Aff Answers AFF Answers – Say No
Shannon Tiezzi April 15, 2016 (Tiezzi, Shannon Tiezzi is Editor at The Diplomat.Her main focus is on China, and she writes on China’s foreign relations, domestic politics, and economy. Shannon previously served as a research associate at the U.S.-China Policy Foundation, where she hosted the weekly television show China Forum. She received her A.M. from Harvard University and her B.A. from The College of William and Mary. Shannon has also studied at Tsinghua University in Beijing,“US Accuse Each Other of Human Rights Violations”, The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/china-us-accuse-each-other-of-human-rights-violations/)
This may seem odd to Americans, but China’s official definition of human rights has long been focused on economic well-being – the “people’s livelihood,” as Chinese officials call it. Economic stability, after all, has been the primary offering from Beijing to Chinese citizens for the past 30 years. Chinese officials point to their incredible economic success story, which has lifted 800 million people of out poverty according to the World Bank, as their primary contribution to human rights. In March, a Xinhua article complained of the West’s “selective amnesia” on human rights, arguing that “one of the greatest human rights successes a country could hope for is the elimination of poverty.” China’s leaders have long since decided – on behalf of every Chinese citizen – that the definition of human rights delineated in the U.S. State Department report is not suitable for their country. The concept of “universal values” – specifically, the idea that all people around the world are entitled to certain rights – was rejected as a threat to Party authority in the infamous Document 9. “The goal [of championing universal values] is to obscure the essential differences between the West’s value system and the value system we advocate,” the document warns.
China says no- US hypocrisy
Lum ’15 – Specialist in Asian Affairs
(Thomas, 9/17/15, date accessed: 7.2.16, “Human Rights in China and U.S. Policy: Issues for the 114th Congress,” Congressional Research Service, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43964.pdf)
Malinowski reportedly expressed concerns regarding the crackdown on human rights lawyers, referred to 16 PRC citizens who had been jailed, detained, or denied freedom of movement, and presented a list of over 100 “cases of concern.”255 Other issues reportedly raised by the U.S. side included the following: the new National Security law, draft foreign NGO law, and other legislative proposals; freedom of expression, including press and Internet freedom; and the campaign to remove crosses from some Christian churches and demolish others in Zhejiang province and elsewhere. The U.S. delegation “discussed the dangers” of conflating peaceful expressions of dissent and religious practices with subversive and terrorist activities, particularly in Xinjiang and Tibet, and urged China to resume its dialogue with representatives of the Dalai Lama. U.S. representatives raised the issues of restricted access for U.S. journalists, diplomats, and academics and the lack of “fair and equitable treatment for U.S. news outlets” in China. They pressed Chinese officials to release journalist and press freedom advocate Gao Yu.256 In 2015, Gao, who is 71 years old and said to be suffering from a heart condition, was sentenced to seven years in prison for “leaking state secrets” to the foreign media. The Chinese side publicly noted human rights problems in the United States, including racial discrimination, excessive use of force by police, and the “violation of the human rights of other countries through massive surveillance activities.” 257 The Chinese government has become increasingly resistant to making concessions on human rights through diplomatic engagement. Since 2013, the PRC rarely has accepted prisoner lists or requests for information on cases of concern from foreign governments, although the U.S. government and NGOs continue to press China for information and leniency related to key prisoners of conscience. Furthermore, Chinese delegations have responded to U.S. concerns by criticizing what they view as human rights abuses in the United States. Some experts suggest that Chinese authorities remain relatively supportive of narrowly focused, governmental and nongovernmental rule-of-law exchanges, which often are less politically sensitive, and which have had some success in promoting reforms, particularly in the area of criminal justice.258
Zero chance China shifts on core issues---and, say no wrecks Chinese soft power
Christopher B. Primiano, 5/23/2015, Ph.D. candidate (expected May 2016) in the Division of Global Affairs at Rutgers University-Newark. Primiano’s broad research interests focus on international relations and comparative politics. More specifically, he is interested in Chinese politics and international relations. He has published refereed articles on Chinese politics and international relations. From 2007 to 2009, Primiano served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Chongqing, China."The Impact of International Perception on China’s Approach to Human Rights", East Asia December 2015, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 401–419
This article has put forward a theory regarding under what circumstances the Chinese government is willing to resist international pressure on human rights and, in the process of doing so, incur damage to its international image. Generally speaking, the Chinese government seeks to advance its international image and goes to significant length to do so, such as all the efforts that have gone into the 2008 Beijing Games and the 2010 Shanghai Expo, establishing both Confucius Institutes and CCTV bureaus throughout the world, and donating foreign aid. Despite such attempts by the Chinese government to advance its international image on the one hand, it is clear that, on the other hand, there are circumstances in which the Chinese government calculates that resisting international pressure, and thus inflicting damage to its international image, is a better option than adhering to such international calls for action, as the Chinese government’s reaction to the events in this article reveal. The efforts that the Chinese government exerted in trying to advance its position with Tibet in 2008, Xinjiang in 2009, and Liu Xiaobo in 2010 demonstrate how aggressive it is willing to be on issues that it views as the most pressing core interests, specifically threatening to CCP rule or the loss of territory. The four events presented here that illustrate this pattern were all significant events in which each event received ample international attention. These four specific recent events have not been analyzed together to assess the relationship between international image and the Chinese government changing policy due to international pressure. Importantly, we do see variance with one of the cases, which allows for a theory regarding when we can expect cooperation and when