The United States, China, and Human Rights

By Rachel Burger|Opinion|2 Comments

According to the United Nation, every living person in the world is entitled to “human rights.” Human rights include (but are not limited to):

• The right to life
• The right to water
• The right to reproductive choice
• The right to choose thought, conscience, and religion
• The right to free speech
• The right to a fair trial
• Freedom from torture
• Freedom from slavery

Human rights are irrelevant to US foreign policy; if human rights were a top concern within our government, we would have to invade Sierra Leone, Chad, Yemen, the Republic of Congo, Pakistan, China and 14 other countries just to address the world’s top-20 offenders. In reality, human rights shouldn’t guide foreign policy decisions, or else the United States would attempt to fulfill the role of the UN and certain IGOs and NGOs: world policing. Yet rhetoric surrounding the People’s Republic tends to center around China’s human rights—or lack thereof—policy.

Today, Gary Locke (the US ambassador to China) called on Beijing to improve its human rights record. He states:

“Our goal of building a cooperative partnership with China includes regular dialogue on human rights issues. U.S. support for a strong, prosperous and successful China reflects our belief that respect for the rule of law and protection of the universal freedoms of expression, belief and assembly are critical to securing the growth, prosperity, and long-term stability that China seeks and to realizing the full potential of its people.

While China has undoubtedly made great strides in developing its economy, the imprisonment of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo and restrictions on the freedoms of his spouse Liu Xia, the illegal “disappearing” of Gao Zhisheng, the unlawful detention of Chinese citizens such as lawyer Chen Guangcheng, and constraints on the religious freedom and practices of Tibetan, Uighur and Christian communities do not bring China closer to achieving its stated goals.” (Shanghaiist)

It is terribly ironic for Locke to criticize Chinese human rights without looking at the state of affairs in his own country. In America, the government can take the lives of its citizens (death penalty), employs racist policies (affirmative action), and is now entertaining the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the government to arrest and detain its citizens for an undetermined amount of time. While Americans have more reproductive choice than China’s One Child Policy,  access to sex education and birth control remains a controlled commodity within the United States. While China imprisons and tortures activists—which, to them may be “radicals,”—the United States uses the Patriot Act to do the same to alleged terrorists. Neither country follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the letter (though, admittedly China’s record is still far worse than America). Still, the United States has little moral high ground to criticize China’s human rights policy.

If you believe the US should take an active role in promoting human rights (as an extension of democracy, given freedom of speech) in China, why not in other countries? Why not get involved in Yemen, where children are forced into marriage? Or Cambodia, where migrant workers are forced into confinement in training centers, heavy debt burdens, and exploitative working conditions. Or Fiji, where journalists are repeatedly “disappeared” after they expose any human rights violations within their own country. Ultimately, these human rights violations are the same and/or similar to what is happening in China, but is happening in other countries. The US is not interested in helping these people. Why? Because there are no political gains for the United States for helping people in these developing countries. America sets its sights on Chinese human rights not because the United States hopes to liberate these people from their government, but because it’s a play for political power in the region. Advocating for human rights in China is the same thing as advocating for regime change; we should just call a spade a spade.

Frankly, tackling human rights internationally is a mammoth task that the United States should not be involved with period. Wouldn’t you prefer a government that first prioritizes its citizens, and then the citizenry of another country? Invading state sovereignty with Western ideals (the Chinese didn’t even have a word for human rights when Nixon went to China) before cleaning up house is immoral. Yes, I am suggesting the United States should stand idly by. There are other actors that allow the US’s indirect involvement, like the World Bank (which is basically an arm of the US anyway) and UNIFEM (which is making huge strides in China).

Attacking human rights in China is merely a rhetorical ploy to 1. rally international fury over the US’s biggest creditor, and 2. rally the American people against a common enemy, not unlike Soviet Russia in the Cold War, to blame for the domestic bad economy and global human suffering. Instead of villainizing and condemning China for their human rights record (seeing as the United States has little moral high ground on which to stand), the US should engage in more productive discussion. Amicable relations is the only way the two governments can build a mutually respective future for both nuclear superpowers. Human rights activism should be left to NGOs or even IGOs, and political relations should be left to the politicians.