Trade should be put before human rights.
Most western democracies disagree with China when it comes to areas like human rights. Their inclination would be to speak out when prominent artists like Ai Weiwei are arrested. However getting into disputes over others human rights does not help the country making speaking out’s own citizens. Unfortunately it is often not possible to do both side by side, offend another country over human rights and they are less likely to give you the trade deals you want. Especially during tough economic times is it better to put the promotion of trade and therefore the economy before human rights.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
We need to rebuild British economy
In this day and age of modernity whereby we have people having to sell their homes, people living on the breadline and 2.5 million people unemployed [[http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/unemployment.htm]] we need not concern ourselves with the Human rights in China. We need to look after those at home. We can do this by creating a trade alliance with China. We will be able to sell boars and trade technology with them. This will help the British people as well as the Chinese via the economy. These effects will be practical rather than abstract like the concepts contained in Human Rights.
Merely seeking our own financial gain in incredulous in the face of Human Rights. What Cameron is basically doing is accepting China's regime in order for him to gain money. Would we expect anything less from a Conservative Government? They would have the working class eating off the floor if it meant the Middle classes could save some money on tax.
China's policy on Human Rights has nothing to do with us
Every country operates a different system of laws. Every country has the right to do this. The policy that China decides to have has no bearing on British people. Our Government should not spend citizen money advancing the Human Rights of another country; especially if this is at the expense of improving the economy of the country. They should seek to protect their own citizens' interests. Right now we need the trade so we should seek the trade before the moral high ground.
How very ethnocentric to believe that the only duty a Government has is to the citizens contained within it. But the reality is that the Government do owe a duty to other people by virtue of being human. We should all seek justice. We should all seek that no unjust harm is committed against the person. We should do this by taking a stand against the Chinese Government by refusing to trade with them, and cooperating with other countries in order to petition China into change.
We should not impose our views on others
It is very arrogant for any of us to think that we have the right, or even worse the duty to go over to China and tell them what rights people naturally have. How insulting. Let us not forget that our Human Rights are not natural; they are legal. Without such laws, who is to say that we would act in accordance with them? In fact, without them, humans seem to act contrary to them. Therefore, human rights are not naturally given to us but have been romanticized to us and we have accepted.
[[http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=human+rights+and+human+nature&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=87108a730b243d85]] Just because we have undergone this process, why should we force another country into the same subservience?
Surely there is a line to be drawn between what is black, what is white and what is grey. Clearly, arguing about political systems such as democracy or communism, capitalism or Marxism are grey areas and we should not seek to impose these views on the Chinese powers. However, when China executed more people last year than the rest of the world combined [[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/world/asia/31execute.html]], surely we can see the black in this. Surely, the execution of that many people cannot be justified, even when comparing to the rest of the world.
Human rights is just a form of neo-colonialism
Human rights really is just an excuse to get another country to submit to your power. We can see this with the war on Iraq, a war on oil that has now lead to a mini-America being created. How benign. Human rights is a more clever disguise for the overpowering and subordination of another country. Stating that we should go into another country and implement our own system of human rights, or try to impress it on them at least is just another way of expressing a politically malignant desire for power. [[http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=human+rights+and+human+nature&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=87108a730b243d85 ]] Instead therefore, we should seek trade.
Human rights is universal and therefore not something one person can gain any power from. The truth is yes with places like Iraq we have used it to get power. Human rights however was nothing but an excuse to take over, they had no interest in the Iraqi people, where as if it had been something we had thought about when Suddam Hussain was first put in power by America then there would have been no excuse to go to war but we probably would have anyway.
China would not change!
Chinese is one of the most vastly spoken languages in the world, superseding English two fold [[http://www.photius.com/rankings/languages2.html]]. The Chinese army is ranked as second in the world by accords to how much money is invested in it. [[http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?p=5581]] With this in mind, plus a strong history steeped in communism, why would China accept the views of the British? It simply is a matter of British arrogance to think that we should just go over to a country, by most means more successful than our own and go and preach our views. Instead, we should seek co-operation through trade. This is all China wants from us and this is all we want from China.
If the Suffragettes had the same notion of pessimism then women would not have the vote. Men were all powerful those days, who would believe that they would actually listen to women? What about Homosexual couple rights? They have only recently via the Civil Partnership Act 2004 [[ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/contents%5D%5D attained the same rights as married couples. Given this, surely we should try to implement some system into China, start making our views heard on important matters such as Human respect and rights in order to hopefully gain some momentum and effect change.
As well we are not asking to change it by war we need to change it by showing that we do not trade with them they are successful only in the event that they can trade with people. As well by making our protest about there human rights offenses it may encourage the society of China to stand up and fight for Human Rights.
Best to make trade friends first
How likely would you be to listen to a stranger telling you how to live your life? How likely would you be to do this if everything you had ever believed, taught to you by your ancestors, went against that advice? Likelihood? Nil. Instead, we should seek trade with China and then in becoming friends they will be more disposed to listen to our views in the future. We should learn from Iraq that bulldozing in is quite clearly no the way forward in trying to make other countries understand human rights. Instead, we should be patient and wait until the relations between the UK and China improve.
Like we did with Nazi germany because it worked so well there
actualization of human right in chine need assistance from others country
if we talk concerning human right, we talk about something that have no limit, e.g border, Sovereign, authority etc. Thats why Humanitarian Intervention can be committed without authorization of country, even somehow invading a country could be committed in the name of humanity, i.e rwanda case.
As civilized human being, we should realized that diminishing of human right in a country is a form of dwindling the level of human being civilization. under united nation declaration of human right we already vow as a united form to protect human being to be violated by other.
in the case of china, hence humanitarian intervention it almost zero chances, the only way to help and preserve human right in china is to make sure, china goverment will changes its behavior. Britain as one of the biggest fellow on china trading have bargaining power to do so, and it will be much better if further supported by other country.
if we are success to change mao rezim to better regime that more open on international trading, that we can do the same thing to change China's behavior concerning human rights.
No human right is 'un-infringeable' in law.
Democratic politics is premised upon calculations of utility, where an individual's right is merely one factor to consider. If anything, the ECHR (and ECtHR jurisprudence) limits such rights by introducing concepts like proportionality, and defining what is a proportionate infringement of a human right. It is easy to think of examples where even the most basic right (the right to life) can be infringed proportionately, and so legally.
In trying to promote the respect of human rights around the world, rights-activists have to confront the political reality that 'the public interest' is the most important factor in the balancing act. This isn't some dusty Benthamist idea, it is very current and very real. The most one can hope for is that each infringement is proportionate and justifiable, that such decisions can be appealed, and that we foster a society in which human rights are an important factor to consider in the calculation.
Ultimately if the benefit outweighs the harm from infringing human rights, the infringement is proportionate.
What do you think?