From @UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:owner-china-nt@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Tue Dec 21 10:09:42 1993 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 09:21:13 -0500 Reply-To: yaxin wang Sender: China-Net From: yaxin wang Subject: CCF #9329, 12/21/93, "Human Rights (II)" Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu To: Multiple recipients of list CHINA-NT ==+==+==+== C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m ==+==+==+=== Tuesday, December 21, 1993 (Special Issue, No. 9329) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Chinese Community Forum (CCF) is a journal published on China-Net. CCF is dedicated to the discussion and debate on the issues related to the Chinese community. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the Editorial Board of CCF. Contributions to the discussions and suggestions of new topics are very much appreciated. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Table of Contents Author | # of Lines ============================================================================ Theme of the issue: Human Rights (II) 1. A Report on the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna ........ Liu Paopu and Xiao Qiang 147 2. Is the Concept of Human Rights Universal?.............Yang Changqing 120 3. Reader's Response to the Last Human Rights Issue (3 items).............99 ============================================================================ ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== From The Editor +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The theme of this issue of Chinese Community Forum is again on Human Rights. Two articles and three letters from readers are included in this issue. The first article is an excerpted report on the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, which gives a fairly detailed account of the opinions of both the Chinese Government and non-governmental organizations expressed during the conference. The second article elaborates on one view of the question raised in our last issue. We hope with this issue we bring you more different perspectives of the multi-facets problem of human rights. We are looking forward to presenting more different viewpoints in depth. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. A Report on the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna ........ Liu Paopu and Xiao Qiang 147 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Editor's notes: This is an extended excerpt from an article in the Fall 1993 Edition of "China Rights Forum (CRF)". We thank Sophia Woodman, Executive Editor of CRF, and Xiao Qiang, one of the authors of this article, for giving CCF permission to use the article.] -- -- -- If there were no non-governmental organizations (NGO's), there would be no human rights movement; the willingness and ability of powerful United Nations member states to block strong action on rights in the world body often create deadlock there. Liu Baopu and Xiao Qiang give an insider's view of the tensions in the relationship between human rights-related NGOs and governments at the recent World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna. The World Conference on Human Rights (WCHR) was the first United Nations summit on human rights in 25 years. Despite the end of the Cold War logjam on this issue, prospects for strengthening the human rights work of the UN and forging a new consensus on the need for more attention to this issue at the conference seemed dim: the draft document of the final preparatory meeting, known as PC98, was 48 pages long and contained over 200 bracketed sections indicating that consensus on those points had not been reached. Among the main areas of controversy were: universality vs. particularity, the question of whether human rights standards are universal or should depend on the particular historical, cultural and political circumstances of a country; the issue of national self-determination; the subject of making aid conditional on progress in respect for human rights; and whether or not to appoint a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Conflicting agendas and interests even emerged in the NGO Forum, which was convened prior to the formal conference. NGOs were prohibited by conference regulations from raising human rights abuses in specific countries at the governments' meeting. NGO access to the press was also limited, primarily by logistical factors, such as the situating of the press room in an area to which NGO delegates were not permitted access. Worst of all, NGOs were kicked out of the committee charged with drafting the final WCHR document, after Chinese delegates said that they could not participate if NGO representatives were allowed to attend. China's blocking of the Dalai Lama's speech from the NGO Forum aroused vociferous expressions of anger, since it neatly summed up the NGOs' frustration at being "shut out." A group of Asian governments, including China, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Iran, represented the most vocal lobby in favor of diminishing the traditional focus of human rights activities on civil and political rights. They argued that greater weight should be accorded to issues such as state sovereignty and the right to development, and claimed that Asian culture differed from the West's on concepts of human rights. Furthermore, they insisted that human rights conditionality should be removed from economic aid. They came to Vienna with hopes of putting these points into the final documents. On the second day of the governments' conference, Deputy Foreign Minister Liu Huaqiu, the head of the Chinese delegation, addressed the plenary session "on behalf of the Chinese government and people." Reflecting the above-mentioned concerns, he said, "The rights of each country to formulate its own policies on human rights protection in light of its own conditions should be respected." He argued that "stability" is essential for economic development, so "nobody shall place