Understanding the US Human Rights View and Human Rights Practice
Originally published in Red Flag Manuscripts on 7 August 2013.
The US are the epitome of modern human rights thought, and are fond of promoting so-called human rights values internationally. US scholars say, not without arrogance, that no one in the present world can openly challenge human rights value views. This world seems to march towards the chaos of anarchism, and this has multiple and countless links with the US human rights view. This article aims to start from the angles of theory and practice, to deeply analyse and understand the US human rights view.
I, Looking back at US human rights practice
The human rights value view is an ideological form that has attracted people’s attention recently, and is the theory concerning the rights of people that the US is peddling with all its might to the international society at present. To a certain degree, the US have led the development process of the human rights value view, and it is believed to be a country having a self-conscious human rights awareness and human rights practice. But grave phenomena that limit and suppress human rights exist in the US as well, the human rights practice in the US is negative and not consistent with what is said.
(1) Absolute human rights do not exist in US social practice. The US asserts that the value forms of human rights mean that people’s rights to life, freedom and property are absolute and sacred, but this sort of human rights has never really existed in US society. The establishment of the sacred position of US constitutionalism and constitutional supremacy has ensured that any rights established in the Constitution are limited within legal parameters, and submission to law indicates that human rights have become relative rights. US human rights practice is also commonly subject to many kinds of restrictions. The US Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution and the power of judicial review, its judgments are law, the Supreme Court domestically further concretely ruled that human rights are limited rights, on the basis of political needs. UA human rights are also directly restrained by national politics. In social practice, the rights of “speech, assembly, association and demonstration” are commonly limited. With regard to free speech, US law expressly provides that 14 kinds of speech may not be published. The freedom to demonstrate is subject to many limitations, when organizing a demonstration, an application must be forward that must be approved. The “Occupy Wall Street Movement” is a movement of the US middle class who exercise their freedoms and rights to express their wishes, but the US authorities not only do not protect such human rights, but adopt all sorts of methods to surround, suppress and disintegrate is. From where we are standing, it can only be a satire of US human rights protection.
(2) US human rights serve capitalist politics. US human rights have a clear political nature and practical nature, they are not the universal “human” rights that do not differentiate between identity and religion that they proclaim to be, but serve the rule and politics of capital. Ideological beliefs that conform to the ruling ideology are not limited, those that do not conform must be stifled and suppressed. In the Twenties of the previous government, the US government suppressed and persecuted domestic Communist Party organizations and leftist persons, and in violation of judicial procedure, arrested more than 6000 Communist Party members and progressive persons in one night. After WWII, a new anti-Communist and anti-democratic tide surged domestically, which brazenly trampled the fundamental freedoms and rights clearly determined in the Constitution. During the era of McCarthyism, progressive persons were persecuted and purged, and liberals were implicated as well. Only in 1951, 624 organizations and 204 periodicals were declared illegal. The US pushed out the “Loyalty Oath Act”, the “Subversive Activities Control Act” and other such bills limiting freedom, all public service in the federal government we obliged to swear loyalty to the government. “Freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” became hypocrisies and dupes, and the US have, with regards to the problems of the domination of capital, never minded destroying freedoms and human rights.
(3) US human rights exclude fundamental economic and social rights from beginning to end. The “Declaration of Independence” announces “life and equality”, claiming that people are endowed with sacred equal rights, but the US have, in fact, persistently refused to recognize that human rights should include economic and social rights. The US only have legally defined political freedoms and civil rights that fall into the category of human rights safeguards, rights in the economic, social and other such areas are not safeguarded by law, there basically are no equal rights to speak of. Inequality in economic and social positions is believed to be perfectly justified in the US, and to conform to natural law. An analysis of the pragmatism of equal rights, leads to huge injustices with regards to economic and social rights in the US. under the presence of equal opportunity, wealth has been accumulated by an extremely small number of people, and the gap between rich and poor is astonishing, some people struggle on the fringes of existence, which in the US does not count as violating equal human rights. A hugely wealthy country, it still has more than 40 million poor inhabitants, and has millions of vagrants, their lives are extremely deprived, and they cannot get the “freedoms and rights” to express their wishes. In the US media, no writing on the living situation of the poor can be seen, on the issue of the poor masses, society has collectively lost its voice. Refusing to recognize and safeguard economic and social equality rights has caused that US human rights do not have universal value meanings.
