Police disperse 2,000 anti-dam protesters in western China
Posted By Christina Larson Friday, April 1, 2011 - 2:47 PM Share
"Now all the roads are cleared," a 30-year-old woman from the county of Suijiang, in China's southwest Yunnan province, told the Wall Street Journal. "There are military police patrolling the streets to avoid people gathering together." After five days of heated protests -- which had drawn 2,000 people to the streets -- a tense silence was being enforced. On Tuesday, 400 paramilitiary officers had descended on tiny Sujiang to disperse demonstrators.
The villagers had gathered to protest government plans to build a major hydropower station on the nearby Jinsha River. Approximately 60,000 people are slated to be relocated by the dam, but many villagers either don't qualify for government compensation -- or feel that the amount offered is far too low to replace their lost livelihoods.
Over the next decade, expect many more dams to be built in China, as the country seeks to meet rapidly growing energy needs. As Peter Bosshard wrote recently in FP, China's National Energy Administration is likely to soon approve further hydropower projects totaling 140 gigawatts -- in comparison, he notes, "the United States has installed just 80 gigawatts of hydropower capacity in its entire history."
Protests over land seizures and low compensation are not uncommon in rural China. (More than 50,000 such "public disturbances" are counted by public security bureaus each year.) But the recent Sujiang demonstration attracted particular national attention, in part because snapshots (see above) of paramilitary forces arriving in armoured personnel carriers were distributed widely through Sina Weibo -- a popular Twitter-like microblogging site that remains accessible in China, for now.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Poem
This poem is from the Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith novel. I am putting it on the blog because it truely shows the nature of the struggle for human rights. Please take it seriously and read it too the end. If you dont read it to the end, you wont get the point of the poem.
The dark is generous.
Its first gift is concealment: our true faces lie in the dark beneath our skins, our true hearts remain shadowed deeper still. But the greatest concealment lies not in protecting our secret truths, but in hiding from us the truth of others.
The dark protects us from what we dare not know.
Its second gift is comforting illusion: the case of gentle dreams in nights embrace, the beauty that imagination brings to what would repel in day's harsh light. But the greatest of its comforts is the illusion that the dark is temporary: that every night brings a new day. Because it is day that is temporary.
Day is the illusion.
Its third gift is the light itself: as days are defined by the nights that divide them, as stars are defined by the infinite black through which they wheel, the the dark embraces the light, and brings it forth from the center of its own self.
Which each victory of the light, it is the dark the wins."
"The dark is generous, and it is patient, and it always wins.
It always wins because it is everywhere.
It is in the wood that burns in your hearth, and in the kettle on the fire; it is under your chair and under your table and under the sheets on your bed. Walk in the midday sun and the dark is with you, attached to the soles of your feet. The brightest light casts the darkest shadow."
"The dark is generous, and it is patient, and it always wins-but in the heart of its strength lies weakness: one lone candle is enough to hold it back.
Love is more than a candle.
Love can ignite the stars."
I have also placed a video, at the bottom of the post, of the poem if you would just like to listen to it.
The dark is generous.
Its first gift is concealment: our true faces lie in the dark beneath our skins, our true hearts remain shadowed deeper still. But the greatest concealment lies not in protecting our secret truths, but in hiding from us the truth of others.
The dark protects us from what we dare not know.
Its second gift is comforting illusion: the case of gentle dreams in nights embrace, the beauty that imagination brings to what would repel in day's harsh light. But the greatest of its comforts is the illusion that the dark is temporary: that every night brings a new day. Because it is day that is temporary.
Day is the illusion.
Its third gift is the light itself: as days are defined by the nights that divide them, as stars are defined by the infinite black through which they wheel, the the dark embraces the light, and brings it forth from the center of its own self.
Which each victory of the light, it is the dark the wins."
"The dark is generous, and it is patient, and it always wins.
It always wins because it is everywhere.
It is in the wood that burns in your hearth, and in the kettle on the fire; it is under your chair and under your table and under the sheets on your bed. Walk in the midday sun and the dark is with you, attached to the soles of your feet. The brightest light casts the darkest shadow."
"The dark is generous, and it is patient, and it always wins-but in the heart of its strength lies weakness: one lone candle is enough to hold it back.
Love is more than a candle.
Love can ignite the stars."
I have also placed a video, at the bottom of the post, of the poem if you would just like to listen to it.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Missing Before Action
Due to the revolutions in the Middle East, the Chinese government has been detaining prominent human right activists and lawyers to ensure that they do not rebel. Here is a list of a few
1.Over the weekend, the prominent Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, who has been vocal about human rights abuses in China, was detained at Beijing Capital Airport.
2.Another blogger and activist targeted by police is 31-year-old Gu Chuan, a signer of Charter 08 and a protégé of Liu Xiaobo. Gu was taken from his home by police on Feb. 19 and has not been heard from for more than 40 days. During this time, police have visited his wife, who is nursing a baby and taking care of a toddler, to pressure her to urge her husband to quit activism. She has refused. Following orders from the police, her landlord has recently canceled her lease, leaving the family in dire straights.
3. Ran Yunfei, a prolific 46-year-old writer and signer of the pro-democracy tract Charter 08, has been held in detention since Feb. 20
4.) Tang Jitian, a human rights lawyer, was taken away by police on the evening of Feb. 16. He had just eaten lunch with a dozen other activists who were discussing how to provide assistance to the blind activist Chen Guangcheng, now under house arrest in Shandong province. Tang's residence was searched.
5. Hua Chunhui, 47, is a cyberactivist and midlevel manager at an insurance company in eastern Jiangsu province. He was seized by police on Feb. 21 and detained on suspicion of "endangering state security." Hua, using the Twitter account @wxhch64, has tweeted messages about the "Jasmine Revolution." Hua and his fiancée Wang Yi have been active in civil society initiatives in recent years
1.Over the weekend, the prominent Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, who has been vocal about human rights abuses in China, was detained at Beijing Capital Airport.
2.Another blogger and activist targeted by police is 31-year-old Gu Chuan, a signer of Charter 08 and a protégé of Liu Xiaobo. Gu was taken from his home by police on Feb. 19 and has not been heard from for more than 40 days. During this time, police have visited his wife, who is nursing a baby and taking care of a toddler, to pressure her to urge her husband to quit activism. She has refused. Following orders from the police, her landlord has recently canceled her lease, leaving the family in dire straights.
3. Ran Yunfei, a prolific 46-year-old writer and signer of the pro-democracy tract Charter 08, has been held in detention since Feb. 20
4.) Tang Jitian, a human rights lawyer, was taken away by police on the evening of Feb. 16. He had just eaten lunch with a dozen other activists who were discussing how to provide assistance to the blind activist Chen Guangcheng, now under house arrest in Shandong province. Tang's residence was searched.
5. Hua Chunhui, 47, is a cyberactivist and midlevel manager at an insurance company in eastern Jiangsu province. He was seized by police on Feb. 21 and detained on suspicion of "endangering state security." Hua, using the Twitter account @wxhch64, has tweeted messages about the "Jasmine Revolution." Hua and his fiancée Wang Yi have been active in civil society initiatives in recent years
Monday, March 28, 2011
Is Talking to Beijing a Waste of Time
Original source
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/12/is_talking_to_beijing_about_human_rights_a_waste_of_time?page=full
Why aren't human rights activists who work on China more enthusiastic about the upcoming meetings between U.S. and Chinese officials on the critical topic of human rights? The discussions, to begin in Washington on May 13, are the first human rights dialogue between the two countries since May 2008 and the first to be hosted by President Barack Obama's administration. Yet expectations that the meetings will produce any meaningful change, or even a clear set of goals, are remarkably low.
It's of course natural to have low hopes for a human rights dialogue with China, given how bad its record on the issue is. In the last month alone, we've observed two important nongovernmental organizations paralyzed by government interference. The Women's Legal Research and Services Center, China's leading women's legal rights organization, was abruptly deregistered by Beijing University, leaving it in legal limbo. And Wan Yanhai, one of China's most prominent HIV/AIDS activists, went into self-exile in the United States last weekend, stating sensibly enough, "It was no fun waiting to be attacked by government agencies all the time."
