Human Rights Violations
 

I came across this on bbcnews.com

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...rds_ap203b.jpg


China dismisses US Tiananmen call

Chinese authorities have defended their move to use force in 1989
China has dismissed US calls to give a full account of the people who were killed, detained or went missing during pro-democracy protests 16 years ago.

The Foreign Ministry in Beijing said the US should pay more attention to its own human rights violations.


________________________________

What I find interesting is the last sentence.

If that statement has actually been made then China just admited to violations.


Im on the hunt to find that press release.
Any ideas of where to look.

This is not news.

I actually "boycotted" China for many years, cancelling trips and refusing to go there on business several times, due to the Tiananmen Square massacre. It's no surprise that they still deny their wrong-doing.

It's also no surprise that most of the world has moved on and doesn't care anymore.

Public opinion is a fickle thing...


Mr Mephisto

while they're at it, i'd like to know what happened to this guy.

http://thechinadesk.tripod.com/tiana..._protestor.jpg

Probably the usual Chinese way.

Bullet to the nape of the neck.
Bill for bullet sent to family.

Welcome to China, "Most Favoured Nation"


Mr Mephisto

no no read the last sentance again

The Foreign Ministry in Beijing said the US should pay more attention to its own human rights violations.


pay more attention to its own

that is the ownership right there

the states will never say they have commited human right violations

to me that last sentence is admission of guilt

am i the only one who would love to hear it from his own mouth

A little punctuation wouldn't go astray. :)

This is no more an admission of guilt than the US ridiculing North Korea or Iran when they criticise American human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay; of which there are many.


Mr Mephisto

I agree with Mephisto on this one... this is no admission and it is the same song they've been singing since it all went down years ago.

Wait, what are you guys referring to? I got a little lost in the posts. The US or China admitting to human rights violations? Between stan, Meph and Charlatan, I am having a little difficulty following the discussion.

No admission to human rights violations...

The US or people in the west have frequently accused the Chinese government of Human Rights violations... in this case specifically with regards to the use of force during the protests at Tiananmen.

The Chinese government has *always* defended their use of force at Tiananmen.

In this case, the Chinese government is simply saying *before* the US government tries to raise any issues about human rights violations by the Chinese, the US Government should take a look at its own violations (i.e. the US has no moral ground from which to pontificate about alleged violations when they are engaged in human rights violations).

What I find most interesting is how the Chinese government has altered history for their school systems. I visited China for five weeks in the summer of 2004, and remember specifically my tour guide in Beijing's response when someone in my group asked her about what happened on that day in 1989 in Tianamen Square (we were passing through the Square at the time). She replied that there was a student demonstration that was put down peacefully, and without the use of force. When asked about the reports of a 'massacre' or many killings, she simply repeated her claim that it was peaceful, and nobody was harmed in the process. Of course, as a tour guide she technically is a government employee, but she was not more than a year or two out of college, or may have still been enrolled at Beijing University.

Pretty interesting IMHO.

Edit: spelling

Although the Chinese government is worse than us, they have a good point.

Can you actually put a quantitative qualification on Human Rights abuse?

I know you aren't doing this, and don't disagree that China's record is probably worse than the US in this regard... It just struck me as odd when I read it in your post.

And maybe she didn't want to end up with a 25 year jail term.


Mr Mephisto

Well, if you want to split hairs...

Anybody else remember Kent State? McCarthyism? Segregation? Japanese Internment? Indentured servitude? Slavery? Native Americans? We have only been around as a country for 230 years and have racked up a consistant list of Human Rights violations that are apalling. It doesn't excuse the Chinese government, but we have no moral ground to stand on at all.

So they do have a point, especially recently.

chickentribs... I think what people would dispute is the current day human rights abuses... in a China vs. USA situation... China would come out on top from most people's points of view.

If we want to get historical, who does have a leg to stand on morally speaking.

Yes, but even currently with the Iraq situation, Amnesty International condemning our government on abuses, and our refusal to allow Red Cross or other humanitarian organizations access to the prisoners of war, I don't know that we are in any better shape today.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the USA *is* any better only that people perceive it to be so...

I don't think it is fair to judge a country based on what happened 100+ years ago.

China is right though, if you go back over the last 50-60 years years you get a LOT of human rights violations. Not just against terrorists, but against law abiding american citizens who never did anything wrong.

I agree that history is history. I wish that as a true world "leader" we would change our behavior and set examples for the rest of the world to live up to. Simple things like instead of demanding an accounting of bodies from them in front of the world (why?) we help them focus on the emergence of Free Trade and successful business in the country. Look how far they have come, instead of where they were.

I know it sounds a bit pollyanna, but it's also a bit of common sense...

So called "Free Trade" is not all that it's cooked up to be.

It's a basis for globalisation and the exploitation of the Third World by the US and EU (primarily).

