VZCZCXRO1554
PP RUEHCN RUESLE
DE RUEHBY #0231/01 0650616
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 060616Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY CANBERRA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1167
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 9394
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 1071
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN PRIORITY 1524
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS PRIORITY 3568
RUEHUP/AMEMBASSY BUDAPEST PRIORITY 0268
RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN PRIORITY 1133
RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI PRIORITY 0600
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 2017
RUEHLE/AMEMBASSY LUXEMBOURG PRIORITY 0514
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO PRIORITY 0328
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY 1308
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 2296
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM PRIORITY 1087
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE PRIORITY 2376
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 3443
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA PRIORITY 0297
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 5659
RUEHBN/AMCONSUL MELBOURNE PRIORITY 6113
RUEHBAD/AMCONSUL PERTH PRIORITY 4376
RUEHDN/AMCONSUL SYDNEY PRIORITY 4327
RUEHCN/AMCONSUL CHENGDU PRIORITY 0004
RUEHGZ/AMCONSUL GUANGZHOU PRIORITY 0008
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG PRIORITY 8127
RUESLE/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI PRIORITY 0025
RUEHSH/AMCONSUL SHENYANG PRIORITY 0051
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0765
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1993
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 CANBERRA 000231 
 
NOFORN 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP, DRL, AND G 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/02/2019 
TAGS: PHUM PREL CH AS
SUBJECT: 12TH AUSTRALIA-CHINA HR DIALOGUE: SOME PROGRESS, 
DESPITE SETBACKS 
 
Classified By: Political Counselor James F. Cole.  Reasons: 1.4 (b)(d). 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
¶1. (C)  Australia saw some incremental progress in its latest 
Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue, particularly in 
China's agreement to admit more NGOs into meetings, including 
for the first time Amnesty International and the 
International Commission of Jurists; in the range of topics 
it was prepared to address (except for Tibet); and in a 
greater willingness to engage in real dialogue.  On the 
negative side, the Chinese took a hard line on Tibet, 
resisting engaging with the GOA and refusing to allow 
participation of an Australian-Tibetan NGO.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (U) Steve Waters, Assistant Secretary for East Asia, 
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), gave us a 
belated readout of the 12th Australia-China Human Rights 
Dialogue, which took place in Canberra on February 10, 2009. 
The Chinese delegation was led by Vice Foreign Minister Liu 
Jieyi. Gillian Bird, DFAT Deputy Secretary, headed the 
Australian delegation, which included Waters. 
 
¶3. (C) Unlike previous dialogues, in which the proposed 
agenda was subject to extensive pre-negotiation, sometimes 
lasting up to the start of the meeting, Waters said, the 
Chinese settled relatively quickly on the agenda for this 
round, opting to keep the agenda items broadly worded. 
Beijing insisted, however, that Tibet not appear as a printed 
agenda, the only issue of protracted pre-negotiation. 
 
MORE NGO PARTICIPATION 
---------------------- 
¶4. (C) Two notable positive improvements in 12th Dialogue 
involved broader NGO participation.  Waters explained that 
the usual format consisted of a government-to-government 
meeting, followed by a formal meeting of delegations with a 
small number of selected NGOs, and a reception that included 
the delegations and a larger group of NGOs.  He noted that, 
while the Chinese had limited to six the number of NGOs in 
the previous formal government-plus-NGO meeting, they agreed 
to allow up to 11 NGOs to attend the most recent meeting. 
Moreover, they did not object to raising the number of NGOs 
at the reception to 17, up from 11 previously.  Most 
remarkably, Waters pointed out, China agreed for the first 
time to allow both Amnesty International and the 
International Commission of Jurists to participate in the 
QInternational Commission of Jurists to participate in the 
formal meeting.  In a setback, however, the Chinese vetoed 
participation by representatives of the Australian-Tibetan 
Association, which had joined the meetings in previous years. 
 Waters added that NGOs participated only in Dialogue 
meetings held in Canberra; China did not adopt a parallel 
practice when meetings were held in Beijing in alternate 
years. 
 
BROAD AGENDA 
------------ 
¶5. (C) The Australians raised concerns that included: the 
death sentence/executions (officially opposed by Australia); 
 
CANBERRA 00000231  002 OF 003 
 
 
organ harvesting; torture; forced re-education; freedom of 
speech; freedom of the press; freedom of religion; rights of 
women and minorities; forced labor; Falun Gong; Tibet; 
Uighurs; international human rights agreements; and treatment 
of human rights advocates.  On their side, the Chinese sought 
answers from the Australians on such concerns as: the 
judicial mishandling of the case of Mohammed Haneef (an 
Indian-born physician accused of aiding terrorism against 
whom charges were later dropped); treatment of migrants; 
conditions at Christmas island detention center; treatment of 
indigenous Australians, including abrogation of rights in the 
GOA's Northern Territory intervention; and media freedom 
(specifically, GOA attempts to block pornography on the 
internet.)  Waters acknowledged that the agenda was far too 
long, resulting in curtailed treatment of some topics, 
particularly as the conference was wrapping up. 
 
TIBET AND FALUN GONG 
-------------------- 
¶6. (C) On Tibet, however, Liu resisted discussion, insisting 
it was not a human rights issue.  He also pushed back on the 
dealth penalty, pointing out that a majority of the Chinese 
public supported it, and contending that the numbers of 
executions had been decreasing.  Liu became more animated 
during the discussion of the Falun Gong, stressing it was not 
a religion but a cult, and the state had a duty to protect 
people (referring to refusal of medical care by some Falun 
Gong adherents).  The Chinese delegation complained about 
four court cases filed by the Falun Gong in Australian 
courts, charging the Australian government was responsible 
for advising the court that Chinese officials had immunity in 
such instances.  The Australian side disputed this, urging 
the PRC to engage private legal representation to assert 
immunity directly with the courts.  (Note:  An Australian 
lower court recently handed down its first ruling among the 
four cases, dismissing a case filed against former President 
Jiang Zemin, but an appeal remains possible. End note) 
 
PERSONS OF CONCERN 
------------------ 
¶7. (SBU) The GOA handed over a list of 29 persons of concern 
to the Chinese government in advance of the government-only 
meeting, Waters noted, adding the GOA had not yet received a 
response from the PRC. 
Qresponse from the PRC. 
 
ATMOSPHERICS 
------------ 
¶8. (C/NF) Waters assessed the 12th Human Rights Dialogue to 
have achieved incremental gains, despite a few setbacks.  He 
observed the Chinese seemed more willing than previously to 
have a real dialogue, and exhibited an increased level of 
comfort and confidence in calling on the Australian 
government to account for perceived domestic human rights 
issues.  In another positive development, Waters observed, 
the Chinese refrained from their usual filibustering tactics 
on some topics, and made an effort to respond to most 
questions.  At the same time, the Australian delegation 
perceived a palpable desire on the part of the Chinese for 
international acceptance of how they treat their citizens, a 
 
CANBERRA 00000231  003 OF 003 
 
 
possible point of diplomatic leverage. 
 
CLUNE