Political comment
Joe Martin
As is customary, Chinese policy in the areas of climate change, summary justice in capital punishment, the jailing of writers, and the use of violence and torture in Tibet and against non-violent spiritual movements and religions is not based upon any form of logic, morality, or consistency in the law. This behavior is based upon two principles. The first is that China is too big and its momentum on the way to being a superpower too strong to have to bend to international norms. The second is that all criticism against Chinese policy from anyone in the West or developed world is irrelevant precisely because China is not yet a “developed nation” – and other nations polluted and suppressed indigenous peoples to become developed.
There are a few basic presumptions in this that are in fact widely accepted but based on dubious premises. The most common of these is the argument put forward by many so-called progressive and "pragmatic" advocates of third-world exceptionalism ever since the end of the colonial empires. This argument suggests that developing countries are unable to establish "thick" human rights norms— that is the term that is being bandied about. This terminology should invite ridicule in light of the moderate successes in building democracies in many developing countries, which have led to increased economic development. Brazil and India are examples that are hard to ignore.
One of the greatest historical proponents of this exceptionalism, in writings, speeches and interviews in the 1980s was Robert Mugabe, once a hero rather than the pariah he now is. His argument back then: Rather than striving toward democratic norms—one should strive "to have a one party state" if possible, as developing countries don't have the luxury of implementing "cake frosting" like human rights. It goes without saying, went the Mugabe argument, that strong human rights enforcement would drive development downhill. This is the same argument that has justified the MO of many African dictators. We have watched Mugabe over time turn into a monster—Bishop Tutu has said he had become a "Frankenstein"—as he methodically tried to follow the logic of this ideology until his economy went berserk, and he did too. Nobel Prize winner Wole Soyinka from Nigeria has taken much time off his literary work to criticize, in books and essays, this way of excusing the entrenchment of authoritarian law and tradition in the developing world.
The opposite argument is that it is never too early to keep moving toward structures that will bring increasing respect of human rights and democratic methods. India was a good example of this, perhaps because of the visions of Nehru—who leaned left, but believed in pluralistic Democracy –and Gandhi. Less unified than China, less militaristic, and extravagantly diverse, with a wildly free media India has had parallel success with that of China's (parallel but different, for sure). From a middle class which as late as 1980 was only 10% of the population, all the statistics point to a middle class that is no 50% of the population.
Granted -- that leaves up to 500 million poor and desperately poor in India. But the direction is right in economics, as well as individual rights. Military over-reactions aside—as in Kashmir, where the non-local military has in the past become engaged in the usual torture and assaults on a population which they see as collaborators with the enemy—the structures are in place for people to fight and win in the courts, to create new legislation promptly where abuses occur, and to at least challenge local bosses who engage in human rights abuses in a very public way.
So let's compare the two countries in the area of environmental issues. India has not posed nearly the same number of selfish roadblocks to the environmental treaties such as the Copenhagen as China has (Except for the US back in the day of the Kyoto conference). Aside from its pigheaded exploitation national pride to create a nuclear arsenal, the Indian government is at least open to refurbishing the economy with environmental industry if they can find the wherewithall. It is astonishing that, with a population that has burgeoned in tandem with China's, that it has continuously improved its difficult human rights issues, or at least showed the active will to do so.
The advocates of Third World exceptionalism in areas of human rights, democracy, and climate change, in general, are usually patronizing. They may raise interesting questions—but it has been a murderous ideology in practice. They have not been doing the people of these countries any favors.
Another interesting comparison we can make might be Egypt and Turkey. Both are "fallen" seats of powerful civilizations, even after the advent of Islam. Under Mubarak's "exceptionalist" rule—reinforced by a martial law that has lasted decades—the economy is as much a basket case as Egypt’s democracy and human rights record. Meanwhile, Turkey, in fits and starts, has shown tolerance for a multi-party system and has many savagely critical media outlets. The moderate Islamist Party which was allowed to take power, has finally brought a Prime Minster to sit down with the head of State in Armenia—after a century of denials about the Armenian genocide (Compare this with China on Tibet). The economic state of the population is well below most of Europe, but light years above Egypt.
The fact is, the world has changed since the now-developed world sloughed through the industrial revolution without a map, and the borders of nation states were drawn with blood. There are now many resources around for creating a lucrative industry that promotes sustainable development and supplies jobs. Most national borders in the world are established and mapped.
A new sort of Chinese farce will soon be replacing the Beijing Opera as the primary traditional performing art—if the Chinese ruling party insists on allying with genocidal regimes like that of Sudan at conferences designed to rescue the planet to stymie commitment to change that will prevent depletion of many countries water supplies, sink entire island nation states into the oceans, and keep entire nationalities such as the Tibetans and Uighers in a state of permanent repression and poverty.
