--An interview with Associate Researcher Xu Tiebing with the Communication University of China

Human Rights reporter with Xu Tiebing, associate researcher with the Communication University of China

   Editor's Note: Human rights has always been a concept that evolves with the development of globalization. To clarify their relations, Human Rights made an interview with Xu Tiebing, an associate researcher on international studies with the Communication University of China.

  Xu has recently translated the French book Atlas de la Mondialisation into Chinese.

  Q: As man has more than one attributive identity under the context of globalization, shall we interpret the concept of human rights in a multi-layered approach?

  A:When we talk about man's multiple attributive identities, we mean their gender, profession, religious belief, culture and political orientation. When it comes to human rights, a multi-layered approach to the study of the concept should involve a country's nature and development. In this sense, different countries, different cultures and even different social stratums have diversified or even divergent understandings on human rights. Undoubtedly, however, we can say that in the era of globalization, the political boundaries between countries are fading out. Some universal values are infiltrating, in spite of geographical borders, to an expanded scope.

  Also, I would like to point out that as human rights are universally idealized, we should not forget that the notion is being employed by different forces, especially those with discourse power in the international arena, as a political tool.

  Q: How can we understand the concept of Human Development Index? What's the use of a quantitative analysis on human rights development ? How to address the contradiction between the universal demand on human rights development and cultural divergence of different regions?

  A: Human Development Index (HDI) was proposed by the United Nations Development Program. Like similar conceptions coined by the UN, HDI is devoid of political hue. Generally speaking, it takes into consideration different levels of development of human society and is something like China's proposal of rights to development. HDI involves some very basic concepts that can be materialized for subsistence, including education, medical care and life expectancy. It underscores the rights to subsistence and development, but does not touch upon the rights to participate in politics, an important part of the human rights theory.

  There have been divergent and conflicting interpretations on human rights. While western countries currently stress the rights to political participation, traditional southern countries reject such an interpretation, which they think harbors a strong political intention, or hold a wait-and-see attitude towards it. That does not mean, however, southern countries deny the rights to political participation. They just care more about the rights to subsistence and development. They hold that human rights development is a step-by-step process and different countries should prioritize different goals.

  The world has actually never been flat, as Thomas L. Friedman says in his best seller. People once believed that industrialization would bring about an era of no difference, but that didn't come true. Like any other age in human history, the era of globalization is still an era of uneven, imbalanced development.

  Q: Could there be any universal values which can serve as a core conception in the era of globalization?

  A: We have to consider this question from two sides, a view from a perfect values system and a view from the lowest criterion. There is a vast transition belt between the two ends and it requires a gradual process of evolution, which is in a sense related to human society's cognition on the matter. For example, it is generally believed that human rights development was greatly boosted in western countries during industrialization, but such believers usually neglect their history of slave trade that lasted three centuries. The serious violation of human rights occurred just in a period when western countries witnessed rapid progress of political civilization. On the contrary, in most countries in contemporary Africa, Asia and the Middle East, all places believed to be unenlightened, there were no such mass and grave human rights violations. Actually, I don't think there is necessarily a set of universal values that absolutely corresponds to globalization.

  Ancient Chinese people put forward the notion of "people first" but it failed to develop into a legalized principle or a mechanism. The western idea of smashing theocracy and enshrining civil rights, such as no abuse of prisoners, justice and the protection of women and minorities, has been widely accepted though different countries have different situations in development. But there are disputes over some other issues, such as the death penalty. More than 70 countries have annulled the death penalty, while other countries still keep it. So, we can see the abolition of the death penalty has not been accepted by all the countries in the world. Even among developed countries, there is still controversy over the use of death sentence on antihuman or other extremely serious crimes.

  In a word, it has to be a gradual process for any values to become a universally accepted principle.

  Q: What's your comment on western countries' so-called humanitarian intervention?  How can humanitarian calamities such as the bloodbath in Rwanda be avoided without breaking the existing framework of sovereignty in international society?

  A: I am a supporter of the rights for humanitarian intervention, but there are two points I would like to clarify here.

  Firstly, to a great extent, the use of humanitarian intervention rights is currently decided unilaterally by one or two superpowers. Their military actions in some sovereign states under the name of "humanitarian intervention"have never got international approval, and thus are illegal. The United Nations has the authority to approve such actions, but in fact it is difficult for the UN to challenge the wills of the great powers. Humanitarian intervention should be based on a multilateral framework instead of the strategic interests of a certain power. That is, humanitarian intervention should not be used as a tool by a country to serve its own diplomatic interests. A great power itself cannot define and decide who are slaughterers, who are victims, and who have the rights to intervene. Now the international community is demonstrating a kind of consciousness when people in most countries including the United States and Britain began to criticize that the two powers had no rights to wage the war against Iraq without UN authorization.    

  Secondly, the international community should not stand by when there burst out extended, systematic and massive human rights violations. The conventional notion holds that when orders cannot be maintained in a completely exclusive country, rulers or military forces could be left alone to arbitrarily violate human rights. But such a notion denying any external intervention has already become outdated. The international community should take actions before the impact of such arbitrary violations spread to neighboring regions and lead to humanitarian crisis. Taking the Darfur issue for example, many African countries hope for humanitarian intervention under international authorization. The world cannot bear to see one more calamity like the massacre in Rwanda. Without international intervention, the crisis in Darfur would have become more serious. But I would like to underline again here that the actions should be taken with the authorization of international or regional organizations.

  In addition, such intervention should not aim at splitting a sovereign state. It should help end wars, maintain order and avoid massacre and other humanitarian calamities. So, interventionists should act as a builder and keeper of peace instead of a brewer of new forces.

  Q: What are the relations between human rights development and the "3C" societies?

  A: The "3C"societies refer to civil society, civic society and citizen society.

  Civil society in English refers to the relationship between individuals and the State. Liang Shuming, a famous Chinese scholar, talked about related issues before, and he held that China differs from the western countries in that we have a system of family clan inheritance and worship in between individually and the State. This system encroaches upon or occupies much of individuals?private space. It seems to me that the state acts as administrator and legislator while citizens are passively left with some certain space for social life, in which citizens may enjoy themselves.

  A civic society emphasizes that citizens are not merely holders of certain given rights but pays more attention to disadvantaged and neglected groups. A typical example is the civil rights movement of the Afro-Americans in the United States, which in a broad sense actually aimed to win rights for women, and pursue tolerance between different religions. Movements for homosexuals?rights in some countries nowadays also fall into this category, so do those for disabled people's rights, migrants?rights and sex workers?rights. As compared to civil society, civic society is more humane with greater concerns about vulnerable groups. It emphasizes that citizens are not only beneficiaries of the existing system but also its reformers, and it cares more about the expansion of rights.

  In the era of globalization, a citizen society underscores the transcending of conventional political boundaries. This concept is represented by the rise of various non-governmental organizations with goals of public interest around the world. The concept was initially embodied in the campaigns against the world colonialist system, which involved not only the people in colonial countries but also conscious figures in the suzerain states. The current advocacies for the protection of labor rights and interests and for international humanitarian intervention, and concerns about global climate change, all fall into this category. Such a concept surpasses the conventional restriction of religion, civilization and nationality, encouraging people to be concerned with global affairs as a global citizen. This is a citizen society in its true sense.

  There is no strict boundary for the "3C"societies but it is a process of evolution, in which the "3C"societies could coexist simultaneously to various degrees. In general it is a historical course from passively benefiting to active participation, from safeguarding individuals?rights to concern about other people's rights and interests, and from "self reliance"to the construction of "mankind commonwealth"that transcends national boundaries and cultural differences.

 Q: What do you think of the civil social movement represented by "alter-globalization" ?