As part of a continuing attack on rights lawyers, Tang Jitian and Liu Wei joined the growing ranks of lawyers stripped of their licenses for daring to take on "sensitive" cases, further emasculating China's fledgling "rights protection" movement. And Gao Zhisheng, another courageous activist who chose to take the government at its word and tried to make use of the legal system to redress common grievances, has been disappeared -- for a second time.
But the problem isn't just China -- it's also the way the talks are structured. The dialogue process lacks meaningful benchmarks for progress, or consequences for failing to improve the situation. The Chinese government doesn't send representatives with appropriate authority or experience to participate meaningfully in the dialogues, neither does it come with any concrete plans for reform. Chinese officials often spend their visit just trying to run out the clock.
Given how ineffective the dialogues have been -- and how ineffective similar talks held by other countries with China have also been -- they also create a risk of excluding other potentially more fruitful avenues for human rights discussion, such as having cabinet members raise an issue or case, or having senior government officials speak publicly and in more detail about those discussions. The current talks may also be used as an excuse for sidelining human rights from important talks that we know the Chinese government does care about, such as the upcoming U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.
However, assuming that the dialogues will continue and assuming that the Chinese government will continue to filibuster and avoid real issues, how should the Obama administration use the sessions to its best advantage in bringing about real improvements for the Chinese people?
First, the administration should visibly and publicly commit to raising human rights issues outside the dialogue. I can already hear the Obama administration's rebuttal: "We regularly raise human rights issues at the highest levels, and in frank terms." But if the private language matches the public rhetoric, it's hardly the kind of precise, concrete questioning the Chinese government needs to hear. We need to hear agencies other than the State Department talk to their Chinese counterparts about human rights issues. For example, the agencies sponsoring rule-of-law projects in China should speak out publicly about China's practice of disbarring lawyers, which makes a mockery of these rule of law initiatives.
If the administration wants to claim a "whole of government" approach to promoting human rights in China, diverse officials and agencies must better coordinate their outreach. In July 2009, the Commerce Department and the U.S. trade representative (USTR) publicly opposed the Chinese government's proposal to mandate filtering software on all personal computers. The Commerce Department and the USTR described the software not only as a barrier to trade, but also as a threat to the right to expression. Such assessments should be a regular feature of U.S. diplomacy with China.
Second, the administration must do a better job outside these talks of not undermining its stated commitment to human rights. We're glad not to have heard anything akin to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's February 2009 comments that human rights "can't interfere" in the bilateral relationship, but we continue to hear too many public comments from U.S. officials about the United States and China "agreeing to disagree" on human rights. Comments like this make it easy for the Chinese government to choose the rhetoric that it prefers, and, after all, if the administration does go into these exercises with no expectation of rapprochement, why have a dialogue at all?
Finally, the United States can -- and definitely should -- do a better job of standing publicly on key human rights issues with other like-minded countries. There have been a few significant moments of solidarity, particularly the image of a few dozen staff members from rights-supporting embassies in Beijing standing on courthouse steps awaiting verdicts handed down to prominent government critics.
Too often the United States and the dozen other countries that conduct human rights dialogues with the Chinese government opt not to act together, citing the Chinese government's intense dislike of being "ganged up on" by the West. But these governments, which often express virtually identical views on identical topics to the Chinese government in private, need to stand together in public, if for no other reason than to show the stark differences between their systems and Beijing's. Human rights standards are universal, and sometimes solidarity -- and diplomacy -- needs to be, too.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/12/is_talking_to_beijing_about_human_rights_a_waste_of_time?page=full
Why aren't human rights activists who work on China more enthusiastic about the upcoming meetings between U.S. and Chinese officials on the critical topic of human rights? The discussions, to begin in Washington on May 13, are the first human rights dialogue between the two countries since May 2008 and the first to be hosted by President Barack Obama's administration. Yet expectations that the meetings will produce any meaningful change, or even a clear set of goals, are remarkably low.
It's of course natural to have low hopes for a human rights dialogue with China, given how bad its record on the issue is. In the last month alone, we've observed two important nongovernmental organizations paralyzed by government interference. The Women's Legal Research and Services Center, China's leading women's legal rights organization, was abruptly deregistered by Beijing University, leaving it in legal limbo. And Wan Yanhai, one of China's most prominent HIV/AIDS activists, went into self-exile in the United States last weekend, stating sensibly enough, "It was no fun waiting to be attacked by government agencies all the time."
As part of a continuing attack on rights lawyers, Tang Jitian and Liu Wei joined the growing ranks of lawyers stripped of their licenses for daring to take on "sensitive" cases, further emasculating China's fledgling "rights protection" movement. And Gao Zhisheng, another courageous activist who chose to take the government at its word and tried to make use of the legal system to redress common grievances, has been disappeared -- for a second time.
But the problem isn't just China -- it's also the way the talks are structured. The dialogue process lacks meaningful benchmarks for progress, or consequences for failing to improve the situation. The Chinese government doesn't send representatives with appropriate authority or experience to participate meaningfully in the dialogues, neither does it come with any concrete plans for reform. Chinese officials often spend their visit just trying to run out the clock.
Given how ineffective the dialogues have been -- and how ineffective similar talks held by other countries with China have also been -- they also create a risk of excluding other potentially more fruitful avenues for human rights discussion, such as having cabinet members raise an issue or case, or having senior government officials speak publicly and in more detail about those discussions. The current talks may also be used as an excuse for sidelining human rights from important talks that we know the Chinese government does care about, such as the upcoming U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.
However, assuming that the dialogues will continue and assuming that the Chinese government will continue to filibuster and avoid real issues, how should the Obama administration use the sessions to its best advantage in bringing about real improvements for the Chinese people?
First, the administration should visibly and publicly commit to raising human rights issues outside the dialogue. I can already hear the Obama administration's rebuttal: "We regularly raise human rights issues at the highest levels, and in frank terms." But if the private language matches the public rhetoric, it's hardly the kind of precise, concrete questioning the Chinese government needs to hear. We need to hear agencies other than the State Department talk to their Chinese counterparts about human rights issues. For example, the agencies sponsoring rule-of-law projects in China should speak out publicly about China's practice of disbarring lawyers, which makes a mockery of these rule of law initiatives.
If the administration wants to claim a "whole of government" approach to promoting human rights in China, diverse officials and agencies must better coordinate their outreach. In July 2009, the Commerce Department and the U.S. trade representative (USTR) publicly opposed the Chinese government's proposal to mandate filtering software on all personal computers. The Commerce Department and the USTR described the software not only as a barrier to trade, but also as a threat to the right to expression. Such assessments should be a regular feature of U.S. diplomacy with China.
Second, the administration must do a better job outside these talks of not undermining its stated commitment to human rights. We're glad not to have heard anything akin to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's February 2009 comments that human rights "can't interfere" in the bilateral relationship, but we continue to hear too many public comments from U.S. officials about the United States and China "agreeing to disagree" on human rights. Comments like this make it easy for the Chinese government to choose the rhetoric that it prefers, and, after all, if the administration does go into these exercises with no expectation of rapprochement, why have a dialogue at all?
Finally, the United States can -- and definitely should -- do a better job of standing publicly on key human rights issues with other like-minded countries. There have been a few significant moments of solidarity, particularly the image of a few dozen staff members from rights-supporting embassies in Beijing standing on courthouse steps awaiting verdicts handed down to prominent government critics.
Too often the United States and the dozen other countries that conduct human rights dialogues with the Chinese government opt not to act together, citing the Chinese government's intense dislike of being "ganged up on" by the West. But these governments, which often express virtually identical views on identical topics to the Chinese government in private, need to stand together in public, if for no other reason than to show the stark differences between their systems and Beijing's. Human rights standards are universal, and sometimes solidarity -- and diplomacy -- needs to be, too.
Think Again: Human Rights
A article that clears up some of the misconceptions about human rights. The article is from the magazine Foreign Policy which is a magazine that every news buff should read daily. There are several pages to this article I am only posting some of it. Please go to the original source if you would like to read the full article.
Original source
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/03/01/think_again_human_rights
"All Persons and Peoples Aspire to the Same Human Rights"
No. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights may be formally accepted around the world, but its generalized framework allows for almost limitless interpretations. Even the supposed global consensus on, say, the prohibition of torture as a "human wrong" is deceptive: In the aftermath of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the prominent U.S. legal scholar Alan Dershowitz argued in favor of legalized torture as a counterterror measure.
If anything, the postcolonial period since the writing of the declaration has witnessed an erosion of the belief in the universality of human aspirations. In part, this erosion stems from a widespread conviction that human rights are a Western invention being shoved down non-Western throats. Though such attitudes are partly a propaganda ploy by leaders who seek to shield their abusive behavior from criticism, they also reflect the views of many non-Westerners who believe that the highly individualistic declaration does not adequately balance rights with responsibilities -- witness the emergence of "Asian Values" or "Islamic Values."
The assertion of value-based and cultural variations also represents a regional backlash against the unwanted aspects of globalization, including the fear of U.S. dominance and related concerns about consumerism and the loss of tradition. One important way to establish regional identity has been to emphasize the distinctiveness of human rights, whether Asian or African, Islamic or Christian. Another example of this trend has been the greater prominence of representatives of indigenous peoples' rights. Their sense of difference is so strong that, operating under U.N. auspices, a worldwide network of indigenous representatives is developing its own framework for human rights, known as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Even unity on human rights within the West is overrated. There is an important mainstream confusion in thought about international human rights that arises from their dual origins within the Western experience of the late 18th century. From the French Revolution, with its affirmation of the "Rights of Man" (liberty, equality, and fraternity), arises a sense of universality, that all persons by virtue of being human have certain common entitlements that transcend the specifics of context. In contrast, from the American Revolution comes the Bill of Rights, appended to the U.S. Constitution, applicable only to the United States, and subject to interpretation by domestic courts, which themselves are depositories of national values and evolving policy priorities. The ongoing friction between the United States and Europe on such issues as capital punishment and the relevance of international law can be partly explained by important differences in outlook that evolved from this dual revolutionary heritage.
"Human Rights Abuses Worsened Worldwide After September 11, 2001"
Yes, but not for most Iraqis and Afghans. Especially in the United States, the enactment of antiterror laws has raised genuine concerns about restrictions on human rights. Governments in nations such as Israel, Russia, Pakistan, and Egypt have seized upon the terrorist issue as a pretext for intensifying the repression of national opposition movements and individuals. And the U.S. preoccupation with security concerns and alliance relations has also taken precedence over human rights, especially in U.S. dealings with critical frontline states such as Pakistan as well as several highly authoritarian Central Asian countries.
But those losses must be set against some important gains. The pressure to respond to the al Qaeda challenge, and to pursue U.S. geopolitical goals, led to wars that produced regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq, which had two of the worst governments in the world from the human rights perspective. True, millions of people in both countries must confront the prospect of civil strife in the years ahead, accompanied by some risk that cruel forms of authoritarianism will reemerge. Yet, for the moment at least, they are much better off than they were -- even if respecting the prohibitions of international law on the use of force remains more important than military intervention to promote human rights around the world.
"Human Rights Abuses in One Country Can Justify Military Intervention by Others"
Yes. This issue arose in the 1990s in relation to genocide in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and failed states elsewhere in Africa. The international community faced a nasty dilemma: Either abandon populations to humanitarian catastrophe, or override the fundamental principle of territorial sovereignty to rescue them. The U.N. record was mixed at best. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who bears some responsibility for the widely criticized U.N. non-response to the unfolding Rwandan genocide of 1994, later made amends by urging the United Nations to balance its respect for sovereignty against its duty to protect vulnerable populations.
The duty of the international community to act now seems clear, not least because of greater global awareness of human rights emergencies. But such action is hampered by a weakness of political will on the part of Security Council members. This weakness arises from two sources: a reluctance by some members, including the United States, to endow the United Nations with sufficient capabilities to be effective, and the unwillingness of others, most notably China and Russia, to erode sovereign rights. There is great suspicion among developing nations, especially in Asia, that claims of humanitarian intervention are concealed ways for former colonial powers and the West generally to override their countries' political independence. Although history lends credence to these concerns, if the facts demonstrate an impending humanitarian catastrophe and enough political will exists to provide real protection or help, then the world community should act even if it means the erosion of sovereignty.
The policy issue is more difficult. In the case of Kosovo, for example, the U.N. Security Council could not reach consensus, despite the evidence that another instance of Balkan ethnic cleansing was likely imminent. The 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo rescued the Albanian Kosovar population from catastrophe, but at the expense of international law governing the use of force. Unlike the Iraq intervention of 2003, however, a regional consensus supported the action taken in Kosovo and the facts validated the moral claim of urgency. As such, while the intervention may have been illegal, it was politically and morally legitimate. This gap is not desirable, but it is better than ignoring principles altogether or adopting a rigid posture of unconditional nonintervention.
Original source
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/03/01/think_again_human_rights
"All Persons and Peoples Aspire to the Same Human Rights"
No. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights may be formally accepted around the world, but its generalized framework allows for almost limitless interpretations. Even the supposed global consensus on, say, the prohibition of torture as a "human wrong" is deceptive: In the aftermath of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the prominent U.S. legal scholar Alan Dershowitz argued in favor of legalized torture as a counterterror measure.
If anything, the postcolonial period since the writing of the declaration has witnessed an erosion of the belief in the universality of human aspirations. In part, this erosion stems from a widespread conviction that human rights are a Western invention being shoved down non-Western throats. Though such attitudes are partly a propaganda ploy by leaders who seek to shield their abusive behavior from criticism, they also reflect the views of many non-Westerners who believe that the highly individualistic declaration does not adequately balance rights with responsibilities -- witness the emergence of "Asian Values" or "Islamic Values."
The assertion of value-based and cultural variations also represents a regional backlash against the unwanted aspects of globalization, including the fear of U.S. dominance and related concerns about consumerism and the loss of tradition. One important way to establish regional identity has been to emphasize the distinctiveness of human rights, whether Asian or African, Islamic or Christian. Another example of this trend has been the greater prominence of representatives of indigenous peoples' rights. Their sense of difference is so strong that, operating under U.N. auspices, a worldwide network of indigenous representatives is developing its own framework for human rights, known as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Even unity on human rights within the West is overrated. There is an important mainstream confusion in thought about international human rights that arises from their dual origins within the Western experience of the late 18th century. From the French Revolution, with its affirmation of the "Rights of Man" (liberty, equality, and fraternity), arises a sense of universality, that all persons by virtue of being human have certain common entitlements that transcend the specifics of context. In contrast, from the American Revolution comes the Bill of Rights, appended to the U.S. Constitution, applicable only to the United States, and subject to interpretation by domestic courts, which themselves are depositories of national values and evolving policy priorities. The ongoing friction between the United States and Europe on such issues as capital punishment and the relevance of international law can be partly explained by important differences in outlook that evolved from this dual revolutionary heritage.
"Human Rights Abuses Worsened Worldwide After September 11, 2001"
Yes, but not for most Iraqis and Afghans. Especially in the United States, the enactment of antiterror laws has raised genuine concerns about restrictions on human rights. Governments in nations such as Israel, Russia, Pakistan, and Egypt have seized upon the terrorist issue as a pretext for intensifying the repression of national opposition movements and individuals. And the U.S. preoccupation with security concerns and alliance relations has also taken precedence over human rights, especially in U.S. dealings with critical frontline states such as Pakistan as well as several highly authoritarian Central Asian countries.
But those losses must be set against some important gains. The pressure to respond to the al Qaeda challenge, and to pursue U.S. geopolitical goals, led to wars that produced regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq, which had two of the worst governments in the world from the human rights perspective. True, millions of people in both countries must confront the prospect of civil strife in the years ahead, accompanied by some risk that cruel forms of authoritarianism will reemerge. Yet, for the moment at least, they are much better off than they were -- even if respecting the prohibitions of international law on the use of force remains more important than military intervention to promote human rights around the world.
"Human Rights Abuses in One Country Can Justify Military Intervention by Others"
Yes. This issue arose in the 1990s in relation to genocide in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and failed states elsewhere in Africa. The international community faced a nasty dilemma: Either abandon populations to humanitarian catastrophe, or override the fundamental principle of territorial sovereignty to rescue them. The U.N. record was mixed at best. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who bears some responsibility for the widely criticized U.N. non-response to the unfolding Rwandan genocide of 1994, later made amends by urging the United Nations to balance its respect for sovereignty against its duty to protect vulnerable populations.
The duty of the international community to act now seems clear, not least because of greater global awareness of human rights emergencies. But such action is hampered by a weakness of political will on the part of Security Council members. This weakness arises from two sources: a reluctance by some members, including the United States, to endow the United Nations with sufficient capabilities to be effective, and the unwillingness of others, most notably China and Russia, to erode sovereign rights. There is great suspicion among developing nations, especially in Asia, that claims of humanitarian intervention are concealed ways for former colonial powers and the West generally to override their countries' political independence. Although history lends credence to these concerns, if the facts demonstrate an impending humanitarian catastrophe and enough political will exists to provide real protection or help, then the world community should act even if it means the erosion of sovereignty.
The policy issue is more difficult. In the case of Kosovo, for example, the U.N. Security Council could not reach consensus, despite the evidence that another instance of Balkan ethnic cleansing was likely imminent. The 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo rescued the Albanian Kosovar population from catastrophe, but at the expense of international law governing the use of force. Unlike the Iraq intervention of 2003, however, a regional consensus supported the action taken in Kosovo and the facts validated the moral claim of urgency. As such, while the intervention may have been illegal, it was politically and morally legitimate. This gap is not desirable, but it is better than ignoring principles altogether or adopting a rigid posture of unconditional nonintervention.
Profile: Liu Xiaobo
When Liu Xiaobo learned of his 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, he wept and told his wife -- who was visiting him in remote Jinzhou prison, where the dissident writer has been serving an 11-year sentence -- that he was dedicating the award to "the lost souls" of Tiananmen Square, whose protest back in 1989 turned the soft-spoken professor into a political activist.
Liu had agreed to help write Charter 08, a manifesto for Chinese civil rights modeled on the Soviet-era Charter 77, in a similar act of selflessness, knowing it would get him in trouble. Two days before its publication, on Dec. 8, 2008, he was detained and thrown into a windowless cell. A year later he was convicted of "incitement to subvert state power."
It wasn't the first time Liu had been jailed; his first confinement followed his participation in the Tiananmen demonstrations. Yet more than two decades of suffering have not broken his spirit or blurred his convictions. "To block freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, to strangle humanity, and to suppress the truth," Liu told the court before his sentencing.
China's state media have characterized the Nobel only as a tool of Western propagandists, and live feeds of CNN and the BBC went black during the prize's announcement. But the word is getting out, and it's not just the Nobel Peace Prize committee that thinks China will eventually have to reckon with Liu's ideas.
Link to original source
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/29/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,15
Corrections
Sorry for the lack of updates lately. I have been quite busy reading articles on the Middle Eastern revolution. Soon I will be adding quite a few new things to the blog and correcting a large amount of grammatical errors from various posts.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Annotated Bib
heres my Annotated Bib
1.XIA, RENEE. "Missing Before Action." Foreign Policy. 1 Mar. 2011. Web. 2 Mar. 2011..I found this article quite helpful. The article provided useful information about a very recent human right abuse and why the Chinese government did it.The article also provided some new thought leaders to look at.
2.Paulson, Michael. "History of U.S. Sanctions Shows Most Haven't Worked." SeattlePi. Web. 25 Feb. 2011..The article was useful because it gave a very in depth view of economic sanctions. Prior to this article, I had a cursory understanding of how economic sanctions worked, but this has greatly assisted my understanding
3.Barry, Tom. "U.S. Human Rights Policy Toward China” Foreign Policy in Focus." Foreign Policy in Focus. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n08chinahr.html>.This article was helpful because it provided information about how the U.S could assist the human right abuses through an organizatoin known as the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of China (CCEC).
1.XIA, RENEE. "Missing Before Action." Foreign Policy. 1 Mar. 2011. Web. 2 Mar. 2011.
2.Paulson, Michael. "History of U.S. Sanctions Shows Most Haven't Worked." SeattlePi. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
3.Barry, Tom. "U.S. Human Rights Policy Toward China” Foreign Policy in Focus." Foreign Policy in Focus. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n08chinahr.html>.This article was helpful because it provided information about how the U.S could assist the human right abuses through an organizatoin known as the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of China (CCEC).
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Songs About Human Rights
I was browsing youtube, and I found some songs about the importance of equality and human rights. I personally very much enjoy them, and I hope you enjoy them too.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Why I Care
This is a post in regards to my topic, and why I chose it.
Many people have given me odd looks when they hear about my topic so I will present my reasons as to why I chose a seemingly random topic.
First and foremost, you must understand the type of person that I am. I was raised on eastern enterntainment and literature since I was a young lad. While other kids reveled in American shows like Family Guy, and South Park, I watched anime. Unlike its western counterparts, Eastern entertainement is littered with the notion of helping others. American ideals are envoloped in self-preservation and isolationism. Since I was raised on the notion of collectivism and helping others, that is one reason why I chose the topic even though I am obviously not Chinese.
The second reason I chose this topic was that I love foreign policy. If you know me you would know that I care far more about what happens internationally than what happens domestically because I think they are closely linked. I personally believe that China will eventually be the world power, and if they are commiting atrocities, the ramifications would be quite deadly.
The third reason I chose this topic was simply the fact that it is the morally right thing to do. If someone does not take it upon themselves to do something, pandamonium will ensue.
I hope this clears up why I chose this topic, if you have more questions, do not be afraid to ask.
Many people have given me odd looks when they hear about my topic so I will present my reasons as to why I chose a seemingly random topic.
First and foremost, you must understand the type of person that I am. I was raised on eastern enterntainment and literature since I was a young lad. While other kids reveled in American shows like Family Guy, and South Park, I watched anime. Unlike its western counterparts, Eastern entertainement is littered with the notion of helping others. American ideals are envoloped in self-preservation and isolationism. Since I was raised on the notion of collectivism and helping others, that is one reason why I chose the topic even though I am obviously not Chinese.
The second reason I chose this topic was that I love foreign policy. If you know me you would know that I care far more about what happens internationally than what happens domestically because I think they are closely linked. I personally believe that China will eventually be the world power, and if they are commiting atrocities, the ramifications would be quite deadly.
The third reason I chose this topic was simply the fact that it is the morally right thing to do. If someone does not take it upon themselves to do something, pandamonium will ensue.
I hope this clears up why I chose this topic, if you have more questions, do not be afraid to ask.
Will the Chinese Citizins Revolt
As long as you have a cursory knowledge of what is happening in the world today, you know that Egygt's three-decade long rule has been toppled. The question that I will adress today is if the Chinese will take up "arms" and try to rebel. I personally believe the answer is NO, and here are my reasons why...
1. China's government is far to centralized for there to be an upheaveal. By this I mean that certain entities within the government such as the Propaganda department and the Chinese Communist Party have the power. Unlike Egpyt, if you take down Chinese president Hu Jinto, you will still have to contend with the Communist party and various other governmental entitities.
2.The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is the next issue. The PLA currently has around 2.3 million active units, though a large amount of them are pencil pushers, it is highly unlikely that the citizins would be able to muster enough military might to take down the PLA. The biggest issue with the PLA is the fact that it is controlled by the government. The Chinese Communist Party has gone leaps and bounds to ensure that the military will not turn against them.
3. The Chinese people have seen the results of revolt, and they are not positive. In 1989 a incident known as the Tiananmen Square occured. The incident was a protest against the communist party, but the PLA violently put it down, and continue, to this day, hunting people down whom particpated in it. A recent example of this is Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo who was arrested and placed in jail for 11 years.
Here is a youtube video further explaining the tiananmen square incident.
Though a revolution is highly unlikely right now, there are other ways to help.
1. China's government is far to centralized for there to be an upheaveal. By this I mean that certain entities within the government such as the Propaganda department and the Chinese Communist Party have the power. Unlike Egpyt, if you take down Chinese president Hu Jinto, you will still have to contend with the Communist party and various other governmental entitities.
