In a big meeting hall in Geneva earlier this week, China’s human rights record came under scrutiny before the U.N. Human Rights Council.
You can watch the video of the three-hour session if you like by clicking to this site. You can also read China’s statement about its human rights situation.
The headlines about the hearing came because of the concern of certain countries over matters like “black jails,” labor camps, persecution of minorities, secrecy in the application of the death penalty, and calls for China to establish a human rights commission independent of the government. Click here for the story I wrote.
In watching the hearing, though, it was equally as interesting to see the nations coming forth to congratulate China and laud its social policies, including its exuberant use of the death penalty.
The Egyptian envoy said "we understand the need of China to keep the death penalty and recognize that in China it is strictly controlled and applied with extreme caution.” He praised the fact that pregnant women and minors are not executed.
Iran congratulated China's "efforts to promote and protect human rights for all" but in referring to the internet added that "its negative impact can never be underestimated.” It encouraged China to tighten censorship to prohibit "defamation of religion" and “pornographic websites.”
Cuba praised China for being an "exceptional country," and urged it to enforce "strict compliance with law. . . to prevent people disguised as human rights activists from trying to destroy the state."
Singapore said China’s sustained economic growth is little short of a miracle.
Pakistan suggested foreign countries butt out of China’s affairs: “China does not require external advice on securing the rights of its people.”
Sri Lanka said his country “rejects the malign criticisms of China made by the same quarters … who tore China into little pieces during the period of colonialism and … actually forced the habit of opium upon the Chinese people.”
Hi Tom: Thank you for reading the scripts referred by Tim. The reasons for the 2nd and 3rd. world countries picking on China might be as simple and hoping China would shut them up with "foreign aids", or they have so little to be proud of their own development that they want to put down China to tell the world their "achievement".
The "1st" world countries on the non-Tibet side might want to make some money off China during this "economic tsunami"
The Tibet side western countries might either having greater need for spiritual superiority fulfillment than economic necessity, or they don't think China could or would help them out. Some nations' statements were for "domestic" consumptions and others for foreign use. Anyway, every country has its own little ever-changing secret motives to serve its "dynamic" national interests.
Posted by: DB1369 | February 21, 2009 at 07:36 PM
Hi Tim: Nice job. I guess what you tried to say was
The "friends" of China on human rights are all those "third" and "2nd" world countries labeled by the West's "1st" world countries as having poor "human rights" records. They are the same and being despised by the West.
Posted by: DB1369 | February 21, 2009 at 07:01 PM
Egypt, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka?
Having read the transcript, I can't believe that's the best list you came up with. If you were trying to do a decent job of reporting, the most interesting countries would have been: Philippines, Mexico, South Africa, Nicaragua. These are particularly interesting because they are not all positive towards China. (Mexico, in particular, makes a number of criticisms that are couched in the most carefully diplomatic language.)
In fact, there's even a gulf among the Western nations: namely, whether or not they mention Tibet. On the Tibet side: Australia, Canada. On the non-Tibet side: Germany, France, Finland. I'm not sure why New Zealand did not join its white Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth brethren. Maybe Australia plays the bad cop and New Zealand plays the good cop?
Overall, I would characterize the difference as: Some nations are posturing in front of an audience. Other nations are actually trying to improve human rights in China.
Posted by: Tom | February 14, 2009 at 02:07 AM
Remember when Singapore caned that teenaged American hooligan for vandalizing a car? David Brooks wrote an editorial in the Times calling it "torture".
Public opinion in third-world countries tended towards the belief that kids should not vandalize cars.
Different philosophy. Different way of looking at the world.
Posted by: Tom | February 14, 2009 at 01:12 AM
To each according to his ability,from each according to his need----Communist maxim
Posted by: the tank man | February 12, 2009 at 06:00 AM
I wouldn't get too worked up Tim J. does some of the better reporting.
If you want to see how reporting works, watch how Hu's trip will be covered in the press. When Hu visits Saudi Arabia reports will doubtfully contain lines regarding Saudi Arabia's human rights and the China connection. However, as soon as Hu hits African countries that have limited western presence or where China is viewed as a competitor the human rights rhetoric will begin, even though you'll never see that when Hu is in the gulf.
Posted by: meh | February 11, 2009 at 05:01 PM
So what's wrong to have those countries as friends? Dose western demarcracy claims that each human or nation is equal? Looking down those nations suggests that you are a raciest. And a raciest here is constantly blaming the human right abuse in China. What a Bu Yao Lian.
Posted by: qunhuaa | February 11, 2009 at 03:20 PM