China is not above criticism

Warwick [University] Amnesty says China cannot hide rights abuses behind claims of cultural differences

The execution of Akmal Shaikh by the People’s Republic of China was rightly condemned by most of the mainstream Western press because there was widespread horror at the prospect of a mentally ill person being put to death. But the case really only enjoyed such a high profile because it concerned a British citizen, and because the Foreign Office got involved. So I think the real question we should be asking is why we are so much more willing to tolerate human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government against its own citizens. We are talking about a regime which imprisons pro-democracy writers, environmental campaigners and people who practice certain religions. Not only that, but prisoners can expect extremely harsh treatment and even risk torture. The PRC is reckoned to be the biggest executor in the world, although it provides public reports of only a tiny fraction of executions, casting doubt on the argument that it is used as a deterrent.

Amnesty International condemns the use of the death penalty worldwide, including in the West, and campaigns for its abolition wherever it remains legal. The archetypical “western” country, the USA, frequently comes in for criticism by human rights groups. In terms of the death penalty, 37 prisoners were executed there in 2008, including José Medellín, a Mexican citizen. Mexico does not use capital punishment and the case sparked a row between the Mexican and US governments. Medellín, like other Mexicans on death row, was not given consular access, in direct contravention of the 1963 Vienna Act of which the USA is a signatory. A similar case is now ongoing with British passport-holder Linda Carty in Texas, who was also not informed of her right to consular access. There are those who will say that it is the prerogative of the US government and individual states to decide whether to keep the death penalty. But criticism of the USA is not limited to its often controversial use of this barbaric punishment. Amnesty has also campaigned against indefinite detention at Guantànamo Bay prison and CIA involvement in extraordinary rendition and torture (waterboarding, amongst other “enhanced” interrogation techniques).

The idea that human rights are somehow naturally compatible with some supposed “Judeo-Christian western culture” which we in Europe share with the USA is flawed. For instance, they would not have been called “human rights violations” at the time, but this is exactly how I would describe the heinous crimes committed in the name of Christianity by the various Inquisitions which operated in Europe until the beginning of the 18^th century. We have made a lot of progress since then, thankfully, but questions are still constantly being raised even in the UK concerning human rights, as the Binyam Mohammad torture case illustrates. Israel meanwhile, considered an outpost of western culture in the Middle East, is also in the human rights spotlight over its blockade of the Gaza strip and alleged serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during hostilities in 2008-09. But western culture now transcends national boundaries, and that western icon, the multinational corporation, has also come under fire from Amnesty for the effect it has on human rights worldwide. An example of this would be the campaign against Shell’s activities in the Niger delta, in Nigeria.

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights  was a visionary document which enshrined the idea of equality of rights of all human beings regardless of all other considerations, including, naturally, the country or culture into which a person is born: “[N]o distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty” (Article 2). These rights were formulated on the grounds of reason and morality which aim towards minimising human suffering. It is a form of universalism, but you don’t have to be “western” to buy into it. This is best demonstrated by the courageous campaigns of activists all over the world, who often face death by speaking out, but do it anyway, because of an innate sense of human rights and human wrongs. Culture and history cannot be used as an excuse for violations of the most basic human rights, and the suggestion that China is a ‘young’ country, and therefore enjoys some kind of diminished responsibility because of its tender years simply does not stand up to scrutiny. 60 years is in fact a long time for a national constitution these days, and the PRC is just as old as the Federal Republic of Germany (1949). Brazil has had three constitutions in the same period. 60 years is also the approximate age of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself, a document which has served the world well, and whose principles we should never tire of promoting and defending, wherever they are challenged or ignored.


Originally published in Warwick Boar vol 32. issue 11, 16th March 2010