<div> </div>
<div>All:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some on this list seem to think that business with China should not be linked to substantive demands (with teeth, in other words, US based corporations who do business in China would be more aggressively regulated by the US government to push for, and/or not cooperate with, human rights violations) to improve China's human rights conduct.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think if we are going to follow this "free market engagement" approach, we should know explicitly and in detail what human rights violations the US is, in effect (not officially, of course), condoning in China. I find it odd in the extreme that we often find high minded moral posturing defending the US invasion of Iraq, based on the human rights violations that were occurring in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, yet many in the US seem to be rather bored with the mention of the large scale and horrific human rights abuses in China. Much less do we often hear anyone insisting that with haste the US should begin rescuing the Chinese people from the totalitarian abuses of the Chinese Communist Party. Why is Saddam Hussein such a reviled and hated person, yet the premier of China, leader of a government connected to horrific human rights abuses that now owns a huge chunk of the US debt, cannot even be named by most US citizens?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Toppling the Chinese Communist government would be a military nightmare, even more insane than our current Iraq debacle to democratize Iraq. But how did the USA approach the "evil empire" of the Communist Soviet Union, to quote Ronald Reagan? By warm and fuzzy "economic engagement?" No, the US fought wars, many of them "proxie" wars, but wars nonetheless, to undermine the military and economic power of the Soviet Union. We weren't handing the Soviet Union the advantages of our economic and technological developments on a silver platter, like we are doing with China. When it comes to totalitarian Communist China, the multinational business sector appears to have the US government, and even our media (why can't US citizens name the premier of China?), dancing to their tune to allow them access to China's "captive" labor markets, downplaying the US and free world security risks and large scale human rights abuses, that China presents. Given the military threat China may pose in the future, I think a good argument could be made that in the long run, China's WMDs, among them nuclear weapons coupled with sophistication missile technology, present more of threat to the stability and security of the "free world," than Iraq's WMDs ever did. Of course, Iraq never had, nor was ever close to, having a nuclear weapon.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The US State Dept. provides a summery of human rights abuses in China in the"Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" that should illuminate some of the moral concerns involved in US corporations doing business in China:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.htm">http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Do you think horror of the Tiananmen slaughter by China's government is a relic of the "old" China, before the improvements in human rights some say have been occurring due in part to US "engagement?" Then why are thousands still imprisoned in China over actions during that democratic movement?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Credible sources estimated that as many as 2,000 persons remained in prison at year's end for their activities during the June 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What about the "gulags" in China, labor camps that echo the tactics of Stalin in the Soviet Union? Those are on the way out, given the progress of US "engagement" in improving China's human rights, correct? No!
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Over 250,000 persons were serving sentences, not subject to judicial review, in "reeducation-through-labor" camps. In April, inmate Zhang Bin was beaten to death in a reeducation-through-labor camp, prompting public debate on reeducation through labor and calls to abolish the system."
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It seems there is "fairly tale" mentality involved in how US citizens view human rights in China. We tend to think there is steady and real progress being made on human rights in China, with the "free market" changes being introduced. After all, the mantra from the US "pro-free trade engagement" model to justify not taking a more substantive forceful approach to improving China's human rights, is that US engagement with free trade will eventually create a climate where China will improve its human rights of its own accord. Really? Then why does the US State Dept. describe what is happening in China on various human rights issues as "backsliding?"
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Although legal reforms continued, there was backsliding on key human rights issues during the year, including arrests of individuals discussing sensitive subjects on the Internet, health activists, labor protesters, defense lawyers, journalists, house church members, and others seeking to take advantage of the space created by reforms. Citizens did not have the right peacefully to change their government, and many who openly expressed dissenting political views were harassed, detained, or imprisoned. Authorities were quick to suppress religious, political, and social groups that they perceived as threatening to government authority or national stability."
