Written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in response to call of evidence on the UK Government's China Audit: How should the Government seek to balance its growth agenda vs. human rights concerns in China?

Written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in response to call of evidence on the UK Government's China Audit. Evidence anonymised due to sensitivity.

This submission responds to the Committee’s questions on how the Audit should address trade-offs towards human rights in China, specifically: how should the Government seek to balance its growth agenda vs. human rights concerns in China? It argues that if the Government does intend to offer genuine support for human rights in China, then it needs a clear view of what kind of efforts are likely to be effective and

the likely response from Beijing.

Key Findings

 Most pressure on human rights in China fails and may even backfire. Public

pushback will be more likely to succeed if it is targeted at tangible ‘low-cost’ cases

and delivered alongside consistent private diplomacy and partners from the Global

South.

 Beijing has sanctioned states that publicly push back on human rights issues, but

these measures have not had lasting effects on bilateral cooperation. Retaliation

has been more likely in response to symbolic actions or in the form of targeted

reciprocal sanctions.

Recommendations

 The Audit should identify priority areas for human rights pushback and commission

research on Beijing’s responses to pushback on these priority areas.

 The Government should avoid empty condemnation of the Chinese Communist

Party. Any pushback on human rights should be targeted at priority cases for British

interests where it can make a tangible difference.

 Any pushback should be consistently applied on these priority cases over time and

across both private and public diplomatic efforts.

 Pushback should continue to be coordinated with partners – ideally alongside

countries in the Global South.