China hits back at US on rights

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080313/ts_afp/chinausrightsiraq_080313074318


NZ Olympic Team Leaders issue memo to NZ athletes prior to olympics stating that they can speak out regarding US human rights violations

in other news....

I have visited China recently and, really, they don't wanna be throwing any stones at all judging by what I saw... and I was in major cities most of the time.

R

thats not the point... or itsn't from my perspective - this is China saying well "fuck you yankkee you're no fucking saint get off our case and tidy up ya own shit"

and you know they have a very good point

except it isn't just yankee saying it and they are only deflecting the criticism in order to avoid facing uncomfortable and inconvenient truths

The point is the Cheney & Bush show has sold for oil the west's most precious propaganda tool - the moral high ground.

deflecting maybe and as the article says they counter the US's human rights report each year with one of their own

Of the two nations only one uses human rights issues as a justifiction to fuck with other countries..

the human rights issue is usually in direct proportion to the economic or strategic importance of the country concerned that much is true

just signpost the Pol Pot Kampuchea regime for example, which was only stopped by Vietnam

China's comments re USA re human rights - it's a bit like an aggravated robber pointing the finger at a shoplifter -

every country has human rights failures - even good old NZ - but like so much in life, it's a question of DEGREE

China doesn't even know the concept of human rights

new unrest in Tibet sees two shot dead by Chinese police

oh dear

Tibet is going to be a REAL problem for China as the Olympic games approaches

I agree, it looks like the Tibetans are not going to let the opportunity slip to let the world know about their plight.

Personally, I'd be absolutely cock-a-hoop if their was a walk out from the Beijing Olympics.

bbc asia gets blacked out when mention is made on the news

me too

Good old moral relativism mixed in with some US bashing.

Just what Karl Marx ordered.

End of topic. JH = smartest lawyer around.

Latest on the Tibet protests from Radio Free Asia -
http://www.rfa.org/english/tibetan/2008/03/14/tibet_protest/

Yeah. A kick in the teeth is just what the doctor ordered for the oligarchs of Beijing, and stiff dose of western boycott wouldn't hurt either. It always amazes me how the failed arguments in support of engagement with apartheid South Africa are trotted out in support of engagement with the butchers of Beijing. Everyone knows apartheid only fell when South Africa was made a complete pariah internationally. But I suppose the real bottom line is the same bottom line that kept business calling for engagement with South Africa - disgusting greed for the almighty $$$ and the profits to be made from doing business with Beijing.

how inconvenient for helen eh fushy?

PM treads warily on China's hard line over Tibet

Why are we so sure that the Western conception of human rights out to be accepted without question by Asian nations?

This strikes me as incredibly arrogant, and yet in every discussion of this kind of thing, the 'Western moral high ground' argument is trotted out.

Like Bob says, the Chinese have a good argument about Western hypocrisy. And its not just the US - look at the criticism NZ received from the UN re: the foreshore and seabed; Australia's treatment of the Aboriginies....etc.

our transgressions pale into insignificance against the Chinese and the UN had it wrong re the seashore bill

They are the ones wanting to join our club - so we get to lay down the rules.

(or at least grizzle a bit when they do stuff we really don’t like lol)

Except that the "Asian concept of human rights" is a myth - there is no Asian philosopher who has ever sat down and worked those rights out from first principles as has been done by many Western philosophers from the days of Socrates etc onwards.

I don't believe in natural human rights at all. All human rights are constructs. Which means they can be weighed against each other.

constructs or concepts?

I agree, to a point.

furthermore ... why does China's conduct have to be characterised in the language of human rights? - it's unnecessary

for example, state-approved harvesting of organs by military doctors is barbarism plain and simple

it's also immoral, and China fails on simple grounds of lack of humanity and morality in so many situations

there is no way to justify human organ-harvesting or brutal suppression of the populace as in any way in accordance with "a Chinese or Asian concept of human rights" - what a joke - and as vadinho points out, there isn't any such concept - it's just evil, pure and simple

What's wrong with harvesting organs?
You pick the one defensible thing...

well I hear it's very lucrative and good for foreigners wanting cheap transplants!!

well I don't disagree that there are many terrible things that go on in China. But to make out like China is the only country with these kind of problems, to make them a pariah state really, requires a very one-eyed view of the world. We all know that there is 'bad shit' that goes on all around the world, including in Western countries. But since China, unlike Western countries, has enormous development difficulties to contend with, I feel we should cut them a bit of slack before getting on our moral high-horse. I get the feeling that most HR activists and international law students see Chinese government as 'evil', as you put it, which is quite frankly ridiculous unless your reading is restricted to Amnesty International.

