DPRK white paper on human rights violations in the USA

China regularly publishes its own white paper on human rights problems in the United States, in light of the Chinese Marxist approach to human rights rather than the European derived approach, which is so often universalised in a colonialist fashion.

However, the DPRK also publishes annual human rights reports on the USA. Of course, some would dismiss this as either hypocrisy or tit-for-tat, but it seems to me that what the report says is actually quite spot on. I have copied a summary from Rodong Sinmun

White Paper on Human Rights Violations in U.S. in 2017 Issued in DPRK

The DPRK Institute of International Studies on Jan. 30 released the “White Paper on Human Rights Violations in U.S. in 2017”.

According to the white paper, soon after being inaugurated as president, Trump filled the important posts of his administration with billionaires, who had “contributed” to his election campaign, and their mouthpieces.

Secretary of State Tillerson, Secretary of Commerce Ross and also the secretaries of Treasury and Defense are all billionaires from conglomerates. The total assets of public servants at the level of deputy secretary and above of the current administration are worth of 14 billion US$.

The anti-popular policies the Trump administration pursued openly in one year were, without exception, for the interests of a handful of the rich circles.

In the U.S., where genuine freedom of the press and expression does not exist, intervention in and crackdown on the press grew more intensified over the past one year.

In 2017 the cases of searching and confiscation against journalists accounted for 12 and the cases of violation against them for 11. Moreover, 19 persons in the domestic press circles and four foreign journalists were arrested or detained.

Racial discrimination and misanthropy are serious maladies inherent to the social system of the U.S., and they have been aggravated since Trump took office.

The racial violence that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, on August 12 is a typical example of the acme of the current administration’s policy of racism.

In the U.S. the absolute majority of the working masses, deprived of elementary rights to survival, are hovering in the abyss of nightmare.

As a result, during the first week of March, 241 000 persons joined the large contingent of the unemployed; in May 9 000 public servants were fired from governmental agencies; in September the number of the unemployed increased by 33 000 as compared to that of the previous month.

In particular, unemployment of young people has become a matter of serious social concern; currently the unemployment rate of young people under 25 is 7.9%, and 31% of graduates from high schools do not have proper jobs.

According to what the U.S. administration made public, in 2017 the homeless numbered 554 000, about 10% increase as compared to that two years ago, and number of the poor families, living in rented rooms devoid of elementary facilities for living, is on the steady rise.

The soaring school expenses are plunging the students into the hell of loans.

Those who are diagnosed with a disease but cannot afford to pay their medical fees total 50 million. Flu, lung diseases and asthma cause 36 000, 40 000 and 150 000 deaths, respectively, on an annual average.

On the other hand, health-hazardous disqualified products are on sale across the country, which often leads to an outbreak of infectious diseases.

The U.S. is one of the world’s two countries that have yet to embrace paid maternity leave.

Over the past decade the proportion of American women who live below the poverty line has risen from 12.1% to 14.5%, and they usually receive 25% less salary than their male colleagues of the same post.

A woman is sexually abused every 89 seconds.

According to basic statistics, about 61 100 gun-related crimes took place in the U.S. last year, leaving 15 488 dead and 31 058 wounded.

According to data, the number of marijuana users in the U.S. was more than 20 million, a 3% increase as compared with that a decade ago; and over 90 people lose their lives on a daily average from drug abuse.

In the U.S. where crimes and evil are rampant, the number of imprisoned criminals tops 2.3 million and 70 million are ex-offenders.

The U.S., “guardian of democracy” and “human rights champion”, is kicking up the human rights racket but it can never camouflage its true identity as the gross violator of human rights, the white paper said.


More on the Chinese Marxist approach to human rights

A good article on a presentation by Ma Zhaoxu, head of the Chinese Mission at the UN in Geneva. Apart from pressing the point that human rights requires dialogue and cooperation, he also reiterates two crucial features of a Chinese Marxist approach to human rights (see my earlier post): the importance of sovereignty in dealing with human rights, and the often-neglected human right to economic wellbeing and reduction of poverty.

A further word on sovereignty. In the European tradition, this is often understood (as appeared again in a recent workshop I attended) as the full and ultimate power of a sovereign, whether an individual or a government. This is peculiarly truncated understanding, since it leaves out another factor: sovereignty is always constrained by borders. In words, sovereignty is the authority of a governing power to rule its own territory, while not interfering with another state. This sense comes out strongly in the Chinese tradition, but it is also important for formerly colonised countries. In fact, the truncated European version can be seen as a justification for imperialism, since the ultimate power of a ruler has no borders.


More on China’s poverty relief program

These news stories are worth following, concerning China’s ongoing poverty relief program. It is a cornerstone of the preparations for a transition to the ‘moderately prosperous, well-off and peaceful society’ (xiaokang shehui) – in other words, the second stage of socialism. I have mentioned some of these earlier (herehere and here), but the latest appears on Xinhua news, along with a video explanation. More than 700 million lifted out of poverty so far, about 40 million to go by 2021.

More on a socialist approach to human rights

And while we are on the topic, it may be worth pondering the following reflections – from you know who – on the 1936 soviet constitution relating to human rights. Again, we find that the underlying and primary right is to economic wellbeing:

Lastly, there is still one more specific feature of the draft of the new Constitution. Bourgeois constitutions usually confine themselves to stating the formal rights of citizens, without bothering about the conditions for the exercise of these rights, about the opportunity of exercising them, about the means by which they can be exercised. They speak of the equality of citizens, but forget that there cannot be real equality between employer and workman, between landlord and peasant, if the former possess wealth and political weight in society while the latter are deprived of both – if the former are exploiters while the latter are exploited. Or again: they speak of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, but forget that all these liberties may be merely a hollow sound for the working class, if the latter cannot have access to suitable premises for meetings, good printing shops, a sufficient quantity of printing paper, etc.

What distinguishes the draft of the new Constitution is the fact that it does not confine itself to stating the formal rights of citizens, but stresses the guarantee of these rights, the means by which these rights can be exercised. It does not merely proclaim equality of rights for citizens, but ensures it by giving legislative embodiment to the fact that the regime of exploitation has been abolished, to the fact that the citizens have been emancipated from all exploitation. It does not merely proclaim the right to work, but ensures it by giving legislative embodiment to the fact that there are no crises in Soviet society, and that unemployment has been abolished. It does not merely proclaim democratic liberties, but legislatively ensures them by providing definite material resources. It is clear, therefore, that the democratism of the draft of the new Constitution is not the “ordinary” and “universally recognized” democratism in the abstract, but Socialist democratism.

Chinese theory and practice of human rights

I have just completed eight amazing days of filming for the ‘Chinese Marxism’ MOOC that will be ready early in the new year. We travelled by plane, hard-seat train, bus and foot to get to what are still relatively remote places: Shaoshan (Mao’s birthplace), Ruijin (centre of the first soviet) and Yan’an (where the government was based for more than 10 years before 1949). Plenty of good footage to use.

However, one topic in the course concerns human rights. This may be regarded as a ‘sensitive’ topic, especially if one takes the one-sided approach of ‘western’ human rights, which focus almost exclusively on individual political rights and then attempt to universalise those.

But is there a Chinese Marxist approach to human rights, coming out of the Chinese tradition and Chinese Marxism? There is. You may gain an initial idea from the annual human rights report on the United States, produced by the State Council Information Office. The report on 2o15 is here.

On the filming ‘red tour’ I have been writing the episode on Chinese approaches to human rights, so here it is, in draft form:

Are human rights part of Chinese Marxism, let alone Marxism itself? I suggest that they are very much part of this framework, but in rather unexpected ways. The most commonly known account of human rights focuses on political rights, freedom of expression and at times freedom of religion. These are claimed to be universal and largely individual. And they are usually connected with liberal or bourgeois democracies.

What about a Chinese and Marxist approach to human rights? Usually, this approach does not get much airplay. So let me outline the main points for the sake of providing some very useful information.

1. Collective and Individual. One response to the assertion of western human rights is to argue that they are focused on the individual. By contrast, ‘Asian’ human rights focus more on the collective or the social – as we find with the ‘ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights’ from 2012. The Chinese approach is somewhat more nuanced. It recognises that there should be a careful balance between collective and individual dimensions in human rights. This means that specific collective groups also have distinct rights: women, children, minority nationalities, classes and even whole societies. At the same time, individuals also have rights in relation to collective rights.

2. Sovereignty. Related to the previous point is the importance of sovereignty in the giving and exercise of human rights. This is based on the idea that human rights are given by a society and are not inherent in human beings. But if a country is colonised and subjected to another country, such human rights are not possible. Therefore, a sovereign country is crucial for human rights.

3. Universal and particular. One criticism of western human rights is that it asserts universal positions on the basis of the specific history and experiences of Western Europe and North America. In other words, these human rights attempt to push on the rest of the world specific concerns that arose in a particular context. The Chinese approach does not take this path. Instead, it agrees that there are universal human rights, but the emphasis on the most important ones depends on the specific history, culture and situation.

4. Economic rights. Thus, the western tradition of human rights tends to focus on political and civil rights, especially in relation to political expression, the press and religion. It neglects other central human rights. A Chinese approach sees human rights as a combination of economic, political and social rights. Of these the most important in a Chinese context is the right to economic wellbeing.

Let me put this in terms of a common example. In theory, all children are born equal. Or, rather, in an ideal situation, a child should be born equal. However, the womb of a rich, upper-class mother has more nutrients for the embryo, thereby creating a better physical environment for the development of the embryo. This is apart from the advantageous conditions in which the child finds itself upon birth. By contrast, the womb of a poor, working class mother has less nutrients and potentially harmful substances. Thus, the embryo is already disadvantaged before it is born, let alone the poor conditions in which it will find itself after birth.

For these reasons, in a Chinese situation the economic right to wellbeing is primary. This explains the consistent policy of successive Chinese governments in improving the economic level of the population. For example, today the emphasis is on developing the economic conditions of people in central and western China, who have lagged behind the eastern seaboard. It also explains a major plank of each of the five year plans, which set targets for how many tens of millions will be lifted out of poverty.

It is also worth noting that, in light of this emphasis, the Information Office of the China State Council releases an annual report on human rights in the United States. While this may be seen as tit-for-tat, in reply to the US State Department’s comments on China, it is worth noting the emphasis on economic rights. For these reports, the neglect of economic rights in ‘western’ countries is revealed through consistent abuses of such rights. The report for 2016 may be found at the Information Office of the State Council (full text here).

5. But is this Marxist? I suggest that it is. The reason is that a main factor of socialism has always been about improving the economic conditions of the poorest and most vulnerable. A version of socialism sometimes appears, in which everyone is equally poor. This might be called populist socialism. But actual socialism is based on the need to improve people’s lot in life. We find a good expression of this position already from the Jiangxi-Fujian Soviet of the early 1930s. Here a central ethos of the movement was articulated. The primary concern of every communist should be to ensure that people have enough food, adequate shelter and sufficient clothes. They should feel secure (anquan) in life – a fundamental feature of Chinese life. When people find they have such things through the communists, they will flock to join the movement and become revolutionaries.

Thus, the specific Chinese approach to human rights argues that the primary human right in the Chinese situation now is the right to economic wellbeing. This comes out of the intersection between the Chinese tradition and Chinese Marxism.