Turning a blind eye to China
Blog Post | Blog of Bob Brown
Thursday 14th January 2010, 4:36pm
by BobBrown in
He was a mentally unstable father of five living on the streets of Poland when he was unwittingly lured to smuggle 4kg of heroin into China, say the relatives of Briton Akmal Shaikh, who was executed by lethal injection at the end of 2009.
Shaikh had travelled to Urumqi in 2007 on the promise that he would be made into a pop star with his song Come Little Rabbit, which he imagined could bring about world peace.
After a half hour trial in 2008 he was convicted of drug smuggling and handed the mandatory sentence of death.
Despite the pleas of Shaikh's family, the British Government and humanitarian organisations that Shaikh's bipolar disorder be seen as diminishing his responsibility for the crime, the 53-year-old was the first European to be executed in China in half a century.
His daughter, Leilla Horsnell, spoke of her shock at the news and said, "I struggle to understand how this is justice."
That's the problem, it's not justice, and it's yet another example of the cavalier disregard the Chinese regime has for human rights.
Shaikh's case is merely one example and it's because he was from north London that the pleas for clemency and news of his death have created global headlines, but he is one of many people who will be executed this year in a country that has the distinction of killing more people in the name of justice than any other. Amnesty International has estimated that at least 1,718 people were executed in China in 2008. With the figure a state secret this is a minimum estimate - the real number is undoubtedly higher and may be more 4,000.
In this part of the world, despite a multitude of Australian corporations enriching themselves in the growing economic behemoth of China, there has been a conspicuous absence of condemnation. In the interests of their profit margins, our companies are turning a blind eye to the atrocities being committed by their trading partner, and frankly the Australian public should be able to expect more.
Even the American search engine Google, which had steadfastly dealt with China despite condemnation, is taking a stand for human rights, with it's announcement on Tuesday that it will stop censoring its results on Google.cn. The move follows cyber-attacks on its system aimed at identifying human rights activists and could mean the end of the company's presence in the massive market.
Just as corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders, they should also have a moral obligation to humanity to speak out in defence of human rights.
If Australian corporations such as Woodside, BHP Billiton, Cadbury, Telstra, Dymocks, Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, NAB, ANZ, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Qantas are willing to go into China to make big bucks out of the developing economy, they should be expected to give back to that country, not only in monetary terms but also in terms of the development of governance respecting more civilised behaviour.
Is it civilised to put a mentally ill man to death? Is it civilised to cruelly suppress Falun Gong practitioners or pro-democracy advocates? Is it civilised that 100,000 Tibetans live in exile - including in Australia - and they cannot return to their homeland? Is it civilised to crush freedom of speech? Is it civilised for a nation to treat global conventions with contempt, including those relating to the environment and civil and human rights?
With China our major two-way trading partner thanks to total imports and exports of $76,356 million a year, the Australian Greens are calling on the corporate sector to speak up. As far as we're concerned, silence is consent.
Labor and Liberal politicians are too weak when it comes to dealing with China. It is the Greens who lead the charge.
Sure, the Rudd Government has said a lot about its support of human rights.
In his much-lauded speech in Mandarin to Peking University in April 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said: "There are still many problems in China. Problems of poverty, problems of uneven development, problems of pollution. Problems of broader human rights."
While in June last year, on the 20th Anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Prime Minister said in the House of Representatives that: "It remains the Australian Government's view that it is in our national interest to further develop a broad and substantive relationship with China, and within the relationship the question of human rights is an important dimension. Australia continues to raise our concerns about human rights with China. I have raised these matters in the past with Chinese leaders and I will do so in the future. The government believes that continued engagement with China is the best way to support improvement in human rights in that country."
It's all very pretty in principle, but in practice this Government, like the last, has been a dreadfully weak handmaiden to the Chinese dictatorship. Rudd even refused to meet with the Dalai Lama during his visit to Australia in late 2009, presumably terrified of getting China offside.
The visit recently to Australia of Rebiya Kadeer highlighted the lengths the Chinese Government will go to in order to reach into our democracy to silence dissenting voices, and even then Australian governments and corporations were not prepared to call for human rights and democratic values in China.
So it's time to put money where the government's mouth is. Australia needs to place human rights on the table in its protracted negotiations with China on a free trade agreement. Human rights obligations for governments and corporations alike should be a key plank to any agreement.
We care about the conduct of our corporations at home - such as when it comes to the payments of massive bonuses to directors or workplace standards - so we certainly should care about their behaviour once business has moved overseas, which is why their participation in a conspiracy of silence needs to end.
With the stakes so high, businesses with trade ties in China need to show leadership. To that end, we Greens believe that companies should be compelled to behave in accordance with our community's values, which is why we propose the strengthening of laws requiring Australian corporations operating overseas to comply with Australian and international laws including those relating to human rights, environmental protection and labour laws.
We advocate the establishment of an independent Corporate Responsibility Index, ranking the financial, social and environmental performance of businesses and corporations operating here or overseas.
We believe publicly-listed companies and government departments should be required to audit and report annually on their performance against economic, environmental and social criteria.
We also propose legislation to allow those people who have been detrimentally affected by the operations of Australian corporations overseas to sue the corporations in Australia.
It appears that legally binding obligations are the only way to get Australian corporations to take proactive steps towards the promotion of human rights.
Regarding the Australian corporations' own behaviour overseas, enforcement agencies need to be staffed at realistic levels, fines should be set high enough to deter corporations from committing crimes, and directors and managers should be subject to strengthened liability.
More so, corporations that flagrantly and persistently violate human rights should be delisted or at least be barred from government contracts.
As it is, though, Australian companies are keeping quiet about the human rights abuses going on in China in order to maximise profits, and Akmal Shaikh's body lies in an unmarked grave near the Xishan Detention Centre where he was put to death. China doesn't return the bodies of those it executes to their families.
This is the text of an opinion piece that was published in The Canberra Times on January 14, 2010
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
Turning a Blind Eye to China
Thank you Bob. If all politicians of the western countries spoke out like that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would have to change. They do depend on us to buy our natural resources. If the western world turns a blind eye the CCP feels strong of course. It's the same as us telling them "we know what's going on, but we don't mind as long as you buy our natural resources."
We are their nearest neighbour with an abundance of natural resources; we should set the terms. I like the suggestions made by Bob.
As Christians we have an obligation to do our utmost to end the atrocities committed by the CCP.
Well Done. It is so good to
Well Done. It is so good to see that at least one of our leaders is able to take the real first step of regaining "What is really is to be an Australian."
Well done again.
Kind Regards
Andrew Toirkens
0423 255 468
Until China fixes its
Until China fixes its treatment of human and animals, Australia should refuse to do business.
Turning a blind eye to China.
Thankyou Bob Bown and the Greens. To stand up for the rights of humans and their beliefs is a major step in the way that humanity can move forward...The Chinese Communist regime has been "handled with care" for far too long...The death and suffering they have caused cannot continue to be tolerated by any government regardless of trade.. If all governments took this steps , then China would have no other option but to stop the atrocities.
Thankyou,
regards
Juleeanne D'Alcorn
Thanks
Senator Brown,
Companies must accept that trade must come with responsibility.
Thank you for this article.
responsible trade - responsible behaviour
Yes thankyou Bob, as always your honesty and integrity are a beacon.
It’s an interesting piece;
I personally am in two minds about attempting to coerce other National political regimes into human rights compliance, whilst ourselves retaining cultural inconsistencies and a negative, pro active hypocritical presence amongst our global business interests.
However I would have to agree with a whole heart when you suggest enforcing corporate responsibility for negative and unwholesome behaviours attributable to business carried out in, and with Chinese interests.
This is definitely a “right view” and one that should be taken seriously by corporate boards, share holders and smaller interests regardless of their primary business origins.
In many cases the perpetrators of perceived abuses are themselves victims of a closed loop systematic dysfunction. Ignorance of the abuses of human rights and the natural environment carried out by business partners should be not be an acceptable excuse for any of the stakeholders nurtured by an Australian democratic culture.