Nike sells shoes in the US for over $100. It takes quite a bit less than that for them to produce them in the sweatshops of South East Asia.

Mr Mephisto

yeah, there are starting to be some success stories though, especially in Hong Kong and Shanghai. My hope is that our government would know that insulting and pointing our finger at China on the world stage doesn't do a thing for anybody. Complimenting and showing respect for the efforts that have been made lets them save face while addressing the issue.

So you are a studen of the "constructive engagement" school, eh?

'tis nothing but a revamped, renamed policy of "appeasement", and we all know where that got us fifty years ago.

But seriously... I'm not sure if "rewarding" China is the best way to go. On the other hand, I'm no fan of the 'chicken-hawk' wing in the current Administration, who seem to prefer provocation and conflict over negotiation and diplomacy. China is a difficult nut to crack...


Mr Mephisto

I must be a lover, not a fighter I guess... :)
When Nixon is the guy who has developed the best relations with them in the last 50 years, I have to humbly admit I don't know for a second what it will take! They are the rising economic power though - I hope we figure something out.

There is no way that a country whose police force has vans equipped with lethal injection equipment that is routinely used on people who commit non-violent crimes is in any position should criticize any other country's human rights abuses, with the possible exception of those that carry out mass executions in stadiums.

This is one of those 'if only' moments.

There were American generals who thought the right thing to do after the fall of Germany was keep heading to Moscow.

It would have saved 10's of millions of lives in the long run which in retrospect would have been worth the cost. The chinese communists would have fallen as well had we done this.

The failures of communism may have been a great object lesson to the world, but 110 million deaths is a harsh price to pay.

I do hope the growing capitalist spirit in China can transform the government before another massacre takes place.

Hey guys, should we open up a globalization thread? It seems like a budding discussion.

In regards to human rights, no doubt China is a "violator", as is Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran etc.etc.

I do think that the more "open" China becomes, theres a good chance it will become less prone to violating human rights (IMO). I haven't really constructed any solid argument on this but the basis would be premised on economic consideration, prestige/role as an emerging "leader", and internationalization/education - opening up. In short, as China becomes more and more integrated, it would be in China's own interest to "behave".

Or, on the other hand, China becomes "too" powerful and beligerent, do as it pleases.

I assume you are refering to China? I've never heard this. It sounds really messed up though. Can you give some more details or background info? Who else does this? Thanks.

Would that be wise at this time, Jorgelito? You have another paper due on globalization. :lol:

I disagree.

I agree.


Mr Mephisto

Do you disagree with the cost being worth it, or do you disagree that crushing communism before it started the wholesale murder after WWII would have saved many of the 110 million people murdred in communist nations?

If you say both you must explain :p

Ha! You got me :eek: . Thanks man, I really should getback to it. But I enjoy talking with everyone here too much. I'm actually tempted to post my last paper but I don't know how.

You guys are the best!

I disagree that it's a certainty that prolonging WWII, with an invasion of the Soviet Union, would have automatically "saved more lives" than were lost in the past 50 years.

We can all play "what if" games, but I don't think anyone would believe that arm-chair hypotheses are certain predictions of what would have really happened.

Why do you also assume than an extension of WWII would have resulted in the "fall" of Communist China?

I'm just saying that "alternative histories" (of which, by the way, I'm quite a fan) can't be used in any logically grounded argument. :)


Mr Mephisto

If you find a way to post your paper, either here or elsewhere, I would like to read it. My understanding of globalization is merely a scratch to the surface.

I would also be fascinated to read this paper.....if at all possible

Saying with 100% certainty that things would be better is of course impossible.

The only thing we can be certain of is that some 110 million people were murdred by their own system of government.

http://web.amnesty.org/wire/May2003/China
Another article, with just a small clip, click for whole article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...533087,00.html

Where does the figure of 110 million come from? And to which country (USSR or PRC) are you referring?


Mr Mephisto

Thanks Mr. Self Destruct. I hadn't heard this news before. You know, China is the biggest executor of criminals in the world. More than the entire rest of the list combined. I think it goes China, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam? (or Burma one of those SE countries), US....

I don't know which is worse: a "quick, painless death" carried out after sentencing or a slow agonizing dragged out process of appeals languishing on death row and then a :quick painless death". The worst part is if the guy is innocent.

I do like the part of executing corrupt officials. Maybe if we did that in the US, the corporate thieves and their politicians would behave better *sarcasm*

I thougt it was weird that the official saw lethal injection as "being more civilized".

In 2004, 97 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Viet Nam and the USA.

59 prisoners were executed in the USA in 2004, bringing the year-end total to 944 executed since the use of the death penalty was resumed in 1977.

Over 3,400 prisoners were under sentence of death as of 1 January 2005.

38 of the 50 US states provide for the death penalty in law.