we can expect the Chinese government to reject international pressure. Moreover, with the case of Tibet in March 2008, the Chinese government’s staunch resistance to international pressure just a few months prior to the 2008 Beijing Games demonstrates that with an event that should have been the most likely to result in change, we did not see any change. Instead, the Chinese government is very concerned about both China breaking up and the end of CCP rule. Thus, if anything may potentially lead to that, the Chinese government will strongly resist. There is variance in the outcome (with the dependent variable) because the first three are within china, with Tibet and Xinjiang involving the all-important issue for the Chinese government of territory. With the case of Darfur, while oil is indeed essential for the Chinese economy and thus a core interest, Darfur is, nonetheless, not on the same level of core interests as the other three events examined here. In this article, we see significant variance with the Chinese government’s reaction to the events observed. With the cases of Tibet and Xinjiang, the Chinese government aimed to set up macro economic development in those areas, reflecting the view that economic development is the most important issue for calming all issues. This focus on economic development does not serve as a change from the past, as the Chinese government has been focused on economic development since the Reform and Opening. Simply spending more money on economic development in those provinces was viewed as the solution. But with the case of Darfur, we see much more of a departure from China’s previous focus on sovereignty regarding Sudan. Thus, with the case of Sudan, China was willing to rethink or change its policies. This article has relevance for policy implications for both state and non-state actors aiming to exert international pressure on China to improve human rights. We should not expect to see any change on China’s position regarding the main core interests examined here, and thus INGOs looking to name and shame China should be aware of this. But we should expect more cooperation on issues outside of China where there is not the threat to loss of domestic territory or threat to CCP rule. Thus, instead of state or non-state actors, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or UNHRC, aiming to name and shame China regarding Tibet or Xinjiang, the focus should be on working with both NGOs and activists inside of China, such as Weiquan lawyers (rights-protection lawyers), to find common ground on other issues involving civil society that are not viewed as such core interests by the Chinese government, as such issues are non-starters for the Chinese government.
China says no---the CP is perceived as “western infiltration”---hope for reform is nearly dead
Bochen Han 2/11/16, an editorial assistant at The Diplomat, interviewing Dr. Eva Pils, author of the book "China's Human Rights Lawyers", who interviewed hundreds of rights lawyers in China, PhD in law from University College London, Reader in Transnational Law at King's College London, "China's Human Rights Lawyers: Political Resistance and the Law", The Diplomat, thediplomat.com/2016/02/chinas-human-rights-lawyers-political-resistance-and-the-law/
[Han:] What are the dominant trends among the Chinese society’s reaction to the rights lawyers? Does the concept of ‘human rights’ carry much traction with the average Chinese?
[Pils:] I think that like in other countries we would need to differentiate between citizens who have confronted government abuse and rights violations, and those who have not. What rights lawyers have told me suggests that the people who form their usual clientele have become more rights-conscious over the past one or two decades. Several narratives from the late 1990s were about clients who didn’t know what ‘torture’ (xingxun bigong 刑讯逼供 or kuxing 酷刑) meant, for example; who might have no idea at all that the law prohibited beating criminal suspects. Today more ordinary people seem to be aware of their rights.
With regard to the wider population, I am not sure. Perhaps ‘human rights’ today carries as much traction with the average Chinese as it does with the average Briton or American; but how much is that? It is especially hard to tell in China, not only because the opportunities for research that might help answer this question are limited but also because of censorship and limited information available to Chinese citizens. The government censors media reporting bad news about itself. It has also publicly denounced rights lawyers and human rights themselves as tools of western infiltration under the name of ‘so-called universal values.’ But then again it continues to use ‘human rights’ in a positive way on some occasions. And, obviously the Internet has diversified the sources of information available to ordinary citizens. I imagine that Chinese citizens have been receiving mixed messages and it is not easy to figure out how they respond to that.
[Han:] How do you assess the progress of a top-down, controlled and incremental rule of law reform in China today? Do you see any hope for the reduction of repression in light of recent legislative reforms that have moved in the direction of increased liberalization? What about President Xi Jinping’s announcement to establish a “rule of law” by 2020?
[Pils:] The hope of incremental liberalization through top-down legal reforms was extremely important in the post-Mao era but today, in my view, it is very nearly dead. Under Xi Jinping especially, the law has been changed to accommodate rather than curb power abuses. Law is not seen as imposing limits on the power of the government; rather, it is an expression of the power of the ruling Party, including ruthless power to control its own bureaucracy. This is not to deny, of course, that there are occasional welcome changes, for example, the decision to abolish the feared “re-education through labor” system in 2013. But such changes generally look better on paper than in reality and do not address the central challenge of power abuse. For example, the government continues to lock people up under numerous forms of detention without due – or simply without any – legal process. The Party’s vision for 2020 is therefore Party rule by law, at best – legal rules used when it serves power-holders, and disregarded when it does not.
And, the Party keeps widening the circles of people it targets. It has turned on itself through the ‘anti-corruption’ campaign and it is going after more and more groups in civil society, treating human rights advocates, especially, as enemies. Starting with the detention of Lawyer Wang Yu, her husband and sixteen-year old son in the night of July 9, 2015, there has been an unprecedented crackdown on rights lawyers. Most recently, this widening crackdown has also affected labor activists; and repression is now expanding beyond China’s borders. It is a sad but apt illustration of the more repressive, dual-state system the leadership wants to create.
Share with your friends: |