Stability and Prosperity in China

The Washington Post today reports that the Chinese government has issued a White Paper describing 2003 as, “... a year of great, landmark significance for progress in human rights in the country.” The White Paper is in response to a United States proposal for a resolution from the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemning Chinese disregard for human rights.

The Post writes that the White Paper draws attention to Chinese constitutional amendments “... offering specific guarantees that the state must respect human rights and legally obtained private property.” The Post adds that the White Paper accords great significance to the amendments as “... further confirming the prominent status of human rights protection in China's legal system."

The practical effect of that newly prominent status for human rights was captured today in an article in the New York Times: “At least three family members of people gunned down by the Chinese military during the crackdown on dissent in Beijing on June 4, 1989, have been detained, as the authorities seek to prevent protests connected with the 15th anniversary of the massacre, relatives said Monday.”

The arrests of citizens demanding accountability from their government for murdering students in Tiananmen Square would seem unnecessary in a country that gives prominent status to human rights, but the contradiction between word and deed is explained by the self-serving nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

That the White Paper trumpets protections for private property is not surprising at a time when the CCP has opened membership to capitalists. The CCP does not stand for communism (if it ever did) but rather for lining the pockets of party officials. Minus its long discredited communist mission, the CCP is a jack-boot in search of a willing foot. Drawing the upwardly mobile into their embrace allows party leaders to siphon profits from private enterprise while corrupting and controlling competent businessmen who might otherwise champion representative government.

According to the Post, Chinese leaders, “repeatedly have said conditions in China require slow, careful movement toward human rights standards as understood in the West.” The Post quotes Premier Wen Jiabao as saying, “Economic development and the need for stability for now must enjoy the highest priority.” This is doublespeak for policies that enrich party leaders, encourage corrupt business practices, and disenfranchise common people.

The Washington Post on March 26 reported that China has hinted that it will prevent the people of Hong Kong from electing all of their leadership in 2007 in spite of the Basic Law. Hong Kong may be the world’s most magnificent city. It has both the stability and the economic development that are supposedly Jiabao’s highest priority. Nonetheless, he and the Chinese government oppose free elections in Hong Kong.

Also noted in the Washington Post on March 26, China continues to threaten military action against Taiwan should that nation declare sovereignty. Taiwan, like Hong Kong, has both the stability and the economic development that Jiabao claims to prize. Still, he and the Chinese government maintain that the Taiwanese must be crushed like the students in Tiananmen Square if they declare themselves free.

Hong Kong and Taiwan prove that the Chinese people can combine freedom and prosperity in stable societies without need of the CCP. Their success in doing so is the strongest possible argument that the CCP is a problem, not a solution. Political freedoms and human rights are necessary preconditions for stability and prosperity in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and they are necessary for stability and prosperity in China. That the mainland has jack-boot stability but little and uneven prosperity is the inevitable result of a self-serving government that defines human rights in terms of its own interests.

Remember Tiananmen Square!

Posted by publius at March 30, 2004 10:27 PM