China Law Blog

Well said.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Thanks for having the guts and the skills to put it into words.

Brilliant. Really. I know you don't like to get political but I am glad you did. Sometimes we just need to call Bullshit.

Organ harvesting in China? Internet lynch mobs allowed by the gov't? BTW the boxer rebellion got started with lynch mobs deliberately ignored by the gov't...

China's continued support of a certain gov't (NK) that has starved to death over 2 million of its people since the Korean war, not even mentioning the executions.

Or anti-Beijing people in the US and Europe attacked in their homes, their computers stolen, etc?

Yes... mostly.

Egypt has opposition groups, opposition MPs. Muslim Brotherhood is formally banned but has 88 MPs who sit as a block. Much of its press is independent and critical. So I'm not sure the answers to your questions are by any means so clear cut as you imagine.
Saudi is brutal but even there the current king is reformist. Is Hu?
Besides, the contrast is fallacious. US presidents say exactly the same sort of thing about its Arab allies as it does about China, its most important trade partner. Clinton's important statement on arriving in Beijing this year that human rights concerns would be downgraded for strategic reasons is exactly mirrored by Obama's interview with the BBC about his mideast trip outlining the strategic reasons for putting diplomacy before human rights grandstanding the other day.
You cannot make an argument by plucking one statement about China and sticking it next to a visit to the Arab world. Otherwise he would be constrained from speaking out on some atrocity in the mideast while he was visiting Tiananmen Square, where exactly the same, inverse comment could be written.

@Richard,

Are you intentionally missing the point? If the Obama administration had even just once criticized the human rights abuses of ANY of the countries Dan mentions, you might have a point, but it never has. And instead of mouthing off about the Potemkin villages that pass for democracy in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (all put in place by their megolomanic rulers merely to placate the United States), why don't you instead answer Dan's questions one by one?

Wonderful post, Dan. Some people have to get that a lot of countries have done bad things. Even us. China has made a lot of progress in recent years and is as much about "organ harvesting" as the US is about torture. There are many components to a country, and a number of the components of most countries and their histories will, unfortunately, be bad. But do we judge America as the country that killed Indians and/or enslaved Africans? Sometimes we need to see the bigger picture. This post helps do that.

The last week in Beijing, leading up to this day, has been frustrating beyond words. Websites and Internet services shut down, one by one. The powers that be huddling up and hunkering down to put every single block they can come up with in place to prevent anyone - ANYONE! - from recognizing the significance of this date. I have been in Beijing for several June fourths, but nothing compares to the collective, coordinated, enforced blindness that we have experienced this week. Plainclothes officers at the square blocking news broadcasts with umbrellas. Truly! Unbelievable. And sad.

When I read Secretary Clinton's statement it was a relief. Some official acknowledgement! The issue should not be a comparison between whether Egypt/Saudi Arabia or China is a worse offender. The countries that violate human rights -- US included -- should be called out for it. And for diplomacy to work, I'd imagine every country needs to be approached from a different angle.

After years of witnessing firsthand a government's (amazingly strong) will to deny and forget, I am proud to be a citizen of a country that insists on remembering. Because today it's not just about diplomacy. Today it's about the lives that were lost and so quickly forgotten.

I find myself both strongly disagreeing with you and strongly agreeing with you. Egypt and Saudi are not democracies, regularly imprison and torture, and in fact are imprisoning people who might protest the Obama visits. At the same time, criticism of China's human right record is quite correct. Criticising China from Egypt, whilst not explicitly criticising Egypt, is hypocrisy, but criticism is warranted.

There is a major issue that's being avoided here, and that is the specter of Islamic extremism.

As reprehensible as Saudi Arabia or Egypt's government is, it pales in comparison to the Taliban or other horrific extremist movements active in Islam today, and THAT is why the US avoids castigating the Arab governments. If the US were to come down HARD on Riyadh or Cairo on their human rights abuses it would only empower the extremely dangerous groups operating within those countries that hate the West and modernity with a passion. Think if the House of Saud fell or Egypt was taken over by Taliban-style madmen who burned the faces of girls who tried to go to school with acid or cut out female genitalia to prevent pleasure . . . and THAT is the most likely scenario if the current strong men were displaced.

Does such a scenario exist in China? No. The Chinese are at heart a practical, reasonable people. They called for democracy when their economy was suffering and inflation was rampant, and they have accepted autocracy so long as their living standards improved. If the CCP fell the vacuum would not be filled with Boxer-style fanatics or religious crazies. Likely an (initially very corrupt, admittedly)democracy would emerge.

THAT is why the US accepts the Arab governments. Because they are BETTER than the other option. China's other option is democracy, not religious fundamentalism.

