| |||||||||
 |
 |
UNITED NATIONS -- There's a delicious irony in viewing Britain's "ethical foreign policy" these days. On the one hand the UK government and the Commonwealth were quick to condemn the recent military coup d'etat in Pakistan--the supremo General Pervez Musharraf quickly ascended the pantheon of the vilified. At the same time, Britain's political class put on the full Monty for the visiting head of communist China, the world's largest dictatorship.
The parallels are stunning. Given Pakistan's rife political corruption and economic free fall, something had to give--as usual, the army stepped in. Still to see the blatant hypocrisy of the Commonwealth--many of whose governments have a decidedly sleazier pedigree than Pakistan's, go at General Musharraf illustrates a classic double standard.
The State visit of Jiang Zemin, the first Chinese leader to set foot on British soil, provided a poignant lesson in political correctness. From splendid gala at Buckingham Palace to a flurry of state functions, Jiang was feted by the political class and kowtowed to by business. Prince Charles, in deference to Tibet and to his credit, put conscience ahead of protocol and passed up an invitation to banquet with Jiang.
Given the stormy history of Anglo/Chinese relations this resounds in double entendre. Two centuries ago, the C'hing Dynasty's resplendent Qianlong Emperor haughtily waved away British emissaries in search of trade with the still classic rebuff, "We have never valued ingenious articles nor do we have the slightest need of your country's manufacturers. Therefore O King, as regards your request to send someone to remain at the capital, while it is not in harmony with the relations of the Celestial Empire, we also feel very much it that it is of no advantage to your country." Today both sides crave commerce.
What was distressing about the state visit was not the legitimate pomp but the sad circumstance--especially the truly hamhanded way the London police banned and sometimes manhandled protesters. Tibet freedom activists and other demonstrators were kept from Jiang's view as not to offend the visiting dictator and also to keep such unpleasantness from his earshot.
Under an anachronistic law, protesters were banned from Royal Parks--in other words much of the splendid greenery which envelops central London was hermetically sealed from the oxygen of democracy --free speech. The message was quite clear.
Tony Blair's "ethical foreign policy," was stood on its head when overwhelmingly peaceful protesters were banned from unfurling banners and flags which may offend the Marxist Mandarin in his guilded carriage en route to Buckingham Palace. The British police handling of leading Chinese dissident Wei Jinsheng at the Victoria Monument was nothing less than a disgrace.
As the Times of London opined, "Tony Blair's ambition is to make Britain China's best friend in Europe...But no British government should be in the business of muzzling legitimate protest by individuals."
The Daily Telegraph weighed in, "The Chinese authorities let it be known that Britain would pay a penalty if it tolerated protest during President Jiang Zemin's state visit. It was the sort of demand one might have expected from a half-reformed autocratic regime, but it is not one that should have been accommodated by any British government."
Blair may be paying tribute for lucrative billion dollar business deals, but turning London into a replica of the Forbidden City to please this jaded visitor poses an aggressive and troubling affront to Britain's tradition of free speech and free expression.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues who writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