Joe Martin
As is customary, Chinese policy in the areas of climate change, summary justice in capital punishment, the jailing of writers, and the use of violence and torture in Tibet and against non-violent spiritual movements and religions is not based upon any form of logic, morality, or consistency in the law. This behavior is based upon two principles. The first is that China is too big and its momentum on the way to being a superpower too strong to have to bend to international norms. The second is that all criticism against Chinese policy from anyone in the West or developed world is irrelevant precisely because China is not yet a “developed nation” – and other nations polluted and suppressed indigenous peoples to become developed.
There are a few basic presumptions in this that are in fact widely accepted but based on dubious premises. The most common of these is the argument put forward by many so-called progressive and "pragmatic" advocates of third-world exceptionalism ever since the end of the colonial empires. This argument suggests that developing countries are unable to establish "thick" human rights norms— that is the term that is being bandied about. This terminology should invite ridicule in light of the moderate successes in building democracies in many developing countries, which have led to increased economic development. Brazil and India are examples that are hard to ignore.
One of the greatest historical proponents of this exceptionalism, in writings, speeches and interviews in the 1980s was Robert Mugabe, once a hero rather than the pariah he now is. His argument back then: Rather than striving toward democratic norms—one should strive "to have a one party state" if possible, as developing countries don't have the luxury of implementing "cake frosting" like human rights. It goes without saying, went the Mugabe argument, that strong human rights enforcement would drive development downhill. This is the same argument that has justified the MO of many African dictators. We have watched Mugabe over time turn into a monster—Bishop Tutu has said he had become a "Frankenstein"—as he methodically tried to follow the logic of this ideology until his economy went berserk, and he did too. Nobel Prize winner Wole Soyinka from Nigeria has taken much time off his literary work to criticize, in books and essays, this way of excusing the entrenchment of authoritarian law and tradition in the developing world.
The opposite argument is that it is never too early to keep moving toward structures that will bring increasing respect of human rights and democratic methods. India was a good example of this, perhaps because of the visions of Nehru—who leaned left, but believed in pluralistic Democracy –and Gandhi. Less unified than China, less militaristic, and extravagantly diverse, with a wildly free media India has had parallel success with that of China's (parallel but different, for sure). From a middle class which as late as 1980 was only 10% of the population, all the statistics point to a middle class that is no 50% of the population.
Granted -- that leaves up to 500 million poor and desperately poor in India. But the direction is right in economics, as well as individual rights. Military over-reactions aside—as in Kashmir, where the non-local military has in the past become engaged in the usual torture and assaults on a population which they see as collaborators with the enemy—the structures are in place for people to fight and win in the courts, to create new legislation promptly where abuses occur, and to at least challenge local bosses who engage in human rights abuses in a very public way.
So let's compare the two countries in the area of environmental issues. India has not posed nearly the same number of selfish roadblocks to the environmental treaties such as the Copenhagen as China has (Except for the US back in the day of the Kyoto conference). Aside from its pigheaded exploitation national pride to create a nuclear arsenal, the Indian government is at least open to refurbishing the economy with environmental industry if they can find the wherewithall. It is astonishing that, with a population that has burgeoned in tandem with China's, that it has continuously improved its difficult human rights issues, or at least showed the active will to do so.
The advocates of Third World exceptionalism in areas of human rights, democracy, and climate change, in general, are usually patronizing. They may raise interesting questions—but it has been a murderous ideology in practice. They have not been doing the people of these countries any favors.
Another interesting comparison we can make might be Egypt and Turkey. Both are "fallen" seats of powerful civilizations, even after the advent of Islam. Under Mubarak's "exceptionalist" rule—reinforced by a martial law that has lasted decades—the economy is as much a basket case as Egypt’s democracy and human rights record. Meanwhile, Turkey, in fits and starts, has shown tolerance for a multi-party system and has many savagely critical media outlets. The moderate Islamist Party which was allowed to take power, has finally brought a Prime Minster to sit down with the head of State in Armenia—after a century of denials about the Armenian genocide (Compare this with China on Tibet). The economic state of the population is well below most of Europe, but light years above Egypt.
The fact is, the world has changed since the now-developed world sloughed through the industrial revolution without a map, and the borders of nation states were drawn with blood. There are now many resources around for creating a lucrative industry that promotes sustainable development and supplies jobs. Most national borders in the world are established and mapped.
A new sort of Chinese farce will soon be replacing the Beijing Opera as the primary traditional performing art—if the Chinese ruling party insists on allying with genocidal regimes like that of Sudan at conferences designed to rescue the planet to stymie commitment to change that will prevent depletion of many countries water supplies, sink entire island nation states into the oceans, and keep entire nationalities such as the Tibetans and Uighers in a state of permanent repression and poverty.