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The above report from the US State Dept. was released in 2004, based on 2003 information. In case someone thinks in two years substantive positive changes have been made in China's human rights, keep reading below, again from US State Dept. reports. At least the Chinese government has "officially" removed the requirement that family Bible studies in homes must register with the government.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2006/Mar/10-815538.html">http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2006/Mar/10-815538.html</a></div>
<div>
<h3>China Increases Censorship of Media, Human-Rights Report Says</h3><span class="subhead">State Department report also cites increased detention of political activists</span><br>
<p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>
<p>
<p>Washington -- China has increased its controls over political activists and the media, according to the State Department's latest <i>Country Reports on Human Rights Practices</i>.</p>
<p>"There was a trend towards increased harassment, detention, and imprisonment by government and security authorities of those perceived as threatening to government authority. The government also adopted measures to control more tightly print, broadcast and electronic media, and censored online content. Protests by those seeking to redress grievances increased significantly and were suppressed, at times violently, by security forces" in 2005, according to the report.
</p>
<p>The report presented a long list of human-rights problems in China, including:</p>
<p>• Denial of the right to change the government;</p>
<p>• Physical abuse resulting in deaths in custody;</p>
<p>• Torture and coerced confessions of prisoners;</p>
<p>• Harassment, detention and imprisonment of those perceived as threatening to party and government authority;</p>
<p>• Arbitrary arrest and detention, including nonjudicial administrative detention, re-education-through-labor, psychiatric detention and extended or incommunicado pretrial detention;</p>
<p>• Detention of political prisoners, including those convicted of disclosing state secrets and subversion, those convicted under the now-abolished crime of counterrevolution and those jailed in connection with the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations; and
</p>
<p>• House arrest and other nonjudicially approved surveillance and detention of dissidents.</p>
<p>Even if they manage to avoid imprisonment and related abuses, Chinese citizens suffered significant curtailments of personal freedom and privacy. The government monitors citizens' mail, telephone and electronic communications and uses a coercive birth-limitation policy. In 2005, China increased restrictions on freedom of speech and the press, closed newspapers and journals, banned politically sensitive books, periodicals and films and jammed some broadcast signals, according the report.
</p>
<p>The State Department also found that over the course of the year, governmental restrictions continued on freedom of assembly, including detention and abuse of demonstrators and petitioners; religious freedom, extending to control of religious groups and harassment and detention of unregistered religious groups; and freedom to travel, especially for politically sensitive and underground religious figures.
</p>
<p>Other abuses listed in the report included:</p>
<p>• Forcible repatriation of North Koreans and inadequate protection of many refugees;</p>
<p>• Severe government corruption;</p>
<p>• Increased scrutiny, harassment and restrictions on independent domestic and foreign nongovernmental organization (NGO) operations;</p>
<p>• Trafficking in women and children;</p>
<p>• Societal discrimination against women, minorities and persons with disabilities;</p>
<p>• Cultural and religious repression of minorities in Tibetan areas and Muslim areas of Xinjiang;</p>
<p>• Restriction of labor rights, including freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively and worker health and safety; and</p>
<p>• Forced labor, including prison labor.</p>
<p>On the positive side, the government returned authority to approve death sentences to the Supreme People's Court, supported local experiments to record police interrogation of suspects and limited the administrative detention of minors, the elderly, pregnant women and nursing mothers.
</p>
<p>In March 2005, government officials stated that family Bible studies in private homes need not be registered with the government and said that the law permitted religious education of minors, although problems continued in both areas. The government adopted amendments to the law protecting women's rights and interests, including one outlawing sexual harassment, and ratified International Labor Organization Convention 111 prohibiting discrimination in employment.
</p>
<p>For more information on U.S. policy, see <i><a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/east_asia_pacific/china.html">The United States and China</a></i> and <i><a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/human_rights.html">Human Rights
</a></i>.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61605.htm">China section</a> of the State Department's <i>2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices</i> is available on the State Department Web site.</p>
<p>-----------------</p>
<p>Ted Moffett </p></p></p></p></div>
<div> </div>