Human Rights Last

China's diplomats have the ear of the world's bad guys. So what are they telling them?

BY GARY J. BASS | MARCH/APRIL 2011

On Feb. 21, 2010, the Chinese Embassy in Harare threw a birthday party for Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's heavy-handed and increasingly erratic octogenarian despot, complete with cake, almost 100 guests, and a "Happy 86th birthday" sign. Xin Shunkang, China's dapper ambassador, led the embassy staff in singing the Zimbabwean national anthem in the Shona language. The embassy invited local students to sing Chinese folk songs. "The Chinese people sing the Zimbabwean national anthem in Shona; Zimbabwean people sing Chinese songs in Chinese," recalled Xin when we met in Harare some months later. "It's harmonious." It was the first time Mugabe had visited a foreign embassy since Zimbabwe became independent in 1980. "It's not easy to get a president to come to your embassy," said Xin with a bit of pride. "Not every ambassador can do this, but I could do it."

In Zimbabwe and many other countries far from Beijing, China's hand is increasingly conspicuous these days, and its choice of friends, like the thuggish Mugabe, is increasingly under scrutiny. It used to be that the Western world lectured China most extensively about its poor human rights record at home, for detaining dissenters and silencing free speech. But as China's power and influence grow, the Chinese government now finds itself weathering criticism for its support of cruel regimes around the world -- from accusations, as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and others have put it, that "Beijing is financing, diplomatically protecting and supplying the arms for the first genocide of the 21st century" in Darfur, to the recent warning by Win Tin, co-founder of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, that if Chinese leaders "praise the [Burmese] regime" without helping the public, then "China will fail to win the hearts of the people." Chinese officials are newly sensitive to such reproaches, if not exactly responsive. As one Foreign Ministry official told me with surprise in the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, "For the first time, China's foreign position on human rights outweighs the world's concern for China's domestic human rights."

Certainly, as Chinese trade and commerce have exploded over the last decade, they have been an economic boon to many developing countries, correspondingly boosting China's clout in countries as remote from Beijing as Angola, Ethiopia, and Uzbekistan. But in many of those places, China has purchased its clout at the cost of maintaining warm ties with murderous governments, from Burma to North Korea to, perhaps most prominently, Sudan -- where two U.S. presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have accused Omar Hassan al-Bashir's regime of genocide.

Yet it is much less obvious how the Chinese government thinks about these awkward relationships. How does a generation of Chinese who opened up their own country to the world square China's ongoing transformations with such ties to some of the most closed societies on Earth? How does a country haunted by awful memories of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution overlook suffering in other countries? Is the Chinese government defending its long-standing principle that national sovereignty should reign supreme, seeking natural resources to fuel its red-hot economic growth, or offering a new model of international development and diplomacy? Is there any way the United States can more effectively engage with China on these issues? Above all, what do China's complex attitudes toward its rogue friends say about the kind of great power China will become?

ILLUSTRATION BY OLIVER MUNDAY FOR FP

 SUBJECTS: CHINA, HUMAN RIGHTS
 

Gary J. Bass, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, is the author of Freedom's Battle and Stay the Hand of Vengeance.

RUI

1:42 AM ET

February 22, 2011

Thank you

This is a very interesting and nuanced article.

 

HOWARDXUE

5:44 PM ET

March 1, 2011

Different approach to address human rights issue

China - Through carrot (engagement, co-operation, quiet transformation);
US - Through stick (criticism, embargo, sanctions, military intervention).

You see the difference. China deal with bad guys with more patience.

Anyway, mines, roads, schools, hospitals, mobile phones will improve the life of ordinary people, thus help to improve their human right situations.

Talking about rights to vote with an empty stomach is senseless, because people's very existance is threatened.

 

ABCDE

4:04 AM ET

February 22, 2011

Ironic article

Given another current article at FP on the USAs tolerance and support of Equatorial Guinea.

I'd be more interested in an review contrasting the differnces between China's support of Despots and the USA's support of despots.

Both seem to put human rights and ethics far down the list of priorities.

The USA seems to support any regime if oil is involved. China? Maybe they are more "broad-minded resource wise?"

 

NORBOOSE

4:07 PM ET

March 1, 2011

Im not sure how ironic that is

I would say that it is fair. FP, though it obviously leans a little pro-us (Although I would say that objective reality also leans a little pro-us), does good job. That would be an interesting article. I remember they published an article about the US's "most embarassing allies" and a different, later article of China's "most embarassing allies." I would recommend looking them up and reading them side-by-side.

