After a Chinese court granted medical parole to former DW journalist Gao Yu, German Human Rights Commissioner Christoph Straesser speaks to DW about Gao’s case and the human rights dialogue.
DW: Former DW journalist Gao Yu was recently allowed to serve the rest of her sentence outside of prison. Did Gao receive a fair trial?
Christoph Straesser: Based on our observations, this was not the case. We consistently tried to follow her trial via the German Embassy in Beijing. We heard of Gao’s confession, which was subsequently revoked. And the appeals process over the past few weeks was never opened to the public. According to our standards – which are not only German, but also international standards – it was not a fair trial.
Germany and other Western governments have repeatedly called for Gao’s release, and DW reported extensively about the case. Do you think the international attention drawn by governments and independent media contributed to Gao being allowed to spend her sentence outside of prison?
Based on the results – yes – but it’s difficult to concretely determine which circumstances led to her medical bail. We have repeatedly pointed out that it is important for humanitarian reasons that Gao receives adequate medical care given that she had another heart attack in October. I believe that this insistence – not only by the public, but also through diplomatic channels – ultimately helped her.
When you point to specific human rights violations to your partners in China, are you meddling in China’s internal affairs?
No. In my opinion, this is an incorrect perception of reality. Whenever we address individual cases, we broach the topic solely on the basis of international rule of law agreements and compliance with these standards. So it’s no interference in the internal affairs of another country when there is reason to believe, for example, that the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press are being violated.
We have to meet our international obligations, which the People’s Republic of China has also largely ratified.
Given Beijing’s position, does a human rights dialogue between China and Germany still make sense?
That’s exactly why a dialogue makes sense right now – and we can make it clear in many points. We have made public statements in China. In Beijing, we also held a second press conference in connection with the human rights dialogue. German and Chinese journalists were made aware of these issues.
If one were to actually end this dialogue, I don’t know of any other form of conversation which would make it clear to the Chinese side that we take human rights – including civil and political rights – very seriously.
Wouldn’t it be more effective if Chancellor Angela Merkel discussed these issues directly with her Chinese counterpart, Premier Li Keqiang?
I assume that it would be, but I do not attend these talks. As far as I know from the preparations of the Chancellor’s and Foreign Minister’s delegations, as well as from reports that I receive, this happens all the time. And that’s why it makes sense to keep on doing this.
Germany and China are now strategic partners in many fields including trade and innovation. Are such close partners allowed to publicly criticize each other?
That is a basis for a good partnership. If you are such good friends that there are no problems, then you can have a conversation on an entirely different level. But the Chinese know this and say quite clearly that there are differences – especially regarding the universality of human rights – which are serious to some degree. This is why good partners must always address these issues. They are part of the dialogue with a good partner.
You have criticized the “deterioration” of the human rights situation in China. Why?
This year, a series of measures were taken for alleged “security and control” reasons. For example, in the summer of 2015, more than 300 lawyers and their staff working on human and civil rights issues were arrested. 30 of them are still imprisoned.
When asked what happened and why they were detained, they gave a terse answer: it’s about a “criminal gang.” And there was no response when asked about what had led to this assessment. This is a new dimension for us and all those who follow the situation in China.
