China Law Blog

But "idiot" is a term of endearment!

Honestly, it is more or less a product of hyperbole, though for a select few, I mean it wholeheartedly. Cheers.

One of the aims of persons who have advocated a boycott of the Beijing Olympics appears to have been to support human rights observance by authorities in China. There are complex reasons why significant problems with human rights exist in many parts of China, or for certain groups within Chinese society, e.g. a lack of constitutional control over the actions of some local authorities, or ethnic and philosophical differences, e.g. in Tibet. It is important for the world community not to ignore these problems, and not abandon the victims of human rights abuse -- in China or anywhere else -- to their fate, but to do what it can, in a friendly manner, to encourage China's leaders to better promote human rights. It is dubious whether damaging an important world event, like the Olympics, would do very much to achieve that goal. One would hope that improvements will eventually touch those groups within China that are currently experiencing human rights problems. Most likely this will come as part of the overall evolution of Chinese society. The Olympics are helping China's leaders and people to see China as part of the wider world, and that includes not only continuing China's economic interaction with other countries but also the acceptance of universal legal standards, including human rights norms. Remember that "having human rights" is just code for being able to live your life with dignity, and free from abuse. People in developed nations who naturally expect to be treated that way themselves, but who think it is OK for people in developing countries to be denied basic human rights, need to think again.

I quite enjoyed reading Kai Pan's text. China's human rights issues certainly do excite the polarising of view, with those pushing both extremes, as he says, usually producing little more than rubbish in the way of sensible discourse. It is far more useful to produce fairer, more evenly balanced and realistic assessments that are empirically grounded.

It is important to recognise and to acknowledge China's various and many human rights problems, but it is also important to place these into a wider context, by also recognising that China performs quite well on most human rights indicators when compared to the average country in its lower middle income class - especially when it comes to satisfying macro-level human rights, like access to education, healthcare, housing etc. Average life spans are improving, as are literacy levels, etc. There is a causal link between economic development and human rights, yet sometimes people lose sight of that by placing such high expectations on China, that even many developing countries would have difficulty in meeting their standards.

Regards,
MAJ

I have always been wondering why the west is so preachy. Human rights abuse as well as other problems are everywhere (including in China), but you will never see the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Kenyans etc. demanding the west to fix their problems. You always have the west telling the rest of the world to fix their problems. Why is that? What makes the west so preachy and self-righteous?

Would the westerners be happy if the non-western countries start telling them how they should fix their problems?

Pffefer - I agree with you entirely. The reason why so many Westerners lecture the developing world about human rights issues is because they have an arrogant ethnocentric belief that their own Enlightenment institutions are somehow inherently superior, so much so that they believe the rest of the world should emulate them. I have been writing recently about this very topic in fact. See my incomplete essay titled "Chinese governance and society" at: www.chinadiscourse.synthasite.com

Regards,
MAJ

With less than two weeks to go before the Olympics — a time when most host cities are set to offer the world a warm greeting — Beijing seems wary.

Hotels are empty as stricter visa rules keep visitors away. Police in bullet-resistant vests and with bomb-sniffing dogs prowl roadways. Peddlers have been told to clear off the streets, and unsightly restaurants have been closed. New postal rules prohibit the mailing not only of explosives, but any pastes, electronics and "unidentifiable metal objects."

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080727/NEWS08/807270382/1025/NEWS01

@Pfeffer - Try reading the news for once. especially anything said by Robert Mugabe, of anything on the matter of reparations for the colonial era, or on the matter of the return of 'looted' artefacts, or on the issue of Taiwan, or on the Chinese annual report on human rights in the US, or on the border fence, or on the issue of generic medicines and IP, or on Hugo Chavez, or the Castros, or any of these issues, and you will see there is much criticism of the west from poorer nations.

FOARP,

There is a difference between the "poorer nations" sticking their fingers to the west and the west constantly telling and lecturing the rest of the world what they are supposed to do and how they must fix their problems. The former generally comes as a result of western lecturing and its nature is mostly reactive and defensive (the Chinese report on US human rights is a case in point). The "poor nations" do not seek to influence or change the domestic policies of the western countries as the west does to the "poor nations". I think it is the false sense of moral superiority and responsibility of the west that is causing the problems here.

My own personal opinion is that it's perfectly appropriate for the "West" to lecture countries like China, because 1: our enlightenment institutions ARE inherently better, 2: The west is wealthier and hence has more power to control the affairs of other nations, and 3:China's own constitution (patterned after that of the United States) actually lists a series of rights and freedoms that so far have not been fulfilled. So it's perfectly logical for people to demand China to do what only what it has agreed to do. But even without such agreements, it'd still be fine, in my opinion, for the west to continue to harp on China, because the west IS superior in the areas that the west is criticizing China on.

Further, why is criticism of a country such a negative thing?　Since when was a country an entity with feelings and pride? China wants to be a global power? Well then stop acting like a child with no self esteem. Pfeffer asks how would the west respond to poorer nations telling us how to fix our problems? Simple, we ignore it.

Chip,

Excuse me, but you sound like a typical ugly westerner. For one thing, just because you are wealthier you are entitled to controlling the affairs of other nations? Does your wealthy neighbor control how you run your house? It's blatantly disgusting and pathetic. (2) Just because YOU believe your enlightenment institutions are better and superior they should be forced upon other people? What if the others don't agree with you that they are superior? Even if they did, just because something is considered better everyone should be forced to adopt it? I am sure your wealthy neighbor has a thing or two that you can learn from, what, you must do it his way and his way only? If this is not cultural imperialism, I don't know what is. (3) China's constitution answers to the Chinese and the Chinese only. The west is not in any position to tell the Chinese what has been fulfilled and what has not. It is none of your business.

And it is extremely hypocritical for the west to criticize and lecture the Chinese on something they themselves have not done so well. Kettle calling a pot black. For example on human rights. Who is the US to tell China to improve its human rights when American soldiers are killing and torturing people in other countries? And isn't it hypocritical for you to ignore criticism from the rest of the world? Because you think they are poorer, worse than you? You can't take what you give? You want to lecture others but don't want to be lectured? Pathetic hypocrites.

Ultimately it is not about criticism, it never has been. The west has sought to change the rest of the world (China included) for their own benefit or for something THEY (the west) believes will benefit the rest of the world (including the Chinese). Thank you for looking out for us (so you think). Thanks but no thanks. The rest of world is capable of handling their own business.

China tightens Tibet security ahead of Beijing Olympics

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4427278.ece

Chinese Authorities Order Olympic Hotels To Install Spy Gear

http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209900038

While I understand and appreciate Chip's point of view, I'm not convinced. Again, I agree more with Pffefer on this one. Chip, if you're interested in my response to your last comment, you can go to:

http://www.chinadiscourse.synthasite.com/Chinese_governance_and_society.php

My essay is incomplete, only about a third written, but section two offers a criticism of the Enlightenment, which you might find engaging.

Regards,
MAJ

Pfeffer,

When I mention the "west" using wealth as power, I'm simply stating the fact that the US and EU, with their wealth, have the power to choose who they deal with in economics, etc. They dictate to China, because they are the customer, and with their wealth have the option of being able to do business with someone else. Fair or not, that's the situation. And China, with a generally poor populace, needs to continue GDP growth just to provide jobs. Hence, China needs to sell to the West, which in turn have the leverage to demand China live up to certain obligations. The reason the west is able to ignore the poorer countries is because these countries don't have any economic leverage on the west. Where the criticism comes in line is where China WILLINGLY signs and supposedly adopts global standards, treaties, declarations in regarding human rights, WTO standards, etc. Hence, the bulk of the criticism is appropriate because China AGREED to those standards. If China disagreed with or didn't want to adopt those standards, China could have refused to go along with such. It was China's own choice. And yes, China's constitution answers to Chinese citizens only. That doesn't ignore the fact that it's not being fulfilled. And sure it's the west's business, human rights is everyone's business. China is our trading partner, we have every right to criticize, another right guaranteed in the UN declaration of Human rights. Which China signed.