It should be a pre requisite for business to research into the activities and behaviours of potential business partners before establishing commitment. It should be common sense for any business relationship to be monitored and principles maintained to an acceptable degree during the course of the relationship.
To that end, Australia as a benevolent and consistent presence within the global arena should ensure that it maintains due diligence within its peak government bodies. AusTrade is indispensible amongst these peak business advisory bodies and if approached with respect for its place in a larger world can provide back ground information about potential business partners.
When an employer hires a worker, the employer becomes in part responsible for the outcomes of the employees activities. Morally as well as legally.
If your business is supporting human rights or environmental abuses which would be unacceptable in your own back yard, your business will be accountable at some juncture. Regardless of its stature or core interests.
A prime example of this international and cross cultural enforcement of Australian ethical minimums is the efforts the AFP are making with regard to Drugs, Child sex crimes, Slave trading and other untenable behaviours. If any person as an Australian national is involved in any of these abuses they can be prosecuted in Australia.
Bob you opinion is both wise and faithful to the standards we set as a Nation to demonstrate to the world. Corporate interests should be held legally accountable and I have no doubt those individuals with knowledge and responsibility within these Global organisms will be more often shamed and prosecuted for violations against our minimum standards in the coming years as business evolves and grows in sophistication.
Share holders are also inevitably punished for irresponsible investments as the businesses they are involved in become un sustainable as a result of negative short term behaviours.
It comes down to education and guidance, two priorities which are sound principles underpinning responsible governance.
Personal responsibility and an awareness of the resulting consequences for the perpetration and support of negative behaviours should be pro actively encouraged by leadership with integrity.
This starts at home.
In Perth where my fledgling inteterests reside at the moment, I am dismayed at the lack of parity logic between Energy use and Wealth.
To my mind as a professional involved with renewable energy and concerned about human impact upon the natural environmental we are supposed to be caretaking for the future; the use of Coal as an energy source when there are alternatives is an anathema.
If we must use coal because it satisfies the immediate fiscal bottom line we must also recognise its ultimate impact and encourage the absolute efficiency in its application.
Perth and surrounding regions in Western Australia is without argument the largest contributor of C02 derived from energy generation per head of capital IN THE WORLD. Perth residents amongst the wealthiest in the world are also the greatest wasters of electricity. The averaged household energy use in the Perth region is over 25kW/hrs per day. This is over 5k/Whrs per day more than any of the other city dwellers average in Australia.
Despite having one of the most comfortable climates.
One ironic and truly unfortunate result of the lack of intelligent response to our collective situation is the weather change/ human response spiral phenomena.
We use coal, it creates C02 this changes the weather patterns so we have greater climate fluctuations requiring a corresponding increase in energy use to condition our environments. This is not only childish and irresponsible behaviour, it’s also self destructive. One of the most important lessons we learn on life’s journey toward responsible adulthood is the nature of habit as a potential slave master.
We learn to own our habits, to control our habits. We reject the notion of being controlled by habits, becoming the slave of an addiction.
Excessive energy use and recourse to instant gratification are amongst our worst habits as Perth denizens. We create our environments using designs based on popular form or fad, instead of creating forms and systems within our environment based on functionality.
Seeing a middle class mother in a new BMW four wheel drive trying to find a park in the CBD with the aircon blasting and the window down is to my mind no different from the teenage girl sucking on a cigarette wearing tight black jeans and a leather jacket standing in 40 degree heat waiting for a lift. Ridiculous.
Logical parity is thus: The greater an individual’s wealth the greater the access to education about healthy living and energy efficient living infrastructure. It’s just a matter of priority.
Do you really need a swimming pool when you’re looking at an ocean from your living room window?
Do you really need a $40K+ four wheel drive when you have paved roads?
Do you really need 4 plasma screen televisions when you complain that your family is split and segregated from each other?
What you might consider instead is a Passive design retro make over, some simple healthy lifestyle changes and a renewable energy system.
Unless something is done, perhaps a “life be responsible for it” campaign mounted to shame some behavioural changes in local culture, Perth residents stand to lead the world in how to live a shameful life toward a dangerous global future.
