Before the 1940s, the language we associate today with “human rights” was rarely used. No international body nor non-governmental organisation with global reach existed to defend the international community’s “rights”. Things have changed: in 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; by the 1990s, organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists were alive to any example of human rights violations .
Today, we understand human rights as a set of values or principles to which every human being is equally entitled, and which are protected by both domestic and international laws.
But the manner in which such laws are mapped onto a country vary from state to state. In China, for instance, human rights ideals were designed to uphold the existing Confucian approach and to serve the higher interests of the states rather than those of the individual. Subsequently, since the formation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 and the rise of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) , the Chinese concept of human rights has taken somewhat of a Marxian approach. According to the class struggle, human rights are exclusively isolated to members of the proletariat and other “class allies”, all of whom belong to “The People”. Nonconformists or non-members are forced to submit and commit to the will of the state, via forced labour, if they wish to be admitted to society and to enjoy human rights.
Historically, Chinese Marxist scholars imported ideas from the west to build the Chinese nation. These scholars inherently maintained a traditional Chinese intellectual framework based on Confucianism. The framework observed, interpreted and applied western concepts through a “Confucianised” lens. Rights were perceived as a means to a state end, allowing citizens socio-economic freedoms rather than political ones. Marxist scholars emphasised the collective need over individual rights; as a result, social welfare became the key focal function of the state.
The concept of human rights in the PRC is incredibly complex. On one hand, no nation, including the PRC, would outright dismiss the notion of individual possession of human rights. The CCP’s promotion of human rights acts as a vehicle for government legitimacy. Inversely, however, only a handful of countries are subject to as many external human rights criticisms – most of them from the United States - as is the PRC. Conflict is inevitable: the PRC views human rights as a forceful imposition of Western thought and ideals . According to the PRC, human rights arrived in China from the West in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. With its arrival, there was little consideration for historical or national conditions. The PRC, however, has done little to clarify what the purely Chinese equivalent of human rights is.
The PRC has faced myriad accusations detailing human rights abuses, from the 1989 repression of student rights to the arrest and re-arrest of anyone who speaks against the CCP and, more recently, the coercive nature of the implementation of the one-child policy. The PRC believes that the West is simply meddling in domestic affairs and leveraging its ideals of hegemony and power politics. In observing how China was not allowed to host the 2000 Olympic Games, the suspension of bilateral and unilateral aid after the 1989 student debacle and the deterioration of trade privileges linked to the PRC’s human rights record, it's easy to understand Beijing’s stance. Beijing insists its actions in all these cases were merely a lapse in moral judgement.
However, there’s little evidence that Beijing has learned from these instances and changed its behaviour. For example, China tried to hide the initial outbreak of the coronavirus in its Wuhan province in 2020. The Chinese government withheld information, under-reported cases, censored media coverage and downplayed the severity of the virus. Subsequently, harsh restrictions and quarantine measures were adopted in Wuhan and other parts of China.
Cruelly, authorities failed to provide sufficient food, medical supplies and other basic necessities. In April 2020, authorities forcibly tested Africans in Guangzhou for the virus so they could quarantine or isolate themselves in specific hotels. Beijing has since rejected independent investigations into Chinese authorities’ handling of the outbreak. These investigations alleged that authorities stalked, surveilled and harassed the families of those who had died (10).
It is unfortunate that China, time and time again, meets the international community with hostility when discussing human rights. Considering the PRC’s geographical, political, economic and demographic weight, its active participation and support would add credibility and vitality to the international human rights regime. Those same features, however, raise the question of the legitimacy of human rights institutions, which stand idle in the face of China’s alleged violations. China’s dismissal of international accountability sparks cynicism about the impartiality and application of the system of law. China remains at the forefront of international doubt associated with human rights, reinforcing its status as self-determining and isolated. One of the reasons it may remain so is Beijing’s notion that the US will not concede to China’s rightful position in the international hierarchy.
China is not an island: it cannot exist without international influence or interaction. Human rights in the international community are based on shared principles; if these principles are undermined, the legitimacy and credibility of its structure will crumble. China’s operation and dismissal of human rights place great strain on the international system. For now, China determines what Chinese human rights are – and that’s bad news for accountability, unity and global fellowship.