Yes, I will agree Saudi Arabia is more repressive than China. But BOTH are extremely repressive. How many executions did China have last year? 6,000? Saudi Arabia? 2,000? How many journalists and human rights activists are suffering under house arrest or in labor camps? Organ harvesting? Corruption?

But be pragmatic, like the Chinese people are. Don't fall into the Chinese 50-cent army tactic of COMPARING everything (my favorite from today - BBC1, one of the many paid Chinese commentators who operates on Shanghaiist - commented on a picture of 'Tank/Man' and said that in Iraq the Americans would have run over the Iraqi). It's like saying the Chinese occupation and gradual extermination of T1b*t is justified because the US did it in its Western territories. The US can't speak out against Chinese abuses because it doesn't condemn Saudi abuses (or my favorite, so ridiculous given the DEGREES involved, stating that US has no leg to stand on trumpeting human rights because we water-boarded. As if simulating drowning compared in any way to the Chinese tactics to control their Western provinces. WEAK. Look at the larger picture and you'll see why the US is more circumspect around the Arab world.

I think what drives me crazy about China is the attitude of its government. True, China is doing better on human rights than a lot of other countries, but officials continue to lie and conceal past and present abuses, and they want China to be a big world power without any further reform.

I could not have said it better myself! Brilliant.

I've been tired of talking politics. But US hypocrisy on human rights has been there for a long time. That's part of the politics.

Excellent and brave post, Dan- a great contribution to the very heated dialogue of the past few days. I believe that the U.N. called the US's human rights record "deplorable" only a week ago. One only has to look at America's record of ratifying articles under the UDHR to begin to question the hypocrisy in "our" annual issuance of the US State Dept. human rights report.
Like you, I love my country, but the finger-pointing and China bashing is counterproductive and entirely out of hand. T-----n was an absolute tragedy that should not be overlooked, but it is also an extremely delicate issue that cannot be effectively handled by a Western perspective alone. I had the opportunity several years ago to talk with a member of the CCP about J-ne 4th. He was of the mindset that T-----n was merely a Western propaganda tactic- a lie. Sad, but I can certainly understand why he would think this way.
Globalization has drastically changed the order of our world. If the US continues to take the stance that "our" way is the "right" way and the "only" way, we can expect some major problems in the coming years.
Before the US can have an effective and consistent human rights policy in place, it needs to take accountability for its own errors and put the pen to paper. Once that happens, maybe the US and China can have a human rights conversation with a positive outcome.
No doubt improvement is needed on BOTH sides of the fence.

I'm not sure why Carter is written off as idiotic. He has always approached human rights issues in China in a responsible way--making clear is concerns about human rights there generally and T1b*t in particular, but also being humble about things and talking about his own experiences with racism growing up in the South when he speaks to Chinese audiences. Carter has also done a lot to keep the momentum on village elections in China from dying out completely through his center's work with the Ministry of Civil Affairs.

More generally, it is certainly not right to make nice to Egypt and Saudi Arabia while criticizing China. But it's not true that only quiet conversation with the Chinese leadership makes a difference. It is the most COMFORTABLE route for everyone concerned, of course, including businesspeople / lawyers / students living in China... but that should be beside the point.

Interesting and good post.

But you may be assuming that most people in the world, including Nancy Pelosi, can even define what "human rights" are. The sad reality is that they generally cannot do so.

Until they can do so, it seems to me that what they have to say, on either side of the debate, may be "sound and fury, signifying .... not much".

See this post I made a few days ago on this very issue. To wit, how do you/the reader define human rights and is your concept or definition even a realistic workable one?

And which aspect of human rights are you/the reader, talking about? Categories matter, a lot, in this discussion.

http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/human-rights-part-ii/

Cheers from Cal Poly ....

aa. your comments are baffling. Are you saying the Muslim Brotherhood are a potemkin opposition? That'll be the Muslim Brotherhood that supports Hamas?
Clinton's comments were put in deliberately positive terms: "A China that has made enormous progress economically and is emerging to take its rightful place in global leadership should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal." etc - ie what China should do now (rather that condemning its past acts).
This is exactly parallel to what Clinton said after meeting Egyptian ngos last week:"It is in Egypt's interest to move more toward democracy and to exhibit more respect for human rights."
Of course the Tiananmen quotes are stronger but it's a particular anniversary. And contrary to what Dan suggests, there aren't mass killings in Egypt.
I'm not going to go through his post line by line but i'd like to know what evidence he has for Mubarak's apparent killing of all his opponents or for his having driven nearly all non-muslims out of Egypt. Ten per cent of Egypt is Christian, I believe.

It's a point well made. Yes, China has human rights issues, but I think America has a tendency to come off as rather parochial at times and yes, hypocritical. I'd rather live in China any day compared to Saudi Arabia or Iran. We're all sinners.

