http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005...uman-rights.php

The above article was just to give a background on China's response to the US accusations of human rights abuses.

In light of the horrible history of human rights abuses by the US, from installing dictators like Pinochet and Saddam and the Shah of Iran, to the Red Cross saying our Abu Gharib type situations are widespread throughout our military system, and our turning over of prisoners to countries that don't mind a little torture to get information- are we in any position to critisize anyone about human rights abuses?

Is China justified in thier rebuttal?

Can the US ever reclaim high moral ground?

Do we care to have the moral hight ground?

In light of the horrible history of human rights abuses by the US, from installing dictators like Pinochet and Saddam and the Shah of Iran, to the Red Cross saying our Abu Gharib type situations are widespread throughout our military system, and our turning over of prisoners to countries that don't mind a little torture to get information- are we in any position to critisize anyone about human rights abuses?

Yes and no. The hypocrisy comes from those of us who believe the US is somehow lily-white and without fault. From those who try and deflect every crime of the US by bringing up all these other crimes done by other countries - heck, that will probably happen in this thread. Of course, being flawed does not mean we cannot strive to be better, and to help others be better.

Is China justified in thier rebuttal?

Sure. As justified as we are. China is the country with the most human rights advances in the last 100 years. They still have a long way to go (as do we), but they can certainly point these things out as well as we can.

Can the US ever reclaim high moral ground?

Did we ever have it?? But, sure. Anytime. All we have to do is make some big changes. But those changes are possible if we want them.

Do we care to have the moral hight ground?

Good question. Many of us have illusions about this. The architects of policy do not care, except inasmuch as they feel the need to placate the populace. This is generally done through propaganda quite efficiently.

Overall, the fact that the US has gotten into the business of disappearing people, and holding untold numbers of people without charge or due process, gives me the willies. I personally think we should not even mention the word human rights (officially and internationally) until we do some major house cleaning here at home.

Of course we should care less about human rights of foreigners and strictly pursue our own interests. Unfortunately we are required by law to be busybodies. From the State Department:

The report entitled "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" is submitted to the Congress by the Department of State in compliance with sections 116(d) and 502B( of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), as amended, and section 504 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. The law provides that the Secretary of State shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, by February 25 "a full and complete report regarding the status of internationally recognized human rights, within the meaning of subsection (A) in countries that receive assistance under this part, and ( in all other foreign countries which are members of the United Nations and which are not otherwise the subject of a human rights report under this Act."



Quark, would you have preferred that the law be ignored or that China's human right abuses be whitewashed? We should pursue liberalization of trade as the primary means of making the world more democratic and more protective of human rights. We need to repeal the law requiring the Secretary of State to document the human rights abuses of foreign nations.

Gee, Quark. Yes, that will happen on this thread because it is inherent to the question. "In light of human rights abuses by the US...are we in a position to criticize?" Now, how am I going to answer that one without making a comparison, since it asks for one directly? Yes, comparisons, and most of alll CONTEXT, are appropriate. In fact, they are fundamental to directly answering the questions posed for debate here.

CHina has made the most humanrights advances in the last hundred years? I guess if it couldn't get any worse than the emperor, you might be right. Actually, after the collapse of the monarchy in 1911, CHina descended into chaos that was probably worse. Millions died as warlords fought back and forth across the country, pillaging and looting with abandon. In the five-month period from 1929-30 winter alone, the once-affluent city of Iyang changed hands among various bandit armies 72 times. Anyone who was suspected of possessing even a vestige of wealth was fair game for kidnapping and torture. When they caught such persons they first pierced his/her legs with iron wire and bound them together. Then, they returned to their bandit dens and the captives were interrogated and cut with sickles to make them disclose hidden property. Those who hesitated were cut in two at the waist as a warning to others. The bandits basically were the government. This is during the past 100 years you have cited as "improvement".

Their human rights history is certainly among the worst in the past 100 years compared to most other large countries. Mao was responsible for more deaths than any person in the last century. In the tens of millions. The assault on Tibet and cultural genocide was an improvement from the past? For all of our faults, I don't see us mowing down sleeping protestors in parks with tanks, and that happened just 15 years ago in Tiananmen Square. But, yes, I agree their human rights issues have improved a lot lately (as in the past decade, not 100 years). Dr Wan Yanhai, for example, was only jailed for a month for criticizing the government's approach to the AIDs problem...in the bad old days, he would likely have been in prison forever (if he was lucky enough to not be killed).

I feel we have it, but if a nation with government enforced birth control and few individual liberties, forced labor camps in prison, limited to no religious freedom, limited freedoms of speech feels it has it, that's fine.



I would normally say yes, but given the comparison here I'll just resolve myself to no. I don't care. If a nation with such massive and systemic human rights abuses as China feels it can claim the moral highground on us, it's pretty clearly a ludicrous assumption. There is obviously no context or scale permitted to make such a comparison. The bicycle thief is the equivalent of a serial killer and he'd better not claim the moral highground because he's just as bad! Sorry, I'm at a loss for words.

We have more poeple in jail in our country for our population, with the possible exception of Russia!- I am sorry, I could not post the link- I found it through "ask jeeves"- but the dang link when I copied it was about a page long LOL

Nationally, the number of prison inmates grew faster than the population as a whole during the year. That brought the United States to a virtual tie with Russia as the most incarcerated country in the world in terms of inmates per capita. The Justice Department estimates that the number of inmates in U.S. prisons and jails will reach 2 million by the end of next year, quadruple what it was 20 years ago.

China's answer to our report:

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t185558.htm

The Chinese use our own figures against us- making a very good point that we are very bad indeed!

Of course, one thing we have over China, at least we report our abuses to ourselves - but what good is it if we talk and talk about it but never do anything?

To me, THIS is the real reason so many folks in this world hate the US- it is not jealousy of our system, but rather, contempt of our hypocrisy.

I think, America, as a culture, no longer cares to be truly the good guys, only thump our chests and TELL everyone how we are the good guys- but our actions speak for themselves.

And also MRs P, our genocide of the indians, and our history on slavery etc really does equal the chinese for bad stuff in the last, well, 150 years anyway. So we are comparing Jeffery Dahmer to John Wayne Gacy here- they both commited horrible crimes, just Jeffery Dahmer was a little more recent!

Mrs. P is dead on accurate as usual, so there's only a little I can add here.

Rebuttal? This was no a rebuttal it was an evasion.

1. On does not have to be in a position to criticize, regardless of the source, the truth is the truth.

2. Historical abuses have little bearing if the current leadership has denounced such methods. Despite the rhetoric no one has come up with substantial evidence to the effect that this administration sanctioned Abu Ghirab.
I have my problems with this administration's view on human rights, I think the Padilla case for instance is a travesty.

That said they aren't China's current leadership by a long shot

3. I repeat this because it bears repeating. One cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior

I get the idea that some are applauding China for this statement rather than recognizing it for what it is.

China refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing which likely dooms billions of Chinese to a continuation of the human rights abuses.

We do have the higher moral ground in this case, not that it matters. The standard should be perfection.

The Vietnamese Declaration of Independence starts with this quote:

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

I am sure people recognize this quote. I am sure people know who the author of that quote was. I am sure most people know the author of the American Declaration of Independence was a slaveowner. What a hypocrit. What right did he have to pen the words "All men are created equal"?

Jefferson's words have inspired and supported freedom movements around the world. His actions can be critiqued; that does not lessen the power of his words. Those words that helped transform our nation from a slave holding nation and helped inspire the French revolution and, nearly 170 years afterthose words were written, Vietnam's battle against the French. The fact you don't always practice what you preach does not invalidate your preaching.

