(HRW/IFEX) – On 4 October 1998, Human Rights Watch welcomed China’s signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It urged Beijing to act quickly to ratify the treaty and fully implement its guarantees of freedom of expression, fair trial, protection against arbitrary detention, protection against torture, and freedom of association. “Since […]
(HRW/IFEX) – On 4 October 1998, Human Rights Watch welcomed China’s signing
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It
urged Beijing to act quickly to ratify the treaty and fully implement its
guarantees of freedom of expression, fair trial, protection against
arbitrary detention, protection against torture, and freedom of association.
“Since China is currently in violation of almost every article of the
covenant, we hope its decision to sign indicates a change in human rights
practices,” said Sidney Jones, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s
Asia Division. “The test will be in the implementation.” She noted that
signing is only the first step in becoming a party to the treaty; it then
must be sent to the National People’s Congress for ratification, and the
government has announced no timetable for doing so. Only after ratification
will China be legally bound by the treaty’s provisions.
The timing of China’s decision to sign the ICCPR was clearly chosen to
derive maximum political benefit. The United Nations (U.N.) High
Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, just completed a visit to
China and Tibet on 14 September. On 5 October, British Prime Minister Tony
Blair is due to arrive in Beijing on an official visit. Earlier this year,
Britain had taken the lead within the European Union (E.U.) to drop
criticism of China at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in
exchange for pledges by China to sign this treaty. The United States
administration, which also abandoned action in Geneva, had lobbied for
months to get the ICCPR signed before Clinton arrived in China in June;
announcement of the date of the 4 October signing in New York took place
last week when Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan met with Clinton at the White
House.
“China’s promise to sign this treaty bought international silence on its
human rights practices,” said Jones. “Signing could still be the right move
for the wrong reasons but only if we see tangible human rights
improvements.” Those improvements should include releases of political
prisoners and an end to the system of reeducation through labour, a form of
arbitrary detention, Jones noted. “If this proves to be simply a public
relations exercise on China’s part, then Britain, other members of the E.U.,
and the U.S. have an obligation to use next year’s meeting of the Human
Rights Commission to say so,” she said.
Human Rights Watch expressed concern that China might attach “reservations,”
or other exceptions known as “declarations” or “understandings,” to some of
the convenant’s most important provisions, including Article 19 on the right
to free expression. Such exceptions could rob the signature of much meaning.
(The U.S. attached more exceptions than any other party to the treaty.) But
already dissidents within China are appealing to authorities to respect the
covenant’s guarantees of free assembly, speech, and association.