BTW my understanding of how Asian governments view human rights, is not that they don't exist, but that economic well-being is an essential part of them. Of course economic well-being is generally taken for granted in Western countries, so instead we focus on the more sophisticated ones, like democracy and the rule of law. Well when a large proportion of your country is living in abject poverty, I think its a smart to make a distinction between the crucial human rights (like having enough food to eat) and those that are nice to have, but can come later.

ironic given that China's recent economic development has rested on exploitation of cheap labour, involving inadequate protections for workers

btw if you think that the "rule of law" is a sophisticated human right - ?? I find that difficult to follow. observance of the rule of law = fundamental to stability in a country ,this includes ECONOMIC stability

human rights are not an economic issue. it doesn't matter how poor a population is - they may at times need to express dissent and to revolt - even to find a better way of life or establish a better regime under which more people can prosper. this can never happen if any sign of dissent is brutally suppressed.

I'm not prepared to turn a blind eye to China's wrongs simply because "every country has bad terrible things happening' - yes of course that is true, but it is a question of degree - and nations can ,and do draw the line, at certain types of
offending or unacceptable behaviour - especially when it comes to violations of fundamental norms and human rights standards etc

and you might want to look up "Tiananmen Square" as an illustration of what some of us here are talking about (the wikipedia entry is a good starting point)

- some of us choose not to forget this incident so easily, while others have short memories it seems

I watched Obama's "Perfect Union" speech last ight on youtube, and WOW! is all I can say. It was intelligent and it didn't shy from the tough issues and asking the hard questions. What a president he would make, and you know what? He might actually be able to restore to the west its moral manifest destiny.

I would LOVE to hear a president Obama admonishing China's oligarchs, just because I know it would piss the Chinese royally.

And why must one choose between human rights and economic prosperity? in the West, the two have gone hand in hand.

it can be argued that the granting of civil and political rights to the citizenry has actually contributed to economic growth in the West.

It can and it’s a strong argument, one that I am in favour of. The two do go hand in hand and there is only so long that China can keep attempting to control the economy with command control mechanisms. Loads of problems occur when you attempt to fix quotas, price fix et al. Subsidiaries can only last so long, it is better to abolish these aspects and let market forces dictate wages, prices, supply and demand.

But it is evident that China has prospered because it has freed up their market internally and embraced certain western liberal market reforms, abolishing a great deal of its price fixing and while certain quotas levels and financial restrictions still exist, it is allowing its citizens to lease, hold and manage property with autonomy and trade amongst themselves.

State Owned Enterprises represent only %30 with the rest private now.

However it’s facing enormous pressures, too numerous to mention. It is still fixing the Yuan and exchange rate, pegging it to the US dollar well below what it should be, in order to attract foreign demand for its cheap products and it is suffering from massive inflationary problems as Western countries continue to export their inflation into China. Their slowly learning of the outcomes of their policies with the central bank attempting to fight inflation on all fronts by changing its reserve requirement ratio up past 12.5%, excess reserve ratios and using open market operations via selling central bank bills to reign in the money supply.

I think I can hear it straining and creaking from here and am wondering if it’s going to explode somehow?

They need to a floating exchange rate and must continue to free up the market, which should in theory allow greater personal freedoms.

I don't think any of my comments are excusing the Chinese government's actions. But I do think a greater appreciation of the difficulties China faces is needed. I'm not holding my breath that this will happen however.

If you do some research on China you will see that problems like this are not simply a result of the Chinese government being 'evil'. It is far more complicated than that.

fair enough.

however I didn't describe the Chinese government as "evil" per se - I described certain of its actions as evil - i.e. organ harvesting, and brutal suppression of its citizens (the events of Tienanmen Square being but one example).

It's interesting that most of the people who support the Tibetans consider the Palestinians as terrorists and trouble makers.

I'm not so sure that's true - especially in NZ.

You're probably right in terms of Americans though.

well, there have never been an article that condemns the Israeli goverment. I was at a protest for Palestinians last year. Hardly any people turn up, but the crisis in Tibet has attracted more people to protest.

Many liberals who condmens the Palestinians for commiting violence against the Israelis ignores the fact that Han Chinese people have been killed or assaulted by angry Tibetans.

whales and tune

no one cares about the plight of the tuna... but do so want to protect the whale

or different issues attract different levels of media attention thus public percpetion and support

Tibet is "safe" option. Not to mention goverment sanctioned.

Not to mention that Tibetan buddhism is nobel and Arabs are filthy violent muslims.

While the state of Israel is illegal, one cannot deny that Jewish people were in Palestine 2000 years before the Muslims arrived.
And would have remained there during that period had they not been continually expelled by various waves of conquerors.

That's hardly the fault of the Arabs.