Those who criticise China for human rights violations must at the same time praise its successes in the fight against hunger, says China expert and theologian Christoph Stückelberger. The original interview in German can be read here.
The Olympic Committee likes to emphasise the international character of sport as distinct from politics. Are there any nonpolitical games at all?
Christoph Stückelberger: All major sporting events are used by governments for self-promotion. Those who represent an opposing position use the Games as a platform for criticism or even threaten to boycott them. But from an ethical point of view, Olympic Games should be depoliticised as much as possible.
Those who go to China and silently endure the staging are also making a statement with their silence on the human rights violations.
The objection is justified: One cannot not be political. But the means of expression can be different. Of course it is valid to criticise China’s treatment of the Uyghurs, the working conditions on the construction sites for the World Cup in Qatar or the human rights situation in Russia. But boycotts lead to escalation. The decisive question is: What contributes to de-escalation? Only conversation can do that. That’s why I continue to teach at universities in China, Russia or Nigeria.
And there is no limit where you say: “Under these conditions I can no longer do my teaching”?
This limit exists, of course. It lies where the muzzle is too restrictive.
Is the muzzle still loose enough in China?
The restrictions have increased over the last three years. I have been in China regularly for about 25 years now. In the beginning, you couldn’t talk to anyone without a translator who was also a government watchdog. Later, there was a period of relative openness where control was less tight and a lot of freedom was possible. In the meantime, the fear that statements critical of the government will be reported directly to the authorities has increased again. Nevertheless, academic discourse is possible, and we can also hold events on sensitive issues with Chinese non-governmental organisations at the UN in Geneva.
But non-governmental organisations are also under observation.
Of course. I am not naive. Human rights violations in China must be criticised. Individuals should do that, Switzerland should do that. However, the basic prerequisite for such criticism is that the other side is perceived as an equal partner. It must not be about isolating a state politically and economically. Because I live by this principle, I have not had any problems in China so far: I respect China, I appreciate China’s achievements, so I can also criticise.
There is a lack of respect for China?
In the Cold War, which is currently going on between the USA and China, for sure. It’s all about bringing the other to its knees. These are bad conditions for human rights criticism. The American arrogance in the human rights discourse is obvious.
But China does not shine with esteem towards other states either.
Both sides are indeed arrogant, albeit in different ways. China likes to refer to its five-thousand-year history and feels superior to other cultures. However, there are also different forces in the communist party. Besides the hawks, there are also officials who credibly strive for a multilateral world in which China plays an important role but does not claim to dominate other states as a superpower.
What would be the right way to deal with China when it comes to human rights?
What bothers me is that the human rights discourse is stuck in the 1950s. At that time, human rights were primarily understood as political rights. Since then, the catalogue of human rights has been considerably expanded by the UN and the European Convention on Human Rights to include social and economic rights, which are hardly mentioned. It is true: There is no justification for the concentration camps in which Uyghurs are to be re-educated. But we don’t just have to look at political rights. In the US, 13 per cent of the population goes to bed hungry every night; in China, that huge country, it is only 2 per cent. So the right to food is violated much more in the US than in China.
The fight against hunger and freedom of expression are mutually exclusive?
The Chinese government would answer in the affirmative. It argues that the rapid improvement in the food situation is due to its strong political leadership.
And what do you say?
Of course, there is a lot of ideology in this argument. But it cannot be completely dismissed out of hand. The Chinese cultivation battles of the last decades could also be successfully implemented thanks to farreaching powers of the central government. It is impressive how such a populous state, which feeds around 20 percent of the world’s population, was able to defeat hunger. This is a success that deserves recognition.
“You can’t express yourselves freely, but your stomach is full”: surely that’s a conceivably cynical government logic?
I do not justify restrictions on freedom of expression. But I go as far as saying that the right to food is the first human right. I have justified this in ethical detail in a book. It is of no use to a poor person if he has to go to sleep hungry but is allowed to vote. In the hierarchy of human rights, the right to food and the right to work or income are at the top, because they are necessary rights for survival. The right to political participation is also very vital because it concerns our human dignity.
Such hierarchisation provides an alibi for autocracies that subordinate everything to economic growth. But freedom of expression is not simply a luxury for affluent nations. The fear of being imprisoned or even tortured for saying something the government doesn’t like can be as agonising as hunger.
The hierarchisation of human rights, as I represent it, does not provide a pretext for human rights violations. We started from the question of whether the human rights situation in China should be addressed at the Beijing Games. My point is: the human rights discourse is one-sided. When the Olympic Games take place in Beijing, human rights violations are discussed. But when sporting events take place in the USA or a football World Cup is played in South Africa, everyone pretends that everything is fine there. In many countries, the human right to food is grossly violated. I oppose this imbalance, which is tantamount to the political instrumentalisation of human rights.
All European states are sending their athletes to Beijing. Many high-ranking diplomats, however, are staying at home. Do you understand why?
I consider the China policy of the USA and, in its slipstream, of many European states to be untrustworthy. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock is not travelling to Beijing, but economic relations between Germany and China are becoming ever closer because they are indispensable for Germany. It costs nothing to leave the foreign minister in Berlin. But Germany simply cannot afford to close the Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes production plants in China. Even the factories in the Uyghur areas continue to produce blithely.
