Different types of human rights
There are two main categories regarding human rights: (1) political and civil rights, and (2) economic, cultural, and social rights.1 Whereas Western states and INGOs, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) emphasize political and civil rights, the Chinese government claims that it strongly emphasizes economic, cultural, and social rights.2 Despite such claims, it has fallen short in actual practice. With the move toward more privatization of the Chinese economy, the Chinese government laid off millions of people, which was done in the name of embracing more of a market approach. Such an approach, however, is inconsistent with the notion of valuing economic rights.3 China’s claim that economic rights should receive priority over political rights leads to a fundamental disagreement between China and the West.
To provide an example of how the topic of human rights can become controversial and a gray area regarding economic equality, the United States, which receives high marks on political and civil rights according to such human rights data sets as Freedom House, Polity IV, and CIRI Human Rights Data Project, has a significant percentage (approximately 16 percent) of its population living in poverty. Thus, one could point to this, which the Chinese government does, as a fundamental flaw of the country that is highly regarded as having a very good human rights practice. Racism is another example in which the US performs poorly, and China seizes the opportunity to condemn both racism and discrimination in the US. Indeed, Chinese government officials, specifically Chinese delegates to the UN and those in the Chinese media, often point to these two issues—poverty and racism in the US—to make the case that the US does not have a good human rights practice.
An analysis of the statements by Chinese delegates to the UN reveals a focus on both types of human rights, but the delegates are explicit in that China views economic rights as the foundation for all rights. Speaking in the UN in September of 2016, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang stated: “Development underpins every human achievement. Without development, nothing can be sustainable.” Li went on to add that underdevelopment is the reason for many of the world’s most pressing issues. It is development, according to Li, that offers the answer to these global problems. While speaking in the UN, Chinese government officials have repeatedly stated that physical needs (such as food, shelter, and other basic necessities) and development issues are much more pressing concerns than abstract notions of human rights based on civil and political rights.4 Thus, according to the CCP, political and civil rights can wait.5 In practice, however, the Chinese government does not seek to fully advance economic rights. Nonetheless, the Chinese government’s argument fits neatly with both rational choice’s emphasis on how actors seek to advance their preferences and with the Asian values argument, which also provides justification for the Chinese government’s main objective: remaining in power. Thus, the Chinese government uses the Asian values argument as a way to deflect potential threats to its rule on the issues of civil and political rights.
China’s massive decrease in poverty and the resulting improvement in quality of life indicators are achievements that the Chinese government views as receiving inadequate recognition for major human rights accomplishments. For example, according to UN Development Program (UNDP) data6 on the topic of “life expectancy at birth,” China went from 67.0 in 1980 to 75.3 2013. Regarding “expected years of schooling,” China went from 8.4 years in 1980 to 12.9 years in 2013. Further, on “mean years of schooling,” China went from 3.7 years in 1980 to 7.5 years in 2013. In terms of gross national income (GNI) per capita (2011 PPP$), China went from $690 in 1980 to $11,477 in 2013. Overall, the Human Development Index (HDI) value almost doubled for China, increasing from .423 in 1980 to .719 in 2013.
Thus, human development conditions for many in China have improved dramatically in recent decades. According to the World Bank, from 1985 to 2010, China accounted for 70 percent of the world’s population who rose out of poverty.7 This is a major source of legitimacy for CCP rule. Having said that, there are still 200 million Chinese subsisting on incomes below $1.25 per day.
To put this massive poverty reduction into perspective, 60 percent of the Chinese people lived in extreme poverty in 1990. In 2005, only 16 percent of Chinese lived in poverty. Then, in 2010, this number decreased to 12 percent.8 Owing to such strong performance on poverty reduction, China was the first developing country to reach the Millennium Development Goal target on poverty reduction. China’s strong economic growth since 1978 is a main factor explaining why many Chinese have moved out of poverty, with an annual GDP growth averaging 9.9 percent from 1978 to 2009.9 The economic growth and drop in poverty in China since the reform and opening in 1978 are unprecedented in the world.10 Today, China is a middle-income country, but economic inequality and poverty are still significant issues plaguing the country.11 Despite such impressive gains, there has not been widespread international recognition for this Chinese achievement in human development. As a result, the Chinese government is disappointed that China has not received the credit that the government feels it deserves from the international human rights regime for its massive reduction in poverty.12 After all, economic issues and poverty are considered as one of the human rights categories, as stated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.13
Table 1.1 UN Development Programme (UNDP) data
| 1980 | 2013 |
| Life expectancy | 67.0 | 75.3 |
| Years of schooling | 8.4 | 12.9 |
| Mean years of schooling | 3.7 | 7.5 |
| GNI per capita (2011 PPP$) | $690 | $11,477 |
| Human Development Index | .423 | .719 |
Explanatory dimensions: (1) sovereignty, (2) Asian values, (3) economic sanctions, and (4) naming and shaming
All of these approaches have received ample attention in the literature. In addition, states and non-state actors have also invoked such approaches (such as the Chinese government using sovereignty as justification for its actions on human rights) when focusing on China’s human rights. This section points out the strengths and weaknesses of the three approaches regarding China’s actions on human rights.
Sovereignty
Since Mao, the PRC has stated that it respects sovereignty. The primary purpose for the PRC embracing sovereignty in international politics has not been due to respect for other countries; instead, the PRC has embraced sovereignty to keep foreign actors out of China’s domestic issues.14 The Chinese government has used the issue of sovereignty to justify its actions on human rights issues, both domestically and abroad.15 Out of respect for sovereignty, the Chinese government claims to be opposed to interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries concerning human rights. But while China refrains from criticizing developing countries regarding human rights, China freely admonishes the United States, Israel, and other Western countries on this issue.
Due to such inconsistencies by the Chinese government, sovereignty also does not fully explain why China acts in the UNGA on human rights issues. If China did respect sovereignty, as it says it does, it would have abstained on the UNGA votes in which Israel, the UK, and Portugal were denounced for violating the human rights of Palestinians in the case of Israel, and people in Africa in the cases of the UK and Portugal. Instead, the Chinese government decided to vote in the affirmative on such resolutions, and in the process voted to denounce Western countries. Moreover, if China did respect sovereignty, China would not have issued such statements critical of the US on human rights in the UNGA.
Yet another example demonstrating how China does not act consistently on sovereignty is with the Chinese government’s restructuring of its domestic economy according to WTO and international trade regime requirements. In regard to its participation in the international trade regime, China acquiesced to sovereignty issues. However, on human rights issues involving sovereignty, China has adamantly resisted changing domestic policies on human rights. In other words, regarding sovereignty, there are some instances in which China is more willing to work with international actors and standards and less willing in other cases. More specifically, the Chinese government resists changes involving political and civil rights, which are perceived as a threat to CCP rule or the potential breakup of China.
Asian values
The Asian values argument has also been used to explain China’s approach to human rights, though in recent...