his own rights and interests above those of the state and society." Chinese NGO groups based in Hong Kong, the United States, Europe and Taiwan held a press conference immediately after his speech. HRIC, which had sent a five-person delegation composed of Guo Luoji, Li Shuxian, Liu Qing and ourselves to Vienna, asserted that human rights advocacy cannot be seen as an encroachment upon national sovereignty and is essential in ensuring that rights are protected. Pointing out that human rights are indivisible and interdependent, we said that one set of rights should not be used to bargain for another. At this press conference we took the opportunity to highlight some of the most pressing human rights abuses taking place in China. We also called upon all the governments, especially those sitting on the UN Security Council such as the U.S. and China, to ratify all international human rights covenants without reservation. A joint statement from the Chinese groups was also issued at this press conference. The statement pointed out that Chinese people around the world are concerned about the human rights situation in the mainland, and called on the Chinese government to ratify the two international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights at the earliest possible opportunity. It also suggested that the "verdict" labelling the 1989 demonstrations a "counterrevolutionary rebellion" should be reversed and called for the release of all political prisoners. Three Chinese NGO groups from the mainland which attended the Vienna meeting chose not to join in these activities, and appeared to disagree with most of the positions taken by the other NGO groups. Terra Viva, the conference newspaper, called these and other such groups "GONGOs" (government- organized NGOs). The principal group of this type is the Chinese Human Rights Study Society (CHRSS), which was formed one week before the Bangkok preparatory conference, and is headed by Li Yuanchao, a high-level secretary in the Chinese Communist Youth League. HRIC delegates had informal discussions with members of this group (delegates of the other two were not willing to talk to us) and with government delegates; there appeared to be no difference between their standpoints. The Chinese delegation said that they had come with a genuine willingness to compromise and a desire to see the conference succeed. But, a government delegate pointed out to us, at this stage in its economic and political development, China can not agree to unworkable standards. The CHRSS delegates told us that western nations are not really interested in the human rights situation in China, but merely use this issue to further their political goals. Both accused HRIC of "damaging the honor of the Chinese state" and of helping western countries further their aim of sabotaging socialism in China. We were prepared to begin our dialogue with them in a positive vein, in order to open channels for further, more frank communication in the future. But we could not help but express our disagreement when they made statements such as: "Qingcheng Prison no longer exists," "Liu Gang was never tortured," "The western media is full of lies, People's Daily is far better" and "Generally speaking, China's human rights record is better than that of the United States." After a long, painful drafting process at its nadir, it appeared likely that the final document would actually diminish the scope of current UN standards on human rights the governments reached consensus, affirming the universality of human rights in the Vienna Declaration. "It is the duty of the states, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms," it said. Whereas 58 countries were involved in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, 180 nations signed on this time. The document includes many compromises and ambiguities in order to resolve the conflicts between governments, with strong support for strengthening protection of women's rights, no change on issues such as aid conditionality, a serious watering down of language on press freedom allowing this to be controlled "according to [domestic] law" and no decision on the creation of a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (although it recommends that the UN General Assembly approve the post after further discussion). The Vienna Declaration also reaffirms the right to development, but condemns using this as a justification for human rights abuses. Furthermore, it reiterates that the human person is the central subject of development. The Declaration also includes a strong paragraph recognizing and supporting the role of NGOs in promoting human rights. Now it is up to NGOs to hold governments accountable for what they have agreed to in Vienna. [About the authors: Liu Baopu is a member of Human Rights in China's Executive Committee, Xiao Qiang is HRIC's executive director.] [Excerpt by Luo Ning, nluo@msvax.mssm.edu,12/14/93] ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 2. Is the Concept of Human Rights Universal?.............Yang Changqing 120 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the past year, the concept of universality of human rights has met serious challenge from the third world countries, exampled by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna last June. Not surprisingly, the leads of the debate on two sides are the People's Republic and the United States. Are human rights universal? America is a strong advocate of it. In the US, this has been generally acknowledged. However, in practice, one can find plenty of examples that people from different cultural, religious and economic background view things differently, yet both sides claim that they are protecting the basic human rights. One of these examples is the debate on abortion: Pro-choice people believe that it is the fundamental right of women bearing children to make their own choice and no one else has the right to intervene. On the other side, pro-life people believe that they are protecting the fundamental rights of the unborn