China and Human Rights
Author and Page information
This print version has been auto-generated from http://www.globalissues.org/article/144/china-and-human-rights
On this page:
- China’s lack of political freedoms
- Opinion towards China brings mixed agendas
- Tibet crackdown, 2008
- China and Africa; concerns over rights and exploitation
- More information
China’s lack of political freedoms
Since the Communist Party gained power in China and established the People’s Republic of China in 1949, authoritarian rule has been the norm.
Around the late 1970s, as the first generation of Communist Party leaders were replaced by a second, some reforms provided a foundation of rapid economic development (it is now an economic superpower). The political reforms away from authoritarian rule has remained elusive.
For example, the government continues to exert its absolute control over politics, and is often looks to eradicate domestic
threats to stability of the country through excessive use of force and authority.
Imprisonment of political opponents and journalists critical of the government has been common. The press is tightly regulated as is religion. Suppression of independence/secessionist movements is often heavy-handed, to say the least.
For example, months of campaigning by students and others for more democratic rights and freedom of speech culminated in the Tiananmen Square protests of 19891, a violent crackdown by the Chinese military with 15 days of martial law. The after-effects also resulted in government crackdown of sympathizers. For example, foreign media were banned for a while, local media were strictly monitored and controlled, and Communist Party members who sympathized with the protesters were placed under house arrest.
Opinion towards China brings mixed agendas
Interestingly, around the time of that massacre, Western opinion turned against China and has had an effect to this day when it comes to discussions of China’s human rights situation.
In summary, up to the end of the 1980s, China was seen as a reforming country moving towards market economics and an ally of the West to counter the then-Soviet Union, which China also feared despite being Communist as well.
The collapse of the Soviet Union around the same time, as well as this Tiananmen massacre, changed that view; China’s political value to the West lessened due to the demise of the Soviet Union and political critique of China could therefore become more pronounced.
There is tremendous commercial interest by outsiders with China, and some of that may explain the economic-friendly-but-politically-neutral-or-weak front that many Western countries and their businesses have with China.
To this day, many raise concerns in the political, commercial, social, and environmental concerns. Some are happy to point out problems in China, while overlooking problems in their own countries (or not realizing how large their own may be), for example.
Others may be afraid of the rise of China and see it as a threat to their jobs.
Leaders of some nations such as the US, UK and Australia, also hint that populous countries such as China and India may be more to blame for climate change than themselves, even though that is often spin or diverting attention from their own contributions2 that have gone on for much longer.
These things can all combine in various ways. In economic downturns, these factors can sometimes combine and result in racist attitudes towards Chinese (and other ethnic minorities).
This is certainly an oversimplification as there are issues ranging from the economic, to political to environmental and social that all attract differing views from outsiders towards China from China-bashing to China-supporting, and is not in the scope of this particular article here.
Tibet crackdown, 2008
Tibet, which China considers part of its territory, has also seen problems.
Demonstrations marking the anniversary of the failed 1959 Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule resulted in the killing of numerous demonstrators. Chinese authorities claimed a low number of deaths, while Tibetans and international media, a higher number.
The Chinese government crackdown has included closing off the country to the outside world and shutting out or controlling most media, including Internet media and sites used to show video footage of what happened. The military and police presence has also swelled.
There have been protests in the past in Tibet, such as in 1987 and 1989, but these were only in the capital, Lhasa, and involved mostly monks, intellectuals, and students. In contrast, the 2008 riots have spread to other parts of Tibet and included peasants and workers.
China’s poor attempt to deflect attention
The Chinese government has been keen to show in their own video footage that Tibetans have turned against Chinese people living in Tibet. As with so many conflicts, while propaganda strategies try to highlight issues such as race and ethnicity, the root causes are often economic and political in nature and are typically less discussed.
The Chinese government, already under increasing scrutiny as the Beijing Olympics draws closer, has opted for strength and force, instead of dialog. The influential spiritual leader of Buddhists and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, exiled from Tibet since 1959, the Dalai Lama has been blamed by the Chinese government for being behind the recent riots3, which the Dalai Lama has denied and suggested that there should be an international investigation of this claim.
Resentment of Chinese economic policy not benefiting locals
The Chinese government believes Tibet is backward and needs modernizing. China has therefore attempted a policy of rapid economic development in Tibet.
However, without any political reforms to accompany this process, the social tensions have increased as local Tibetans see little of the prosperity and growth, while ethnic Chinese, who have also been encouraged to emigrate there, have seen their wealth generally increase.
What may fundamentally be economic problems (of participation and benefits from the policies, etc), a political problem has manifested (issues of political freedoms, repression, and autonomy or independence—discussed further below). Certainly, Western mainstream media’s reporting typically concentrates on the harsh crackdown by the Chinese authorities.
Inter Press Service captures both the importance of the Dalai Lama in this, as well as the underlying economic causes:
Pema Gyalpo, official representative of the Dalai Lama in Japan from 1975 to 1990, in an interview5 with Inter Press Service notes that
The Chinese are putting money into Tibet, but it’s … only being used to bring in more Chinese. Even the railroad was built to transport these settlers.… Bringing in more Chinese is a tool to exploit the Tibetan economy. Unless the Chinese change their past policies there will no solution to the Tibet problem.
What is a
To different people, a free Tibet means different things. Most assume that the majority of Tibetans are for independence away from China.
Even the Chinese government has accused the Dalai Lama of leading a separatist movement/agenda.
Yet, the Dalai Lama has long insisted that he is for autonomy, not independence, as noted in this excerpt from an interview by Amanda Bower in 2006:
(More recently, reflecting the March 2008 violence, the official web site for the Dalai Lama also notes the media has misquoted him a few times7 and clarifies that
On the issue of independence, [The Dalai Lama] reiterated that what he is seeking is meaningful autonomy for the Tibetan people.)
Lack of international unity, despite statements by media and world leaders
On the surface, there is near-unanimous condemnation of the way the Chinese government has handled the situation. Yet, as Inter Press Service notes, in reality, the impasse at the United Nations Security Council shows that nations have their own interests that affect their judgment on whether or not to penalize China in some way for its heavy-handedness:
Thalif Deen continues, noting that
Speaking on condition of anonymity, one Asian diplomat said that the Security Council is being run on a politically selfish principle:
You scratch my back, I will scratch yours.
Deen referred to the example of Palestine where Israel’s recent use of disproportionate force there killed many more civilians than that believed to have been killed here in Tibet, and yet, because the US backs Israel, China — usually a supporter of the Palestinian cause — did not want to antagonize Washington. Washington, for its part, Deen added, did not even mention China in the US State Department’s recent annual human rights report.
China’s actions fuels the very thing it says it tries to fight
The policies of China, of trying to modernize Tibet, but excluding Tibetans in the process, is undermining the situation. At the moment, it seems most people are angry and frustrated because they are not receiving the benefits of economic growth while their cultural, personal and religious freedoms are restricted, as the Dalai Lama feels: