We all know about the US's zealous campaign on Human Rights, especially when it comes to China. But what most don't know is how badly the US actually violates Human Rights itself. Here is a 7 page document that Chinese news agency has put together quoting a large number of Human Rights violations within recent years. 99% of all that is written in this article is taken from other sources (News sources and international agency reports) and is all true. It is a very good read. Link: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/08/content_5817027_6.htm ... And discuss.

For some reason I can't get to the page you linked.

In Soviet Russia, China publishes human rights violations made by your country?

Can't follow the link either.
But it sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm pretty sure that even the data that you could get hold of, the list of offenses for China over the last few years, would way outway the US's. And who knows how many violations China would rock up that you'd *never* get to read about!

Of course it's nothing new to us that the US violates human rights... but that's a different story. Not that they can be excused, of course. Not that any country should be above moral law.

You could call it hypocrisy of a different kind.

Quote: Original post by Mathmo
Can't follow the link either.
But it sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm pretty sure that even the data that you could get hold of, the list of offenses for China over the last few years, would way outway the US's. And who knows how many violations China would rock up that you'd *never* get to read about!

Of course it's nothing new to us that the US violates human rights... but that's a different story. Not that they can be excused, of course. Not that any country should be above moral law.

I don't know, the USA has less than 1/4 the people as China has, and how you weigh each act is very subjective. I'm not defending either side here, but before you throw a stone you had best look at your own defenses before the stones come flying back at you.

You can't do the same things as someone, and then somehow magically claim the moral high ground after all.

Quote: Original post by RealMarkP
... And discuss.

I've seen this link,nothing interesting.

I don't see a point in cleaning one's own nest before publishing lists of violations made by others. After all, some of the violations are subjective and even if not, they should be still called out. The U.S. also published a list (see here, for instance), so does EU and many other instances.

It's a bit like sending election observers around. A common practice (unfortunately these human rights violations list are also a vehicle of politics) even if the country having elections is in general held as non-corrupt and not susceptible to election fraud.

The rise of the Far East and the decline of the United States and Europe means that discussion of human rights will become less and less politically relevant. There is a strong case to be made that human rights is the end result of a process rather than an actual catalyst for development. Witness how the definition of human rights fluctuates over time and the ease with which society violates them. The rising powers recognize this.

China's human rights record is improving and will continue to get better as more Chinese become wealthy but there's still a long way to go which means human rights will be intentionally kept out of the spotlight. Meanwhile, the growing hypocrisy of the United States and Europe is becoming ever more apparent, especially as European bureaucrats continue to consolidate power into a rigid, inflexible, and decidedly undemocratic system, and the US continues to err on the side of authority and national defense.

Thanks to the fact that the United States is on the verge of bankrupting itself, China has unprecedented leeway in being assertive about its own values. Westerners, facing increasingly brutal economic competition, declining living standards, and social dysfunction, will either become less vocal about human rights or, feeling the squeeze, will be even louder about it in a futile attempt to gain some sort of moral leverage over their competitors. But morality can only be used as leverage if backed up by military and economic power, neither of which the West will have as much of a few decades from now. I'm not sure which -- any bets here? :)

"Can Asians think?" -- Singapore's ambassador to the U.N. talks about his controversial new book and the gulf between Western and Eastern minds.

Quote:
Most Westerners feel that human rights is an issue that can't just be ignored.

Human rights is another wonderful human achievement. I don't want to be tortured. I don't want to have my nails pulled out. I don't want to be locked up in jail without anyone knowing where I am. I'm a human being. But I'm saying that the societies that have achieved a very high level of human rights did so at the end of a process. You have to go through economic development and the development of the middle class and certain institutions first. It can't be done overnight. If you look at the Balkans or parts of Africa, where democracy was parachuted into society without preparation, you can get disastrous results. Democracy can awaken nationalistic demons. One reason why Milosevic came into power is because he rode the Serbian nationalist tiger. He unleashed it. There are no checks and balances in many of these societies to contain these things. It's not easy.

So you don't feel it's the West's responsibility to demand that developing nations uphold high standards of human rights?

It is not the responsibility, but it is in the long-term interest of the West to take a long view. Just as [the Western nations] have taken centuries to get to where they are -- for example, for women and blacks to get the vote. It wasn't done overnight. The critical question to ask is whether or not the societies are marching in the right or wrong direction.

The West and Asia have fundamental disagreements about the nature of society. Get used to it.

IS GLOBALIZATION McDONALDIZATION? - Singapore, Globalization, and the Asian Values Debate (Chapter 10)

Quote:
If you want a more thoughtful discussion of the idea of Asian Values and, more specifically, an analysis of how modernity in Singapore, China, and other East Asian countries is different from Western societies because of their Confucian heritage, listen to a speech by Harvard Professor Tu Wei-Ming, given at Rice University in 1998. In his speech, professor Tu mentions that Western values accept three ideals as critical components of modern society: a free market, liberal democracy, and individualism. Then he outlines six common values that Confucian countries in East Asia share (including Singapore, because of its predominantly Chinese population):

1. A strong central government that takes responsibility for the welfare of the people and for the stability of society.
2. The importance of rites and rituals in building public virtue, propriety, and morality.
3. The family as the basic unit of society and primary transmitter of cultural values from one generation to the next.
4. The importance of civil society as a "dynamic interplay" between the family and the state, mediating the relationship between private and public spheres of social life.
5. The centrality of education as a "way of learning to be human" rather than simply an institution for the acquisition of knowledge and occupational skills.
6. Overall quality of life depends upon the level of "self-cultivation" of its members. Such cultivation means that people accept their ethical responsibilities toward society, rather than simply pursuing their personal freedoms and happiness.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote:
for example, for women and blacks to get the vote. It wasn't done overnight.

Bad example, considering the historic time-line, it was actually done overnight.

It has to do with people idiosincracy and cultural standards (also the timming is crucial for certain events to have a chance).

Asian countries have an ancient tradition (thousands of years old) of giving less imporance to masses, they don't want to control them, they just kill them and breed a more convenient one. That's also with individuals.

Western countries are more Romanized (Greekizized, even Egiptized if you want) where the oppinion of masses and individuals was taken a little more in consideration.