WHEN DOES PROMOTION AND SUPPORT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS…
(… become meddling in the internal affairs of others?)

Human rights….are human rights. The problem is not all countries define those rights by the same standard of observance.

This is particularly true in the way these are defined by so-called “democracies”, especially Western democracies, compared to how “authoritarian” regimes define them (since totalitarian regimes ignore the concept of human rights, they aren’t include here).

The key differences between Western-type democracies and authoritarian regimes of one kind or another is that in Western-type democracies the focus is on legal structures to protect individuals’ rights, whereas authoritarian regimes focus on legal structures to control such rights for the collective benefit of society, rather than for the individual. It’s this dichotomy of perspectives about rights which makes any discussions about them seem like idle chit-chat at cross-purposes.

Which brings us to the question: When does promotion and support for human rights…. become meddling in the internal affairs of others? Frankly, it’s a very fine line to draw, or, to know when and how to cross or…not to cross it.

And a good example of that is the case of the blind Chinese rights activist (against China’s one-child-only policy), who managed to elude his security watch dogs, took refuge at our embassy in Beijing, creating a situation which could unravel decades of careful efforts to evolve a reasonable working relationship between China and the United States, mostly around economic and trade issues. Now, both governments find themselves scrambling to resolve it without screwing up the works for either of them. For the moment traditional diplomatic protocols of extra-territoriality are keeping things relatively calm. The question is…for how long?

American public harping about China’s human rights record (which admittedly ranks somewhere between dreadful and lousy), seems mainly pronounced for the benefit of its home audience, to indicate its adherence to principle….not just profits. Beyond that, it does little to change China’s observances of such rights, and simply acts as one more mutual irritant hampering the ongoing development of their relationship.

For Beijing’s Communist regime the situation is governed by several factors. Effectively it’s between a rock and a hard place. Having previously more or less renounced the Maoist ideological constraints imposed on its population, and spent several decades relaxing the economic controls it once monopolized, it now faces growing pressures from its population  for an equivalent relaxation of political controls as well. Doing so, however, would destroy its monopoly over the levers of power. Thus the current inner struggles among its party hierarchs is a reflection of the conflict between those who would continue moving towards a less authoritarian and more open system, and those, who want to return to stricter controls over everything. Meanwhile the forces of its security infrastructure operate with little or no control from the divided top echelons of the party.

But in this particular instance there is the additional problem of somehow preventing its people from learning that an individual who defied the long enforced – one child only – policy has managed to escape from control. Were he allowed to remain in China, free to promote his opposition to that policy, un-harassed by authorities, the consequences for China could be disastrous. Allowing him to leave the country into exile, would simply show the Chinese people that the Communist regime’s rule over them is losing its grip. Either way, they could all lose.

The origin of that –one child only – policy was based upon a very rational concern. Unless their population growth rate came under control, the Malthusian nightmare prediction of overpopulation exceeding their resources to sustain it would become a reality. And at 1 Billion plus, and growing, that scenario still ways heavily on their minds. Without that one- child-only policy, rather than prosperity and stability, they could all face poverty and chaos.

Even the most ardent human rights advocates understand that, so their opposition to that policy is perhaps more about the methods used to enforce it, rather than the policy itself. Thus, in this instance, and on this particular aspect of human rights, we really may have to put our Western biases and perspectives about such rights aside. At least…for the moment.

CENTURION