If you're a dictator who wants weapons of mass destruction, then you're
a target.  But if you're a dictator who's got weapons of mass
destruction - and threatening to invade your neighbours - then you're
considered a target market.

That's the message the Howard government is sending out this week as it
considers starting negotiations for a free trade agreement (FTA) with
one of the most brutal and repressive of the world’s dictatorial
regimes: the Chinese Communist Party.

It's a far cry from the rhetoric of Australia’s closest ally - the USA
- which publicly argues that the most important goal for US (and by
association, Australian) foreign policy in the twenty-first century is
in the advancement of liberty and democracy around the world.

There are two serious problems with contemplating a "free" trade
agreement with a despotic regime like Beijing.

The first is the illegitimacy of the negotiations.  In Australia, while
trade negotiators are not elected, they are constrained by an elected
government and parliament who must justify their actions to Australian
citizens.  In Australia, an attentive and critical press and opposition
political parties help to make sure any deal is really in the interests
of Australian citizens.  While these protections are not always
successful – witness the passing of the US-Australia FTA which was
clearly a damaging deal for Australia –the fact that checks and
balances exist at least gives trade negotiations some legitimacy.

In dictatorships like China, unelected and unaccountable governments
face no such “inconvenient” constraints.  There is no system of checks
and balances by which citizens might feel that their interests are
properly protected from a government known for its high level of
corruption.  There is no free media and no opposition to scrutinise the
deal which is negotiated.  Indeed, there is no requirement that the
dictators even consider the interests of the people over whom they rule.

The second big problem with doing “free trade” deals with dictators is
that the deals can, in the end, have little to do with free trade.  Any
concept of economic freedom or unrestricted commerce must surely
include a freedom to trade ideas, including freedom of the press,
freedom of expression and freedom of association.  These are freedoms
currently denied to the citizens of Communist China, but taken for
granted by ordinary Australians.

Any Australia-China FTA will produce bizarre anomalies like this:
Australian companies might face reduced tariffs for exports to China,
but will remain barred from exporting history books which describe the
Tiananmen Square Massacre or Chinese atrocities in Tibet.  What sort of
free trade is this?

A free trade agreement which does not include such basic freedoms as
free speech is no free trade agreement at all.  But will such issues be
on the table in the coming negotiations? Not a chance.

Of course some ideological proponents of FTAs will argue that free
markets themselves will encourage the development of democracy.  That a
China-Australia free trade agreement will encourage the growth of
political freedoms in China.  Unfortunately, the historical evidence
shows that such a development would be extremely unlikely.  One need
only look at China's history – or that of other ASEAN countries like
Vietnam, Laos and Brunei with which Australia hopes to establish free
trade agreements.  These are all countries which have embraced free
markets for over a decade, and all countries which show no signs at all
of moving towards any form of democracy.

The vision of Australian negotiators sitting down to do deals with
despots is surely not one of which many Australians would approve.  The
Howard Government must commit to including the protection of basic
human rights and freedoms in any China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
If it cannot guarantee this then it should admit that trade deals with
dictators are free in name only, and hold off on any negotiations until
Chinese people can freely have a say in their nation’s government, and
hence in what sort of trade deal they want.

Michael Cebon is a fellow at OzProspect