Workshop 'The European Union’s Policy on China and the role of Civil Society'
organised by the EU-China Civil Society Forum, 20.01.2009, IG-Metall, Frankfurt
Report by Bernt Berger, Klaus Fritsche
What role do European civil society organisations play in developing Europe-China relations? What possibilities do they have to influence European policy? What are the challenges facing these organisation through their cooperation with Chinese organisations? These questions were the subject of the third workshop organised by the EU-China Civil Society Forum, with 30 participants representing non-governmental organisations, trade unions, media, foundations, research centres and government institutions from different European countries.
The first part of the workshop looked at the development of Europe-China relations and the scope for civil society influence on this process.
By way of introduction Dr. Jörn-Carsten Gottwald (University of Cork, Ireland) provided an overview of the development and status of relations between the EU and China. He described it as a success story whilst other observers tend to describe it as “boosting trade plus something else”. Increasing cooperation, however, also caused an increase in conflicts in different areas, which are also reflected in the current negotiations on the new partnership agreement. According to Gottwald, the core of the matter lies in different norms, values and mutual expectations. Whilst the EU calls for democratisation, rule of law and responsible global governance, China sees the relations from the perspective of strengthening multi-polar structures. These questions must be addressed if the current deadlock is to be overcome, requiring a more coherent EU policy. From this viewpoint in particular it is necessary that civil society and NGOs play an important role.
There was controversial discussion on how the current status of relations should be rated. Gottwald’s positive appraisal was met with a host of more negative appraisals, which were largely exemplified by the deadlock in negotiations on the new EU-China partnership agreement. There were starkly differing opinions on the reasons behind the deadlock. Whereas some participants assumed that human rights and the “incorporation of civil society” were the main barriers, other sources were cited, according to which the problems were mainly of economic nature. Much of the discussion remained speculative since the European Commission does not have a transparent information policy. Even the European Parliament has hardly any information.
This is inconsistent with the European Union’s stated claim to involve civil society in the negotiation processes. Civil society is mainly involved in trade agreements. The Sustainable Impact Assessment (SIA) is an important instrument in this regard. An SIA was also carried out with regard to China.
As Dr. Christa Wichterich clearly showed in her analysis of the consultation process civil society participation was limited - although according to the EU this was not the case since the EU sees the economy as part of civil society. Wichterich came to the conclusion that there was hardly any involvement of NGOs, trade unions and the like. Moreover, based on experiences of other SIAs, she also pointed out that the consultations taking place have hardly any influence on political decision making.
In the second part of the workshop the focus of the discussion shifted to the China activities of European civil society organisations and the challenges they faced in dealing with China and the EU’s policy on China. After the presentation by Dr. Nora Sausmikat entitled “Civil society dilemmas in dealing with China” two workgroups continued the discussion.
In her presentation Dr. Nora Sausmikat highlighted the diversity of European NGOs. She noted that they display less interest in developments in China in comparison to other regions. Furthermore, most NGOs focus on human rights and working conditions in China, whilst only a few European NGOs seek ongoing cooperation with Chinese NGOs. A frequent outcome of such a “one-point-strategy” – besides serving to mobilise the European public first and foremost – is that whilst developments are justifiably criticised, they are not placed within the general overall context of developments both in China and globally and leads to a more confrontational approach.
European NGOs seeking to work closer with Chinese NGOs are also faced with challenges. Firstly, civil society activities are barely coordinated, with the exception of environmental activities. In addition, the different character of Chinese NGOs and the surrounding conditions of their work are often ignored. When western NGOs pursue their own political agenda of system change instead of seeking dialogue on an equal footing, this creates a problem for Chinese partners at the same time.
A further challenge for European NGOs is that communicating with Chinese NGOs often implies the involvement of organisations with closer ties to the state than western NGOs would prefer. However, if they do press ahead to work with such organisations then they are often confronted with accusations in Europe that they contribute to maintaining the status quo in China. Nevertheless, according to Nora Sausmikat, the compromise between the fine line of state supporting and state oppositional strategies must be found.
The discussion in the first workgroup tied in with this presentation. On the one hand, a number of possibilities were named to strengthen the cooperation between European and Chinese NGOs: incorporating social and ecological issues in town and state twinning projects in order to develop contacts between European and Chinese NGOs on this basis. The possibility of cultivating more intensive exchange between students from China studying in Europe was also raised.
Participants agreed with Sausmikat’s analysis of the situation. The need to strengthen dialogue and cooperation with Chinese NGOs was underlined, in order to develop solutions for global and local problems together. In doing so it is important to distance oneself from eurocentric, know-it-all attitudes. Developing exchange programmes between organisations working on the same issues was regarded as an important instrument. On the basis of common interests the current communication problems may be easier to overcome.
The second workgroup looked at which possible issues might prove to be the most worthwhile to take up in an attempt to influence EU China policy in a meaningful way.
It was assumed that the work of pressure groups (for example human rights groups) had been very dominant in previous years and had, at times, had even impeded cooperation work between European and Chinese NGOs. Participants noted that it is expedient to use EU mechanisms as far as civil society dialogue is concerned. Climate change, climate justice and global environmental problems, economic processes (trade, investment financial services, rpa) were named.
The fact that representatives from different groups came together had a positive effect on the discussions in the workshop. At the same time, the discussion reflected the differing action approaches and the concomitant difficulties involved in bringing these activities together as common activities. Representatives of the NGOs in particular agreed unanimously on one point: their cooperation in Germany as well as at European level and with Chinese NGOs must be strengthened so that issues such as social and ecological justice gain more importance in the development of European-Chinese relations.
Input of Jörn-Carsten Gottwald
2009_02_20_wichterich.pdf
