Leading Article: Talk softly with the Chinese but not at the cost of principle

THOSE CONCERNED about China's abuses of human rights should not be too dismissive of the Prime Minister's visit to China. The People's Republic is the most populous nation on earth, and easily the most powerful nation in Asia. China's economic health, as yet relatively untouched by the crisis in the world's financial markets, is vital to the economic health of the region and the world.

Good trade relations, and continuing encouragement of economic and political liberalisation, are therefore quite reasonable objectives. If China, too, were to fall victim to speculation and devaluation, or lurch back from such measures of general reform as it has already achieved, then the results could be serious indeed.

However, the issue of human rights cannot, and should not, be ignored. Dissidents remain in prison. Freedom of the press and of speech is severely restricted. The movements towards democratic local government in Hong Kong have been stilled. Mr Blair, in his article in the Chinese People's Daily, has obviously signalled that he wishes to pursue a middle way on raising these issues, making clear that reform is seen as desirable in the West, but not pushing his hosts too far by launching an open attack on the continued repressive aspects of their regime. He has managed to have an article published in a Chinese newspaper, the first foreign leader to do so, and to include as many coded criticisms as the censor would allow. It is, at least, some sign of China's willingness to go down a path that has already seen some signs of legal and legislative loosening up.

It is not enough. The fact that his article had to be seen and discussed by the Chinese government before publication is an equal indication of just how far China still has to go towards democracy, and how far weak foreign leaders, let alone a leader of a middle-sized country like Britain, in need of export opportunities, can go. Where Clinton so publicly failed to keep up the pressure on human rights, how could Blair hope to do better?

Unfortunately, Mr Blair's Chinese dilemma calls into question the wisdom of his government's "ethical foreign policy". Just about the worst way to go about changing things in China is publicly to chastise its leaders, who will then refuse to do anything they have been "advised" to in front of the world's media.

This is not the first time the Foreign Office's "mission statement", extolling its new ethical policies, has contradicted British foreign policy. Labour has allowed the supply of arms to repressive regimes such as Indonesia, blundered into encouraging a British company to break a UN arms embargo in Sierra Leone, and alienated all sides in India and Pakistan with an ill-judged mediation proposal. An "ethical foreign policy" is all very well; but how soon is the "ethical" world to be ushered in? And by what means is it to be secured?

It would be better to do things by stealth, with specific objectives such as the release of leading dissidents from labour camps. If these efforts were to go on in private, they would be far more likely to bear small but measurable results. Britain must mean little to this vast state, especially as China surveys the economic mess Britain bequeathed to it in Hong Kong. It would be better if thePrime Minister did not make fruitless gestures that will not improve human rights in China.

There is, however, one issue on which Mr Blair cannot speak softly: Tibet, and the rights of a sovereign people whom China conquered by force, and continues to brutalise. No other state should recognise that illegal occupation, or condone China's behaviour. Britain must recognise reality in a tough world; the Prime Minister's instincts on that are sound. But realism should also mean that no state should be placated in the destruction of another. On this, there should be no middle way.