 

RUZY

9:55 AM ET

February 22, 2011

old article,no new meaning

we can see most articles of human right about China,but they are the same style.western countries are good ,China is bad.I think they shall write some new meaning article which would be better.

 

NORBOOSE

3:59 PM ET

March 1, 2011

China is bad

But, China IS bad. Regardless of what you think of the US, or "the West," China is an openly authoritarian state that still kills thousands of political prisoners per year. This site runs lots of stories critical of the US or other western countries, so whats wrong with mentioning the things China does?

 

XTIANGODLOKI

2:49 PM ET

February 22, 2011

Despite the irony a good article, its very informational

It's difficult not to point out that US has far more history in supporting brutal dictators which enslaves their people for oil (especially with the stuff going on in Mideast now, but that's besides the point).

China's non-interventional approach to foreign policy probably has something to do with its own national history. Though the Western media and academics tend to avoid topic (no one likes to dig up their own skeletons), it was not all that long ago China was under the sphere of influence from multiple Western nations. This experience certainly would have influenced China's stance on how to run its own foreign policy now that it's growing to be more powerful again.

Some of what the Chinese diplomats said also make sense: especially regarding the effectiveness of the trade embargos aimed at hurting regimes who brutalize the people. They don't work all that much to hurt the dictators but do make the terrorized people's lives even worse. I find the human rights trade embargo to be machiavellian in that the only way they will work is for the people to suffer so that so they would revolt.

Of course, revolts are also not always a good thing. The Iranian revolution turned the country to a fundamentalist mess. In the case of countries like Somalia civil wars have forced to countries to go on without a strong central government for decades, making them the worst places to live on this planet. Ultimately whether people choose to revolt against their own government thus should be decided by only the citizens of that country, only then will they be fully responsible for the good and the bad.

 

NORBOOSE

4:02 PM ET

March 1, 2011

History

The only reason your argument is true is because the US has been an important international player for 100 years, whereas China has only emerged recently. Do you really believe that China's policies would have any innate moral superiority over the US's if both had the same capabilities and existed in the exact time frame?

 

ALEXBC

9:59 PM ET

February 28, 2011

Why?

Why does every article that attempts to examine human rights abuses within (and supported by) "China" have to feature inane comments that compare China's record to that of the US? Even if the US had the worst record in the world, it would not change the reality of China's own record at all.

Qaddafi's own praise of China's handling of the Tianenmen episode is instructive, not only because it sidesteps the cartoonish, conspiratorial "Western" bias that various Netizens assign to anyone who decries Tianenmen, but also because it highlights the type of company that China keeps (China evacuated thousands of workers from Libya). Does the US keep similar company? Of course: just look at Hosni Mubarak, or the Saudi monarchy. Does this comparison do any work in diluting China's transgressions, or in making such transgressions ethically permissible across the globe? No.

China's foreign policy is non-interventionist because it does not have the power projection resources to intervene meaningfully. It also suffers from a peculiar economic distortion, whereby much of its growth (60% - 80% in any given year) is driven by investment, which requires massive amounts of imported commodities like oil, iron ore, and copper. China's own foreign oil dependency will continue to rise over the coming decades, likely reaching nearly 70% of its overall oil consumption; it already buys more oil from Saudi Arabia than any other nation. Beggars cannot be choosers, not when maintaining the facade of rapid (investment-driven) growth is at stake.

 

NORBOOSE

4:26 PM ET

March 1, 2011

"developing"

China does not really fit the developed-developing idea very well. On the coast, you have half a billion people that very much live in a developed country. In the inlands, it is still very undeveloped. However, this is not a huge crippling factor, because the fact that there are poor, rural Chinese citizens living off the land just does not have much impact on the coast, where people own cars, televisions, work at offices, etc. Since China is much too stable for those rural folk to be much of a security threat, and they are not a huge economic drain, they are essentially irrelevent to China as a whole. Those coastal half-billion make all the money and the decisions. China today would be much the same as it is if its inland was compltely devoid of human activity.

 

NICK_GREEN

11:36 PM ET

March 1, 2011

Chinese violations of human rights

I am not surprised by the Chinese policies that violate human rights in Africa. Look at China and look at how the Chinese Communist government treats 1.34 billion citizens of China. The basic rights of 1.34 billion Chinese citizens including Tibetans, Uighurs, and Mongols are violated in every possible ways.

