Clinton Remarks Undermine Rights Reform in China

(New York, February 20, 2009) - US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's comments en route to China that contentious issues such as human rights "can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises," send the wrong message to the Chinese government, Human Rights Watch said today. Secretary Clinton also suggested that on human rights issues it "might be better [for the US and China] to agree to disagree."

Human Rights Watch stressed, as it did in a letter to the secretary last week, that progress in each of these key areas is inseparable from securing progress in human rights. Freedom for the press, whistleblowers, and critics is essential to preventing environmental damage and defective products that threaten China and the world; labor rights abuses and the lack of rule of law destabilize China's economy which is part of a global economy; and unconditional aid to highly abusive governments destabilizes international peace and security.

"Secretary Clinton's remarks point to a diplomatic strategy that has worked well for the Chinese government - segregating human rights issues into a dead-end 'dialogue of the deaf,'" said Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "A new approach is needed, one in which the US engages China on the critical importance of human rights to a wide range of mutual security interests."

In recent years, the Chinese government has made some progress on human rights issues, including enshrining in the Constitution the state's responsibility to protect and promote human rights, the adoption of new labor protections, and the relaxing of restrictions on foreign journalists inside China. These and other gains were made partly as a result of sustained international pressure; conversely, some of the issues on which the Chinese government has refused to improve are ones rarely raised publicly by other governments, such as human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government in the name of suppressing terrorism.

"A successful strategy for the US doesn't entail 'agreeing to disagree,' but rather convincing China it is in its own interest to protect dissent, peaceful protests, and the creation of a truly independent legal system," said Richardson. "Most importantly, ordinary people, workers, intellectuals, and even government and party representatives in China will also appreciate hearing the United States raise human rights issues in ways that echo their own day-to-day concerns about rule of law and government accountability."

To read the letter from Human Rights Watch to Secretary Clinton, please visit here.

Comments

[CatherinePowell]

After eight years of policies that eroded human rights and marred the image of America in the world, the nation is ready to turn the page and embrace change. In his inaugural address, President Obama spoke of America’s history of leading “not just with missiles and tanks” but by “the force of our example.” Obama can put these words into action by carving out a legacy as the human rights president.

By signing executive orders in the first days of his presidency to close the detention center in Guantanamo and restore the absolute ban on torture, President Obama has made substantial initial steps toward restoring America’s standing in the world. While our new President deserves tremendous praise for addressing torture and the prison at Guantanamo Bay so quickly, he must also make progress on the third leg of the stool: domestic human rights.

President Obama can protect human rights at home and restore U.S. moral leadership in the world by building human rights principles into the way government operates throughout federal agencies, across the internatio­nal-domest­ic policymaking divide.

There are at least three concrete steps President Obama can take right away that will move this goal forward.

(1 - continued.­..)

[Jim238]

If we're so concerned with human rights and deposing cruel dictators, what happened in Darfur, Zimbawe, and Rwanda. Oh. No oil.

[Brillig]

Don't we think it is high time America shut up on the matter of human rights abuses? Do you people know that the rest of us have television?

That we read Time, Newsweek etc? That we blog on Huff Post?

Why on earth would Mrs Clinton open a very large can of worms by speaking to China about human rights? Keep very quiet on that matter until you have resolved a great many items yourselves.

And as for the Human Rights agency writing Mrs Clinton- remember those of us not in jail are human too, and have rights

[MuchMadness]

The Chinese government persecutes the churches. That reason alone is enough to justify a stronger U.S. stand against China. President Obama and Secretary Clinton should be telling American citizens what sacrifices (food rationing, extreme energy conservation, downsizing of our lifestyle expectations) we need to make so that we can make human rights a key part of our international trade policies. If we Americans are going to have to eventually resist the desires of China's government, tell us honestly, even compel us if need be, to do the things necessary to prepare ourselves.

[Brillig]

Don't. GO. There. the CHURCHES? What churches? You mean the whited sepulchers of the Taliban conservative USA?

What Pray, do the churches have to do with the matter? You pride yourselves on the separation of church and state, yet you want to talk to COMMUNIST China about churches? Why the heck are the Churches in China?

