China and the decline of the human rights crowd

[Altherion]

I've recently encountered a pair of interesting articles, one in Forbes and the other in Foreign Policy. They are mainly concerned with the Philippines (which have recently become quite hostile to the US), but the Forbes article also addresses the role of China in assisting a variety of fairly distinct countries (Russia, Sri Lanka, Iran and North Korea). It concludes:

Quote

 

“China has a hands off approach. It will give you money and let you do what you want to do. They won’t lecture you on humans rights,” Dushni Weerakoon of Sri Lanka’s Institute of Policy Studies told me earlier this year.

No matter if you’re a moralizing liberal democracy, a brutal dictatorship, a fundamentalist theocracy, or an insult-hurling president who’s slaughtering drug dealers, if you’re willing to do business and don’t meddle in its internal affairs, China doesn’t discriminate. This is a strategy which can break the human rights-conscious economic and political blockades of the U.S. and E.U., rendering them obsolete and prone to marked geopolitical backfires.

As John Garver, the author of China’s Quest, once summed up China’s position: “Business is business with no political strings attached. . . Sanctions should not be a mainstay of world politics.”

 

Of course, it was obvious to anybody who has studied world history and the societies of today that the vision of human rights pushed by the US and EU is by no means universal (not even those two entities fully agree on what it means; see capital punishment for an example). However, in the past quarter century or so, they have wielded it as a cause for intervention in the affairs of other nations -- often with sanctions, sometimes militarily -- with decidedly mixed results. This was mainly possible because of the complete economic dominance of the Western powers. They're still dominant today, but China is catching up and can now afford to start its own club. What do people think? Will this no-string approach win out over the Western one? Is this a prelude to an escalation in the conflicts between China and the West?

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Don't think it will really lead to conflict. Both the EU and the US are already deeply involved in trade with China so there's not much they can do.

It does make me wonder what the future of democracy and human rights looks like though. For all the progress being made around the world in economic growth and declining poverty levels, it seems like human rights not always go along with them. Countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia are actively going backwards. China is itself a perfect example of how you can have economic success without democracy. Its rising influence among the developing nations of the world is certainly worrying - although, to be honest, I'm not sure exactly how much good pressure from the West ever did in that regard.

[Rorshach]

In some respects, I think China's policy is an attempt at keeping its non-democracy while still continuing its growth. I am not very familiar with the East Asia scene, but I know slightly more about Ethiopia. 

There, China have of late been building roads, and their latest project is a subway (except that it isn't sub, it is on or above ground level - word for that? My head fails). These are all built by Chinese, using Chinese tech and Chinese products. So, while Ethiopia does get something out of it, China gets jobs and a market for their products. Ethiopia also doesn't get any embarrasing questions about their human rights record.

Is this sustainable in the long run? I honestly don't know.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

4 hours ago, Rorshach said:

subway (except that it isn't sub, it is on or above ground level - word for that? My head fails). These are all built by Chinese, using Chinese tech

Light rail?

[Future Null Infinity]

Duterte didn't become hostile with the US, he simply don't want to be an ally and want to be neutral with someone like Obama or Kerry who don't stop to lecture him about how to govern his country

and China have a long history with the non interference policy, it's not something new and the chinese don't want any conflict with the West, they are friends with everybody

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Why has Duerte decided to alligne with China over the long standing relationship with the US?  What have we done to drive the Phillipines toward China with whom they have serious disputes over the South China Sea?

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

2 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Light rail?

Not necessarily it could be heavy rail. So I just default to railroad. And believe it or not large portions of the subway in New York are elevated. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

For an African country to choose China's seemingly no strings attached low interest loans and economic infrastructure spending makes sense.

But for a country with direct territorial disputes with China, it's beyond idiotic.

[Rorshach]

4 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Light rail?

Seems right. 

I learned something today too! Thanks.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

The West's hypocracy on Human Rights is staggering.

Seems Jimmy Carter wasnt too concerned about Human Rights when he armed Indonesia to the teeth while they were enabling genocide on E.Timor. 

Reagan didnt mind Human Rights abuses too much while white knighting for the apartheid regime in S.Africa.

Bush1 didnt worry about HR abuses while he was the Director of the CIA.

Clinton1 didnt concern himself over HR abuses while the Iraqi embargo created untold suffering

Bush2 was how worried about HR abuses while trying  conquer the M.E.?

Obama presided over 8 years of drone attacks that resulted in collosal colateral damage, is a bomb on a innocent parties head a HR abuse?

Clinton2 was how worried about human rights abuses when she said we should overthrow the democratically elected Chavez in Velenzuela?

 

The West is hypocritical on human rights because they turn a blind eye to the ones that serve their own needs. China simply leaves them out of the equation altogether. Neither position is superior, but one suffers as the position of hypocracy.

[Altherion]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why has Duerte decided to alligne with China over the long standing relationship with the US?  What have we done to drive the Phillipines toward China with whom they have serious disputes over the South China Sea?

The articles sort of explain it. Duerte cracked down on drug dealers in a fairly brutal and extrajudicial way. When the US objected, he made disparaging comments towards Obama (whom he seems to personally dislike). The US threatened to stop arming the Philippines which prompted the latter to go shopping for weapons in Russia and China.

I don't think we've quite driven the Philippines away -- they do have territorial issues with China and very deep ties with the US so it's not likely that they'll switch allegiances altogether. Obama is leaving soon and it is quite possible that Duerte will be more willing to negotiate with his successor. However, it does seem that interference in the affairs of other countries with human rights as the nominal cause is not as simple as it once was.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

The West's hypocracy on Human Rights is staggering.

Seems Jimmy Carter wasnt too concerned about Human Rights when he armed Indonesia to the teeth while they were enabling genocide on E.Timor. 