Dan, I disagree. I don't know enough about the situation in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, but to say that the US should not raise human rights issues with China because China is relatively better than the Saudis is unacceptible.

What Clinton called for is for China to account for the event. I don't think that is too much to ask for.

Wow, you certainly hit a sensitive nerve by your rabid defense of China, nevertheless, it makes me nervous that our government criticizes other governments when our own problems with racism, environment, and fair distribution of wealth is so apparent. As Mom always told me, "two wrongs don't make a right"; hence, our relative social, legal, and ecological improvements do not give us the right to criticize others behind us, it should only encourage us to continue our own progress until we have achieved a perfect society. "Lead by example", that's what my Dad would say.

I agree with you. Until US is perfect in terms of human rights, no one, whoever they are, should complain about the Chinese record. The world must leave China alone to do their stuff, while the US must concentrate on making their human rights efforts perfect, not just in US, but all over the world, except in China.

I'd like to add that Obama DID mention human rights (in the context of the Middle East) three or four times in his Egypt speech. Also, there is a very large dose of conjecture in your points 1 and 2. And I don't think your overall point is consistent with the fact that the Obama administration has made a point to speak publicly about human rights in mostly any context. I think the hypocrisy and contradictions are less dramatic than you claim.

Leaving China alone to do its stuff means that the T1betans and U*ghurs are exterminated (Kashgar is being completely torn down and its residents relocated) and that N. Korea will still exist. Remember, China is the sole, unwavering political ally of Pyongyang only to keep democratic and Confucian S. Korea off of its border.

You might want to read this transcript if you want to see what the US human rights policy is now - it lays it out pretty clearly.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/124303.htm
It makes clear on both Egypt and China that while the Obama administration will speak out in favour of democracy and human rights strategic issues are paramount. This also explains why the form of words used on China is stronger than Egypt - the strategic needs on the Middle East are stronger than the case with China (Saudi in particular needs to be kept on board the peace process as the paymaster of Fatah).
Interestingly, Clinton accepts the Chinese definition of human rights, as including social progress. That's pretty striking.
No US administration will give up on human rights in China completely because to do so would be to abandon those many Chinese dissidents, opposition figures, petitioners who hope that the west will speak up for them since noone else will. If you have only met Chinese people who think Tiananmen was a western imperialist plot you haven't met enough people.
On a number of occasions I have praised Deng Xiaoping before people my age (40s) only to be asked how I could possibly overlook his record from 1989. These are non political types I'm talking about.
Of course, few Chinese will say this in a formal news interview setting, or at work,or when faced with admittedly self-righteous "how terrible for you to be chinese" type questions which I accept is often how the western attitude too often comes across.

Americans are in no position to question any other nation's human rights record especially with what has come to light recently at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and prolly many others to come. Americans historically love thumbing their noses at the inadequacies, whether real or perceived, of other nations and theor peoples, while completely ignoring their own situation at home. My advice to America: Fix your own house first before you make comments about other nations. And there's a WHOLE lot of fixing to do in America.

What's REALLY hypocritical is that the US is all for doing business with China and Vietnam but yet refusing to lift the embargo on Cuba, another socialist country. Don't tell me it is just about the Cuban-American voters in Florida. The US is practical, it doesn't bully China because it can't; it bullies Cuba because it CAN. It only picks on the small potatoes to squeeze.

Another case of American hypocrisy: Why not invading North Korea? Is Kim Jong-il better than Saddam? Sure, the US will never invade North Korea because (1) The KPA is a force to be reckoned with, you can't just crush them like you crushed the Repulican Guards; (2) North Korea has no oil and most importantly (3) North Korea does not directly threatens Israel. As long as you don't threaten Israel, the US will not touch you.

I'm speechless!

human rights as well as WMD, Word Movement of Democracy, are just like another WMD, Weapons of Mass Destruction. You can use it to keep the world in peace, or seriously harm the others. Obviously, USA is more interested by the later.

James - how can you say that Americans ignore the abuses at home when those abuses are only known about because they have been exposed by American journalists and turned into causes celebres by them?

Dan, this is a good article that helps put perspective on modern life in China. There are a lot of things that are good about China.

However, just because the US or other countries are not perfect, does this mean China cannot be criticized?

That is the biggest difference between China and the US. We are, more often than not, willing to face our problems head on in a basically free press. True, the US has done terrible things, like all countries. But what countinues to separate us from a large part of the world is the abiltiy to admit our faults publicly and take steps to correct our mistakes. That being said, China does take steps to improve their country, but for some reason lacks the maturity to admit they have a problem in the first place.