About the west being hypocritical. Sure, america has done awful things in Iraq. And deserves criticism from all sides. Criticism of Iraq should not be limited to American and Iraqi citizens, because any human being should feel for what is happening. China has the right and obligation to criticize the war on Iraq, just as America has the right to criticize China on human rights. And by the way, I've never killed ANYBODY in Iraq, so I'm hardly a hypocrit.

MAJ,

Good paper, you've researched it pretty thoroughly. But cultural relativism is pretty useless when seen in light of the issues I raised above. Regardless of culture, or progress, or other niceties used to justify China's human rights situation, the fact remains that China has signed on to global standards, has committed itself to such, and by not fulfilling them, opens itself up to justified criticism. Whether or not that criticism will have any effect is another issue that I think you addressed fairly in your paper. Also, in my opinion, in terms of human rights, "progress" should not be praised (my abusive dad doesn't beat me as much as he used to).

Chip,

Does China needs the west? Absolutely. But the west also needs China. Today we are all interdependent and our interests are intertwined, everybody needs everybody. So the theory of "China is being criticized because China needs to satisfy its customer (the west)" does not fly. I understand if China violates the WTO rules it can be challenged and sued in the frameworks within the WTO, that part I understand. But we are not talking about trade disputes, are we? Both China and the US (as well as many other countries) have rectified the International Human Rights Treaty and we all know human rights violations are not exclusive to China, but yet you don't see the Chinese (without reacting to criticism from the US) criticize the US and other countries on human rights. You will never see the poorer countries ( I mean the government) criticizing the west on human rights and other domestic issues and policies. Why is that? That's the question I have been trying to figure out. Because the Chinese are selfish that they don't care about the well-beings of other peoples? Because the west believes that it is their responsibility to police the whole world? A lot of why's.

You are contradicting yourself by saying on one hand the west ignores the poorer countries because they have no economic leverage on you but on a second thought, human rights is everyone's business. So do you think the west should or should not ignore criticism from the poorer countries? It is hypocritical to suggest that I don't have to listen to you because you mean little to me but then you are stuck with me babbling because you need me. The message everyone will get from this is "power means everything. As long as I am powerful enough I can just diss you".

Again, it is not just about criticism. It is about the self-conceived moral superiority and responsibility that the west possesses which seeks to change the rest of the world. I am telling you not that I don't want to change, I do, but I don't want to be changed by you or be changed on your terms. Not that I don't want to have a better human rights record, I do, but I don't want to be nagged by outsiders. Not that I don't want democracy, I do, but I want to do it my own ways and with my own timetable. It is my house, my family, my city, my country, why should I listen to you? I am sure a lot of Americans would agree with me. You certainly don't want some foreigners to tell you how your country should be runned.

Pfeffer,

If somebody was criticizing me, I'd think logically about their criticism, and either change myself if the criticism was valid or dismiss it. That's the mature thing to do. To whine about it simply because it sounds mean, well that's a pretty infantile response. You can guess how the government of China usually responds.

The reason, I believe, that you rarely see the governments of poorer countries criticizing the "west" on human rights (although they do from time to time), is because it's hard to criticize somebody on something that you're doing a worse job at. Although I think it would be delightfully funny if the government of Saudi Arabia accused the United States of not granting women enough equality. The reason you don't hear that (and there is still plenty of sexual discrimination in America, hence criticism is called for), is because Saudi Arabia is in a far worse position in that area. The same could be said of many countries. That's the answer to your why. Why does the west criticize? I know I personally criticize because I have been raised to question authority and stand up for what I know is right, and to criticize harshly what I know is wrong. That could be a factor. Also, you already answered yourself, because the "west" think they are superior in areas of human rights. That's the answer, although it might seem unfair and patronizing.

You said it best in your third paragraph. "I am telling you not that I don't want to change, I do, but I don't want to be changed by you or be changed on your terms. ...Not that I don't want democracy, I do, but I want to do it my own ways and with my own timetable."

It's not your terms. It's never been on your terms, because Chinese citizens have absolutely no say in the course of their country's future. Any changes in democracy thus far have NOT been one your timetable, because the only voice in China is that of a bunch of old men in Beijing rather than that of 1.3 billion living breathing people who deserve to have their say. Until that happens, any criticism of the government of China is NOT disrespecting the Chinese, because they are not being respected by their own government either.

We can argue this back and forth, but the fact remains that the West will likely continue to criticize China, and China will continue to be pissed off, and meanwhile 1.3 billion people will continue to be ignored.

Chip,

Everybody is defensive. Many Americans are very defensive. I am 100% positive that it will not bode well for the American public if China, Saudi Arabia or any other country, regardless of whether they are considered "superior" with regard to those things that are being discussed, lectures the US on anything the same way the US and its western allies do to the poorer countries. You as an individual might consider yourself a mature person and make an effort to think about the criticisms, but I can guarantee that the US government and the Americans as a whole will not take it well. I don't think the American public will appreciate any foreign government or foreign public to do anything in their name.

Going back to a point that I made earlier, just because you think you are doing slightly better than us you think you can criticize us on something you actually have not done so well if you ask us? If this is not the definition of hypocrisy, what is? Talk about human rights violations. The US invaded two sovereign countries in the past 7 years, directly and indirectly causing the deaths of thousands of people. Abu Greib. Secret jails in Europe. Guantanamo Bay. Talk about supporting dictators. The list of dictators supported by the US is quite long. So who is the US to lecture anybody on these things? This false sense of superiority is really stupid.
I commend you that you want to stand up for what you think is right, but there is line somewhere. Ask yourself whether you'd be pleased if your neighbor constantly barges in and tells you that you should do this and that about things from raising your kids to taking care of your lawn. What happens to private property and privacy? What happens to "mind your own business"? Don't tell me you are OK with it as long as he is right. Nobody wants to be told what to do. Nobody wants to be bossed around. This is universal my friend.

As to democracy in China etc., are you even listening to what the Chinese are saying? The fact is that the majority of the Chinese don't consider democratization a priority. Democracy is good but it is not a priority. You hear that? Recent PEW survey revealed that more than 80% of the Chinese are satisfied with the national government and the direction in which the country is heading. You hear that? So if the Chinese themselves are more or less content, who are you as a bunch of foreigners and outsiders to tell the Chinese people that "you don't know what's the best for you, you don't know what you are missing"?? You can get off your moral high horse now. We don't need you to look out for us. We don't need some foreigners to pretentiously look out for our interests and well-being. This is our country and we do things in our own way. What's so hard to understand?

The 1.3 billion people know what they want, they really don't need you to tell us what they want. If they are sick and tired of the current Chinese government they are capable of toppling it, as they have done so many times throughout Chinese history. One thing they don't want is a bunch of self-righteous "caretaker" foreigners looking out for them. They are not children, you know? They are not that dumb.

Pfeffer,

Stop referring to 1.3 billion people as though you have any idea what even a portion of them want. Surveys are nice, but they cannot be used in any conclusive manner. You think you know what the people of China need or want, when you cannot. I do not claim to know what they want, I'm only saying people should have a choice in deciding what they want. And if you think there are actually people in this world who don't want to think or choose for themselves, well I'm at a loss for words. I do not think the people of China are dumb or childish. I never said anything like that, and I don't know why you're infering that. Although I do recall somebody saying the people of China are too dumb for democracy. That man was Jiang Zemin. So take up your last paragraph with him.

Chip,

I don't speak for 1.3 billion Chinese but I have a pretty clear idea that to most of them democratization is not a priority. If you don't agree, feel free to talk to and survey as many Chinese as you want to get a general picture. I am all for "people should have a choice in deciding what they want" and that's exactly what I am saying: It is up to the Chinese, not some foreigners like you to decide for them. Because the Chinese are not dumb, they can decide for themselves when and how democracy etc. should happen, foreigners need to butt out. The notion that you can somehow decide what they need on their behalf is garbage. Did I make myself clear enough this time?

Jiang Zemin said the Chinese were too dumb to have democracy? When did he say that?