(4) The problem against discrimination of “people” is very grave inside the US. The US revolutionary slogan was “fighting for human rights”, but in fact, they wantonly trample on human rights. Racial discrimination, the loss of rights of women, the massacring of Indians and other such problems are the most immoral and unjust repulsive records in US human rights practice. Although the US have given the black certain rights guarantees in the Sixties of the past century, racial discrimination remains current, the US police ignores human rights norms, and repulsive acts of insults, beating up and killing of blacks remain ubiquitous. Major abuses exist in discrimination against women within US human rights practice, for a long time, women were in a position where they did not have “human” rights, they did not have the right to vote, the right to property, the right to hold public office, the right to serve on a jury, etc. Only in 1919, Congress officially recognized women’s’ right to vote in the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. A country that started to claim that it possesses a modern civilization starting with the promulgation of the “Declaration of Independence”, has expropriated the rights of women, who comprise half of the population, for half of its history. The history of US independence is the history of massacring Indians and pillaging their land, after independence, Indians did not have citizen status, they did not have fundamental civil rights and constitutional guarantees, and were even stripped off their rights to human existence, for a long time, they were massacred and driven out on a large scale. The homes and large amounts of land of the Indians were seized, and until the beginning of the 19th Century, because the federal government sent the military on raids and punitive expeditions against Indians more than 200 times, the Indians struggled against bloody suppression. According to estimates, the Indian population of the US once numbered about 30 million, but now, only about 7 million are left, the record of expelling and massacring Indians has become a humiliating mark in US human rights practice.
(5) The US use human rights to conduct civilizational invasion. The US human rights practice is better reflected in its conduct of “human rights” invasion of other countries. The US have made human rights into a strategic tool, for the sake of obtaining their national interest in politics, economics or security, they have committed to forcibly pushing human rights value views globally. The US use human rights problems to attack and violate Socialist countries and the broad developing countries, inciting distrust by the societies and citizens of various countries against governments, producing contradictions and chaos, and they force these countries to accept Western political systems and value concepts. The US frequently sanction other countries on the basis of “human rights”, and even carries out military interventions. After the Cold War ended, US foreign military interventions have taken place more than 40 times, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, “human rights catastrophes” have occurred in many places. The essence of the US human rights strategy is to stand on the moral commanding heights, legitimating the invasions of developing countries and realizing the strategic objective of US power and control
II, A theoretical analysis of the US human rights view.
The human rights theory of the US does not have social or economic roots or a historical basis that touches on human rights, and it also does not pay attention to the socio-historical and socio-material conditions to realize human rights, it infinitely expands the rationale of the limited ethical model of human rights, it believes that US human rights transcend time and space, transcend national boundaries, and transcend all norms for action, and that it should become a common principle for all of humankind. This is clearly mistaken.
(1) The US’ promotion of human rights stems from political need. Human rights and natural rights are only the creations of modern capital, in fact, they are suited to the needs of capitalist economic development. During the period of the US war of independence, the promotion of human rights was necessary to overthrow English colonial rule, but the ruling class after independence paid even more attention to a long period of peace and order in the country and protecting the rights of private property, believing that human rights lead to chaos and impede the establishment of capitalist order, they stressed that “we should ensure that the minority class enjoys a permanent special position in politics”, the core content of human rights and “the first objective” changed into protecting the private property system. Under allocation according to the principles of private property rights, individuals and their pursuit of property becomes an internal driver that maintains US social operation. The US “Founding Father” Madison discussed the problem of guaranteeing private property rights in his articles in the “Federalist Papers”, he believed that private property conforms to nature because of freedoms and rights, the inequality of private property is unavoidable, and protecting the inequality of private property is the objective of government. The Constitution and the “Bill of Rights” provide that private property rights and their guarantees are sacred principles, at that time, human rights theory emphasised proving the rationale of economic inequality, stressing that the huge economic chasm between the wealthy and the poor does not constitute a violation of human rights. The independence leader Adams stressed that “The common instinct of humanity has become a universally prevalent principle. I hope that this principle may lead to correct concepts of equal rights and equal duties. This principle can never engender an equal position and equal property and other such things, equal laws are all that can be drawn from the principle of human equality”. “Born equal” changed into equality before the law only, resulting in the wealthy, by considering the influence they exert on the protection of human rights in terms of political interests, completely controlled the basic movement and development orientation of human rights. US social practice contradicted the principles of the “Declaration of Independence” for a long time. In the century after independence, the US only had large amounts of legal rulings on economic infringements, and there were no rulings on violations of freedoms and rights, incidents of violations of civil liberties and rights flooded society, it often occurred that demonstrations, marches and strikes were suppressed by military force, nowadays, even US citizens recognized that US society before the Twenties of last century was a society that made people feel ashamed. This proved that human rights are a tool for capital to pursue its own interest, protect private property and consolidate the political and economic system, the ups and downs of human rights depend on the political needs of the ruling class.
