Ryan Stanley
Professor Craig
World Politics
16 November 2011
Who has the Right to Grant Rights?
Human Right: Commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.
Amnesty International is an international non-governmental organization who conducts research and generates action to prevent and end abuses of human rights. They also work to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated. They have done work across the globe and in every corner of the earth.
Their recent work has included documenting human rights violations in China. The big issues being focused on are detention without trial, the death penalty, and freedom of expression. It is estimated that five hundred thousand people are currently being held in jail without trial by the Chinese government. In addition, millions are unable to work with the justice system to find solutions to their problems and complaints. According to Amnesty International, harassment, surveillance, house arrest, and imprisonment of human rights defenders by the Chinese government are all on the rise. The Chinese government has also been infamous for the censorship of the internet, television, and many other types of media within the country.
More specifically, the government will use disciplinary action such as “Re-education through Labor” to hold people in contempt. According to the government, 190,000 people were held in re-education through labor facilities. Chinese law allows for citizens to be killed by way of the death penalty. The government uses this penalty more harshly than we do here in the United States. Capital punish, in the United States, is the punishment rendered for the most horrendous of crimes, crimes that go far beyond civility and injure other people terribly. Many citizens view it as “an eye for an eye” type of punishment. However, the Chinese government does not have this balance. In terms of freedom of expression, and as mentioned before, the Chinese government has a history of blocking and regulating what is seen on the internet, televisions, and mobile devices of its citizens. The government will censor it for a number of reasons: if it slanders the country's political system, distorts the history of the party, publicizes opposition groups that are gaining traction in China, and incites ethnic division.
I am not arguing, by any means, that the Chinese people are under terrible duress and need help immediately. I would argue, in fact, that there are far more pressing issues in the world to deal with – genocide being one of them. I do, however, bring the Chinese situation up as an example – an example of why people do not always get the rights that are “guaranteed” to them. When put under a “lens” and analyzed, one sees a number of things. In terms of human rights there are a number of factions of the government and population that can fight for them. At the top is the United Nations, an organization currently made up of a one hundred and ninety three member states. The United Nations grants universal human rights to every human being. It does this through its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a declaration consisting of thirty articles that map out the universal human rights that are guaranteed to all people. The second faction of government seen is the state, the part that directly governs the people and runs the country. The third faction is the people of the state or of the world. If a large enough group can rise up, it can change policy and ways of thinking around the world. Sounds pretty simple, right? The United Nations grants universal human rights to the citizens of the world, the state makes sure that these rights are implemented, and the people enjoy them. Wrong. It seems this way, but instead we see something completely different taking place.
Why do the Chinese people not enjoy the same human rights that we as American citizens do? Why do the people of Darfur and police states across the world not enjoy the same human rights that we as American citizens do? These questions have been answered from time-to-time by saying that it is the state governments deciding not to grant the universal rights to all humans. The answer goes further than this, though. There is a reason why the Chinese Government, and many other governments alike, are not told what to do by the United Nations. It goes back to the issue of sovereignty and overall rights. China has a right to govern its citizens the way that it wishes. After all, one of the reasons it is recognized as a nation by the United Nations (beside the fact that is was one of the original creators and members) is that it is sovereign and has its own rights, as well. The United Nations would be hypocritical to attempt to micromanage the situation in countries such as China. While the United Nations can aid countries by sending peacekeepers and funding certain efforts, it cannot intervene with the running of the country – it's a privilege enjoyed by the member states.
This leaves the analysis to the states and the people. Yes, people are responsible, to an extent, to fight for their own rights and demand the human rights that they deserve. The states need to work with them, though, to grant this. In a sense it is a double-edged sword as the state can decide what it wants to do in a situation like this but the United Nations cannot do much to directly intervene with the state government. Many would argue that it comes down to the type of government a country has. A government “...of the people, by the people, and for the people...that shall not perish from this earth” is one that is more apt to grant requests of the citizens, provide more universal human rights, and comply with civil demand. A dictatorial government is less likely to do so because, let's be honest, no one is taking his job any time soon. All in all, the answer is pretty foggy and the prospects are grim for all states to begin granting universal human rights to citizens of the world.
Works Cited
N.a. "Internet Censorship in China - Breaking World Internet Censorship News - The New York Times." Times Topics - The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Nov. 2011. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.