babies. This debate has become so hot that violence has been brought in and no one can see an end for this debate. No side wants to make any compromise regarding to what they regard as the "fundamental rights". It is within the same country, with relatively similar cultural back- grounds, yet it is so polarizing, when both sides are claiming that they are fighting for the basic rights. How can one imagine that countries with entirely different cultural, historic and economic background are on the same side of the political spectrum on the issue of human rights? The concept of human rights, as any other ideological terms, is based upon the cultural, historical back ground, the economic foundation and the society structure. One of the greatest Sinologist in this country in 20th century, Dr. John King Fairbank wrote about the difficulty for the people from different cultural background to understand each other. He said: Take, for example, the new American religion of human rights. It is more culture bound than we think. Human rights will not become a dominant in China until China becomes as legalistic a society as America, which is not likely to happen for a long time. This is because, stated briefly, rights and duties are the respective residues of Christianity and Confucianism. The result is a contrast between the ideals of individual striving and of collective harmony, motifs that come down from three thousand years of history and are not easily expungable. (China Watch, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 1987) Let's put aside Dr. Fairbank's argument about the legalistic system, he correctly pointed out that a society in which Confucianism is deeply rooted, duty and collective harmony have higher priority than individual's rights and striving. We probably all remember the old saying: Man shall worry the country before anything else, and only seek comfort after everyone else (Xian1 Tian1 Xia4 Zhi1 Yuo1 Er Yuo1, Hou4 Tian4 Xia4 Zhi1 Le4 Er Le4). The traditional idealism in the three thousand year culture has never put the individualism as the priority. With this background, it is impossible to force the nation to accept the concept of human rights which is basically rooted from an entirely different cultural background. Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University recently made a forceful argument that the conflicts after the Cold War are more of those between different civilization (see Foreign Affairs, Summer, 1993). Not saying I agree with his argument, rather his view proves from another angle how different cultures see things differently. Recently, there are a lot of discussions on the rapid economic development in China. One of them wrote: the economic development is giving the Chinese people more a freedom of choice: the choice of what to eat, the choice of how to play, and more importantly, the choice of where to work (see China News Digest, 12/17/1993). This is another aspect we shall pay attention on our debate about the universality of human rights--the pursuing of human rights can not be achieved without the pursuing the economic development. Actually, the pursuing of economic freedom is part of the pursuing of human rights. No one can deny that the first, and foremost important human rights is one's right to survive. No only survive, but also to have a decent life he or she enjoys. When one has no food on the table, hardly any body would worry whether he or she has the right to vote. Not only the economic freedom, the personal freedom is another important aspect, too. When one is living in fear of his own life, when man has to worry about the safety of his wife, parents have to worry about where their children can and can not go, hardly, political freedom means anything to them. In an economic backward society, people have less freedom to do when they want. In disordered society, people worry whether they can do what they want to do. Political concern will no doubt take a back seat. Saying these is by no means undermining the importance of political freedom are intertwined with each other. A political freer society, in general, shall be more harmonic, more stable, provides a sound legal and justic system which is able to keep social order by depriving certain people's certain rights, while protecting the basic rights for the majority people. (Again, we can see that universality does not exist here. Human rights can not be a blanket cover for everybody to do what ever they want without a legal boundary.) In that sense the political freedom is not only a human right, rather it is more a responsibility a society requires its people to take in order to improve the society, improve the quality of life, improve the harmony and stability of a society. In that sense, political freedom is essential to a society, as much as the economic freedom and personal freedom. Since political freedom is not only individual's right, but also his duty, one has to bear in mind that his freedom shall not be used to bring hatred, chaos, or social backwards. From this point of view, every society has its own idea about social harmony, social unity, and therefore, will set up its own limit on the degree of political freedom. Even within one country, at different historical period, due to different political and economical situation, the limits on political freedom can be different. One example in Germany: Today, German people enjoy more political freedom than they did right after W.W.II, only after a fully democratic functional mechanism has been established. This again says loudly that the concepts of human rights, freedom and democracy are not universal. They are closely related to the cultural background, social structure and economic development of a country. If one really believes the universality of human rights, I can not help asking you, do you respect the rights of a nation to have their own culture, their religion, their moral value and their political system? If so, then you shall not impose your standard of human rights to the others. If not, then