(2) Human rights theory lacks serious value proofs. The US human rights ideology system dos not have serious systematic theory, human rights value concepts are only an extension of a sort of conceptual tradition and political tradition, which is mainly expressed in the following aspects:
First, US human rights theory lacks a serious theoretical structure. US human rights ideology is full of contradictions, and does not have one generally recognized doctrine, it does not have common content, it does not have serious value proofs, and does also not have scientific definitions conform to academic thinking. There never has been anyone in US history, or any document, who has put down accurate conceptualized definitions for the human rights that the US advocates. Up to now, the natural law and natural rights definitions that are used as the support and framework for human rights theory remain numerous and complicated, individual schools of thought are opposed on main theories and foundations, there are mutually denying places in major viewpoints and structures. Even though there are some theories that are believed to be plausibly defensible, in these, the grave problem that theory is contradictory to history and practice exists as well. US human rights doe not have truthful objective standards, only the political arbitrary act those human rights are universally true. This also illustrates that human rights theory emerges because of demand, and that seeking bases for a necessary conclusion can only lead to theories for higher, which will inevitably contain major mistakes. This has caused a lack of clarity in the fundamental debate on human rights value views, and it is only so that whoever grasps discourse power, is in the position of power, and can prove that that his is the truth and a concrete value. The US is a country of immigrants, it does not have its own history and cultural traditions, and any sacred ideology is a utilitarian plaything.
Second, cognitive US human rights structures are inverted. The understanding of the world in US human rights theory persistently inverts concepts from head to feet, human rights exist as a conceptual ideology, there is no consideration for objective conditions in the real world, no consideration for time and space, and a rejection of the existence of the real world, which led to the serious consequence of divorce from reality. Biased cognition may not be too big of a risk when dealing with some singular matters, but it may also bring psychological effects generated by ignorance and dauntlessness. But when facing complex issues restrained by many factors, in the absolute majority of circumstances, grave mistakes may be made, and final results that are contrary to expectations may emerge. The US human rights view has generated major mistakes, which should be said to be closely connected with an inverted epistemology.
Third, US human rights theory often develops arguments from the angle of morals. Many people understand the legitimacy of human rights from the angle of morality, in reality, the US is able to generate “feelings of similarity” in people’s minds when it uses human rights, and infers that this is a basis for human rights. But if moral aspirations are changed into forced human rights that must be implemented, this ensures that people’s rights theories contain Utopia fantasy qualities. The US relies on the influence of morality in people’s lives to support the legitimacy of human rights, this sort of tactical technique of changing the subject in the process of the argument, although it has clear effects in seducing people into identifying with the legitimacy of human rights value views, but it also illustrates that they walk into a predicament when they prove the truth of human rights themselves, and are bogged down into the difficulty of finding powerful ideological and theoretical proof.
(3) Human rights practice has not gained forward value proof. In any normal political design, it is necessary to achieve that social fissures are closed, and realize the uniformity and effectiveness of social management. The necessity that state management simultaneously deals with the rights and interests of different groups that contradict and clash, simultaneously deals with the needs of the people at present and in the future, and simultaneously deals with the country’s economic, cultural and political security, this can never be completely synchronized or uniform with individual demands. Different rights and responsibilities exist for people and governments. Guaranteeing the regular operation of a society cannot lead to an absolutization and limitless exaggeration of human rights, to maintain a society’s fundamental order, the necessary force is legitimized, the US Congress has also passed specific legislation requiring the US government to persist in implementing coercive rights for social management. The US incessantly overstates human rights, which has made it become a religion-like ideology, arouses and expands the desire for interests of individuals, and immoderately demand excessive interests from society, arousing social antagonism, this undoubtedly established a structure in politics in which management and society are artificially divided and opposed. In the US and other Western democratic structure countries, the popular will is sharply opposed, major policy decisions cannot be made, this has made US thinkers extremely anxious. Human rights resistance leads to capital losing its vitality, and the country marching towards a reality of fragmentation, which is also something that was not part of the original expectation of US human rights advocates.
Absolute human rights concepts have moulded distorted individual human dignities and created a new type of group that considers individual freedoms and rights to be supreme. Liberty and human right studies do not have a noble guiding content for human spirits, in fact, they affirm that all people’s instincts and desires are legitimate, affirm the legitimacy of the self-interest being higher than the social or public interests, it objectively induces individuals to exaggerate the false consciousness of individual rights, and induces individuals to expand their greediness and dark animal instincts. The rights value view where the individual is supreme has caused people to live unbalanced lives life in a compensatory situation. In the past, the bourgeoisie opposed the feudalist dictatorship, because they hated that this did not stress justice, did as it pleased and infinitely satisfied its own greed. Now, because of the seduction of absolute human rights, human actions and behaviour are the same as those of autocratic emperors, absolute human rights views encourage individuals to become ugly “individual dictators”. Not facing the multiple nature of humanity squarely, they insist on taking a part of human nature to represent the whole in a biased manner, insist on only reflecting instinctive desires, and raised them up to the level of sacred rights, apart from the side effects of encouraging individual strife that may emerge, in terms of social existence and development, in fact, this has a negative and regressive effect.
III, An analysis of the causes and drivers for the US’ raising the banner of human rights
Since the Forties of the previous century, the US has again vigorously propagated freedom and human rights value views, and implemented a number of human rights guarantees through legal norms. The US masses are, under the precondition that the property system is not touched upon, endowed with an environment of relatively broad freedoms and relatively high welfare benefits, and have the right to some legal protections. US human rights thinkers have played up these human rights activities as firm ideals and maintain them as sacred beliefs. When analysing it on the basis of seeking truth from facts, the reasons for this are:
First, the facilitation of abundant social material wealth. When social and economic development reaches a certain stage, and after social material wealth becomes plentiful, capital and the social ruling class will all display a certain tolerance, and are compelled to comply with the tendencies of progress in society and civilization. Wealth becomes a lubricant to mitigate social contradictions, and promoting human rights has profound economic guarantees.
Second, society has gained a redundant level of inclusiveness. When social, economic, culture and civilizational development reaches a relatively high level, a reduction of once-necessary social management and coercion will not strongly influence the regular operation of society, and will not clearly destroy the social basis for the common existence of people. After people have become universally well-to-do, they hope that life will be relatively comfortable and they desire freedom, society will also have the conditions to include such demands, and an increase of reasonable freedom levels in people’s lives becomes a natural process, the US’ strengthening of human rights is to adapt to the demands of social progress.
Third, there is the need to gain the moral authority of human rights. The US has preached and promoted human rights abroad on a large scale, professing that human rights are higher than sovereignty, but domestically, the practice of human rights has been retrained by the will of capital. The US assert that other countries must implement human rights provision, but they do not fulfil their responsibility themselves, their words and deeds are inconsistent, and this has been challenged by various countries in the world. In order to vindicate their firm attitude towards human rights, and gain the moral commanding heights, the US could not but implement some human rights principles domestically, list some human rights provisions in law, and human rights have been somewhat expanded.
Fourth, there is the brute force promotion of the new bourgeoisie. What capitalist countries pay even more attention to is the increase in value of assets and a social order providing guarantees for this, they see freedom, democracy and human rights merely as a form or cover. But in recent years, there has been a new bourgeoisie that has grown ever larger, which has begun to share a part of the ruling power of large capital, and influences the progress of US human rights by brute force. This is bourgeoisie that was newly born only a few decades ago, which includes the managerial class of large enterprises, large financial security managers, social intermediary groups, culture, art and sports starts, etc. The new bourgeoisie does not obtain its interests through safeguarding social order and regular capitalist operations, and consequently, they do not devote themselves to maintaining the social order, what they have an interest in is enjoying individual liberties without any limit after becoming wealthy, they tend towards believing that freedom and human rights are people’s sacred rights, and pursue a sort of anarchist human rights value objective. The new bourgeoisie is parasitic upon capital, and because of that, they do not oppose or stir up the basic system of capital. There are contradictions between capital and this new bourgeoisie, in reality, clashes often occur between the breadth of human rights and limited policy choices, capital pays more regard to order and political effect, the new bourgeoisie stresses broad human rights more. But, both have even more in common, they are in agreement on using liberty, democracy and human rights for foreign subjugation, and are in agreement on using human rights to strive for national strategic interests. This new bourgeoisie is linked up more with the middle class, and therefore, they are powerful drivers for domestic human rights movements.
