There was no evidence of ‘buying’ opinions nor of self-censorship. Nevertheless, an external committee that conducted research into the Cross Cultural Human Rights Center (CCHRC) of the VU University in Amsterdam has made harsh judgments. Employees of the center were uncritical about China, their research method was questionable, according to the committee, and the university had “not given enough thought” to the risks of funding. The university decided to close the center immediately on Monday.
That decision comes six months after the CCHRC became discredited. The center, founded in 2017 with about eight employees, wanted to broaden the discussion about human rights with input from non-Western countries. The NOS revealed in January that the center was fully funded by a Chinese university for three years from 2018. It received between 250,000 and 300,000 euros annually from the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing. The activities were suspended after the news. The VU asked a committee to investigate the suspicion of political influence.
That committee, chaired by Leiden’s former rector Carel Stolker, now concludes that there are no indications that employees let themselves be ‘buyed’. However, they were “uncritical” about China. The committee also has serious reservations about the research method and the university was not transparent enough about the financing of the center, which the board had agreed to. The VU acknowledges that it has been ‘insufficiently alert’. The disclosure has contributed to “accelerated awareness” about the unilateral financing, the university said.
Also read this article: ‘Uyghur tribunal’: China commits genocide
‘Villains closely’
Academic cooperation with China is widespread but sensitive due to the Chinese state’s authoritarian oversight of civilians and the persecution of the Uyghur minority. Until recently, there was ‘hardly any reluctance’ to cooperate with Chinese partners in the Netherlands, according to the committee.
The committee notes that the employees of the VU center are ‘sincere’ in their ‘mission’ for human rights. But they are “close to” statements by Chinese President Xi Jinping and thus make themselves vulnerable to “political framing”. One researcher called reports of the persecution of Uyghurs in China “rumours” and wrote on LinkedIn: “Xinjiang is simply beautiful: beautiful people, breathtaking scenery and good food. And no forced labor, no genocide, or whatever lies the western media comes up with.”
The committee also has “serious reservations” about the center’s research method, known as the ‘receptor approach’. It emphasizes working from local cultural traditions and social institutions, rather than human rights that are ‘dictated’ from above.
According to the committee, the approach turned out to be ‘usually problematic’, methods were not or hardly justified and led to ‘cherry picking from diverse cultural views and practices”. Students did indicate that they “find it interesting to come into contact with ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ perspectives on human rights”.
Pointing the finger at the Chinese government doesn’t work there
Tom Black director of China center
Uyghurs
Universal human rights have been widely embraced since their formulation by the UN in 1948, but have also been criticized for expressing too much ‘Western’ values. Publications by employees of the VU center refer to the ‘breaking of the western monopoly’ in human rights and to working on a ‘southern human rights model’.
This also has a political side in the Netherlands. The then Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal presented the receptor approach to the UN Human Rights Council in 2012 as part of the Dutch policy to promote human rights without infringing on local conditions. Amnesty International and other organizations were critical of it, the Stolker committee notes, as well as the House of Representatives. A 2019 review found that the approach has “no demonstrable added value” and, according to the ministry, rather contributed to “a discourse that goes against the human rights agenda”.
Director Tom Zwart of the discontinued center accepts the decision of the VU. He is “happy” to find that no bought opinions were found, he says. Zwart denies that the investigation is unsound. “Apparently they want us to point our finger at the Chinese government. But that doesn’t work there.” Zwart emphasizes that financing “is a matter for the VU” and says that he will not ask for Chinese money elsewhere for a restart of the center. He distances himself from an employee’s statements about the Uyghurs. “Of course it is true that they are persecuted there. That statement was not in line with the policy of the center.”