The 2008 Beijing Olympic Games put forward the inspiring slogan “One World, One Dream”. The first ever white paper on human rights issued by the Chinese government in 1991 also led with the statement that “It has been a long-cherished ideal of mankind to enjoy human rights in the full sense of the term.” Both the Chinese Dream and that of the broader world include a dream for human rights.
At the same time, the world is pluralistic, for political, economic, cultural, historical, religious, geographical, and numerous other reasons. The world is colorful exactly because it is diversified. The United Nations covenant on human rights shares one common clause that declares their “Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic”. To date, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” has remained the document that has been translated into the most languages in the Guinness World Records, which is now available in 418 languages.
Its texts in different languages may differ slightly. But, more importantly, under the common goals, divergences may arise in understanding, prioritizing, and determining the course of action based on differences in historical and cultural backgrounds and practical needs.
There are plenty of real-world examples to illustrate the relationship of dialectical unity between the universality and peculiarity of human rights. The United States, as a developed capitalist country, and China, as a developing socialist country, afford more graphic footnotes to the reality that distinctive understandings and approaches exist over one common human rights topic.
Internationalization of human rights protection has gradually evolved into a global trend since the inception of the UN. China had also spoken out on human rights in the 1950s in an international context, concentrating primarily on the preservation of the rights of colonial countries and nations in Africa, and opposition to racial oppression and segregation. China stood firmly by countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, advocating national independence and sovereign equality, and opposing interference in other countries’ internal affairs on any pretext.
The New China had two tasks to face. One was to preserve the country’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; the other was to, starting almost from scratch, build its own economic basis, meet the populous nation’s basic needs for cloth, food, shelter and transportation, realizing the rights to subsistence and development. The Chinese economy has grown by leaps and bounds since the beginning of reform and opening up. Worries about clothing and feeding the populace have by and large become a thing of the past. And society’s immediate next goal is a state defined as “all-round well-off”. Nowadays, the Chinese understanding of development finds expression in the government’s proposal of the people-centered “scientific outlook on development”, or the idea of comprehensive development that takes into consideration civilized approaches from the perspectives of economic, political, social, cultural and ecological integrity. China’s advocacy of the right to subsistence and development has thus been endowed with a new connotation.
The “National Human rights Action Plan (2012-2015)” is a government work program tailored specifically to human rights concerns. Its preface expresses in explicit terms China’s attitude to and stance on human rights. It promises to guarantee human rights, and to strive to make every member of society live a happier and more dignified life. It also pledges that headways in human rights protection will be made in an all-round and pragmatic manner in accordance with the law. It vows to improve the laws and rules on respecting and protecting human rights as well as mechanisms for their execution, through legislative, administrative and judicial endeavors according to the constitutional principle that “The State respects and guarantees human rights”, and in the spirit of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and relevant international covenants on human rights. It takes all human rights as an interdependent and inseparable organic whole. It aims to facilitate the coordinated progress of economic, social and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights, and to promote the coordinated advancement of individual and collective human rights. Obviously, China’s attempts to upgrade human rights guarantee at home have been responding actively to UN initiatives and shown impressive respect for international human rights standards. Meanwhile, while prioritizing the rights to subsistence and development, it is striving to give due consideration to all human rights, both individual and collective.
Internationally, China is faithfully executing international human rights covenants it has participated in, and is devoting itself to international exchanges and collaboration concerning human rights on the basis of equality and mutual respect. As to the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, which China signed in 1998, both Chinese leaders and the “National Human rights Action Plan” reiterated unequivocally that, by accelerating legislation and judicial and administrative reforms, the country is actively creating conditions so that the covenant can get legislative approval as soon as possible. Drawing lessons from the covenant’s principles and ideas, China has revised its Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law. More recently, it has just officially abolished the “re-education through labor” system, which has been at work for decades. These are substantive strides towards approving the covenant.
China is a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which was inaugurated in 2006. On November 12, 2013, at the 68th UN General Assembly, China was successfully re-elected with 176 votes. This reflects the international community’s appreciation of the country’s progress and achievements in human rights protection.
As a populous developing country, China certainly has plenty of drawbacks when it comes to human rights. From improving awareness to maneuvering practical changes, the country has to continue to make strenuous and persistent efforts to overcome obstacles and make further headways.
However, in sharp contrast with China, who has been advocating overall development of human rights at home, and circumspectly following current international laws and proposing to conduct constructive dialogue and cooperation in the UN framework, the United States has displayed distinctive “individuality” in both theory and practice.
At home, the US adopts a traditional human rights concept that emphasizes civil and political rights, placing inadequate weight on what the Chinese deem as essential to people’s livelihoods from the perspective of human rights. In practice, it has aroused the domestic public’s dissatisfaction in such areas as gun control, racial discrimination, education and medical care. Internationally, while actively promoting the formulation of international human rights standards and corresponding mechanisms, the US has resorted to an isolationist and pragmatist approach – it does not approve or join relevant covenants and mechanisms. Till now, the US has not approved the “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, “The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”, “The Convention on the Rights of the Child”, and “The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”. The Chinese government has approved all these documents and been working hard for their implementation.
Once every year, the US Department of State points its finger at the human rights records of other countries by issuing a by-country human rights report. On one hand, assessing human rights conditions of different countries itself is a complicated job, which calls for an objective and just attitude. On the other hand, one country’s attitude to and stance on another country’s human rights situation should be consistent with international laws, instead of directly infringing upon the latter’s sovereignty and independence, or interfering in its domestic affairs and judicial proceedings. Unfortunately, the report has demonstrated entrenched double standards and a conspicuous tendency to politicize. It has featured too much distortion and finger-pointing to not cause discontent and angry retorts from other countries.
China and the US differ in history, culture and national conditions. But both are permanent members of the UN Security Council. Now both are members of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The two countries should enhance their communication, understanding and collaboration. While pursuing all-round progress at home in human rights protection, they should pay due attention to and take advantage of the multilateral framework of the UN, and contribute to the healthy and rapid development of the international human rights cause.
Liu Huawen is deputy director and secretary-general of the Center for Human Rights Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