The problem I have with China is that they often think there is no problem. I often hear "Why do foreigners care about Tibet? Why do foreigners care about the Fa Lun Gong? Why do foreigners care about Tiananmen?" The inability to understand why foreigners care IS China's problem. They just don't get it; that until they get past their denial and chip on their shoulder, they will never truly be respected on the world stage.

To be fair, the Chinese people and the Chinese government have created a country where the above answers to Dan's questions are yes. So there is a lot that is good in China. However, I am tired of hearing they same response is that "you beat your wife more than I do so you can't tell me I am wrong." Until more Chinese understand this is a child's repsonse, they will not receive the respect they desire so much.

Great post. This is what many of us who understand China believe, but are drowned out by the incessant china bashing and demonization by the western media.

@ another anon

Your comment about china wanting to exterminate the t1b*ten people really doesn't make much sense. If that were true why invest so much money there? Why give them an education? Why have affirmitive action (easier access to university & employment)? And finally, why exempt them from the one child policy?
Something else to consider is would t1b3t really be free if it was independant? Probably for the privlidged Llama class, but not for everyone else. T1b3t under Llama rule was not the paradise it is made out to be, you either had everything or you had nothing, and this was determined from birth. If you were born into the lower class, there was no chance you could "make it", you were cursed to be that way until the day you died.If you offended your overlords in anyway (or if they were just in a sadistic mood), you could have your eyes gouged out or have your hands, lips, toungues, or even feet cut off. Not to mention the rampant sexual abuse of children in monesteries.

And what of the alleged "cultural genocide"? In the last few centuries up until 1959 T1b*t has produced exactly zero works of literature, and very few works of art (most of these were limited to paintings of monestaries).

Now that isn't to say that China isn't guilty of human rights violations in T1b*t and it certainly does need improving........but is T1b*t really worse off now than it was before? Hardly.

About Saudi Arabia: During the last 30 years the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) has been using our petro dollars to finance the spred of islamic extremism in as many countries as possible, all the while the US has turned a blind eye to it. So with that in mind, should we really be surprised that 17 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from the KSA?

As for the comments about if the House of Saud fell and the current king being a reformer: The House of Saud itself actually is just like the Taliban, and they do enforce strict, literallist interpretations of what life "should" be like. In the KSA women aren't allowed to drive, and only a select few have any jobs at all. The current king has done very little to actually change anything. For comparison, under Hu a great many more things have changed for the better.

Good article by James Kynge in the Financial Times about how the Western media got 1989 wrong:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d3c9c04-5059-11de-9530-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Dan,
I clearly agree that human rights in China are better than in Egypt or Saudi. There's not many who would argue otherwise. We can also all agree that there's been huge progress in giving people more space to live their lives in China since 1989.
However, I completely disagree with the tone of your piece. Firstly, did you read what Clinton actually said? She didn't "blast" China at all. Its most controversial bit was a line calling on China to "cease the harassment of participants in the demonstrations and begin dialogue with the family members of victims". Basically it calls for the memories of the dead to be respected, which 150,000 people in HK were also doing.
Second, I personally know several people involved in what you advocate as the "private" dialogue. I can tell you it's about as useful as farting into the wind. The Chinese government takes no heed of anything that's said, and harrasses both you and anyone you have contact with. And let's just detail some of that harrassment, such as an old lady being pursued down the street by agents who tell taxis that if they pick her up they'll lose their license (which a friend of mine actually saw during the Olympics). Or lawyers who are abducted from their homes at night and beaten simply for championing rights that have been legislated by the central government. Evil behaviour needs to be challenged everywhere, whether in Saudi or China, and we should not forget the abuses that are carried out on the minority just because the lot of the majority has improved. Constant pressure from outside and, more importantly, within China is precisely why things change.

It appears that a lot of the complaints and disagreements raised above evidence a failure to read carefully before commenting.

Great political post, Dan.

its amazing how your own commercial interests get in the way of your principles. Talk about human rights quitely??? Why? This is exactly what the Chinese Gov wants you to do so they cannot be held to account by thier own people. There is only one wat to talk about Human Rights and that is in the open. I dont really care what is going on in other countries.....just what is happening in China

I think both arguments have good points. But the issues I believe some readers have are that China has repeatedly denied certain events which can be safely categorized as human rights offences. ‘Maintaining a harmonious society’ is very important to the Chinese government, so it has tended to handle issues in ways the rest of us disagree with. So is it right or wrong not to make a public apology or acknowledgement of some sort? Well we would have to consider the answer from the perspective of the people it concerns. And people in the West forget that culturally, constructive criticism is not very well known or generally used or acceptable in every day Chinese society. The US and other nations receive their share of negative publicity in Western media, Eg., “Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had delivered his own speech, saying the US was still "deeply hated" in the Middle East.” I can see the Chinese going a bit bananas at the public mention of it being deeply hated by anyone within or beyond its borders. So why are issues such as those in Myanmar or Sudan forgotten by the rest of us on a daily basis? I don’t know…But I can tell you why we remember China.. because China is in the media spotlight for many other things (positive ones), like the advancement of industry, its burgeoning cities, etc. etc. The truth is, we should all be questioning each other’s human rights records, engaging in dialogue and taking measures for improvement, because we have all failed in this regard.