IV, Deciphering the drivers for the US’ foreign forced promotion of human rights movements
US capital believes that outside social systems challenge the regularity of capital, therefore, they have established a political strategy of opposing and disintegrating Socialism. US has used human rights ideology strategy for political collapse, they are clear about the fact that Socialism reflects the common and unselfish spirit of humanity, but have not shaped mechanisms for the reasonable arrangement of a part of individual pursuits within humanity, because of this, the idea that individual human rights and freedoms are sacred is strengthened, and collectivism and altruistic spirits may be brought to trouble spiritually. To this end, the US has adopted formidable human rights offensives, it started from the literary and cultural level, disseminating the ideology that only individual lives have value and meaning, and individual rights are the most sacred through literary works having infectiousness and the power to rouse, in the end, the human rights strategy changed into the value understanding of the masses a number of Socialist countries, fulfilling those wishes. The masses were indifferent about their country, became estranged from society and the collective, the worship of individual rights triggered social opposition, which was a major factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European Socialist countries.
After the Cold War, the US shifted its strategic objective, the main objective of the human rights offensive became China. The US pays extreme regard to triggering internal contradictions in developing countries through the human rights strategy, and guides society to oppose and clash, realizing the objective of controlling these countries. On using human rights to realize the actual national interests of the US, US political commentators have never minced their words, they have repeatedly argued that the diplomatic promotion of human rights may bring some losses, but that it may gain the broadest security and strategic interests. After the Cold War, the US took aim at China with human rights as their weapon, there was the political consideration of bringing dissident ideologies to collapse, but it was more due to the scheme to use human rights to control China, in order to gain national interests. The US ruling class has had disputes on adopting policies with regard to China, including between the doctrine of containment and sanctions and the doctrine of engagement, the policy of engagement, in the end, has gained the leading position, concrete engagement policies, then, are to bring freedom, democracy and human rights value views in to China. The US does not fail to mention that the objective of engagement policy is to change the value orientation of the Chinese masses, exert pressure on the Chinese political system and even spur the collapse and dissolution of China, in order to realize US strategic interests. The US use engagement and exchange as bait, they use attraction of Chinese overseas students, academic visits, cultural exchange and dissemination to progressively infiltrate into Chinese universities, cultural organs and media, and even government organs. They propagate that individualism is sacred and that supreme rights of liberty are sacred under the name of human rights, they use the reasonable pursuit of people yearning for individualized lives in China’s society of today, they peddle extreme individualist value views to stir up dissension of the people against the values and ideological understandings of the country, the collective and the people. US scholars deeply research Chinese history, seeking for break-through points to stir up dissent, they incessantly scheme to blacken and uglify traditional Chinese culture with the feudal nature and suppression of the individual of Chinese culture as reason, they bring about that the masses, who are seduced into wrongdoing, are ashamed about China’s history, disintegrating the self-respecting spiritual principles and national cohesion of the Chinese nation. Some young students and cultural scholars have been imbued with a value view of the supremacy of individual rights, and have thereby made so-called human rights into standards, they preposterously judge that the ideological structure of the social masses and the people violate universal value views, causing estrangement from the country, the society and the people, and leading to abandonment, dissatisfaction and hatred, the malicious attacks by these people on society have seriously wounded China, the US human rights weapons’ violations by far exceeds the gunboat invasions after 1840. The US has broadly adopted human rights subjugation strategies towards developed countries and underdeveloped countries, regardless of the development stage and environmental conditions, stubbornly exerting pressure and demanding that developing countries implement human rights provisions that even the US itself cannot achieve.