It's fortunate, then, that I didn't praise our 150 year human rights record (unlike the 100 year human rights record of CHina which I was responding to). And, yes, there is a difference between government-endorsed, or enforced, human rights violations and individual crime. In my world, anyway. I suppose one might make the theoretical philosophical leap that individual crime and government endorsed crime are the same. One might also make the philosophical leap that none of it matters because we are all insignificant specks in the grand sceme of things and human rights violations are irrelevant.

[/QUOTE]
Nationally, the number of prison inmates grew faster than the population as a whole during the year. That brought the United States to a virtual tie with Russia as the most incarcerated country in the world in terms of inmates per capita. The Justice Department estimates that the number of inmates in U.S. prisons and jails will reach 2 million by the end of next year, quadruple what it was 20 years ago.

[QUOTE]

Well, part of that is because we INCARCERATE, as opposed to some countries that just kill their "criminals" on the spot rather than have a trial. Such crimes often include not being of the predominant political party or religion.
We don't have that here, yet. I suppose the Bush haters think it is right around the corner, tho.

Is China justified in thier rebuttal?

No, it is similar to the Japanese calling an Arizona Governor racist because he misquoted an expression. Any of us who know a bit of history knows that the Japanese displayed a lot of racism in Nanking, China, with the Korean comfort women, how they treated prisoners of war, etc.
Can the US ever reclaim high moral ground?
We should be working on improving our status, but we have made more progress in the last 50 years than some of us will admit.

Do we care to have the moral hight ground?
We should. Don't we claim to be a "Christian Nation"? It would be hypocritical of us to not care.

Is China justified in their rebuttal?

Not really, but I suspect they know this and justification is not their goal. For years and years now the USA has made much of China's human rights violations and had plenty of cause to do so.
At the same time, the USA has engaged in many evil deeds of its own, but these have always been shrouded in evasion and plausible deniability (I believe that is the phrase)

Now however, things have changed. With the GW Bush administration the world now see's a very different USA. One which is indifferent to global opinion, locks people up without regard for their human rights and wages pre-emptive war for own gain. Suddenly the Chinese can make such a rebuttal and for once be taken seriously.

That this rebuttal has taken place now, when the European nations are considering lifting the ban on selling weapons to the Chinese also indicates that China is trying to capitalize on the growing split between Europe and America.

Ultimately however, China is not justified... and neither is any one else. As Jesus is said to have said; "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

The nations of the world would be better served by tending their own regard for human rights before they pointed the finger at each other.


Can the US ever reclaim high moral ground?

Not in my mind. Such a thing does not exist. It is a fantasy that one man can be more moral than another.


Do we care to have the moral hight ground?

Who is we? I can't speak for the US, though I suspect that most Americans (regardless of what they say) do actually care how they are perceived by the world. In Denmark there is no public debate about moral issues of this nature. As a small nation we are used to being outside of the realm of influence so having the high moral ground means nothing.

I think that most of us like to be thought well of, though most Danes would react against criticism by China with a resounding display of indifference.

You are right, it does not invalidate your preaching, but thats not the point. What it does is that it undermines the position of the preacher. That's the point. Of course it is good to preach freedom and human rights, but who will LISTEN if you're not listening to it yourself?

Please forgive my poor choice of words. My concern is that, so often in these forums, when someone points out faults with the U.S., it is not really addressed or answered - instead it is pointed out that (for example) Saddam had rape rooms and did x, y, and z to his people. As if to say, problem A is so much worse than problem B. China has an abysmal human rights record. That much is true. I suppose I was launching a "pre-emptive strike" against responses in this thread which will dismiss China's condemnation of our own spotty record on human rights. Far from perfect, we are certainly still morally correct to judge human rights abuses everywhere - including our own country. As are the Chinese.



Surely. I have certainly studied my share of Chinese history. As a Buddhist, I have a keen interest in the history and fate of Tibet. I did not write what I did out of ignorance or naivete. Because they had so far to go (and have, like ourselves, still farther to travel), they have indeed shown the greatest improvement in human rights among the nations. That does not mean - nor did I say - that they were anywhere near done - or even as far along as we are.



Why do you assume that I am making a statement of moral equivalence here? In fact, I feel it is a moral duty to struggle against all forms of tyranny and civil rights abuses. The fact that I feel exactly the same about pointing out America's faults as I do China's doesn't mean that I think cordoning off protestors is the equivalent of Tienamen Square! I am convinced, however, that most Americans who feel a sense of "moral superiority" do so by pointedly ignoring the fact that the gains we have made regarding civil rights have only come because people - liberal people, mind you - have struggled and fought for them; by ignoring the fact that our government disappears people; by ignoring much of our true history - and dismissing it as somehow "liberally biased" history.

Indeed, "moral high ground" is not a very descriptive term. It invites dissent rather than cooperation. People everywhere in the world should be concerned about human rights, and should oppose all instances of abuse - whether they are the abuses of China, Holland, France, Nigeria, or the US.



I agree with you absolutely. No one of us is "without sin." We are of course still able to point these things out; of course we should not refrain from bold and courageous statements. Of course, this also validates the Chinese statement about us, as it should.

Mrs P and others- I do not question either that China has an abysmal human rights record. However, I am not a Chinese national and really have no say in Chinese affairs. However, I am American, and have a duty to my nation to point out our own abysmal human rights record.

Is punching someone in the mouth and saying "oops, sorry about that, didn't mean too" any worse than punching someone in the mouth and saying "Ha, you deserved that?" - when in both circumstances the victim was innocent?

I think we SHOULD as a nation critisize any human violations we see anywhere. However, our priority should be our own nation FIRST. If we were to clean up our own house, perhaps we could call someone elses house dirty with some credibility.

I think that the questionable state of human rights the world over means every country is in its own glasshouse. This might lead some to conclude that no country should be allowed to cast stones until they themselves are without sin.

The problem is that human rights abuses within one's own jurisdiction are often not widely known, reported, or sometimes even cared about in each domestic public realm.

This is certainly true of countries like China, where journalists and opposition voices are routinely "disappeared" or otherwise silenced. External criticism and comment is itself hard to come by, but it can be the only voice of dissent that can be heard.

In the West, our governments don't generally murder or imprison critical journalists or opposition politicians. However, our media outlets often do that by themselves, through skewed reporting or editorial, hostile villification, and so on, because (we are told) that's what the market demands. In place of a dictatorial government, we sometimes get a dictatorial market instead. It's still dictatorship, and it still prevents the public from finding out, worrying, or demanding action about certain shady practices.

No government has clean hands on human right, in part because they are a permanently elusive goal, and should be so, to keep us striving forward. Consequently any government in any country that makes criticisms of another on their human rights record leaves themselves open to this kind of rebuttal.

Personally, on these matters, I prefer to listen to non-state bodies like the ACLU or (in this context) Amnesty International, who have no particular political axe to grind other than the protection and advancement of human rights and liberties.

That said, I think there is an element of twee and essentially immature "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" - which inevitably carries the unspoken "about me/us" in the middle - in opposition to ANY (especially foreign) criticism of America's record on human rights, or anything else.

This isn't a law court, so we don't have to worry about witness credibility. Either America (or China, or both) violates human rights, or it doesn't. Who says so is irrelevant.

And lastly, I do find it a little worrying that the direction of progress on human rights in the USA and UK (especially the UK) seems to be backwards, all in the name of a war invented (or at least named and described) by the people proposing and actioning the curtailment of our rights.

At least in China the direction is forward. It's painfully slow, and from such a very low base that it seems like it will be many years before they will reach anything like Western standards. But by then our current vector will have moved us back towards where they are now - surely a bad idea?

Well I kind of confused here. We have people in jail, so this is America's fault how? Might it be that we are a nation of laws and people that choose to violate those laws are put in jail.

In light of the horrible history of human rights abuses by the US, from installing dictators like Pinochet and Saddam and the Shah of Iran, to the Red Cross saying our Abu Gharib type situations are widespread throughout our military system, and our turning over of prisoners to countries that don't mind a little torture to get information- are we in any position to critisize anyone about human rights abuses? Yes we are. Nobody is claiming America is perfect, nor are we ignoring the issue and many other countries do. Could the Red Cross be right? Frankly I doubt it. It is not exactly an organization without a lot of hypocrisy in this area.

Is China justified in thier rebuttal? There are justified in their criticism, but they are using it as an excuse for their extremely poor record.

Can the US ever reclaim high moral ground?What high ground? We too have our own faults, like all nations. It is how those faults that exist are dealt with that is important.

Do we care to have the moral hight ground? See above

It's more of a retaliation than a rebuttal. Along the line of "hey, you're more or less doing the same thing."

Personally, I think this is not a good approach. If I was the PR guy for the Foreign Ministry, I would probably scrap the report and say something to the effect of "We know we still have a lot of work to do in the human rights department. We are aware of the problems highlighted in the American report. And many of them are true, but calling your friend 'fat' to his face doesn't always get him to to to a gym."

Alternatively, I would offer a true rebuttal where I debate the infallability of the American government and point to intelligence gathered regarding Iraq's WMD, then I would pick a few cases highlighted by the report and pick the evidence apart like a trial lawyer.



Well, if high moral ground is relative, then yes, currently the USA does have the high ground when compared to us.



I don't know, do you?

To Mrs. Pigpen


Some estimates put deaths due to hunger and malnutrition during 1961~1963, the period following Mao's "Great Leap Forward" movement, at about 20 million. The Chinese government should, of course, take the most blame, but one should also not forget about the trade embargo that the West had against China at the time.



At least the majority Han ethnic group in China did not force Tibetans into reservations, but I digress. I would like to know how theocratic serfdom is better than authoritarian communism. And talking about cultural genocide -- yes, there's more math and science in Tibetan schools today, but do you think it would be better if they were taught buddist scriptures in school? Besides, the Chinese government is putting tens of millions dollars each year into maintaining and renovating Tibetan palaces and monestaries. Maybe I should look at the US State Department report and see if there's any evidence in there.


Factual error here, Mrs. P. If you have read books like The Tiananmen Papers and news reports at the time, you would find that most protestor deaths resulted from gunshots, and they did NOT die in their sleep.

Personally, I think the incident is more a tragedy than a massacre. Bloodshed could have been avoided since the protestors started gathering in the square in April, marshal law was not declared until May 17 or so, and the order to move into the square was not given til June 3. Had both sides taken a less confrontational approach and try to compromise, it would not have been nearly as bad. On the order to clear the square itself, had the Rules of Engagement been more clear, civilian deaths would be a lot lower also. In fact, all of the units ordered to move into the square were given batons, tear gas, rubber bullets and other riot gear, but the tragic thing is that the order said something to the effect of "use self-defensive means if necessary" but not "do not shoot unless fired upon, and only fire upon the individual(s) who are carrying a gun."

It should be noted that of multiple PLA units moving onto the square on the night of June 3, one unit is responsible of most of the deaths. The first and the majority of the deaths occured in a place called Muxidi five kilometres from the square. The commanding officer of that unit is the first to order the troops to fire into the crowd, when his unit is met with road blocks, rocks and molotov cocktails and tear gas and rubber bullets did not work. Once the first civilian casualties occured, civilians elsewhere turned to more violent means and the military approaching from other directions in-turn responded more violently. However, there are no deaths during the clearing of the square itself. Two leaders of the protestors -- Hou Dejian, a singer from Taiwan, and Liu Xiaobo, a vocal critique of the Chinese government who has been in and out of jail for the past 15 years -- had given public accounts about the withdrawl of students from the square in the early morning of June 4. Liu Xiaobo actually wrote a book called A Survivor's Soliloque that I think is a more accurate version of events than both the version put out by the government and the version by the student leaders like Chai Ling and Wuer Kaixi who had fled to the American embassy even before the wanted posters went up.

The military suffered dozens of deaths as well, with some soldiers being hung from pedestrian overpasses, burned alive and their bodies mutilated.

Firing on unarmed civilians is wrong, but facts should be set straight.



In Mr. Wan's case, if I remember correctly, it is the local police in Henan Province who detained him, and they are not acting on an order from Beijing.

It's kind of a small point, but I don't think that's totally accurate. Most of the dictatorships you are refering to also have superhigh per capita incarceration compared to the US but arn't counted as part of the original statistic because A. they don't officially report their incarcerations (estimates are available from ngo srcs though) and B. They are dictatorships and thus don't provide a meaniful comparison with liberal democracies.

For More info check out the wikipedia article on US Prisons,

are we in any position to critisize anyone about human rights abuses?

Absolutely. Generally speaking, the more something is criticized the more likely it is to be addressed. I'm in the squeaky wheel gets the oil camp, as opposed to the cast no stone camp. Our criticism would be much more meaningful and effective if it were back up by our actions.

As for the title of this thread "...The pot calling the Kettle Black...", that charge is a classic fallacy. It's purpose is to attack the credibilty of the party making the criticism rather than acknowledging and responding to what they are saying.

Is China justified in thier rebuttal?

*pauses, thinks for a second*

Okay so if I had to shove my main understanding of politics in the US down to a single sentence it would be "Opposing agendas are sometimes simultaneously successful in their policy goals".

To me this means that if the US criticizes Human Rights Violations in other countries while maintaining Gitmo it may not necessarily be true hypocracy but a different and strange flavor of bureaucratic hypocracy. True hypocracy is when one person says something but acts another way, since a government body is so fragmented among differing interests I don't think it fits under that definition.

So initially when I heard this about china I thought it was just a political parry to US criticisms with no real concern about the people in gitmo, abu ghraib, et al. Now I'm not so sure. My friends in China are honest caring people who are opposed to human rights violations everywhere. It just occured to me that there are people in the chinese government who might have a legitimate concern for human rights. Maybe they are stymied by the chinese equivalents of Donald Rumsfeld and Gonzalez? I don't see any way to know for sure, but it's an interesting idea to bring to the table.

My musings aside, I think that in the end China is justified too, for all the same reasons that the US is.

Can the US ever reclaim high moral ground?

I'm totally with moif on this one.....


Moif talks about actual moral high ground. In terms of perceptual moral high ground, I tend to think that the people who felt that the US had moral high ground before may only be familiar with a friendlier version of history.

Do we care to have the moral high ground?

See moif's comment again, but I really wish that our government would stop torturing people and killing hundreds and thousands of people left and right.


ps My original and much more eloquent response to this was accidently deleted....doh

I'm a Dutch national; I've been living in the United States for the past two and a half years.

Would I prefer to live in United States, rather than in the People's Republic of China?
- Certainly.

As a foreign national, do I feel I can express my political opinions, however critical of the federal government, without negative repercussions (on the part of government agents) in the United States?
- For the most part, yes.

Would I feel the same way in the PRC?
- Not on your life.

Would I rather be pulled over by an American policeman than by a Chinese policeman?
- Absolutely.

If were a combatant (in the Geneva Protocol I sense) on the opposing side, would I rather be captured by American troops than by PLA troops?
- No question.

What about the US's support to Pinochet?
- What about the PRC's support to Pol Pot?

What about the US's support to Saddam?
- What about the massive arms sales by the PRC to Saddam? (See here for a good comparison)

In short, do I think the PRC government is making a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from the beam in their eye by pointing to the mote in the current American administration's?
- You darn tootin'.

Have you live in the PRC? If so, for how long?



Have you talked with anyone from the PRC? If so, how many and from which city/town of the PRC?



Have you read much about the Korean War? Our officers at the frontline were given specific orders to treat POWs well. Here is a site with pictures, at lease we didn't put POWs in cages. And yes, you can argue that the people in gitmo are not "combatants" in a legal sense, but does that make it okay to treat them any differently as you would treat your own citizens who have broken a law? Does it make it okay to put them in cages?