  A: The Chinese version for "alter-globalization"is not so accurate as it implies it's a movement opposing globalization. In fact the original meaning of alter is not "to oppose"but "to replace."So in my translation of the book I chose to use the expression of "another type of globalization."In my view, the alter-globalization movement is more like a warning and correction to the current trend of world development, rather than merely to reject changes or return to the old order. Advocates for alter-globalization do not mean to hold that globalization itself is a bad phenomenon but would point out that globalization has been excessively dominated by big bankers, capitalists and multinationals, and widened the disparities between countries, regions and social stratums, with vulnerable groups?rights and interests marginalized or sacrificed. Therefore the current globalization needs some improvement and adjustment.

  Of course, alter-globalization is only a part of global civil movements.

  Q: In what a direction should global governance develop? And how should China participate in the process?

  A: Most people believe great powers should no longer have the final say in global governance. It should make way for a multilateral framework. Great powers would no longer be able to take turns to monopolize global governance while the conventional state political power is shrinking, political boundaries become blurry and a global common will is taking shape. China should also become a participant in the multilateral framework instead of shaping itself into a sole great power in global governance. It's no more advisable, I think, to label an era by a region or country for its dominance in global affairs, as some people would like to call the 21st century an era of the Pacific region, or as in the case of the era of the Mediterranean. That's an outdated concept for global order.

  Q: What role do you think non-governmental organizations should play in global governance?

  A: NGOs mainly play the role of advocates for concepts. They cannot be entities in parallel with the State. But there is much work for NGOs to do in disseminating, advocating and promoting concepts, and there is also much room for them to develop.

  Q: China has proposed to build a harmonious world. Does the notion have anything to do with human rights? How can China shoulder its responsibilities when it participates in the globalization of human development? Can it serve as a mediator between western and developing countries?

  A: With a better understanding of the outside world, we now tend to use a gradual, non-violent and participant method to create a better international environment. It is under such a context that China has proposed the idea of harmonious world. The notion believes both southern and northern countries have some disharmonious factors, such as human rights violations, which should be condemned. But the concept calls for cooperation, negotiation and dialogue, instead of conquest, subversion and revolution, to address the problems. The proposal represents a revolutionary change in China's domestic and foreign policies. Of course, I think, the meaning of the concept needs enriching. 

  China has begun to shoulder more responsibilities in international affairs, but there is still a great gap compared with the expectation from the international community. As a communist country outside the western club, China is still far away from the decision-making core on some international agendas, though it has got the rights to say and has begun to be listened to.

  Many developing countries hope to learn from China's development mode and lay great expectations on China's participation in the globalization. And we are shaping an image of a responsible power who acts according to its abilities. But we ourselves are often embarrassed because of lack of experience.

  Realistically speaking, as a nation free of the historical burden of colonialism and a non-western power with some rights to say in the current international system, China can currently serve as a mediator among developing nations rather than that between developed and developing countries.

As a builder and participant of international order, China itself has a lot of things to do. For much of the time, China only acts as a follower, instead of an organizer or initiator, of international conventions and campaigns, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the anti-landmine campaign. In addition, China's enterprises, non-governmental organizations and individuals should also be encouraged to play their due role in participating in the process of globalization. 

  In a word, China is still a student and only a successful accommodator but not a herald or leader in the process of globalization. 

  Q: What do you think are the main achievements and shortcomings in China's human rights undertakings?

  A:From a historical perspective, as compared with the long-standing feudal dynasties and the eras when China suffered foreign aggressions and civil wars, we indeed have made marginal progress in accelerating economic development, maintaining social stability and improving the people's living standard since the founding of New China in 1949. The recent 30 years after China began the reform and opening-up are really the best stage of development in China's history. Our achievements are undeniable. Horizontally, as compared with other countries, we have not pursued our self-development by plundering colonies like the capitalists countries in the past. It has not been easy for us to make such accomplishments.

  Q: Then what special experience could China offer to the world in human rights development?

  A: Many developing countries would like to learn from China's experience in poverty reduction, women rights protection, basic subsistence guarantee, maintaining harmony between ethnic groups, and education for all. When I studied and worked overseas, I met many people from Asian, African and Latin American countries who said they appreciated China's achievements in seeking social justice and development of people's living standard.