[MuchMadness]

"Why the heck are the Churches in China?"

They are commanded by the Lord to take his message to the ends of the earth.
To be clear about the political situation, though, I am not advocating that the U.S. government favor any one religion over any other. I think our government should advocate religious liberty and freedom of thought and expression for all faiths and for atheists and agnostics throughout the world. Our First Amendment is one of the greatest assertions of liberty ever crafted. I do believe that America's founding ideals, which are greatly influenced by the Protestant Reformation, are superior to those of most other nations. Sadly, we have too often failed to live up to those ideals.

[FairTalk]

China does not persecute the Churches. China forbide those into sedition from using Churches as cover for violence against the rule of law. Even in the US non-profits have to be registered.

Human rights in the US? So you support community choice, allowing people with disabilities to choose where to live?

[bodo]

Politics, Finance, Human Rights, Trade are all separate topics and should be treated separately. We cannot blackmail other people by pressuring them to change their politics. We would not like it if the Chinese stopped buying our Treasury Bills because they don't like our politics.

[darker]

America must clean up it's own HUMAN RIGHTS MESS before complaining about
others. being pragmatic is the way to approach fixing basic things torn down by
the corrupt Bush-Cheney and their "ideology" gang.

It's too bad Republicans still don't understand that Americans are
TOTALLY FED UP WITH IDEOLOGY. As Republicans saw recently,
ideology is the perfect way to lose an election.

[Bushwillresign]

Trying to force ones ideology on others is the problem in America and Americans are not going to play that game anymore. Look out GOP, keep your ideology to yourself.

[partyofone]

If China stopped buying our treasury bills, and sold its dollars, the US would be crippled. Why have our leaders put us in the position of owing our economy to the Chinese?

[Ridgemore]

Sell their dollars to whom? The Martians are not buying dollars. Just like most of the houses in America, the owners couldn't sell them even at a loss. China's economy is greatly dependent on exports to America and the West but unfortunately most of their customers buy with dollars and are broke. And more problematic for China, all the goods they sell to Americans were being manufactured here just 20 years ago - their sole advantage is cheap labor and not technological know how. Starbucks was able to grow rapidly by selling a product that every one of its customers knew how to make for themselves but once the customers began to lose their incomes, the jig was up (profits down 97% and people still drink coffee). Starbucks was not lending money to its customers to buy its products to the point of its customers’ bankruptcy. The majority of assembly line workers in China can’t afford to buy the goods they work to manufacture: they have no means to become customers. It is not just Americans who are being sold a bill of goods by its government. We are all in the same handbasket.

[crisdel]

Politics, finance, human rights and trade (and the environment and racism for that matter) are connected in every conceivable way and must not be treated as separate issues. Not making those connections is precisely what led to the massive imbalance that the world is experiencing today. When one sector becomes dominant over the others, finance for instance, nothing else gets a chance to move and it all comes crashing down under the top-heaviness. It would be nice if the Chinese did stop buying US treasury bills because they are not just buying bits of paper - they are buying up large chunks of America.

[Airmail56]

You rationalize moral cowardice when a democrat in charge. Appeasement never ends.

[Dazed By It All]

Hillary was just being pragmatic. If she gets the Chinese all upset about human rights, they might stop buying the treasury bills that are financing the US government's spending, and then where would we be?

[partyofone]

So we keep taking China's loans and are subject to their economic manipulations? Sounds like they have an economic gun pointed at our head.

[MuchMadness]

We would still have our armed forces, wouldn't we? We could still defend our borders by bringing our troops home from abroad. We would still have rich American citizens who could be heavily taxed to raise revenues. Food could be rationed and we could have extreme energy conservation measures. If push came to shove, we could deny China access to our markets. The lack of the U.S. market could lead to civil unrest in China that the military might not be able to control. It would be very tough for the U.S., but we could survive if we did not turn against our fellow citizens.

[Brillig]

Who cares? China has the rest of the world....a­nd we are buying...!

[voltage356]

This whole human right issues is nothing more than a smoke screen. China is not allowing anyone to tell them how to run their country especially coming the the USA. Because China reply would be for the USA to clean up it's own human rights issue in their own country before you come lectured us. Futhermore they would say you have war combatants who have not had due process since the time they were picked up over 8yrs now and counting.

[omobob]

So what’s a little inhuman treatment among friends. We’re trading partners so lets not upset things. Things that make us feel uncomfortable like freedom of speech, due process or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Can you say hypocritical? I thought you could.

[Brillig]

What is it indeed. We still have white people in America thinking that black people are inferior, and you want to talk about hypocrisy?

Your president can't get more than 3 people in the Opposition to support his bill, do you believe it is all about ideology? A good deal of it is racism...y­et you want to tell CHINA who could squash you like a bug, about human rights?

[Mdazes]

Leave SOS Clinton along. For 8 years America has been neglected due to a President consumed by the Iraq War. It is time to put the concerns of America First. America can not fix every problem of the world. I would likeAmerica to take on Human Rights in Africa but I got sense enough to know America has a lot on it plate.

[Mdazes]

America must first get it economy and national security in order for the PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY. There are human rights issues all over the world not just China. SOS
Clinton got to handle her business. AMERICA FIRST.

[aviatrice]

Let's face reality. She meant what she said. You do not bite the hand that feeds you (in this case, China).

On the other hand, it was a gaffe. It was something that simply did not need to be said. Let's hope she is already cringing inside and learning not to do it again.

[Brillig]

Gaffe my ass. IT was entirely what should have been said. Clear message. We are not going to get involved in yet ANOTHER war or argument with our allies. We will shut up for a change.

[FairTalk]

Rights reform in China?

I just wonder why this is a concern of the US at this point in time?

We sure did not care about human rights of the majority of Chinese people during the so called Opium Wars, did we? And when we went into Lahsa, we didn't care about the condition of the serfs and slaves, did we? And as we supported Chaing Kai Shek, we also ignored the condition of the Chinese people, even ignoring our very own military who warned us, and urged us to switch our support to Mao. After Mao won the Civil War, we refused to recognise China, ignoring the tremendous suffering of a people struggleing to recover from the Japanese atrocities, and crawl out from under the poverty inflicted by Imperialism and Colonalism, as well as War Lords, and Triads.

Mao bilt hospitals to help chinese recover from Opium addiction. Mao passes the womens equal rights law, the right of children to go to school, and attempted to bring China into the modern world. We refused to help, and engaged in covert operations to break up China into pieces.

Meanwhile, we supported Chaing's brutal regieme in Taiwan, which had to opperate under Martial Law for 40 years.

Our past behavior is hardly a basis for raising human rights concerns with China.

[Antonio518]

Criticism of Human rights Watch may be classified into two major categories: accusations of selection bias and accusations of ideological bias. In the first category, the Asian Tribune has praised NGO Monitor for pointing out the inherent bias of HRW against open, democratic regimes where journalists and citizens can monitor abuses, and abusive regimes that disallow monitoring­.In the second category, Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived anti-Western, anti-China, anti-Serb and anti-Israel bias while others have criticized it for having a pro-Western and pro-Israel bias. According to a report in the Egyptian press, "the government often accuses human rights groups [including Human Rights Watch] of importing a Western agenda that offends local religious and cultural values."

[rektruax]

Oh well... Can't please everybody.

[Betrayed]

The Obama administration cares only for the human rights of terrorists, not for those of oppressed people. Liberals and conservatives alike must find Clinton's comments sickening. As for the liberals who denounced the war in Iraq as blood for oil, what do they say now?

[omobob]

How did we get from hunan rights abuses in China to President Obama caring only for the "rights of terrorists". Repeating Limbaughisms at every turn doesn’t begin to address the problem at hand. It only serves as misdirection and misinformation. As in statements like "The Obama administration cares only" which can’t be qualified with factual information because they are opinions masquerading as facts. if you say President Obama is a muslim long enough, 6 or 7% of the public will believe you. What ever happened to "don’t believe everything you read in the papers". Being a good US citizen means involvement—solving problems rather than rendering glib one liners that only serve to be divisive.