I'm sorry I simply disagree with you. Your comparison is completely off mark.

Clinton says something that is really nothing more than
"Fess up, it happened. Let people demonstrate if they want to"

A human right should be universal. In the U.S we believe that the right to demonstrate and the right to express yourself is a basic human right.

Now Obama meeting with Saudi Arabia is a completely unrelated item but you tie them together to make your point; which appears to be that the U.S shouldn't on one hand meet with Saudi Arabia while on the other hand say that China's human rights are a problem.

In the sixties and seventies the human rights abuses within China were atrocious. Now China is much better. If you compare the China of today to the China of the sixties you'll find a much better picture, not a perfect picture but a better one. One of the many reasons why things have improved is because China has engaged with the rest of the world. It opened its borders, the lines of communication opened up, people began traveling, learning and returning to China (and the world has also learned from China). In short China's has become a part of the world.

A strong argument can be made that China is what it is today because it welcomed the world. Specifically it welcomed the world and the world used their influence to cause change within China. Money changes a lot of things.

Saudi Arabia is a different situation mainly because of instead of having a resource of people it has a resource of oil. In short it holds more of the bargaining chips. I don't see the U.S and any other country turning a blind eye to the situation but it has to be handled differently.

If the U.S wants to influence human rights in Saudi Arabia the best it can do is to remove the bargaining chip that Saudi Arabia has (i.e. oil). If the U.S didn't want so much of it we wouldn't give them so much money and allow them to do the things they do.

If you want to make your argument why don't you focus on getting the U.S to change its force of influence. Comparing China to Saudi Arabia and coming to the conclusion that the U.S is embarrassing is a weak argument as it ignores too many factors.

That is a really strident post on something more nuanced than you made it out to be. The text of Clinton's speech doesn't indicate anything so harsh as you made it out to be, but if you isolate a few sentences - i.e. take them out of context - it could be seen thusly. Of course this is a judgement call.

Similarly, I was surprised when you called Jackie China a "know nothing self-loathing racist". Those are pretty strong words, but his original speech - which most of the people commenting on could not understand and relied on the dubious translations that the media floats - wasn't nearly as upsetting or shocking to mainland Chinese as it was to "freedom loving" Americans, HK, etc.

Strong words attract readers and posts, but... not every nail calls for a hammer.

You'll note that HK had a massive turnout for a vigil concernin 6/4, and there has been a consistent, impassioned call from Chinese incountry and abroad, political active and the
老百姓, to release the names of the dead. In fact, just recently on Blogging for China, a person who protested at T------n said he'd like to see such a list.

I agree in principle and passion about the U.S. hypocrisy, but I don't agree with your assessment of the gravity of Clinton's speech. Further, China, like the U.S., can do with outside pressure on it's human rights issues.

If all countries were soley left to critize themselves, where would we be? It sounds good to say that an imperfect country shouldn't point fingers, but given that all countries are imperfect... and unfortunately, despite a lot of past bluster and bravado, China has proven time and again that they will respond to outside pressure, especially in the western media.

Trying to make nice with others and pointing out human rights issues are not mutually exclusive.

We make diplomatic progress with China too, probably much more than we condemn them. We criticize the Islam world on their human rights all the time, trying to bridge our worlds today has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

I think many of you has get the author wrong. The author just exposes the hypocrisy, which none of you can deny. But he does NOT say China should not be criticized or US is not qualified to criticize China. It seems that many of you has, intentionally or unintentionally, left the former part out and keep on stressing the latter to somehow refute the author's point.

China should be criticized and US should take the responsibility to do its job. That's what the author said.

That's not the point the author wants to draw. The point that he wants to draw attention to is what to do with this hypocrisy. To deny it as it doen't matter all, or something can do about it? When someone points out your hypocrisy or you realize your own hypocrisy by yourself, you change your attitude and your way of dealing with people. That what the author is calling for. That's why he is supporting Kissinger, Regan, Clinton way of dealing human rights issue with China. And I second his point.

