Skip to content Skip to navigation

EU: Suspend China Human Rights Dialogue


The European Union should cancel its upcoming human rights dialogue with China and suspend the exchange until the meetings can bring genuine human rights improvements, ten human rights organizations said today. The next EU-China human rights dialogue is scheduled for June 22-23, 2017, in Brussels. The organizations include Amnesty International, Initiatives for China, the International Campaign for Tibet, the International Service for Human Rights, Human Rights in China, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Uyghur Human Rights Project, the World Uyghur Congress, and the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.

The EU and its member states have committed to throw the EU’s “full weight behind advocates of liberty, democracy and human rights throughout the world,” and the groups have long urged that the EU demonstrate a unified, unambiguous position on human rights in China as the situation there has deteriorated.

Yet, at a summit in Brussels on June 1-2, the EU Council and Commission presidents in public did not forcefully condemn China’s deteriorating human rights situation, nor call for the release of political prisoners, including EU citizens. The EU also did not mark the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4. And the EU and its member states on June 15 did not deliver a statement under agenda item 4 in the United Nations Human Rights Council – a first for the EU, whose statements over a decade at the council have generally sent a message of solidarity to activists and of warning to Beijing by denouncing the Chinese government’s crackdown on critical voices and persistent violations of basic freedoms.

“On three occasions over three weeks the EU demonstrated no intention, compassion, or strategic vision to stem the tide of human rights abuses in China,” said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. “The EU should not further harm its credibility, but rather redirect its efforts toward bringing meaningful change to China.”

At the closing EU-China Summit press conference on June 2, EU President Donald Tusk announced the next round of the EU-China human rights dialogue. That dialogue, which will be held on short notice and at a lower governmental level on China’s side, has been marred almost since its inception with a lack of clearly articulated benchmarks for progress, vulnerability to Chinese pressure, and exclusion of independent Chinese voices. As a result, the dialogue has steadily deteriorated into an exercise whose purpose is largely to secure another round of the dialogue, not to make meaningful change in China. Over the past decade, our organizations have made extensive recommendations as to how the dialogue could be improved – few of those recommendations have been accepted.

The EU’s June 2016 China strategy gives the EU the opportunity to suspend and review any of its dozens of bilateral dialogues with China, including the human rights dialogue. The EU should suspend the dialogue rather than proceed with a meaningless low-level exercise, the organizations said. It should establish clear benchmarks for human rights progress in China, including the release of individuals detained, imprisoned, or forcibly disappeared for the peaceful exercise of their basic rights, including criticism of the Chinese government. The EU should publish these benchmarks to advance public scrutiny and accountability of the EU’s China policy, and to ensure that the Chinese public is informed about the EU benchmarks. These benchmarks should be integrated into all EU and EU member states’ high-level meetings with China.

“The EU’s failure to speak out on Beijing’s rights violations is a body blow to independent activists across China and a betrayal of the EU’s proclaimed human rights commitments,” said Iverna McGowan, head of European Institutions Office at Amnesty International. “Instead of a forum for promoting rights, the EU-China human rights dialogue has become a cheap alibi for EU leaders to avoid thorny rights issues in other high level discussions.”


公眾知​​情權 司法公正 行政拘留 任意羈押 公示財產 雙邊對話
黑監獄 書評 商業與人權 審查 兒童 中國法
翻牆技術 公民行動 公民記者 公民參與 民間社會 中國共產黨
消費者安全 腐敗 反恐 向強權說“不!” 文革 文化之角
時政述評 網絡安全 社會民生 民主和政治改革 拆遷 異議人士
教育 被迫失踪 環境 少數民族 歐盟-中國 計劃生育
農民 結社自由 言論自由 新聞自由 信仰自由 政府問責
政策法規 施政透明 Heilongjiang Lawyers’ Detention 歷史鉤沉 香港 軟禁
戶口 人權理事會 人權動態 思想爭鳴 非法搜查和拘留 煽動顛覆國家政權
信息控制 信息技術 信息、通信、技術 公民權利和政治權利國際公約 國際人權 國際關係
國際窗口 互聯網 互聯網治理 司法改革 六四 綁架
勞改場 勞工權利 土地、財產、房屋 律師權責 律師 法律制度
法律天地 國內來信 重大事件(環境污染、食品安全、事故等) 毛澤東 微博 全國人大
新公民運動 非政府組織 奧運 網上行動 政府信息公開 人物報導
警察暴行 司法評述 政治犯 政治 良心犯 宣傳
抗議和請願 公開呼籲 公共安全 種族歧視 勞動教養 維權人士
維權 法治 特別專題 國家賠償 國家秘密 國家安全
顛覆國家政權 監控 科技 思想/理論 天安門母親 西藏
酷刑 典型案例 聯合國 維吾爾族人 弱勢群體 婦女
青年 青年視野