Turning a blind eye to Australia
Bob, I am no apologist for China, but this really is a cheap shot no matter which way you look at it.
* Is your problem with the death penalty? This was abolished in Australia 25 years ago, was abolished in the UK only 12 years ago, and which is still in force in more than 50 countries, including some of our largest trading partners such as Japan and the US.
* Is your problem with mandatory sentencing? We have that in Australia too.
* Is your problem with a person suffering from a mental illness being judged by the courts like any other? Its not as though Australia has any mentally ill behind bars, or that we use our prisons as de facto mental institutions.
* Is your problem that protestations from abroad on this case went unheeded?
Let's not pretend that there are no executions in Australia, there are, many of these are applied before a person stands trial. According to the most recent data [1], and after scaling for the population difference between Australia and China you get the comparative figure of just over 1000 "executions" a year by Australian law enforcement. This figure is conservative, it merely counts the number of people shot dead by police, counts those who shot themselves dead in the presence of police, and counts those who died as the result of motor vehicle pursuits by police. There would be many more "executions" applied whilst people are in custody, I make no attempt to quantify this.
The majority of police shooting deaths involve those suffering from a mental illness, depression, or who are undergoing some form of emotional crisis - police shootouts with gangsters resulting in death are rare. Is it civilised to put a mentally ill man to death? In Australia, the answer seems to be yes. If our mentally ill who are undergoing a crisis episode are not shot by police, and if they survive attempts at self harm whilst in police custody, then they have our prison system to look forward to as our de facto mental institutions. If you assume that everyone who chooses to die rather than surrender to police is suffering from an episode of mental illness, and after scaling for the population of China, you get the comparative figure of around 500 "executions" of the mentally ill by Australian policing practice each year.
1718 to 4000 executions a year might sound a lot, but not when you consider China's population of 1.3 billion people. In Australia there is the conservative comparative figure of 1000 "executions" a year before people even get to court, including 500 "executions" of the mentally ill (and we haven't even got to deaths in custody that may be construed as "executions" yet). We should not be throwing stones.
------------
[1] According to the most recent data from the Australian Institute of Criminology, 74 deaths occurred in custody in 2007 (45 in prison custody, 29 in police custody and custody-related operations). Of the 29 deaths in police custody, there were 4 deaths from police pursuits, 4 people shot dead by police, and 4 people who shot themselves in the presence of police. Between 1990 and 2007 there have been 152 deaths during motor vehicle pursuits, and a total of 151 shooting deaths, of these, 87 have involved persons shot by police and 62 have involved persons who shot themselves in the presence of police. This equates to around 17 people a year being "executed" by our police forces before being taken into custody.
Death Penalty - UK
Just to be clear on this the last execution in the UK took place in 1964 and was a rare occurence then. most death sentences having been commuted. The last woman to hang was Ruth Ellis in 1955 - a case that has attracted much noteriety and remains controversial. Although the death penalty was not totally abolished until 1998, it having been retained for treason, no executions had been carried out since 1964. I am a convinced abolitionist myself and, whilst it has to be said that all states have some blood on their hands, I do think that you are drawing an extremely long bow with your comparisons. I accept that deaths in custody are a gross abomination, and that the Victorian police at least are extremely trigger happy on occasions, but any comparison with the situation in China is stretching credulity. As a state opposed to executions our federal government should protest all executions where ever they are carried out. I for one cancelled our Optus contracts in the wake of the Nguyen execution in Singapore and on the not infrequent occasions that they have attempted to market to me since I inform them as to why I am not prepared to do business with them.
Howard Gibson
Turning a Blind Eye to China
Sorry Bob but I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
PRC is a sovereign country with laws and penalties created by their government which they feel are appropriate to their country. In the case of the man from Poland, I would suggest that the death penalty would have been better than rotting in a squalid Chinese jail for the next 20 years, or dying slowly during that time, never living long enough to be released.
There is no way the Australia Government, or any Corporate entity can afford to get involved, other than to just shake a finger in the air. Australia relies heavily on China and other Asian countries to avoid becoming a bankrupt nation.