What triggers the diplomatic boycott of the Games in China?
The Chinese government is very concerned about reputation, so it reacts sensitively to criticism. It will eventually retaliate at the diplomatic level. To bring in an aspect of Christian ethics here: China is too caught up in eye-for-an-eye-tooth-for-a-tooth logic. There is hardly any room for forgiveness. Something like the genuflection of Willy Brandt, who as German Chancellor asked Poland for forgiveness in 1970, would be unfortunately unthinkable in Japan, China or Korea. The reconciliation process since the Second World War has made correspondingly poor progress in Southeast Asia.
How realistic are domestic reforms in China?
Twenty years ago, many thought that with economic growth, steps towards democracy would follow automatically, so to speak. There has certainly been a disillusionment. What bothers me is the polarisation between democracy and autocracy. Many, also critical, intellectuals in China tell me that democracy according to Western understanding does not correspond to Chinese culture. At the municipal level, there are certainly rights of co-determination in China. China is not an autocracy. It is a one-party state, but especially in the civil society sector there are countless organisations that can work relatively freely on environmental issues or in education. We perceive Chinese civil society as controlled, but I currently experience it as freer than Russian civil society, for example.
How much pressure are Christians under in China?
That all Christians in China are oppressed is not true in the generality often expressed. Church services take place, church social services can be expanded. However, control has increased here too. In the past, when I was a guest at a church service, I was spontaneously asked to come forward to say a greeting or a prayer. Today, the pastors tell me as foreigner to just participate quietly in the service and point to the cameras in the church.
The communist leadership is afraid of religion?
At its core, it is a question of power. As long as the party can be sure of the loyalty of a religious community, it grants relatively large leeway. However, the Christian community has grown strongly in recent years. The number of Christians, estimated at 80 to 100 million people, is approaching the number of party members. Thus, a religious community becomes a political threat because there is potential competition growing up unless it recognises the primacy of the party.
Do Christians see themselves as a political force?
There are strong denominational differences. The Catholic Church is actually organised very similarly to the Chinese one-party state: the grassroots are consulted, a bishop can exert influence in the hierarchy, but in the end the church leadership decides. That is also the case in China: The government does listen to the people, but the decisions are made in Beijing.
Then Catholics are better able to come to terms with the political system because they know it from their church?
Surprisingly, it is the other way round. Apart from the evangelical churches, which are strongly under American influence, Protestants are much more able to come to terms with the political circumstances. Christianity gives them an identity independent of state affiliation. The Catholics, on the other hand, see state and church more as competition and are therefore in a conflict of loyalties between Beijing and Rome.
What advice would you give to an athlete who is asked about the human rights situation by journalists in Beijing?
I think it is right for an athlete to participate in the Games. I would advise him or her to say that he / she is aware of the human rights violations in China and asks the government to reduce them. But in the same breath, he / she should also point out that China respects elementary human rights in an exemplary manner: the right to food, the right to work, the right to education.
Only those who praise may criticise?
That’s the way it is in every host country. If a Chinese guest comes to Switzerland and says: “I don’t like the food, the service was insufficient, the prices too high”. Then we take that as an affront and ask ourselves why he came to Switzerland in the first place. If, on the other hand, he says the mountains are wonderful, the trains are punctual and the infrastructure is impeccable, only the people are a bit buttoned up, then we can accept that much more easily.
Only in China it is not about the punctuality of the trains, but about dissidents sitting in prisons or the Uighur minority being forcibly interned.
Of course, that is not an adequate comparison. But I’m really serious: many countries that don’t take many human rights very seriously themselves look at China with incredible snootiness. Switzerland is in a good position here: it recognises the progress China has made, which also gives it the legitimacy to criticise. Praise does not relativise criticism, but it balances it out, puts it in a more holistic light. The internment of the Uyghurs cannot be justified. It must be judged in the context of all human rights.
You teach at the Chinese Minzu university for minorities in Beijing. Despite the crackdown on the Uyghurs, are there also minorities in China who are well-liked?
Beijing does a lot for the 55 officially recognised and supported ethnic minorities in the country. At the special minority (Minzu means minority) universities, teaching takes place in the respective languages. The government knows very well that it can only keep the minorities in the empire if it gives them cultural-linguistic and partly religious freedoms. In my opinion, the Uyghurs should also be treated more in this way. The fact that this is not happening enough is probably due to geostrategic reasons. Culturally, politically and religiously, the Uyghurs are closer to Islamic Central Asia than to Central China. This is the source of the government’s fear for unity.
Can you actually still express yourself freely in China? How many compromises do you have to make?
I am not acting as an advocate for Tibet or for the Uyghurs. That is for others to do. But that does not mean I support China’s policy towards these minorities. I simply set other priorities. A lot is possible in environmental ethics and business ethics, and even in interreligious ethics. I explore and use my scope. I think rationally about where I can make a difference. I am not a fan of a martyr’s attitude, because martyrs have rarely achieved much. I rather try to implement Jesus’ word: “Be wise as serpents and without fault as the deaf” (Mt.10:16). We must rely on dialogue. As long as we talk to each other, we do not shoot at each other.