China And Capitalism = Ok

[cheesemonster2005]

Only a few years ago the West was talking about China as the enemy of the free world. They preached communism, abused human rights, restricted travel and most importantly restricted the expansion of American companies in their country.

 

Now that China have opened their doors and liberalised their markets (to an extent) all is fine? US and UK companies seem to have no problems trading in China despite the fact that people still lack human rights, freedom of speech or public assembly and the fact that Taiwan is still constantly threatened by its bigger neighbour. Companies like Yahoo have no problems handing over data in order to prosecute Chinese nationals for publishing blogs about freedom, Google have no problem restricting searches to exclude terms like 'democracy' and 'BBC'.

 

Can we therefore conclude that the USA and much of the 'Western' world don't give a shit about freedom and are more interested in making a quick buck?

[Chinahand]

Just to educate without providing much comment here are some links giving information about what the United States thinks about the Human Rights Situation in China.

 

US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2004 China

 

United States Resolution to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Concerning the Human Rights Situation in China

 

Putting double standards to one side for the moment (!) the US's actions highlighting Human rights abuses in China have been massively important in raising Human Rights awareness in the PRC.

[Chinahand]

Just adding some more information about China and Human Rights.

 

Assessing Human Rights in China: Why the Double Standard is a huge 106 page report by Randy Peerenboom. He's a professor at UCLA and massively respected in the field of Chinese Law and Human rights. He's firmly of the opinion China is the subject of unfair treatment on Human Rights and when compared with India or other comparable countries actually does a better job of providing its citizens human dignity.

 

To quote the abstract:

 

[The paper] examines how China does relative to other countries, particularly other countries at its income level, in physical integrity rights, civil and political rights, social and economic rights; quality of governance; law and order and social stability; women’s rights; and cultural or minority rights. While China scores well

below the average in its lower middle income category on civil and political rights, it outperforms the average country in its income class on virtually all other indicators, supporting the claim that China is subject to a double standard.

 

I don't expect many of you out there to read all 106 pages, but the 2.5 page abstract is informative.

 

Probably a more useful topic to debate is what are human rights; if you don't have access to fresh water, an education, basic health care or employment, but can say what you like and get to vote are your human rights really better than someone who's censored in what they can say and read, but has better access to all these things.

 

Nothings simple and the slogans and sound and fury coming from some activists too often pretends it is!

[Rog]

In 1993 and again in 1997 I spent some time working in China. I was in Beijing and Guangdong mainly but spent a few days in other cities including Xian and some time in a couple of villages really out in the sticks.

 

What I saw was a vast country that was extremely diverse with the massive differences between life in the cities and life in the villages. Although on my last visit I was struck by the developments and progress that had been made in Beijing particularly.

 

But China is huge, and change takes time.

Although what we term as ‘human rights’ ARE being respected in the modern cities (so I saw and so I was told) it is very clear that simply to firstly communicate just what freedoms ‘human rights’ bring let alone allow them to be implemented.

 

If the sudden introduction of what we call ‘human rights’ were to take place it would result in considerable disruption if not in places total collapse of village and even town ‘systems’. A process of evolution is needed where education will take place in parallel with the implementation of the rights and freedoms that are now coming through in the cities just as the significant changes to the standard of living is happening to varying degrees all over the vast country.

 

Many people fail to realise just where China was socially when Mao started his Long March.

 

If a comparison with (say) the UK was to be made MY benchmark would be with the time of the Barons revolt.

 

The progress that has been made since what Mao faced that started the revolution and today is staggering. There have been casualties – millions of them – and there have been mistakes made, but by comparison consider the casualties amongst the British peasantry since the signing of Magna Carta and, at least in my opinion, the development that has taken place along with the rate at which the development has happened is amazing.

 

Yes, there is still a way to go before ‘human rights’ such as we have in the UK are in place but the changes will take place. After all, there were not all that many ‘human rights’ in the US during the early parts of the 20th Century – just look up the history of people like Joe Hill ( http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/history/history/hill.cfm ) and the events of the time – or for that matter the origins of and reasons for the creation of the UK Labour party (the real one – not NuLabour).

 

Setting a bench mark and then looking at progress that has been made, then looking at what the West has done and over what timescale, shows China in a rather different light I think. In my opinion they are doing well. Very well.

[cheesemonster2005]

I realise that huge improvements have been made in recent years in China but my concern was more about what we (the 'West') actually care about. From our attitude towards China it seems that we aren't really bothered with human rights but simply use them as a disguise for what we really want - open markets. We really want markets with cheap labour to produce our goods, with strict regimes to prevent higher wages from being paid and thus higher costs for use and with a stable (read: strict) government which will guarantee supply. We don't really care about improvments to human rights so long as countries open up their markets so American corportations can make money there.

[LoneWolf]

Probably a more useful topic to debate is what are human rights; if you don't have access to fresh water, an education, basic health care or employment, but can say what you like and get to vote are your human rights really better than someone who's censored in what they can say and read, but has better access to all these things.

 

Probably the best point made on this thread.

I was formerly a member of Liberty (used to be called NCCL) and occasionally took to the streets to protest against one thing or another. I was actually one of only 3 people on the Island who stood in the rain outside Shoprite to protest against the sale of Cape fruit during the Apartheid years. Quite a brave thing to do in retrospect as the promotion was using Geoff Capes as a honeypot for buyers!

Point is, some folks would put a whole lot of value on the freedom to protest, freedom of assembly, freedom to organise etc etc.

Maybe people in our area have forgotten how we actually achieved the standard of living even the poorest enjoy. Most of it down to Trade Unions and Trade Union involvement in politics. There is one hell of a history there behind the Trade Union movement which shocked me at first reading as they are so .. well respectable these days. But believe me, people went to jail, were deported and even killed in organised protests against poverty. There were, of course, other organisations,but the Trade Unions definately played the vanguard role in fighting against poverty.

This brings me to your question about human rights. I think I have answered it but, of course its only my humble opinion !

[Chinahand]

I realise that huge improvements have been made in recent years in China but my concern was more about what we (the 'West') actually care about. From our attitude towards China it seems that we aren't really bothered with human rights but simply use them as a disguise for what we really want - open markets. We really want markets with cheap labour to produce our goods, with strict regimes to prevent higher wages from being paid and thus higher costs for use and with a stable (read: strict) government which will guarantee supply. We don't really care about improvments to human rights so long as countries open up their markets so American corportations can make money there.

 

Cheesemonster, your post may fit in with whatever anti-globalisation propaganda you like spouting, but it has almost no basis in reality.

 

One) The major issue both the US Government and the financial community has with China at the moment is its manipulation of its currency. China is coming under huge pressure to revalue the Renminbi which will make Chinese labour and goods MORE expensive in international markets. This directly contradicts your post.

 

Two) One of the major controversies China has with the International community is over its refusal to allow independent trade unions. The US, UK, EU governments, and organizations like Amnesty, the UN and the International Labour Organisation have all consistently lobbied China to allow free trade unions. This links directly into what LoneWolf has posted about the union’s role in improving human dignity. Independent unions will be better at lobbying for improved labour conditions, wages etc than the state controlled monolith. This directly contradicts your post.

 

Three) By almost any measure: wages, working conditions, industrial accidents etc etc Multinational corporations are better than local Chinese companies. The local population know this and actively want to work for these companies and when you compare the alternatives: back breaking labour for a pittance in the country side, or working for a dead end state owned company I’m not particularly surprised. Most multinationals are proud of the work they are doing in China, seeing it as part of the process of developing the country and they are aware the commercial and human knowledge they bring to the country directly contributes to improving the well being of China's citizens. Yep they make money, but they also create wealth which is much more important. This directly contradicts your post.

 

Why are you creating a false dichotomy between open markets and human rights?

 

Can you name any country which has a closed economy and good human rights? Countries like North Korea, Zimbabwe and Sudan!

 

The opening up of China, economically and politically has been about the best thing possible for improving human dignity in the last 30 years. There is still an awfully long to go, but its opening up has massively improved things for 20% of the world’s population and is rightly applauded and encouraged by the west.

 

I fully hope China becomes much more open in the next few years and if it does so I expect its Human rights to continue to improve. It is the people within the Chinese Communist Party who reject openness that are the enemies of human rights and dignity and I don't think you really support them, so why are you spouting such rubbish as the above?

[MrsTrellisfromNorthWales]

Hey, Google fans! Are you free speech fans?

 

Compare Google.com's image search for Tiananmen with Google.cn (China).

 

 

http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen

 

http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen