The matter of how far democratic leaders should speak out when negotiating trade agreements abroad has come in to focus once again with David Cameron’s juggernaut mission to China. Here at Cumberland Lodge we would like to think that there is no value higher than that of free expression, but in reality we accept constraints upon it all the time. Some are relatively trivial and essentially functional. We do not allow visiting speakers to talk for as long as they wish, though some would like to do so. That’s a curtailment of free speech in a sense. Of course we draw the line at the expression of racist and homophobic views.
There are, however, few things more precious to defend than freedom of speech. When heads of governments from supposed democracies visit totalitarian regimes they do so amid a blare of publicity and cameras. If they get the timing right they can achieve miracles by a cunning phrase (Kennedy in Berlin) or a rhetorical flourish (de Gaulle in Quebec). If a trade treaty is valuable enough it will need to be so to both sides, so China or any country restricting writers of politicians from expressing what they perceive to be the truth will not want to sacrifice this measure of self-interest. My advice to the Camerons of this world when they command an international platform is to go for it and say what is morally right. There is almost nothing, however stark, which cannot be said politely. If the trade agreement is worth the paper it is written on it will survive. All politicians want to be remembered in history andthere is a far better chance of doing so if one’s says Ich bin ein Berliner or Free Quebec! than if one murmurs a few token words of protest behind closed doors without any witnesses. Cameron chose the latter route and human rights are the poorer for it.
Alastair Niven
Principal
To comment on what you read, email: comments@cumberlandlodge.ac.uk
