Convictions: Slate's blog on legal issues

Human rights isn't a zero-sum game

Eric, nothing that the pope said Friday favored one set of rights over another.  Indeed, as my post stated, his speech to the U.N. General Assembly included "a tacit reprimand to those who would privilege civil and political rights over economic, social, and cultural rights -- or vice versa."  (emphasis added)  The point I'd intended to underscore was that the pope had reaffirmed the indivisibility of both sets of rights, the civil/political, on the one hand, and the economic/social/cultural, on the other.  Indivisibility was inherent in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but frayed when Cold War geopolitics pushed the U.N. Human Rights Commission to separate the 2 sets as it began the process of drafting treaties designed to make binding all those rights that states had endorsed in the nonbinding Declaration.  That separation, which seemed essential at the height of the Cold War, may be less so today:  160 countries are full members of the 1977 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, while 157 countries are full members of the 1977 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.  That means that 3/4 of all the United Nations' member states are firmly in each Convenant's camp.  Vestiges of Cold War concerns may be found, however, in the fact that the United States is not party to the latter Covenant and China is not party to the former.

As for China: application of the concept of indivisibility means that China is no more a "champion" of human rights than any other state.  The role that the Chinese state has played in alleviating poverty deserves attention.  Indeed, how each country addresses the basic needs of persons within its jurisdiction deserves note, as I've argued with regard to the United States in a forthcoming essay just posted at SSRN.  But the costs of such programs also must be assessed, respecting matters as wide-ranging as the health problems and the repressions of civil liberties that may result from economic development at all costs.  (Here, too, insert a "vice versa.")

On 2 points, it seems, we agree.   1st:  Athletes honored to carry the torch a bit of the way toward the 2008 Olympics should not have to fear anger and assault as they run through the streets of their home country.  2d:  Comprehensive, critical comparison of the nature and extent of states' programs to protect human rights rarely will yield a clear "winner." 

China, Human Rights Champion?

If Diane and the pope are right that we shouldn't privilege civil and political rights over social, economic, and cultural rights, and maybe they are right, then we should give credit where credit is due, and crown China the human rights champion of the last thirty years.  During that time, the authoritarian Chinese government has raised more than 400 million people out of extreme poverty through its enlightened pursuit of capitalism at all costs.  Its indifference to the civil and political rights of Tibetans and other minorities, not to mention those of its own people, detracts from this achievement, but no one can say with any confidence that China could have come so far, so fast, if it had snapped its fingers in 1980 and become a democracy.  The only other contender for the human rights crown is the group of western powers that brought down the Soviet Union, and Mikhail Gorbachev, for not standing in the way, an accomplishment that freed a great number of people living in Soviet-dominated satellite states and finally discredited forever a malign ideology, but did much less for the poor than China has.  We needn't declare a winner; but out of respect for China's achievement, we should at least let it relay its Olympic torch in peace.

Shame Games

For three decades now the U.S. Department of State each year has issued a report on the human rights practices of other countries throughout the world. It does so to comply with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, §§ 116(d), 502B(b); that is, at the behest of Congress.

if this decision 'signifiies that the State Department is paying less attention to chronic violations of human rights in China, yes, that is a problem.'

Also a problem: what some might surmise are the reasons for the differential treatment.

The worst-of-the-worst list includes those members of the international community with which the United States has its most tense relations. China has a different status. (See posts here and here and here.) It's a huge trading partner and a potential hegemon in its own region and those as farflung as Africa.

 

Indeed, unlike the United States or Europe, for that matter, China's policy is not to tie human-rights-compliance strings to the considerable foreign aid it hands out; what's more, China lashes out at the United States every year that it's called on America's human-rights-compliance carpet. This year in particular, it's host to the Summer Olympic Games, an Olympics that U.S. President George W. Bush has pledged to attend.

A realist understands that U.S. officials might feel a tension between Congress' human rights command and China's unique status. And yet, with yesterday's post from IntLawGrrl Naomi Norberg, and with headlines like this one in Sunday's Times of London—"Fears of another Tienanmen as Tibet explodes in hatred"—even a realist has cause to question the choice that the United States appears to have made.

(cross-posted at IntLawGrrls blog.)