The USA executed more child offenders than any other country (19 between 1990 and 2003).

A United Nations survey of research findings, conducted in 1988 and updated in 1996, found no evidence of the death penalty being a more effective deterrent than other penalties

61% of the countries in the world have now effectively abolished the death penalty.


Mr Mephisto

110 million is the estimated number of people killed by their own communist government world wide. Links on it are easy to find.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

RJ Rummel, eh?

I wouldn't rely upon his conclusions.

Thanks for the link though. I think we can both agree that absolutist tyrannies, be they communist, fascist, despotic or theocratic, are terrible and the source of many millions of criminal deaths.


Mr Mephisto

If you don't like his conclusions take your pick, its not like there is only one source for it.

And no I don't equate communism with other tyrannies, as communism has proven far more deadly to its own people than any other form of government. Its like comparing the flu to the plague. Both may kill a lot of people, but which would you rather have?

I'd never heard the figure 110 million before. To be honest, it seems a bit high.

I didn't ask you to equate communism to anything. I simply stated that all tyrannies are terrible. If you "prefer" one over the other, then so be it.

Oh, and for the record, I'd rather have communism over Nazism any day.

Mr Mephisto

Whats the difference? Both are founded on slave labor, lack of freedom, and fear of the government. My guess is the overall standard of living is higher under the Nazis, and the Nazi's never had the mass starvations, but it didn't survive long enough as a form of government to say for sure.

As for the figure, you may have never heard of it, but the people went 'somewhere'. Its something worth looking into.

Edit:You may find this link interesting.
http://www.unwatch.org/speeches/demcat.html

That's the same type of reasoning as: "if America had been less or more harsh in punishing Germany(the huge debt they had to pay), things would have been much better:
if they had been less harsh: Germany would have not been in the same kind of economical slump, the people would have been less desperate and would not have elected Hitler as chancellor in 1933
if they had been more harsh: there wouldn't have been the possibility of the creation of a regime because of the complete deprivation of resources and money."

I don't think you can make conclusions so easily... Maybe there would've been something even worse than the 3rd reich...and maybe if the course of history had been different, China would've been the equivalent of North Korea...who knows, really...

Communism over Nazism?? I disagree. Communism started as an idea of utopy, and that state was obviously never attained. Tyrants took advantage of it and would mass kill all the disagreeings..Nazis would do the same thing, in addition to killing all non white people, jews, gypsys, and more. And try conquering the world, killing everyone in its way.
While I'm not a fan of the current applications of communism (I used to live in Miami, and I met Cubans with horrible stories, like a teacher who had spent 20 years in jail over there), I don't think they got as bad as Hitler's regime(which I think in general opinion was historically the worst regime ever).

You need to look more carefully. Some American media outlets are only too happy to point the finger at themselves. This could be one example putting to rest the notion of a conservative-dominated media:


New York Times Streak of Page One Stories on Abu Ghraib ends at 32 Days

As Spock would say: "Fascinating."

Powerclown - Thanks for that link, I know the left wing press is out to derail the Iraq mission, but I didn't know they were being that obvious about it.

ah yes, ustwo, THAT would explain the number of stories about abu ghraib, wouldn't it. that and not the information about the reality of the conditions there.
clearly, it is all a function of some fifth column.

do you actually believe this kind of stuff, ustwo?

Do I believe that the NYT is a left wing biased paper?

Yep.

I believe the NYT to be right-leaning, and the LAT to be left-leaning. Time Magazine to be right-leaning, Newsweek to be left-leaning. But then again, we probably see "what we want to see".

To put it another way, sometimes people accuse them mods of being "biased" or "leaning one way or the other". So, if we think there may be a bias, we will look for "signs" to justify our suspicions.

The truth, IMO, is probably somewhere in the middle. Some say the media is left-biased, some say the media is right biased. It is a black-hole argument - we can't escape it! LOL! Seriously though, whether or not the media is biased one way or another is an irreconciliable debate (for the moment).

Concerning this thread, ther are plenty of media articles illustrating both the positive and the negative sides.

Cheers!

I think this reasoning to be horrilbly flawed, and also rediculous. Using this "logic", there is nobody in the world with any moral ground whatsoever. All peoples have at one time or another committed acts which may be considered human right violations.

Most of the blame lies with the governments of the SE Asian countries in this. The only reason people in these areas are able to be exploited for labor is because their gov'ts allow it, where it's not allowed in western countries.

So it's THEIR fault they're poor and being exploited...

Right.

It's got nothing to do with large multi-nationals.


Mr Mephisto

I just became physically ill when I read about china. I mean I have actually have been overcome with nauesea.

I know I am one of the americans that live in a bubble. I live in a bubble because I don't how how to deal with something that I can't exert my single will and affect.

Where the hell are the insurgents with IEDs?

Maybe that's where we could release all of the prisoners currently held at Guantanamo.