2.The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is the next issue. The PLA currently has around 2.3 million active units, though a large amount of them are pencil pushers, it is highly unlikely that the citizins would be able to muster enough military might to take down the PLA. The biggest issue with the PLA is the fact that it is controlled by the government. The Chinese Communist Party has gone leaps and bounds to ensure that the military will not turn against them.
3. The Chinese people have seen the results of revolt, and they are not positive. In 1989 a incident known as the Tiananmen Square occured. The incident was a protest against the communist party, but the PLA violently put it down, and continue, to this day, hunting people down whom particpated in it. A recent example of this is Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo who was arrested and placed in jail for 11 years.
Here is a youtube video further explaining the tiananmen square incident.
Though a revolution is highly unlikely right now, there are other ways to help.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Ip Man
This is a more lighthearted post than what the others tend to be. This post is about the movie Ip Man which is a film about the wing chu master's, Ip man, fight to stop the Japanese when they invaded in the 1930's. The reason I created this post is because the movie displays some of the human rights violatations that the Japanese imposed, and also its just a great movie.
Here s a link to a trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZtSwjk4aD8
"I Have No Enemies"
This was Liu Xiaobo's final statement before he was sentected to 11 years in prison. This speech is wonderful, and everyone should read it.
Release Xiaobo!
December 23, 2009
In the course of my life, for more than half a century, June 1989 was the major turning point. Up to that point, I was a member of the first class to enter university when college entrance examinations were reinstated following the Cultural Revolution (Class of ’77). From BA to MA and on to PhD, my academic career was all smooth sailing. Upon receiving my degrees, I stayed on to teach at Beijing Normal University. As a teacher, I was well received by the students. At the same time, I was a public intellectual, writing articles and books that created quite a stir during the 1980s, frequently receiving invitations to give talks around the country, and going abroad as a visiting scholar upon invitation from Europe and America. What I demanded of myself was this: whether as a person or as a writer, I would lead a life of honesty, responsibility, and dignity. After that, because I had returned from the U.S. to take part in the 1989 Movement, I was thrown into prison for “the crime of counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement.” I also lost my beloved lectern and could no longer publish essays or give talks in China. Merely for publishing different political views and taking part in a peaceful democracy movement, a teacher lost his lectern, a writer lost his right to publish, and a public intellectual lost the opportunity to give talks publicly. This is a tragedy, both for me personally and for a China that has already seen thirty years of Reform and Opening Up.
When I think about it, my most dramatic experiences after June Fourth have been, surprisingly, associated with courts: My two opportunities to address the public have both been provided by trial sessions at the Beijing Municipal Intermediate People’s Court, once in January 1991, and again today. Although the crimes I have been charged with on the two occasions are different in name, their real substance is basically the same—both are speech crimes.
Twenty years have passed, but the ghosts of June Fourth have not yet been laid to rest. Upon release from Qincheng Prison in 1991, I, who had been led onto the path of political dissent by the psychological chains of June Fourth, lost the right to speak publicly in my own country and could only speak through the foreign media. Because of this, I was subjected to year-round monitoring, kept under residential surveillance (May 1995 to January 1996) and sent to Reeducation-Through-Labor (October 1996 to October 1999). And now I have been once again shoved into the dock by the enemy mentality of the regime. But I still want to say to this regime, which is depriving me of my freedom, that I stand by the convictions I expressed in my “June Second Hunger Strike Declaration” twenty years ago—I have no enemies and no hatred. None of the police who monitored, arrested, and interrogated me, none of the prosecutors who indicted me, and none of the judges who judged me are my enemies. Although there is no way I can accept your monitoring, arrests, indictments, and verdicts, I respect your professions and your integrity, including those of the two prosecutors, Zhang Rongge and Pan Xueqing, who are now bringing charges against me on behalf of the prosecution. During interrogation on December 3, I could sense your respect and your good faith.
Hatred can rot away at a person’s intelligence and conscience. Enemy mentality will poison the spirit of a nation, incite cruel mortal struggles, destroy a society’s tolerance and humanity, and hinder a nation’s progress toward freedom and democracy. That is why I hope to be able to transcend my personal experiences as I look upon our nation’s development and social change, to counter the regime’s hostility with utmost goodwill, and to dispel hatred with love.
Everyone knows that it was Reform and Opening Up that brought about our country’s development and social change. In my view, Reform and Opening Up began with the abandonment of the “using class struggle as guiding principle” government policy of the Mao era and, in its place, a commitment to economic development and social harmony. The process of abandoning the “philosophy of struggle” was also a process of gradual weakening of the enemy mentality and elimination of the psychology of hatred, and a process of squeezing out the “wolf’s milk” that had seeped into human nature.1 It was this process that provided a relaxed climate, at home and abroad, for Reform and Opening Up, gentle and humane grounds for restoring mutual affection among people and peaceful coexistence among those with different interests and values, thereby providing encouragement in keeping with humanity for the bursting forth of creativity and the restoration of compassion among our countrymen. One could say that relinquishing the “anti-imperialist and anti-revisionist” stance in foreign relations and “class struggle” at home has been the basic premise that has enabled Reform and Opening Up to continue to this very day. The market trend in the economy, the diversification of culture, and the gradual shift in social order toward the rule of law have all benefitted from the weakening of the “enemy mentality.” Even in the political arena, where progress is slowest, the weakening of the enemy mentality has led to an ever-growing tolerance for social pluralism on the part of the regime and substantial decrease in the force of persecution of political dissidents, and the official designation of the 1989 Movement has also been changed from “turmoil and riot” to “political disturbance.” The weakening of the enemy mentality has paved the way for the regime to gradually accept the universality of human rights. In [1997 and] 1998 the Chinese government made a commitment to sign two major United Nations international human rights covenants,2 signaling China’s acceptance of universal human rights standards. In 2004, the National People’s Congress (NPC) amended the Constitution, writing into the Constitution for the first time that “the state respects and guarantees human rights,” signaling that human rights have already become one of the fundamental principles of China’s rule of law. At the same time, the current regime puts forth the ideas of “putting people first” and “creating a harmonious society,” signaling progress in the CPC’s concept of rule.
I have also been able to feel this progress on the macro level through my own personal experience since my arrest.
Although I continue to maintain that I am innocent and that the charges against me are unconstitutional, during the one plus year since I have lost my freedom, I have been locked up at two different locations and gone through four pretrial police interrogators, three prosecutors, and two judges, but in handling my case, they have not been disrespectful, overstepped time limitations, or tried to force a confession. Their manner has been moderate and reasonable; moreover, they have often shown goodwill. On June 23, I was moved from a location where I was kept under residential surveillance to the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau’s No. 1 Detention Center, known as “Beikan.” During my six months at Beikan, I saw improvements in prison management.
In 1996, I spent time at the old Beikan (located at Banbuqiao). Compared to the old Beikan of more than a decade ago, the present Beikan is a huge improvement, both in terms of the “hardware”— the facilities—and the “software”—the management. In particular, the humane management pioneered by the new Beikan, based on respect for the rights and integrity of detainees, has brought flexible management to bear on every aspect of the behavior of the correctional staff, and has found expression in the “comforting broadcasts,” Repentance magazine, and music before meals, on waking and at bedtime. This style of management allows detainees to experience a sense of dignity and warmth, and stirs their consciousness in maintaining prison order and opposing the bullies among inmates. Not only has it provided a humane living environment for detainees, it has also greatly improved the environment for their litigation to take place and their state of mind. I’ve had close contact with correctional officer Liu Zheng, who has been in charge of me in my cell, and his respect and care for detainees could be seen in every detail of his work, permeating his every word and deed, and giving one a warm feeling. It was perhaps my good fortune to have gotten to know this sincere, honest, conscientious, and kind correctional officer during my time at Beikan.
It is precisely because of such convictions and personal experience that I firmly believe that China’s political progress will not stop, and I, filled with optimism, look forward to the advent of a future free China. For there is no force that can put an end to the human quest for freedom, and China will in the end become a nation ruled by law, where human rights reign supreme. I also hope that this sort of progress can be reflected in this trial as I await the impartial ruling of the collegial bench—a ruling that will withstand the test of history.