Reagan didnt mind Human Rights abuses too much while white knighting for the apartheid regime in S.Africa.

Bush1 didnt worry about HR abuses while he was the Director of the CIA.

Clinton1 didnt concern himself over HR abuses while the Iraqi embargo created untold suffering

Bush2 was how worried about HR abuses while trying  conquer the M.E.?

Obama presided over 8 years of drone attacks that resulted in collosal colateral damage, is a bomb on a innocent parties head a HR abuse?

Clinton2 was how worried about human rights abuses when she said we should overthrow the democratically elected Chavez in Velenzuela?

 

The West is hypocritical on human rights because they turn a blind eye to the ones that serve their own needs. China simply leaves them out of the equation altogether. Neither position is superior, but one suffers as the position of hypocracy.

I don't really follow how sometimes not caring about human rights is just as bad as never caring about them? 

[Altherion]

24 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

I don't really follow how sometimes not caring about human rights is just as bad as never caring about them? 

As with any other norm, selective enforcement discredits the idea as a whole. If one only cares about human rights when they can be used to damage one's enemies, it eventually becomes clear that human rights aren't actually very important except as an excuse for actions. To be fair, the US and EU are not quite that bad, but we have certainly ignored human rights violations in the past and are still ignoring them now in situations where the violator is too valuable an ally to harass about this.

[Impmk2]

4 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

I don't really follow how sometimes not caring about human rights is just as bad as never caring about them? 

Yeah I don't get this either. There are shades of grey, it isn't all black and white.

13 hours ago, Future Null Infinity said:

and China have a long history with the non interference policy, it's not something new and the chinese don't want any conflict with the West, they are friends with everybody

China had a long policy of non-interference. More recently they been projecting their power into Asia, annexing territory, in order to control more resources and establish their cred as a superpower. See the South China Sea dispute.

[Shryke]

I think it's hilarious you make so many threads about the decline of things not in decline.

But anyway, let's talk about the two things mentioned:

Firstly, the Philippines. The important thing to understand here is that Duerte is kinda like the Filipino Donald Trump. Donald Trump as presidential candidate anyway. He's an unstable authoritarian loon prone to wild outbursts, violence and taking shit personally, among various other horrible things. He's basically throwing a tantrum here over criticism of his rather horrific actions but where this goes is anyone's guess because, again, unstable authoritarian lunatic. There is really not much one can DO with these kind of people. What this has to do with human rights is anyone's guess.

Secondly, on the subject of China and Africa, yes it's alot about the fact that China is alot easier with it's money as they are desperately trying to buy international influence over the past few decades. The idea that this is a big change is, of course, absolutely ludicrous as any even cursory perusal of, say, US dealings with foreign nations, in business and in anything, shows that making deals without concern for human rights is a long held tradition. The idea that this represents some sort of fundamental change beyond a new state trying to get in on the game is nothing but a silly attempt to push a particular narrative, as always.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Just recently there were stories over the Egyptian investments China is planning. The article I read was about plans to spend 70+ billion building a replacement capitol for Cairo. The project looked ultra ambitious, modern and as chic looking as a Emirate city, very impressive.

 

[House Balstroko]

3 hours ago, Impmk2 said:

Yeah I don't get this either. There are shades of grey, it isn't all black and white.

China had a long policy of non-interference. More recently they been projecting their power into Asia, annexing territory, in order to control more resources and establish their cred as a superpower. See the South China Sea dispute.

Exactly, China's policy of past non interference was largely as a result of being much weaker. The stronger a country becomes the more it is able to project itself internationally. 

[Maltaran]

10 hours ago, Shryke said:

Secondly, on the subject of China and Africa, yes it's alot about the fact that China is alot easier with it's money as they are desperately trying to buy international influence over the past few decades.

Not just influence, they get a lot of raw materials from Africa for their manufacturing sector, and some of the big infrastructure projects they pay for as part of the trade deals.

[maarsen]

It all sounds so simple. China puts money into Africa, and gets raw materials in return. Everybody goes home happy. Except for the people who go home with less, the working people of Africa. Laissez faire  colonialism is still colonialism. 

There are simple ways to influence the growth of human rights in China. For almost 10 years we have been taking in exchange students from China. They come to school here to improve their English and get an education. Do so and show them a world where human rights are taken more seriously. Word will travel.

[DireWolfSpirit]

3 hours ago, maarsen said:

It all sounds so simple. China puts money into Africa, and gets raw materials in return. Everybody goes home happy. Except for the people who go home with less, the working people of Africa. Laissez faire  colonialism is still colonialism. 

There are simple ways to influence the growth of human rights in China. For almost 10 years we have been taking in exchange students from China. They come to school here to improve their English and get an education. Do so and show them a world where human rights are taken more seriously. Word will travel.

And foreign exchange, as any exchange, works two ways, Western students can go to China. Little ripples can affect change. My older sister for example, went to Hong Kong University for post grad work, worked at a refugee camp, taught English for a while, learned Mandarin. I'm sure she made a wonderful ambassador as she was a Amnesty International supporter before she was even out of High School.

I still go back to my original thoughts on this issue though, its not a situation of China needing to learn from the Wests example. To me its equally important that the West learns from the East as well. The narrative in our media arrogantly, and incorrectly imo, presents this as China black hat, the West white hat, and glosses over the Wests own shortcomings. China will not be interested in the Wests opinions on Human Rights when it sees the type of foreign policy we've been practicing so far in the 21st century. They likely believe we do not have a leg to stand and lecture on. Its also likely many Chinese feel it is the West that needs to be lectured on its policy.

So we are left with needing to learn from each equally, as two equally powerful nation states. What is the U.S. prepared to learn from China, can the U.S. learn while it's lecturing? China says you first need to shut your lips to hear.