you are the first one to violate your universality of human rights, since you are depriving the basic human rights of other nations. (Received 12/18/93) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***============ 3. Reader's Response to the Last Human Rights Issue (3 items)..............99 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear CCF Editor, It is about time that CSS should embark on an in-depth discussion of of human rights and possibly make comparisons between the notions of human rights in the West and the East. While ignorance too often leads to disasters, mis-understanding of each other could lead to nowhere. Some fundamental human rights are universal, yet, the recognition of these rights is largely culturally biased and abused. In the article of "human right and crime rate," Mr. Anthony Lee argued that the individual freedom, or human rights, is not the cause of high crime rate. I tend to agree on this assertion as long as it stops at the point before the author carried the argument further to the last two paragraphs. As following quoted, the author raised the question of high crime rate in nations such as the U.S., and produced no answer to his own question, unlike the such absolute answers to the question above. Instead, the author twisted it around and understandably pointed to the judicial system, gun control, and other unspecified factors. It is true that the high crime rate in the U.S. can not be attributed solely to the lax standards, labeld as individual liberty which happened to be one of the fundations of American system. Yet, it is this freedom that created all the time and energy consuming legal processes, and posed the image of poor judicial system and poor gun control. Thus, to some extent, one can credibly argue that high level of human rights does correlates with the high crime rates. In the last paragraph, the author once again raised a very interesting aspect of the social development, that the Nobles pressed the King of England to give in. The author borrowed the case to the Chinese situation. Yet, one crucial point is that it was the Nobles who pushed the King, but not the King who voluntarily offered to the Nobles. I would dream that the Chinese people have all the liberty and freedom overnight, but please note that there has not yet have a group of people in today's China that is similar to those Nobles in the England that could exert such a force to the government. After all, the social and economic development are always hand in hand, one leads another will sure to follow. For now, I would place the economic development as our national priority, and before long it will generate a nation of 1.2 billion "Nobles." (From: tyhu@****.****.edu, Dec. 16, 1993) -*- -*- -*- Dear Editor, On the CCF of Dec. 15, Anthony Lee ("Human Rights vs Crime Rate") raised a very important question on how to achieve the balance between maintaining law and order while protecting individual's basic human rights. However, Mr. Lee did not provide an answer to this question. Rather, he contradicted himself. He said that the high crime rate in the US could be the result of "poor gun control" or "poor judicial system" or other hundreds of factors, but not the result of the imbalance between human rights and law and order. I would like to ask Mr. Lee, why is it so hard in this country to control gun? Isn't it because that some people view possessing gun as one of their fundamental human rights, and therefore, shall not be deprived? Why is the judicial system in this country performs so badly? It was once regarding as one of the most perfect, if not the perfect judicial system in the world and was the model for quite a few developing countries. Is it true that this judicial system protects criminals' rights the same it protects the victims' rights? If so, isn't it another example of imbalance between the protection of human rights and the maintaining of law and order? Needless to say, Mr. Lee was right to point out that the Chinese Government had been using the name of law and order to solely keep their power. Nobody is saying that China shall not be a democratic country. However, the difference between the Chinese approach and the Russian approach is not whether we want democracy, rather how to achieve democracy. One of the main error in the Russian approach is that the old system was destroyed, but the new legal system has not been built. It has nothing to do, as Mr. Lee suggested, with the iron-fist of the old communist system. The Chinese approach should be a gradual, programmatism, not a radical shock therapy or "Great Leap Forward" for that matter. The old legal system should be destroyed only with the establishment of the new legal system, which fully respects the basic human rights while maintains the law and order for the society to function. With best regard. (From a CCF reader, 12/16/93) -*- -*- -*- Dear Editor, Just get your new issue about human right (ccf#9327). You predominantly present those of U.S. human rights view. Giving your organization's position, it is not surprising. However, you can exercise a better judgement. The article about Chinese economy driven by prisoners should be censored. Everyone in their right mind knows it is completely false. I know that the word "censor" like taboo to not a small percentage of people. If you try to give a "balanced" view, then think about it: Elvis is still live! Alien is in white house! etc., only published in those "famous" National Enquire. (From: LIAOK@****.***.gov, 12/15/93) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Yaxin Wang Executive Moderator: Yan Bai + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + For subscription: mail "SUB CHINA-NT Your-First-Name Your-Last-Name" + + to LISTSERV@UGA (bitnet) or listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu (internet) + + For back issues of CCF: + + anonymous ftp to cnd.org[132.249.229.100]:pub/community/CCF + + For contribution and inquiry: mail to ccf-editor@ifcss.org + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++