If I may be permitted to say so, the most fortunate experience of these past twenty years has been the selfless love I have received from my wife, Liu Xia. She could not be present as an observer in court today, but I still want to say to you, my dear, that I firmly believe your love for me will remain the same as it has always been. Throughout all these years that I have lived without freedom, our love was full of bitterness imposed by outside circumstances, but as I savor its aftertaste, it remains boundless. I am serving my sentence in a tangible prison, while you wait in the intangible prison of the heart. Your love is the sunlight that leaps over high walls and penetrates the iron bars of my prison window, stroking every inch of my skin, warming every cell of my body, allowing me to always keep peace, openness, and brightness in my heart, and filling every minute of my time in prison with meaning. My love for you, on the other hand, is so full of remorse and regret that it at times makes me stagger under its weight. I am an insensate stone in the wilderness, whipped by fierce wind and torrential rain, so cold that no one dares touch me. But my love is solid and sharp, capable of piercing through any obstacle. Even if I were crushed into powder, I would still use my ashes to embrace you.
My dear, with your love I can calmly face my impending trial, having no regrets about the choices I’ve made and optimistically awaiting tomorrow. I look forward to [the day] when my country is a land with freedom of expression, where the speech of every citizen will be treated equally well; where different values, ideas, beliefs, and political views . . . can both compete with each other and peacefully coexist; where both majority and minority views will be equally guaranteed, and where the political views that differ from those currently in power, in particular, will be fully respected and protected; where all political views will spread out under the sun for people to choose from, where every citizen can state political views without fear, and where no one can under any circumstances suffer political persecution for voicing divergent political views. I hope that I will be the last victim of China’s endless literary inquisitions and that from now on no one will be incriminated because of speech.
Freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity, and the mother of truth. To strangle freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, stifle humanity, and suppress truth.
In order to exercise the right to freedom of speech conferred by the Constitution, one should fulfill the social responsibility of a Chinese citizen. There is nothing criminal in anything I have done. [But] if charges are brought against me because of this, I have no complaints.
Thank you, everyone.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/08/i_have_no_enemies
Release Xiaobo!
December 23, 2009
In the course of my life, for more than half a century, June 1989 was the major turning point. Up to that point, I was a member of the first class to enter university when college entrance examinations were reinstated following the Cultural Revolution (Class of ’77). From BA to MA and on to PhD, my academic career was all smooth sailing. Upon receiving my degrees, I stayed on to teach at Beijing Normal University. As a teacher, I was well received by the students. At the same time, I was a public intellectual, writing articles and books that created quite a stir during the 1980s, frequently receiving invitations to give talks around the country, and going abroad as a visiting scholar upon invitation from Europe and America. What I demanded of myself was this: whether as a person or as a writer, I would lead a life of honesty, responsibility, and dignity. After that, because I had returned from the U.S. to take part in the 1989 Movement, I was thrown into prison for “the crime of counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement.” I also lost my beloved lectern and could no longer publish essays or give talks in China. Merely for publishing different political views and taking part in a peaceful democracy movement, a teacher lost his lectern, a writer lost his right to publish, and a public intellectual lost the opportunity to give talks publicly. This is a tragedy, both for me personally and for a China that has already seen thirty years of Reform and Opening Up.
When I think about it, my most dramatic experiences after June Fourth have been, surprisingly, associated with courts: My two opportunities to address the public have both been provided by trial sessions at the Beijing Municipal Intermediate People’s Court, once in January 1991, and again today. Although the crimes I have been charged with on the two occasions are different in name, their real substance is basically the same—both are speech crimes.
Twenty years have passed, but the ghosts of June Fourth have not yet been laid to rest. Upon release from Qincheng Prison in 1991, I, who had been led onto the path of political dissent by the psychological chains of June Fourth, lost the right to speak publicly in my own country and could only speak through the foreign media. Because of this, I was subjected to year-round monitoring, kept under residential surveillance (May 1995 to January 1996) and sent to Reeducation-Through-Labor (October 1996 to October 1999). And now I have been once again shoved into the dock by the enemy mentality of the regime. But I still want to say to this regime, which is depriving me of my freedom, that I stand by the convictions I expressed in my “June Second Hunger Strike Declaration” twenty years ago—I have no enemies and no hatred. None of the police who monitored, arrested, and interrogated me, none of the prosecutors who indicted me, and none of the judges who judged me are my enemies. Although there is no way I can accept your monitoring, arrests, indictments, and verdicts, I respect your professions and your integrity, including those of the two prosecutors, Zhang Rongge and Pan Xueqing, who are now bringing charges against me on behalf of the prosecution. During interrogation on December 3, I could sense your respect and your good faith.
Hatred can rot away at a person’s intelligence and conscience. Enemy mentality will poison the spirit of a nation, incite cruel mortal struggles, destroy a society’s tolerance and humanity, and hinder a nation’s progress toward freedom and democracy. That is why I hope to be able to transcend my personal experiences as I look upon our nation’s development and social change, to counter the regime’s hostility with utmost goodwill, and to dispel hatred with love.
Everyone knows that it was Reform and Opening Up that brought about our country’s development and social change. In my view, Reform and Opening Up began with the abandonment of the “using class struggle as guiding principle” government policy of the Mao era and, in its place, a commitment to economic development and social harmony. The process of abandoning the “philosophy of struggle” was also a process of gradual weakening of the enemy mentality and elimination of the psychology of hatred, and a process of squeezing out the “wolf’s milk” that had seeped into human nature.1 It was this process that provided a relaxed climate, at home and abroad, for Reform and Opening Up, gentle and humane grounds for restoring mutual affection among people and peaceful coexistence among those with different interests and values, thereby providing encouragement in keeping with humanity for the bursting forth of creativity and the restoration of compassion among our countrymen. One could say that relinquishing the “anti-imperialist and anti-revisionist” stance in foreign relations and “class struggle” at home has been the basic premise that has enabled Reform and Opening Up to continue to this very day. The market trend in the economy, the diversification of culture, and the gradual shift in social order toward the rule of law have all benefitted from the weakening of the “enemy mentality.” Even in the political arena, where progress is slowest, the weakening of the enemy mentality has led to an ever-growing tolerance for social pluralism on the part of the regime and substantial decrease in the force of persecution of political dissidents, and the official designation of the 1989 Movement has also been changed from “turmoil and riot” to “political disturbance.” The weakening of the enemy mentality has paved the way for the regime to gradually accept the universality of human rights. In [1997 and] 1998 the Chinese government made a commitment to sign two major United Nations international human rights covenants,2 signaling China’s acceptance of universal human rights standards. In 2004, the National People’s Congress (NPC) amended the Constitution, writing into the Constitution for the first time that “the state respects and guarantees human rights,” signaling that human rights have already become one of the fundamental principles of China’s rule of law. At the same time, the current regime puts forth the ideas of “putting people first” and “creating a harmonious society,” signaling progress in the CPC’s concept of rule.
I have also been able to feel this progress on the macro level through my own personal experience since my arrest.
Although I continue to maintain that I am innocent and that the charges against me are unconstitutional, during the one plus year since I have lost my freedom, I have been locked up at two different locations and gone through four pretrial police interrogators, three prosecutors, and two judges, but in handling my case, they have not been disrespectful, overstepped time limitations, or tried to force a confession. Their manner has been moderate and reasonable; moreover, they have often shown goodwill. On June 23, I was moved from a location where I was kept under residential surveillance to the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau’s No. 1 Detention Center, known as “Beikan.” During my six months at Beikan, I saw improvements in prison management.
In 1996, I spent time at the old Beikan (located at Banbuqiao). Compared to the old Beikan of more than a decade ago, the present Beikan is a huge improvement, both in terms of the “hardware”— the facilities—and the “software”—the management. In particular, the humane management pioneered by the new Beikan, based on respect for the rights and integrity of detainees, has brought flexible management to bear on every aspect of the behavior of the correctional staff, and has found expression in the “comforting broadcasts,” Repentance magazine, and music before meals, on waking and at bedtime. This style of management allows detainees to experience a sense of dignity and warmth, and stirs their consciousness in maintaining prison order and opposing the bullies among inmates. Not only has it provided a humane living environment for detainees, it has also greatly improved the environment for their litigation to take place and their state of mind. I’ve had close contact with correctional officer Liu Zheng, who has been in charge of me in my cell, and his respect and care for detainees could be seen in every detail of his work, permeating his every word and deed, and giving one a warm feeling. It was perhaps my good fortune to have gotten to know this sincere, honest, conscientious, and kind correctional officer during my time at Beikan.
It is precisely because of such convictions and personal experience that I firmly believe that China’s political progress will not stop, and I, filled with optimism, look forward to the advent of a future free China. For there is no force that can put an end to the human quest for freedom, and China will in the end become a nation ruled by law, where human rights reign supreme. I also hope that this sort of progress can be reflected in this trial as I await the impartial ruling of the collegial bench—a ruling that will withstand the test of history.
If I may be permitted to say so, the most fortunate experience of these past twenty years has been the selfless love I have received from my wife, Liu Xia. She could not be present as an observer in court today, but I still want to say to you, my dear, that I firmly believe your love for me will remain the same as it has always been. Throughout all these years that I have lived without freedom, our love was full of bitterness imposed by outside circumstances, but as I savor its aftertaste, it remains boundless. I am serving my sentence in a tangible prison, while you wait in the intangible prison of the heart. Your love is the sunlight that leaps over high walls and penetrates the iron bars of my prison window, stroking every inch of my skin, warming every cell of my body, allowing me to always keep peace, openness, and brightness in my heart, and filling every minute of my time in prison with meaning. My love for you, on the other hand, is so full of remorse and regret that it at times makes me stagger under its weight. I am an insensate stone in the wilderness, whipped by fierce wind and torrential rain, so cold that no one dares touch me. But my love is solid and sharp, capable of piercing through any obstacle. Even if I were crushed into powder, I would still use my ashes to embrace you.
My dear, with your love I can calmly face my impending trial, having no regrets about the choices I’ve made and optimistically awaiting tomorrow. I look forward to [the day] when my country is a land with freedom of expression, where the speech of every citizen will be treated equally well; where different values, ideas, beliefs, and political views . . . can both compete with each other and peacefully coexist; where both majority and minority views will be equally guaranteed, and where the political views that differ from those currently in power, in particular, will be fully respected and protected; where all political views will spread out under the sun for people to choose from, where every citizen can state political views without fear, and where no one can under any circumstances suffer political persecution for voicing divergent political views. I hope that I will be the last victim of China’s endless literary inquisitions and that from now on no one will be incriminated because of speech.
Freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity, and the mother of truth. To strangle freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, stifle humanity, and suppress truth.
In order to exercise the right to freedom of speech conferred by the Constitution, one should fulfill the social responsibility of a Chinese citizen. There is nothing criminal in anything I have done. [But] if charges are brought against me because of this, I have no complaints.
Thank you, everyone.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/08/i_have_no_enemies
What are some things that other countries could do about China
The issue that arises when trying to stop China's government from committing human atrocities is the simple fact that China is such a powerful country. If other nations tried to intervene, the political ramifications could be deadly. Despite the previous fact here are some options that I believe could help combat Chinese atrocities.
1.United Nations could use sanctions
Sanctions are when a country, or group of counties, decides to put penalities on a country. These penalties tend to revolve around economics. The United Nations could put sanctions on China ,like a trade embargo, until they stop some of their torturing pratices. The issue with the sanctions is two fold...
A. When sanctions are used they tend to hurt the citizins of the country more than the ruling body. An example of this is the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990's which caused widespread poverty and death in Iraq. When economic sanctions are imposed, the ruling body can simply syphon its funds from the citizins.
B.The second issue with sanctions is that China far to powerful for them to actually work. Since China has the second largest GDP (Gross Domestic Product), if economic sanctions were imposed the government could garner enough support to get them lifted.
2. The United States could go to war with China and make China a protectorate
If the United States decided to go to war with China, there could be quite a economic and political backlash. Though the U.S would win the war, due to fact that the U,S has a better navy and spends more on military funding, the U.S economy economy would most likely be in shambles. After the U.S won the war they could try to put their thumb on the government to get them cooperate, but it would most likely not work due to how centralized the Chinese government is.
There must be a way to help, we must all contribute.
1.United Nations could use sanctions
Sanctions are when a country, or group of counties, decides to put penalities on a country. These penalties tend to revolve around economics. The United Nations could put sanctions on China ,like a trade embargo, until they stop some of their torturing pratices. The issue with the sanctions is two fold...
A. When sanctions are used they tend to hurt the citizins of the country more than the ruling body. An example of this is the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990's which caused widespread poverty and death in Iraq. When economic sanctions are imposed, the ruling body can simply syphon its funds from the citizins.
B.The second issue with sanctions is that China far to powerful for them to actually work. Since China has the second largest GDP (Gross Domestic Product), if economic sanctions were imposed the government could garner enough support to get them lifted.
2. The United States could go to war with China and make China a protectorate
If the United States decided to go to war with China, there could be quite a economic and political backlash. Though the U.S would win the war, due to fact that the U,S has a better navy and spends more on military funding, the U.S economy economy would most likely be in shambles. After the U.S won the war they could try to put their thumb on the government to get them cooperate, but it would most likely not work due to how centralized the Chinese government is.
There must be a way to help, we must all contribute.
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
In 1948, the United Nations adopted a decleration of human rights. The full text is listed below.
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
- All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
- Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
- No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
- No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
- Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
- All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
- Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
- Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
- (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
- (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
- (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
- (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
- (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
- (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
- (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
- (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
- (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
- (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
- (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
- (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
- (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
- Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
- (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
- (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
- (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
- (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
- (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
- Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
- (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
- (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
- (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
- (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
- Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
- (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
- (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
- (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
- (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
- (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
- (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
- (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
- Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
- (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
- (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
- (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
- Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Quotes
As I continue my search of ways to stop human right violations, I will post various inspiring quotes from leading activists
1.The connection between women's human rights, gender equality, socioeconomic development and peace is increasingly apparent.
-- Mahnaz Afkhami
-- Mahnaz Afkhami
2.
* "Human rights education is much more than a lesson in schools or a theme for a day; it is a process to equip people with the tools they need to live lives of security and dignity. On this International Human Rights Day, let us continue to work together to develop and nurture in future generations a culture of human rights, to promote freedom, security and peace in all nations."
-- Kofi Annan
-- Kofi Annan
3.
* Silence never won rights. They are not handed down from above; they are forced by pressures from below.
-- Roger Nash Baldwin
-- Roger Nash Baldwin
4."The candle burns not for us, but for all those whom we failed to rescue from prison, who were shot on the way to prison, who were tortured, who were kidnapped, who "disappeared". That's what the candle is for."
-- Peter Benenson
-- Peter Benenson
5.America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense, it is the other way around. Human rights invented America.
-- Jimmy Carter
-- Jimmy Carter
7.
"We the Peoples of the United Nations, determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small..."
—United Nations Charter
8.
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communist and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionists. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Pastor Niemoeler (victim of the Nazis)
9.
Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life. We were taught under the old ethic that man's business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands of years ago the question was asked; ''Am I my brother's keeper?'' That question has never yet been answered in a way that is satisfactory to civilized society.
Yes, I am my brother's keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality but by the higher duty I owe myself. What would you think me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death. (this is one of my personal favorite quotes)
Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life. We were taught under the old ethic that man's business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands of years ago the question was asked; ''Am I my brother's keeper?'' That question has never yet been answered in a way that is satisfactory to civilized society.
Yes, I am my brother's keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality but by the higher duty I owe myself. What would you think me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death. (this is one of my personal favorite quotes)
1908 speech
- Eugene V. Debs
10.These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
11.
People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made
12.I don't believe in any form of unjustified extremism! But when a man is exercising extremism — a human being is exercising extremism — in defense of liberty for human beings it's no vice, and when one is moderate in the pursuit of justice for human beings I say he is a sinner. (Malcolm X)
13.
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." - Justice William O. Douglas
14.
Atrocity has no excuses, no mitigating argument. Atrocity never balances or rectifies the past. Atrocity merely arms the future for more atrocity. It is self-perpetuating upon itself — a barbarous form of incest. Whoever commits atrocity also commits those future atrocities thus bred (Dune)
When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor were hungry, they called me a Communist.