Some people having ideological ideals exist among the US ruling class, their starting point for governance is not only the pursuit of the US national material interest and the government’s sort-term strategic objectives, in terms of motives, they may have fixed eyes upon implementing the ideal of the human rights value view in the entire world. These people, perhaps, do not lack true political character, perhaps they truly believe that disseminating the US human rights value view, where the entire world is concerned, means marching towards the gospel of freedom, wealth and power. But these bodyguards for human rights ideals reflect that they are ignorant or selectively forgetful about the history of human rights in the US, they pay no attention to the ugly side of US human rights practice, they do not analyse the factors why human rights are different to implement in a rational manner, and as they, completely without compunction, insist on forcibly pushing human rights value views on developing countries, their sincerity merits doubt. In fact, these human rights idealists have never cast off US ideology and national interests in the way they imagine. The US human rights foreign policy and strategy has not borne the fruits of the universal saving of the world, human rights movements have not stimulated the civilizations, wealth and power of developing countries, they have only left behind chaos, this has made those human rights idealists extremely anxious. Honest US politicians should not lack knowledge about history and reality, but then, could they not think that as they solemnly propagated human rights value views in the early days of US independence, these were restrained because of the development stage, that after independence, human rights thoughts were shelved, as a thing that the US could not do for a long time, and why must they still forcibly implement this in other countries, regardless of economic conditions and the development phase of those other countries? In the Sixties of the past century, when human rights theory had not reached its zenith, the US ruling class still has a relatively clever understanding, believing that the choice for the value views of freedom, democracy and human rights was closely linked to economic development levels, and that it would be difficult for backward economies to implement US-style value views. But starting with the Carter administration, and the stimulation of ideology, they believed ever more that development levels are not constraints and obstacles for promoting human rights politics, they are committed to bringing US human rights value concepts down on the entire world, seemingly for the sake of establishing one world with one single morality, but in fact, they have brought protracted chaos and crises to the world.
V, Persisting in self-confidently responding to US-style human rights violations
Human rights are not decrees, they are not sacred or absolute value concepts, China is completely permitted to firmly and calmly respond to US-style human rights violations.
First and foremost, we must establish human rights views with our own characteristics. At present, the US has raised high the banner of human rights, which is a vain attempt to weaken and subvert China through human rights. To reject US human rights violations, we should have human rights views with our own characteristics. Since the Opium War, China has seen long-standing poverty and weakness and repeated suffering, national wealth and strength is the Chinese dream and is the consensus formed by the people. As a developing country, guaranteeing the people’s right to life and right to development, and realizing national wealth, strength, security and health are the chief guarantees for human rights. We must establish positive human rights concepts and promote the implementations of the rights ideas of the right to life and the right to development. The essence of China’s human rights system is “popular sovereignty”, it has established individual freedoms and rights, as well as economic, social, cultural and education rights through law. It should be recognized that in traditional Chinese culture and organization, insufficient regard was paid to reasonable individual rights, and it is necessary to change and improve this in a focused manner. But where the US-style human rights view where the individual is supreme is concerned, China can never adopt this, both because of collectivist traditions, and because of a real consideration of limited living space. After clearly distinguishing the danger created by the Western promotion of so-called human rights strategies to developing countries, we should believe even more firmly in our own human rights value view, and pursuing the long-term and fundamental rights and interests of the absolute majority is the essence of Chinese human rights.
Furthermore, we must soberly respond to US-style human rights attacks. China cannot turn a blind eye to US human rights motives, the objective of stirring up trouble in China will never be covered up by the US. US human rights-style violations are coordinated with the form of civilization, we must be on guard and remain vigilant, but must also not completely come to a standstill. When responding to US human rights violations, we must absolutely firmly maintain a spirit of altruism and collectivism. We must persist in the human rights view of taking the people at the centre, propagate Socialist and collectivist spiritual values with vivid methods that stick close to people’s hearts, maintain and strengthen the masses’ spiritual customs of loving the country and loving the people. Second, we must enhance individual liberties on the basis of collective values. Following China’s economic and social development, China is currently obtaining the material conditions to guarantee people’s more confortable lives, at present, the Chinese masses already enjoy broad freedoms, but within the social ideological structure, there still is an insufficient reasonable value content in relation to individual liberties. We should consciously give people a reasonable space for freedom, and confirm and guarantee individual legal rights through legal methods, and satisfy the aspiration of the people who are becoming more well-to-do every day to expand their space for freedom. Third, there is facing China’s corruption problem. Corruption is a cancer of human societies, and is a human expansion of animal instincts and pursuits. But the corruption problem cannot be solved by using freedom and human rights, in fact, on major factor triggering corruption is corrosion by US-style value systems with the individual at the centre. US value concepts have successfully invaded the ideological and spiritual structures of a number of Communist Party members, they have disintegrated the beliefs and convictions of a number of people, and induced corrupt acts. This proves that when a person weakens or abandons lofty ideals, and start believing in value views with individual supremacy, it will inevitably result in the occurrence of tragedies. The Chinese masses bitterly resent the corruption occurring in their own country, but it must also be considered that large numbers of developing “democratic countries” have even graver corruption problems, the important matter is to form a common determination for the sake of the country and the people, rely on the strength of the people, adopt vigorous anti-corruption and pro-honesty campaigns, resolve present problems, and rely on the messes to establish long-term supervision and prevention mechanisms.