N.a. Amnesty International | Working to Protect Human Rights. AI. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI think the issue of China and its citizens’ human rights that you bring up is a prime way of explaining the powerlessness of the UN in certain situations. As Professor Craig said in class, the limit of the UN’s power is multifaceted. The UN cannot overstep China’s sovereignty in relation to “rights,” because rights are not tangible. The Chinese state has the right to decide how to treat its citizens, and if the UN comes in and tries to alter right, no matter how moral their intentions are, they may end up looking like the bad guy.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that there is nothing we can do, and that people who do not have basic human rights should just 'suck it up?' You say that people have to fight for their rights, but then you say that they have to work with their government, and many times the government will not put in this work. What do you propose then?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks Hannah. It's definitely a challenge and one that is probably not going to work itself out for a long time.
ReplyDeleteAnd Julia, I'm not saying there is nothing we can do and we should suck it up. I was pointing out what we had talked about in class as being the different "levels" and ways rights can be granted to citizens of a country, who they're provided by. The end result is that there is no real, clear answer to the question of who grants rights. I was merely showing the contrasting points, not trying to be arbitrary. People should fight for rights if being oppressed by the states, in my opinion. However, it doesn't always work that way.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteEven I strongly believe in human rights, I also believe that we cannot apply universal model of protection to all countries. China is the country that has its own way of developing and history that differs from western countries. Historically China has an idea the worls is in need of it. In fact, the economic interest is much more imporatnt for the countries than human right. Just as Bill Clinton once announced that he was not going to enter China until the government would change their policy ( I do not remeber exactly when, but I think it was in 1990 after the suppression of the student revolt in Beijing) but few years after he made an official visit to China and then even presented his book there, even there were not too much changes in human rights field.
However, today China realizes that for succesful relations it has to improve human rights, they added one more article to the Constituion, but the problem that human right defenders and Chinese givernment interpret human rights differently. As Kofi Annan said Human are inherent in every person, every individual, and not to be given or presented by any public authority, it is impossible that there are certain laws on one continent and others laws on another continent. China insists in its own path. China does not recognize domination of human right over state laws, thus, Kofi Annan's statement is not applicable to China. By the way, officially no human rights organization announced protest against the one-child policy.
Alsp due to the lack of territory in China the crenation is mandatory, but according to Chinese traditions it is inrespectful attitude to the died. And those examples not all realities of life in China.
Mandatory cremation and tight control of fertility are producing far less impression in the West, although they are the most important problems for the Chinese themselves. The average citizen of China do not need easy access to information or democratic elections, as that what West fights for/ For them it is much more important to get right to the burial of their relatives in the land without prior cremation and the right to educate more than one child. That is why the Western model of human rights in China does not catch on, and probably will never take root.
Hi Ryan,
ReplyDeleteThis post is really interesting. And to go off of Victoria's point, could you argue that human rights, like free speech and the right to have children, are important and should be protected by the state? I would agree that human rights are not above the state, because as we've discussed in class, people do not have human rights unless they have a state to protect them.
If there was no censorship in China, the Chinese people would have access to news criticizing the the one child policy. Media can help to bring people together under a united cause. Through the Arab Spring, we've seen how access to information, and the ability to connect with other people through technology has the power to change the government. So I would argue that attacking China for preventing information is connected to the one child per couple rule.
This is only one right that the western world is fighting for, and while I agree that China should be free to govern however it chooses, democratic or otherwise, I think human rights are something that should be universal in any government.
Emma & Victoria,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments. I think Victoria is right when saying that we cannot apply this universal model of protection to all states. It's just the way the system works. And in terms of the point regarding rights like free speech and the right to have children being protected by the state: I think that's perfectly appropriate and essential but not necessarily viable. Although we know states are the ones that grant and protect human rights, it doesn't always end up following through. Something we didn't talk about in class that I think is rather important: The only real power/influence that can come from "above" in terms of enforcement (and it's not really even from "above") is the voice of other state actors such as the USA and countries that have influence. The world knows that when the US decides to intervene, "stuff" happens and things get done. This, of course, being a result of the tremendous amount of influence, allies, relationships, agreements, and pull the United States of America have in the world.
I agree with Emma's comment. I feel like each nation really does have a different view of what should be considered a "universal right". It's hard for the UN as an organization to represent all nations and to set out specific guidelines that a country must follow so that they are treating their people fair by the UN's guidelines. As we saw with your post, history can play a huge role in the way a country is organized and in what way they carry-out their beliefs. As the way we view universal human rights changes, do you think this push for more rights like freedom of speech will impact nations that have censorship such as China? Do you think despite the fact that they have many websites and ways of communication blocked, that it would be possible for them to have a revolution similar to the Arab Spring to push for human rights?
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the Hannah Arendt article we read at the very beginning of the year, if we aren't sure where Universal Rights from, is Arendt's analysis correct that Universal Rights do not exist? Are our rights only functions of the state we live in?
ReplyDelete