The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be either good or evil.
5 Thought Leaders
Here are the 5 thought leaders who are fighting against human right violations
1. Wan Yanhai- Wan is China's leading AIDs activist. Wan has been detained multiple times for his participation in various protests. I came upon Wan's name while reading a stirring article about the madness of China's mental health system Wan will be helpful because of his various articles and general passion for human rights.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/26/the_madness_of_china_s_mental_health_system
2.Aung San Suu Kyi- I have an unrelenting respect for Aung San Suu Kyi. Aung is one of the most famous human rights activist of our times because she was under house arrest in Burma for over 15 years because of her opposition to the Burmese government. Aung will be helpful to me because of her various speeches like Freedom From Fear.
3.Liu Xiaobo- Liu was the first Chinese citizen to receive a Nobel Peace Prize, but he was detained and was not allowed to receive his award. Liu has participated in major demonstrations like the 1989 tiananmen square incident. Liu shall be helpful to me because he is quite educated and has a large support group trying to get him out of jail.
4.Warren Buffet- It may seem odd to have billionaire Warren Buffet as a thought leader for human rights, I assure you that he is a true campaigner for the cause. Warren gives half of his money every year to various charity organizations and is trying to get other wealthy people to do the same. Warren will be helpful because of his sheer marketing prowess, I may be able to send him letters of some sort to ask him to allocate some of his funds to Chinese human rights.
5.Bill Gates- Bill is mostly known for his domination of the software market, but most people do not know that Bill is an ardent supporter of charitable causes. Bill,like Warren, gives half of his money to various charity organizations every year. Bill will be helpful because he has shown a strong pattern of pushing funds to atrocities such as Chinese human rights.
1. Wan Yanhai- Wan is China's leading AIDs activist. Wan has been detained multiple times for his participation in various protests. I came upon Wan's name while reading a stirring article about the madness of China's mental health system Wan will be helpful because of his various articles and general passion for human rights.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/26/the_madness_of_china_s_mental_health_system
2.Aung San Suu Kyi- I have an unrelenting respect for Aung San Suu Kyi. Aung is one of the most famous human rights activist of our times because she was under house arrest in Burma for over 15 years because of her opposition to the Burmese government. Aung will be helpful to me because of her various speeches like Freedom From Fear.
3.Liu Xiaobo- Liu was the first Chinese citizen to receive a Nobel Peace Prize, but he was detained and was not allowed to receive his award. Liu has participated in major demonstrations like the 1989 tiananmen square incident. Liu shall be helpful to me because he is quite educated and has a large support group trying to get him out of jail.
4.Warren Buffet- It may seem odd to have billionaire Warren Buffet as a thought leader for human rights, I assure you that he is a true campaigner for the cause. Warren gives half of his money every year to various charity organizations and is trying to get other wealthy people to do the same. Warren will be helpful because of his sheer marketing prowess, I may be able to send him letters of some sort to ask him to allocate some of his funds to Chinese human rights.
5.Bill Gates- Bill is mostly known for his domination of the software market, but most people do not know that Bill is an ardent supporter of charitable causes. Bill,like Warren, gives half of his money to various charity organizations every year. Bill will be helpful because he has shown a strong pattern of pushing funds to atrocities such as Chinese human rights.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
25 Questions
Here are my twenty-five questions.
1.Did the Cultural Revolution lead to the Chinese human right violations
Yes the revolution did lead to the Chinese human right violations. The cultural revolution is a time when Mao Zedong took power and stipped away a large amount of citizin's rights. The revolution also brought the current government into power http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cultural_Revolution
2. Has any government official been charged for human right violations
I could not find notable government officials being charged with human right violations
3. What kind of punishments do dissidents recieve
The dissidents recieve a multitude of different punishments. Here are a few examples
In 2003 the Supreme People’s Procuratorate reported that 'forced confessions' had led to the deaths of 460 people and serious injuries for 117 others.
In 2005 Manfred Nowak visited as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. After spending two weeks there, he observed that it was "on the decline, but still widespread." He also complained of Chinese officials interfering with his research, including intimidating people he sought to interview.
During the Chongqing gang trials in 2009-2010, details were revealed of extensive and persistent torture of suspects held in police custody. Manifestations include regular beatings, sleep deprivation and being placed in or forced to hold agonising positions.
4. Learn more about Liu Xiabong (Nobel peace prize winner).
a Chinese literary critic, writer, professor, and human rights activist who called for political reforms and the end of communist one-party rule in the People's Republic of China (PRC). He is currently incarcerated as a political prisoner in the PRC. First Chinese citizin to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize.
5.Are the violations there to preserve the state
From my research, it appears that the government's main reason of detaining dissidents is to ensure that order and stability stays.
6. Did the government base their violations off other countries?
No
7.Who are the major government power players
8. Does the PLA(peoples libration army) do the viol
ations?
9. Will the revolution in Cairo, and other middle eastern nations, cause some sort of protest in China?
10. The 1989 Tiatmen square incedent?
11.Is it true that many chinese citizens are deemed mentally unstable as a form of population control
12. Has the human rights violations helped China rise so quickly
13.Can the U.S be a viable actor in stopping the violations
14. Will U.S involvement cause an uproar
15.What is the worst violation recorded so far?
16. What are the Chinese political parties
17. Does China have some sort of constitution
18.Has the country of Burma been affected by China?
19. Does Aung san suu Kyi (human rights activist) care about chinese rights?
20. do the violations occur in more rural areas?
21. Has there been any academic research on the subject
22. has the government gotten worse about the violations since Tiatmen square
23. What can be done about the violations
24. Can the U.N put sanctions on China?
25. If the U.N put sanctions on China, what would be the ramifications?
1.Did the Cultural Revolution lead to the Chinese human right violations
Yes the revolution did lead to the Chinese human right violations. The cultural revolution is a time when Mao Zedong took power and stipped away a large amount of citizin's rights. The revolution also brought the current government into power http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cultural_Revolution
2. Has any government official been charged for human right violations
I could not find notable government officials being charged with human right violations
3. What kind of punishments do dissidents recieve
The dissidents recieve a multitude of different punishments. Here are a few examples
In 2003 the Supreme People’s Procuratorate reported that 'forced confessions' had led to the deaths of 460 people and serious injuries for 117 others.
In 2005 Manfred Nowak visited as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. After spending two weeks there, he observed that it was "on the decline, but still widespread." He also complained of Chinese officials interfering with his research, including intimidating people he sought to interview.
During the Chongqing gang trials in 2009-2010, details were revealed of extensive and persistent torture of suspects held in police custody. Manifestations include regular beatings, sleep deprivation and being placed in or forced to hold agonising positions.
4. Learn more about Liu Xiabong (Nobel peace prize winner).
a Chinese literary critic, writer, professor, and human rights activist who called for political reforms and the end of communist one-party rule in the People's Republic of China (PRC). He is currently incarcerated as a political prisoner in the PRC. First Chinese citizin to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize.
5.Are the violations there to preserve the state
From my research, it appears that the government's main reason of detaining dissidents is to ensure that order and stability stays.
6. Did the government base their violations off other countries?
No
7.Who are the major government power players
8. Does the PLA(peoples libration army) do the viol
ations?
9. Will the revolution in Cairo, and other middle eastern nations, cause some sort of protest in China?
10. The 1989 Tiatmen square incedent?
11.Is it true that many chinese citizens are deemed mentally unstable as a form of population control
12. Has the human rights violations helped China rise so quickly
13.Can the U.S be a viable actor in stopping the violations
14. Will U.S involvement cause an uproar
15.What is the worst violation recorded so far?
16. What are the Chinese political parties
17. Does China have some sort of constitution
18.Has the country of Burma been affected by China?
19. Does Aung san suu Kyi (human rights activist) care about chinese rights?
20. do the violations occur in more rural areas?
21. Has there been any academic research on the subject
22. has the government gotten worse about the violations since Tiatmen square
23. What can be done about the violations
24. Can the U.N put sanctions on China?
25. If the U.N put sanctions on China, what would be the ramifications?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)