Third, we must forcefully fight back against US human rights evolution schemes. We must vigorously respond to US schemes to disintegrate the lines of spiritual defence of our country’s Party members and cadres, and especially the youth, use Communist and Socialist ideals and values to educate the people, educate the cadres and masses and educate the youth, consciously resist the sneak attacks from Western corrupt ideologies, and cannot let them disseminate ideologies propagating the centrality of the individual in the media. We must vigorously respond and effectively restrain the actions of a number of people with ulterior motives to use human rights to disintegrate comprehensive social value ideologies and the basis of social being. We must grasp national cultural dissemination and propaganda channels, and cannot let cultural and artistic forms be used to deconstruct the popular masses’ beliefs in common social values.
(The author’s work unit is the National Bureau of Statistics Beijing Survey Unit)
（二）美国人权是为资本政治服务的。美国人权有着鲜明的政治性和实用性，不是其所宣扬的不分身份、不分信仰的普遍的“人”的权利，而是为资本统治和政治服务的。符合统治意识形态的思想信仰不受限制，不符合的则要受到压制和镇压。上个世纪20年代，美国政府对国内的共产党组织和左派人士予以镇压和迫害，违背司法程序，一夜之间抓捕了约6000多名共产党人和进步人士。二战以后，在国内掀起新的反共反民主浪潮，公然践踏宪法明确规定的基本自由权利。麦卡锡主义时期，开展了一场对全国进步人士的迫害活动，人权和政治自由受到限制。大批人受到监视，共产党组织及其活动被强行干涉，工会活动受到严格控制，进步人士受到迫害和清洗，自由主义者也受到牵连。仅 1951 年就有 624 个团体和 204 种刊物被宣布为非法。美国推出了“忠诚宣誓法”、“颠覆活动管制法”等限制自由的法案，所有联邦政府中的公务人员必须宣誓忠诚于政府。“信仰自由”和“言论自由”成了伪善和欺骗，美国在关系到资本统治问题上，从不在意破坏自由和人权。
（四）美国国内“人”的歧视问题严重。美国革命的口号是“为人权而战”，但却肆意践踏人权。种族歧视、妇女丧失权利和对印第安人的屠杀等问题是美国人权实践最失道义的恶劣记录。美国虽然在上个世纪60年代给予了黑人一定的权利保障，但是种族歧视依然盛行，美国警察不顾人权准则，欺辱、殴打和杀害黑人的恶劣行径比比皆是。美国人权实践存在着妇女歧视的重大弊端，妇女长期处于无“人”权的地位，没有选举权、财产权、担任公职权、陪审权等。直到 1919 年，国会才在宪法第 19 条修正案中正式确认妇女选举权。一个从发表《独立宣言》开始就宣称拥有了现代文明的国度，居然在大半历史中，剥夺占人口一半的妇女的权利。美国的建国史是屠杀印第安人和掠夺其土地的历史，独立后印第安人没有公民资格，也没有基本的公民权利和宪法保障，甚至被剥夺了人的生存权利，长期遭到大规模屠杀和驱逐。印第安人的家园和大片土地被侵占，仅19世纪初，由联邦政府出动军队向印第安人发动的袭击和讨伐即达200多次，印第安人挣扎在血腥的镇压中。据估计，北美的印第安人曾经约有3000多万，而现在仅剩70多万，驱赶和屠杀印第安人的记录，成为美国人权实践中的耻辱记载。
One thought on “Understanding the US Human Rights View and Human Rights Practice”
September 10, 2013 at 1:48 am