The point is, when was the last time you people saw the western media (especially American) rag on the Human Rights record of Saudi Arabia and the ME? Or when that girl was gangraped by her uncle's buddies in the ME and it got maybe a a day of coverage in the US? The point here is that the US takes every chance it can get to take a swipe at China, whether for "currency manipulation" or for "egregious human rights abuses" and tries to somehow blame all of its economic woes on the trade deficit between China and the US. The coverage of the far more egregious abuses of human rights in the Middle East is a drop in the bucket compared to how often the American media whines and attacks China for something, whether it be T---eman or the currency. Let's face it, America's scared and is showing just how insecure they are, from the top military commanders to the top politicans, they have all admitted that China is the biggest threat to American superiority in the next 3 decades, both militarily and economically. Americans can't stand the fact that someone else can do it better, cheaper, and faster than them. I see two options for the US, keep taking potshots at China and fight against the tidal wave or work alongside China for a better tomorrow. Having been a student of both countries, I would imagine America will continue to be its ignorant and arrogant self and will choose the former instead of the later sealing its own fate.

"Perspective" and others,

My question is, why do you think it is America's natural responsibility to seek to change others? Why should outsiders seek to change China? Why should outsiders seek to change the US? Why should outsiders seek to change any country?

If you don't like how your neighbor is running his house, should you seek to change him? Should you call him and say "hey, I don't like how you do certain things and you should change"?

The west always believes that it is in a position to lecture, to influence, to change others for their own benefit (so it thinks). I have always wonder why the west is this assertive, preachy and self-righteous. Does this have something to do with your upbringing/culture/racial traits?

From the State Department press briefing linke that someone provided:

"US Wants China to Learn from History and Not Hide from It"

This one cracked me up. Who does the US think it is to tell China or anybody that "I want you to do this and that"?? Seriously, who does the US think it is? Anybody? Imagine the Chinese or Russian Foreign Ministry press briefing that says "China/Russia wants the US to Close Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp and Give Due Process to Its Detainees". haha.

From the same State Department press briefing:

"US Wants to Change the Perception of the US in the World"

Haha, with this kind of assertive, self-righteous, preachy, nagging attitude that never changes, fat chance!

Great post.
And Pffefer, great comments.

Here's a statement made in front of the House of Representatives by Congressman Ron Paul that some of you might find interesting:

http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul534.html

An important point, though I think you possibly did not phrase it in the best possible way. After all, it isn't so much hypocritical as it is simply disingenuous. I agree, often the government's criticism is levied for political support at home and their intentions aren't exactly the most genuine.

I think in the end your core point is sound: if we have a problem with human rights, we need to be fair in how we call out for changes to human rights for human rights sake, and not our own. But framing it "hypocritical" and broadly painting the picture about the Middle East, while peppering your conclusion with a dose of "come on can't you see" seems to have brought out a sizable opposition, misunderstandings, and even red herring arguments, from supporters and not. Words are powerful weapons, but they must be chosen wisely right?

I think you are going too far. Obama took it right to the Middle East in his speech in Cairo. Who else has had the guts to put it right in the face of people like that? He has really made me proud as he has dialed down the hypocrisy and started talking in public like he talks to other leaders in private. He told the Israelis to stop the settlements. He told the Arab leaders to respect womens rights. He said the US had made mistakes and he named them. How often do you hear Chinese leaders or leaders of any country doing that? And I thought Hillary Clintons remarks on TAM and China were measured, true and exactly what the US should have said.

My, there sure are a lot of apologists for China here. Anyone that thinks China's human rights record is okay hasn't been paying attention to the plight of the laobaixing in China and the terrible regimes China is backing and propping up abroad. China doesn't even pretend to support human rights so its pretty easy to avoid the hypocrite label.

While the US has made plenty of mistakes it owns up to them eventually and has contributed more to advancing human rights than any other country. Lets try to keep a little perspective here. I am an American and I am very pleased with Obama.

It's never about humanrights, stupid, it's about communism.

I dont think that the fact that the US government is hypocritical on human rights should stop us crticising Chinas human rights record. I mean us individually, as citizens, not our politicians.

What has always struck me about this blog is that it gives the impression that China is progressing towards the increasing rule of law, at least in matters of business. This might be true (i dont know as I dont do any business in china). But even if it is true we should not be led to the conclusion that if this is the case the human rights situation in china must also be improving as well. They are two seperate issues.

While in law school, I worked for the Carter Center's China Village Elections Project (see, e.g., http://en.chinaelections.org/about-us.asp )

I was impressed and I think you would be, too.

Check it out.