They'd have blown up all of those vans in a week.

In a way, yes. The large corps have one purpose-maximizing profits. By using cheap labor and bad working conditions, they are doing this. And the gov'ts are allowing this, and the people aren't getting rid of their exploitave gov'ts. So yes, it is their fault. It isn't up ot a company to go into a country and force good working conditions upon people.

So, corporations have no moral responsibility? They can do whatever they want as long as they're not stopped by a government?

Yes. It's not their job to be a moral authority, its a corporation's job to make profit. If it is judged that doing things considered by some to be amoral is the way to make greater profits, and no gov't puts a limit on those actions, then it's wholly in their rights to do it.

i always find the equation of capitalism with political freedom to be amusing.

particularly if you actually take seriously anything alansmithee just said--which is a nice summary of what you would read about in almost any introduction to capitalist ideology textbook.

his post provides a nice snapshot of the central argument against any possible equation of capitalist modes of production and any particular legal or political regime.

left to themselves, captialist firms will reinvent the bottom in terms of wages, in terms of quality of life, in terms of social stability (if you view your workers as interchangeable extensions of the machinery they run, what do you care about social reproduction--fact is, you dont--this despite it being self-defeating in the longer run--but in the contemporary capitalist context, there need be no longer run at the level of production--relocate whewn shit gets ugly. no problem. profits uber alles.)

china has had among the fastest growing capitalist economies in the world for the past 15 years or so. production facilities are located there in huge numbers--apparently, it is ok for these firms to see in political repression--opposition to union activity for example--a kind of externalization of costs. and apparently alansmithee would be able to do nothing but justify this position.


capitalism is not a liberating force--was never, never will be. it is a system of economic activity that assumes human being can be treated like things and that freedom is something top be bought by holders of capital.

it is a revolutionary force--marx was right about that--and one of the explanations for the rise of the modern nation-state is as a political formation set up to mitigate the destruction visited upon regions that are integrated into this system.

First, thanks for the response.

Second, I think that the ability to perform an act because of an absence of laws to the contrary, does not necessarily make that act a right.

Third, could you clarify a few things?
If there are no existing laws governing whatever morally reprehensible act they want to commit, they are free to do so? It was legal for German companies to use slave labor during Nazi rule. So, it was fine for the companies to do so because they have no moral responsibility? I disagree, but this is your position, correct?

What if the government is unable limit those acts despite laws (inadequate enforcement)? If a corportations only motive should be profit, are they within their "rights" to perform those acts?

Because corporations are made up of people, people make the decisions, etc., does the same logic apply to people? (If there are no laws governing an act, you have a "right" to commit that act?)

I don't understand this at all. I can see something not being right, but how isn't it "a" right? Who decides what things are rights and not in the absence of law, besides personal whim?

In Germany, it most certainly was. And if no other country where that company did business enacted laws forbidding countries doing business there who used slave labor, it would also be fine in those countries. Now, this might not be most profitable, however. A competitor could easily point out that company's use of slave labor, and if the business lost due to this was greater than the profit gained by using slave labor, it wouldn't make much sense for them to use slave labor.

Not if it's illegal. Just because a gov't can't enforce laws now, doesn't mean that that situation will always remain. And if a gov't is so inept that they are wholly unable to enforce laws for corporations, the corporation in essence becomes the gov't and makes their own laws.

Homicide (the willful act of unlawfully killing a person) is illegal, and assumedly wrong. People are made up of cells, cells give people life, etc. So should it be illegal to "murder" cells?

A corporation does have people in charge, true. But it is something entirely separate from the people in charge of it. Now, the people themselves might balk at doing something that is legal but immoral, but then that employee is not doing his job properly.

And if there is no laws governing an act, people/corporations/whatever certainly do have a right to do it.

I understand that as a conceptual and legal entity, a corporation, that which is on paper, does not in itself have moral responsibility. (Any more than a rock has moral responsibility). I also understand that if there is no legislation barring a particular act, a corporation can perform that act. But in my view, a corporation is also composed of people. In my view, those people have moral resposibility that runs above and beyond their duty to turn a profit. I think that even if it was perfectly legal to perform a particular act- to enslave an ethnic group, for example- it wouldn't be my "right" to do so even if it might be a "legal right".

I shouldn't be able to inflict unreasonable costs on you regardless of the legality. I want to use the term "natural law" because that's what it seems like - a violation of natural law. I'm hesitant to do so because: 1) natural law may be to take inflict costs on others and reap benefits; and 2) just because something is natural doesn't make it right.

I suppose laws are created based on moral consensus. That moral consensus is composed of different individuals' personal morality. I also suppose that in the absence of law, personal morality (or personal whim), does dictate what is a right and what is not. Personal morality is a murky topic for discusion, but I suppose that is what this interaction boils down to...