Clinton's diplomacy on human rights spot on

Videos
Photos

By He Rulong (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-03-04 07:46

Hillary Clinton's maiden trip to China as US Secretary of State has been hailed as a success. But that has not stopped some human rights groups and a section of the international media from saying she was "too lenient" with China on human rights. Was it really the case? Would China have lost something if she "played hard" on human rights?

Let's first see what comprises human rights. It's true the concept of human rights originated in the West, but it would be unfair to say that China has not contributed to their development - both at home and abroad. The human rights referred to in the (US) Declaration of Independence and the (French) Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were actually meant for rich, white men. Women, black people and the poor were not part of the declarations. It was only after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 that the rights of man came to mean the rights for all.

The rights to self-determination, development, harmony and many other aspects were gradually added to the concept of human rights over the following six decades, with the growing strength of developing countries' voice playing a major role in that achievement. And China as the largest developing country has contributed its fair share to the cause.

Are human rights very sensitive an issue? As rights for all, they should not. In fact, China has always tried to improve human rights, and its Constitution guarantees them to every citizen. The approval of China's human rights report at the Universal Periodical Review working group session on February 11 testifies to China's human rights record.

Hence, human rights cannot be a sensitive issue for China unless vested interests linked them to trade or non-political events such as the Olympic Games. Simply put, human rights become sensitive only when politicized.

Can the West and China see eye to eye on human rights? The answer is yes. But more often than not, the West and China disagree on many a human rights issue because of a difference in perspectives and priorities. China's priorities are and have been different - one of which has seen the number of rural people living in abject poverty reduced from 250 million to 15 million in 30 years.

But the West loves to ignore that achievement and instead harp on certain alleged cases of human rights violations in a country of more than 1.3 billion people. At times, this difference in perspective acts as a big hurdle in talks between China and the West.

Being criticized for Singapore's "not-so-good human rights record", former prime minister Lee Kwan Yew once famously said that the West is arrogant toward and insensitive to "Asian values", which place the community above the individual and emphasize obedience to authority. The West would find more common ground on human rights with China once it starts seeing things from the Asian perspective.

That brings us back to the vital question: should Clinton have made human rights a bigger issue during her visit to China? Even if there are differences between the US and China over human rights, the global economic downturn is hardly the time to thrash them out. These are times to join hands to combat the economic crisis to ensure a decent life - the most important of human rights - for Americans, Chinese and the rest of the people in the world. This is where Clinton is a true diplomat, for she was pragmatic enough not to let human rights interfere with other issues.

The author is a doctoral scholar with the Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, School of Law, China University of Political Science and Law.

(China Daily 03/04/2009 page8)