The United States and other global powers should address these violations immediately. But they dont they would rather not rock the boat, there are many arms contracts to lose as well as the oil industry, if countries leaders did kick up a fuss about the violations I am sure something would change, torture and executions still go on as the norm. I live in UK and my Childrens Father (James) was horribly tortured for 66 days and nights in a Saudi Prison accused of planting bombs along with other westerners, he was released after 2 years with a deal set up to swap 5 Saudi terrorists from Guantanamo bay, this was a 3 way deal with US UK and the Saudi Government. Our UK Government blocked these men getting any justice in the UK Courts. James lost everything and suffered deeply from PTS disorder and depression as well as the injuries that was inflicted on him in that hell hole, while he was incarcerated the UK Ministers told me lies and warned me not to rock the boat as it would not do us any good to upset the Saudi Royals while our Gov did nothing but left these men to rot knowing the suffering they were going through, deals were still being made and arms sales were booming. even when handed the proof of torture our Government washed their hands of the whole affair. Mary Martini UK

"2. Of course I believe in Human Rights."

Sweet Mother of All Creatures Great and Small, what does that mean?

As near as I can tell, folks who make such statements believe that all people on our planet (at least) are entitled to a certain body of rights, variously defined but centering around life, basic human dignity and expression, etc.

Now then, where does that come from? Okay x% believe it is divine in origin, let's call that "mystical" - by definition, we can't understand it as it's otherworldly in nature. If you believe in mystical human rights, I'll accept that and not argue with you. But if you're proposing that there are "mundane" human rights, I'm asking you where these come from... and when...

Does Jackie Chan have these human rights? He thinks Chinese folks are not ready for these rights (your earlier post on him). There are many, many, many more Jackie Chan thinkin' folks in China than the few intellectuals living in three cities on the coast of that vast land for less than a hundred years.

In the name of all-that-does-not-suck, don't be drawn in by human rights advocates. There is no mundane right to anything, although we may be witnessing the infancy (if not birth) of a structure capable of granting such a body of rights. My, what a frightening structure that would be... what if it decided to redefine human rights?

By all means, argue what kind of relationship the USA should have with various entities based upon their conduct, as judged by our standards - it's our country's right (as taken and retained by force) as a sovereign nation. But don't sing me some song about how everyone has a body of human rights or the right to universal automobile care, it's just another form of cultural imperialism and, ultimately, an excuse to beat them up and take their stuff.

In the China context, I refer you to the denunciation of the tributary state system as falling outside of international law and the imposition of TREATY PORTS, for crying out loud, and the forced unequal treaties, seizure of, for example, Burma and Korea. From its inception, International Law, such as it is, has been a tool of conquest, and it is no different waving the Human Rights banner.

Although there are many sincere voices for improvements to the human condition in China and elsewhere, efforts to force China whether by political, economic, or military might to effect this change are just more of the same sort of bullying China has experienced since coming into contact with International Law.

Is it so shocking that China might not take these criticisms to heart?

I think that any country (China) that blocks Internet access to the websites of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International has no right to even claim they are making progress on human rights. If you are afraid of your citizens having access to information then you can't be a legitimate government.

Dan, you are absolutely right, and it has to be said. The US's selective human rights scolding is shameless hypocrisy. Of course TiananMen was bad, but far worse has happened in the past 20 years (and a lot of it) but it is all conveniently forgotten because it doesn't fit the current political agenda.
I made a post about this a couple of weeks ago here: http://www.chinaoutsider.com/2009/05/27/3/ . I hope you don't mind me posting a link.

Words and powerful and things can be phrased better, and your answer is "so what?"

I'm asking you to consider your audience and how you phrase things precisely because you have a valid point that needs to be addressed. I agree with your core point. But you've already revealed that people have criticized you for issues you didn't address nor believe in. Why did this happen? Because people get defensive and try to deflect attacks that do not exist? Yes. But also because, perhaps you didn't phrase your point as well as you could have, thereby bringing out the unnecessary crowds.

If you care about your platform and using it for change (which you clearly do), then you should make every effort to choose your weapons carefully so that they effectively tear the enemy down, not create new ones. (The reverse is also true, readers should also give you the benefit of the doubt and figure out your real meaning).

I'm not asking you to make everyone happy. There will always be someone who misunderstands you. But if you can cut that number down significantly, thereby increasing the power of your message, even if doing something so simple as rewording your statement (on a blog which can be edited nonetheless), why not do it? If you decide it doesn't matter how your message is received, then is your message really that important? Aren't you just making noise for your own sake?

I'll also answer one of your pseudo-rhetorical questions.

While I'm in agreement with a number of them (even though I'm none of the supposed "ifs"), the last one strikes me as misplaced. If I were a journalist, where would I rather be? I gather that a number of journalists would choose the Middle East and not China, as you've already answered for everyone. After all, that's why a number of them are there. I know you were referencing being a journalist in China means being harassed or possibly jailed but at least not assassinated or blown to bits as offices of Al Jazeera have been.