I hear regularly people in Australia saying that Chinese Police have no right to arrest a foreigner for breaking their laws, when an offense in China is not one in a Western country, or is considered much less important in a Western country. This also goes for the harsh penalties given by Chinese courts. The Chinese Government has to have laws to cover over a billion people, and this would be totally impossible with the way Western justice is applied.
Everybody knows that most drug offences in China have a mandatory death penalty, and anybody who flouts those laws must expect the consequences. This is also current for most, if not all Asian countries. You deal, or traffic drugs and you can expect the death penalty. Just look at the current Australians on death row in Indonesia.
As for mental illness being an excuse, I am becoming rapidly tired of people turning up in Australian courts trying to justify their criminality on mental illness (I am not guilty your Honour as I did not know what I was doing, because my teacher in year 8 hit me with a cane for smoking on the way to school or my daddy punished me when I was 10).
Sure mental illness is real, but surely it is up to the Government of each country to decide how much a factor any illness is when a crime is committed.
In the case of Australia, all the State Governments have had to make a difficult choice between providing general public hospital beds for various type of illness / injury, or providing additional beds for mentally ill patients, when it may be very difficult to diagnose ongoing mental illness issues (the Government obviously could never afford to keep somebody in a long term hospital if they have occasional mental health issues, without withdrawing funds from somewhere else in the public health areas).
In summary, we may not like the way Chinese / Asian courts dish out justice, but that is up to them, and foreigners are aware of the offences and punishments given.
Turning a blind eye to China
I agree with Grant. If we respect the concept of the soverignty of the nation state over the evil of imperialism, then we, as foreigners, must accept the laws of the respective nation state when we visit.
Those advocating special treatment for foreigners who flout Chinese law are promoting the concept of extraterritoriality that the East India Company and the British Empire forced upon China in the 19th Century and which lead to the Opium Wars and the subsequent flooding of China with Opium to degrade the human population and facilitate the British Empire's exploitation of the Chinese prople.
Is it any wonder that China has applied its law to this drug smuggler?
Chinese laws on heroin importation - OK with me
I support the Greens on a lot of issues, but not this bit of China bashing.
4kg of heroin is a lot ...
and the Chinese would all be aware of their nineteenth century history and
the indignity of being forced to allow opium imports from the West
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
I guess they are trying to stop it, and I think it is fair enough.
g. keady
Death of a simpleton.
You are making too much of this. What if he had not been arrested? 4kgs of heroin would disappear into the population.
No Government has time or money to fart about with such people.
Death of a simpleton.
You are making too much of this. What if he had not been arrested? 4kgs of heroin would disappear into the population.
No Government has time or money to fart about with such people.
Turning a blind eye to Australian Law
Dear Bob i don't know if what you say about not being given a fair trial in China is true but I do know that as you must also know that you are not always given a fair trial in Australia. I would not have believe it until I found myself in a situation of wondering how someone close to me had been found guilty and imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit that such a thing could happen in Australia. Information was fabricated - the judge allowed in admissible evidence - the jury was subjected to a Boston Legal style trial and at no time were the facts entered into it.. it just came down to who spoke the best to the jury that just wanted to get back to their lives. When I questioned such conduct I was advised that while not using factual information in a case was Naughty it was not grounds for appeal and in fact 90% of cases are conducted in such a way. I now see that for the same reason innocent people go to jail, the guilty go free no one cares about the facts anymore just how well you can sell your side of the story to the Jury. Most people would never know the things that I have uncovered in my journey - if they did they would have no choice but to feel the way that I do and question everything that you felt was good and just and fair in our country when you find the answers to the questions you realise that it just isn't. We are fast becoming no different than the countries our refuges are fleeing from. The only thing that is different is we don't have the death sentence so maybe in 15-20 years time when we are found to be innocent of the crime we can receive a public apology from a high profile member of our country to make us feel better Yah! because we some how think that that should make up for the fact that your life was ruined by those that are suppose to protect you. This year was a very sad questioning Australia day for me :-(
Post new comment