Can we expect a better treatment of Africa at the hand of the Chinese communist government that crashes her own young students by tanks and kills them machine-guns? i do not think so.

Shame on China!

Shame on the West!

Shame on the Obama administration who traded human rights for money!

 

DMDEFRA

11:41 PM ET

March 2, 2011

China Envy

China Really...How does a Great magazine like FP let Gary Bass publish such trash. While China takes the sensible aproach to dealing with other countries in a up front and business like manner the US continues to eat Cheese with their Wine,Wine and more Wine. Eygpt, Saudi Arabia, Kauit, Iraq, Afganistan, all seems to be our colonization of these current despots in the middle east. The list goes on and on. Sorry,but the Chinese have a great plan. Engage Countries with development projects (JOBS) for the locals and help from chinese workers and management and yes they are making a profit, it called capitalism. Lets see what the US brought to the Middle East countries. 1) Israel 2) Saudi Arabia 3) Iraq 4) Afganistan? The biggest ARMS deals in the World. American's are sick of our government telling the rest of the World what to do! Start at home where we need jobs, investment and a sound economy (See China). Then we hear what our government say's in Wiki Leaks. Enough, take care of the US. We been trying to finish our dinner plates for a hundred years for the starving in Africa. There is plenty of hungry Americans right here on the Southside of Chicago.

 

NICK_GREEN

2:28 PM ET

March 3, 2011

China's record in Africa is worse than the West's

@DMDEFRA

China's records in Africa and elsewhere are worse than the West's. China supports the worst dictators throughout the world from Sudan to North Korea, from Burma to Zimbabve. This is why China is hated by the vast majority of the population in these countries. Look at Liviya. Many rebels attacked the Chinese consturction sites because they hate the Chinese for supporting mad dictator liek Caddafi.

Judging by your writing, you are not American, but you are Chinese. Please do not pretend to be an American who is critical of US policies abroad. You may be one of those Chinese 5-cents bloggers who are paid by the Chinese communist party for writing pro-Chinese and pro-communist messages in Western blogsphere.

Nobody in the US and West envies China - the nation that crashes by heavy tanks innocent young students for expressing their views, and kills millions and millions of babies by forced abortions! China is literally a country-hell, in my view!

 

DMDEFRA

5:14 PM ET

March 3, 2011

Your Phone's tapped!. ..They stole your Cat for BBQ

Too Funny...Watch out the Chinese will cut your purchases at Walmat. Just a little paronoid or What! Stick to the facts. The US is now the biggest debtor nation there is! We are broke,our States are broke, our Cities are broke. Most Americans want Jobs, a Good education system, a stable economy and low unemployment. In the Chicago Public School system 50% of High School students don't graduate. Seems to me we need to worry about America and not what the Chinese are doing better than us.
This artcle is so one sided that you wonder why Gary Bass is given the space. After we straighten out all our problems at home then we can start worrying about Chinese, Africans, North Korens and the Spacemen that visted you last night. Cut all foriegn aid until we get America healthly again!

 

PTIGER2003

4:21 PM ET

March 3, 2011

types of interference

Gary,

This is an excellent and informative article about China's relations with a number of pariah states. Part of your framing has to do with the extent to which China holds onto notions of non-interference vs. doing what other great powers do well: interfere.

To me, the question isn't really whether China meddles in the internal politics of these countries. Of course it does. And you've shown that: Hu convinced Bashir to accept peacekeepers; China forged ties with south Sudan, and so on. Moreover, China always has. It's '5-Principles' rhetoric was always just that: rhetoric. Sponsorship of Communist revolutionaries in Southeast Asia is just an example.

The real question is how China interferes. Does it do so mainly at the elite level? Or does it follow more of a U.S. model and dig itself into civil society? One of the mistakes China makes, arguably, is that it operates mainly at the elite level and fails to develop deep ties to civil society: trade unions, churches, NGOs, and so on. This alienates it from public opinion, and makes it seem to be cozying up to dictators (when it fact it may be using quiet pressure).

But things may be changing. Will the massive effort to build 500+ (or maybe its 1000+ now) Confucius Institutes, along with increasing development aid, etc. in the developing world, make a difference? Does this change the nature of Chinese intervention to more of a Western model? How will the U.S. respond (not by adding to its own aid budget, presumably!)?

Thanks for a good read.