But let's be clear. In the Middle East, you're not blocked, and we don't really deal with issues like, "what is really going on T1bet". The atrocities are laid bare. Sometimes that's what a journalist would prefer, even at the risk of their life, isn't it?

Jay,

The blocking of the internet is not done by countries with great human rights records, I agree. But that alone does not mean things are not improving. Frankly, I do NOT know whether things have improved over the last few years, but that fact alone is not dispositive.

Thomas,

No, I don't mind and your post certainly raises an interesting point. Why all the focus on Tian-A/Men? Why, for instance is there never a mention of the Hama massacre? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

Wow, the blogging fortitude you have shown in responding to all of these comments is truly amazing.

For my two cents, I don't think that speaking quietly to China will achieve anything; speaking publicly won't either. And I don't think speaking publicly or privately will hurt our standing in the world; speaking publicly effects our standing with China, but it's probably negligible compared to the Taiwan issue. It's like when Japanese dignitaries vist the Yasukuni shrine. It's symbolic, but it doesn't mean anything.

The difference between China and middle-eastern caliphates is that the course of Chinese society will likely effect Americans in the coming century while the course of Saudi or Lybian society will not (yes, terrrorism, but China has the chance to become the world's dominant culture), so of course we have a greater sense of urgency when it comes to Chinese human rights abuses.

The State Dept's report on Human Rights does detail the human rights abuses of every country including the middle eastern caliphates. Even though the contents of this report do not come through in speeches, the information is publicly available and it goes into making US government policy.

Also, all of you T1b3ts and T-------ns and Tsquares; one of my former students worked in the "Great Fire Wall," and all of the recognizable derivations of senstive words are on the censorship list.

Finally, this is a great blog to check out if you are interested in modern Mandarin internet linguistics. Also, the blog proprietor is the most thoughtful patriotic Chinese expatriot I have ever communicated with, and a lawyer to boot. http://meiguozi.blogspot.com

Dan, you're right, my post was not clear. I'll try to clarify a little.

I guess my discomfort with your post is the personification of the USA. A country can't be hypocritical, moral, friendly, or fat. It can have inconsistent policies, adhere to a specific code in its conduct, maintain supportive relationships, and, probably, qualify as "phat", but it's not a person.

In the end, a state promotes the interest of its constituents - that's it's job, that's the reason for collective action through government. What does this have to do with gay rights in China? They don't punish ppl in China for being gay. They punish ppl for saying that they are gay - huge difference and consistent with the punishment of all apparent nonconformity - see communism. See how HR might be viewed as an attempt by foreigners to undermine the stability of the Chinese state?

I'm not saying it's correct to pursue national strength through lip service conformity and the annihilation of dissent - I feel quite the opposite. But it's not up to me, that's the system the people in that place have chosen, and to try to force them to change their government is to undermine the system they have built and which has sustained them and arguably freed their country from colonialism.

International law is just international politics, and the HR debate is a tool in America's arsenal of political billy clubs. Sure, I think it's terrible that Chinese people choose to live with authoritarianism as they do, and that people are killed or mutilated by the governments they sustain in other sovereign states, but if it keeps the price of VCR's down in the USA, then has our government not done its job?

Maybe saying the USA is hypocritcal for criticizing China and not other states on HR issues is missing the point that the USA is entirely consistent in doing whatever it deems best suited to promoting the interests of its citizens... and keeping the price of VCR's down.

SO much of all this debate’s turgid passion is built on an inadequate appreciation of the core differences between China (& +-Asia) and the West. OK Suckers, (not you, Dan) a Pop quiz: All that truly FAIL this ONE QUESTION EXAM, be honest now, need do a LOT MORE ON SITE STUDYING. Ready? In terms of the deepest and most seminally influential GENERAL BELIEF held by China and by the generally Christian West, what is the most basic difference? Answer: The Christian West believes one is born EVIL, and therefore must be, uh, guided by reward and punishment, etc, and maybe a good lawyer, ;-) and the Chinese et al believe one is born basically GOOD, and therefore only need be encouraged by good examples, etc. So much of this China bashing is just the parochial assumption that the Chinese are evil as the western basher believes, whether conscious of it or not, himself to be. Hahahaha! Now for an impolite chaser: I spent over fifty years doing private diplomacy with Vietnam, as an US Embassy brat, ( COSMIC ) through the war with Special Forces with 3M Viet & 58K Western dead, on through its opening, and now its boom times. If you can’t honestly claim a little background experience something like that re Asia, then go look in a mirror. What do you see? (Hint: do we humans confuse being the dominant number one species on this planet with actual wisdom & smarts? Review the evidence, please, thank you. [Chalmers Wood in Nanjing on www.facebook.com]