When US President Barack Obama makes his first visit to China next week, human rights is likely to be one of the major issues in his talks with Chinese leaders. While it will be a great opportunity for him to express his concerns for human rights in China, he should address it with a different strategy and focus than past US leaders. Instead of openly challenging the Chinese government on issues like political freedom and Tibet, which are bound to anger Chinese leaders and are not really helpful for improving human rights conditions in China, Obama should promote the idea of clean air as a human right.
One of the lingering disputes between China and the US concerns differences on the meaning of human rights. While the US and much of the Western world focus on political, religious and civil rights, China and many developing nations emphasize economic, social and cultural rights. Citing the tremendous progress in improved living standards in China, the Chinese government and many Chinese citizens reject Western accusations of China’s dismal human rights record. They ask: isn’t lifting 400 million people out of poverty one of the greatest human rights successes in history? Instead of continuing to argue the meaning and scope of human rights, the US and China should take a new approach and seek common ground for genuine cooperation to improve overall human rights in China.
With a narrow and misguided focus on the GDP growth rate, China’s rapid modernization in the past 30 years has resulted in a nightmarish environment. Air and water are severely polluted in much of the country. Some studies even suggest that the top 10 most polluted cities in the world are all in China. Respiratory diseases have become the No. 1 cause of death in China.
All previous US administrations criticized the Chinese government for its human rights violations, but all of them selectively focused on political and religious freedom in China. Many in China understand the importance of democracy and political freedom, but realize that these lofty goals must be obtained gradually. They feel that the US government turns a blind eye to what China has achieved in the past three decades and fails to appreciate the daunting domestic challenges China faces today. Even critics of the Chinese government may not agree with the US government when it openly confronts China with the human rights issue. What the US has advocated seems so distant and detached from the lives of ordinary Chinese. If Obama continues to talk about human rights only through the lens of political and religious freedom during his visit, he is likely to alienate much of the Chinese public. Instead, he should raise China’s environmental degradation as a human rights issue and offer the US’ strong support for a better environment in China. Clean air is a basic human right that all Chinese care about, but do not have.
Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) announced his government’s commitment to cutting greenhouse gases during the UN Climate Summit in September. Both China and the US hope that the Copenhagen Climate Conference next month will bring about an agreed framework for climate change. As the world’s two biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, the US and China should take the lead in specifying their goals and measures to address climate change.
The Obama-Hu meeting in Beijing will be a litmus test of how serious they are in curbing greenhouse gases. To a large extent, a successful Obama visit to China depends on whether the two countries will agree to cooperate on clean air in China and elsewhere.
Zhiqun Zhu is an associate professor of political science and international relations at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania. He is also the University’s John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur chair in East Asian politics.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS