, in which the proposed
agenda was subject to extensive pre-negotiation, sometimes
lasting up to the start of the meeting, Waters said, the
Chinese settled relatively quickly on the agenda for this
round, opting to keep the agenda items broadly worded.
Beijing insisted, however, that Tibet not appear as a printed
agenda, the only issue of protracted pre-negotiation.
MORE NGO PARTICIPATION
--------------
4. (C) Two notable positive improvements in 12th Dialogue
involved broader NGO participation. Waters explained that
the usual format consisted of a government-to-government
meeting, followed by a formal meeting of delegations with a
small number of selected NGOs, and a reception that included
the delegations and a larger group of NGOs. He noted that,
while the Chinese had limited to six the number of NGOs in
the previous formal government-plus-NGO meeting, they agreed
to allow up to 11 NGOs to attend the most recent meeting.
Moreover, they did not object to raising the number of NGOs
at the reception to 17, up from 11 previously. Most
remarkably, Waters pointed out, China agreed for the first
time to allow both Amnesty International and the
International Commission of Jurists to participate in the
QInternational Commission of Jurists to participate in the
formal meeting. In a setback, however, the Chinese vetoed
participation by representatives of the Australian-Tibetan
Association, which had joined the meetings in previous years.
Waters added that NGOs participated only in Dialogue
meetings held in Canberra; China did not adopt a parallel
practice when meetings were held in Beijing in alternate
years.
BROAD AGENDA
--------------
5. (C) The Australians raised concerns that included: the
death sentence/executions (officially opposed by Australia);
CANBERRA 00000231 002 OF 003
organ harvesting; torture; forced re-education; freedom of
speech; freedom of the press; freedom of religion; rights of
women and minorities; forced labor; Falun Gong; Tibet;
Uighurs; international human rights agreements; and treatment
of human rights advocates. On their side, the Chinese sought
answers from the Australians on such concerns as: the
judicial mishandling of the case of Mohammed Haneef (an
Indian-born physician accused of aiding terrorism against
whom charges were later dropped); treatment of migrants;
conditions at Christmas island detention center; treatment of
indigenous Australians, including abrogation of rights in the
GOA's Northern Territory intervention; and media freedom
(specifically, GOA attempts to block pornography on the
internet.) Waters acknowledged that the agenda was far too
long, resulting in curtailed treatment of some topics,
particularly as the conference was wrapping up.
TIBET AND FALUN GONG
--------------
6. (C) On Tibet, however, Liu resisted discussion, insisting
it was not a human rights issue. He also pushed back on the
dealth penalty, pointing out that a majority of the Chinese
public supported it, and contending that the numbers of
executions had been decreasing. Liu became more animated
during the discussion of the Falun Gong, stressing it was not
a religion but a cult, and the state had a duty to protect
people (referring to refusal of medical care by some Falun
Gong adherents). The Chinese delegation complained about
four court cases filed by the Falun Gong in Australian
courts, charging the Australian government was responsible
for advising the court that Chinese officials had immunity in
such instances. The Australian side disputed this, urging
the PRC to engage private legal representation to assert
immunity directly with the courts. (Note: An Australian
lower court recently handed down its first ruling among the
four cases, dismissing a case filed against former President
Jiang Zemin, but an appeal remains possible. End note)
PERSONS OF CONCERN
--------------
7. (SBU) The GOA handed over a list of 29 persons of concern
to the Chinese government in advance of the government-only
meeting, Waters noted, adding the GOA had not yet received a
response from the PRC.
Qresponse from the PRC.
ATMOSPHERICS
--------------
8. (C/NF) Waters assessed the 12th Human Rights Dialogue to
have achieved incremental gains, despite a few setbacks. He
observed the Chinese seemed more willing than previously to
have a real dialogue, and exhibited an increased level of
comfort and confidence in calling on the Australian
government to account for perceived domestic human rights
issues. In another positive development, Waters observed,
the Chinese refrained from their usual filibustering tactics
on some topics, and made an effort to respond to most
questions. At the same time, the Australian delegation
perceived a palpable desire on the part of the Chinese for
international acceptance of how they treat their citizens, a
CANBERRA 00000231 003 OF 003
possible point of diplomatic leverage.
CLUNE