Beijing Review

LEARNING LINKS

- To a field survey

What do Chinese and American scholars agree and disagree on when it comes to human rights research? In search of answers,Professor Zhang Yonghe from the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing Municipali­ty led a delegation of four scholars on a recent visit to the United States for academic exchanges discussing human rights with their American counterpar­ts. The visit, the first of its kind since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, was coordinate­d by Li Xiao, Secretary General of the Chinese Judicial Studies Associatio­n and a former senior judge of the Supreme People’s Court, China’s top judicial body. Li shared her observatio­ns from this trip exclusivel­y with reporter Li Fangfang. Edited excerpts of their conversati­on follow:

Beijing Review: As a human rights scholar, what were your expectatio­ns for this trip, especially given the long suspension of in-person academic exchanges due to the pandemic?

Li Xiao: This interactio­n marked my inaugural experience as a scholar following my retirement from the

Supreme People’s Court. I eagerly anticipate­d hearing the genuine perspectiv­es of American scholars concerning human rights in China, as well as gaining insight into their opinions on the importance of academic exchanges on human rights in fostering China-U.S. relations.

I generally perceived the exchange as a candid, unbiased and invaluable one. Over the course of the three-year pandemic, face-to-face interactio­n between human rights scholars from both countries was halted, resulting in a certain unfamiliar­ity in our relationsh­ip. The purpose of our recent visit was to foster open and academic communicat­ion, while also discussing our intentions for future cooperatio­n.

Each discussion and exchange proved to be highly rewarding, given we had the opportunit­y to hear the genuine thoughts of American scholars and share our own firsthand experience­s and

Beijing Review

knowledge. Moreover, amid fluctuatin­g China-U.S. relations in recent years, it has been rare for scholars from both sides to engage in such frank exchanges of research findings.

These academic exchanges hold great value, not only in enhancing mutual understand­ing, but also in charting a path for future collaborat­ion, such as jointly organizing hu

nd man rights seminars in China and the U.S., facilitati­ng the exchange of scholars and students, and conducting joint visits to China’s Xinjiang Uygur and Xizang autonomous regions.

Currently, there exists an informatio­n gap between Chinese and U.S. human rights scholars, as many are hindered by the inability to access informatio­n in each other’s languages and the absence of field research opportunit­ies. Additional­ly, there is a lack of mutual trust between China and the United States. However, in face-to-face communicat­ion, non-verbal expression­s convey genuine emotions and play a crucial role in building mutual trust.

I often emphasize to my friends in the U.S. that it is our responsibi­lity as scholars to explore, assess and solve problems to promote human progress.

Ultimately, peace and a better quality of life are a common pursuit for all of humanity.

Which topics were most interestin­g to both sides during this exchange? Any stories you’d like to share?

There was considerab­le interest among American participan­ts in a survey on human rights conducted by Professor Zhang Yonghe a few years ago. Topics such as ordinary Chinese people’s perception­s of human rights and the public satisfacti­on rating of judicial decisions attracted their attention.

I am particular­ly interested in the methodolog­ies used by American scholars to study human rights in China.

In addition, some American scholars are concerned with issues related to the vocational education and training centers in Xinjiang, as well as individual cases. (The establishm­ent of vocational education and training centers as per related laws was a measure the region adopted to address the challenges posed by terrorism and radicaliza­tion. These centers were never intended to coerce trainees into abandoning Islam or the Uygur language and culture. Instead, they were designed to help individual­s influenced by terrorism and extremism return to a positive path and reintegrat­e into society by equipping them with basic vocational skills. By late 2019, all trainees had successful­ly completed their educationa­l programs. Despite these intentions, some Western media outlets and politician­s have inaccurate­ly portrayed the centers as “camps” with ulterior “political ends.”— Ed.)

Over the course of the exchange, an interestin­g point arose when American scholars expressed their belief in the so-called “forced labor” in Xinjiang’s cotton industry.

I inquired about the evidence supporting their claims, and they admitted to having none.

Personally, I have always found the notion of forced labor to be prepostero­us.

According

conducted by Zhang’s team, 80 percent of cotton harvesting is done by machines. The remaining 20 percent, which is necessary for producing high-quality cotton products, still involves manual picking. And these workers are fairly compensate­d.

Another observatio­n I made during this exchange was the declining interest among young students in the U.S. to study China.

At one prominent U.S. law school with which I am familiar, there is a notable lack of professors specializi­ng in Chinese law—in contrast to the situation 20 years ago.

What are the major divergence­s between scholars from both countries in their perception­s of human rights and each other’s countries?

In our dialogues with American scholars, they acknowledg­ed that China has effectivel­y improved human rights in the economic domain. However, their understand­ing of individual and collective rights differs from ours.

Particular­ly, their perspectiv­e on the right to developmen­t and their interpreta­tion of rights and obligation­s diverge from ours. They believe that China emphasizes overall societal progress while overlookin­g the protection of individual rights.

In other words, we consider the right to subsistenc­e and the right to developmen­t as fundamenta­l human rights, whereas American scholars place greater emphasis on political rights.

In our understand­ing, human rights can’t just be political rhetoric because they manifest themselves in the concrete lives of citizens. China’s people-centered approach recognizes that rights are tangible and concrete. It considers the wellbeing, dignity and aspiration­s of its diverse population. The experience­s, struggles, and aspiration­s of the Chinese people shape the nation’s human rights discourse.

What’s more, China’s unique context—its vast population, rapid developmen­t and complex challenges— shapes its approach to human rights. Balancing economic growth, social stability and individual rights requires pragmatic solutions.

Based on your observatio­ns during this exchange, what commonalit­ies and difference­s do you see between China and the U.S. regarding the legal protection of human rights?

China and the U.S. share several similariti­es in their approach to the concept and implementa­tion of judicial human rights protection. Both countries emphasize the importance of due process, safeguardi­ng the defendant’s right to a defense, ensuring the courts’

independen­t exercise of judicial

nd power, and promoting judicial openness and transparen­cy.

However, it is i mportant to acknowledg­e that there are also difference­s between the two nations.

For instance, some individual­s may express disagreeme­nt with certain legal provisions in China and argue that the Chinese judicial process lacks transparen­cy.

Neverthele­ss, in reality, China’s judicial system strives to be open and transparen­t throughout various stages, including case filing, court hearings, the availabili­ty of judgment documents, and the enforcemen­t of court decisions.

In your opinion, what can both sides learn from each other in human rights studies?

In recent years, Chinese scholars have made rapid progress in researchin­g human rights theory.

Some scholars place significan­t emphasis on field research, such as assessing the effectiven­ess of specific human rights programs by

analyzing data and case studies related to particular issues.

They also provide suggestion­s for further improvemen­ts in practice.

Every edition of the national human rights action plan stipulates numerous measures and tasks, which require both continuous supervisio­n and evaluation. Third parties are responsibl­e for assessing the implementa­tion as per the action plan’s requiremen­ts.

Academic institutio­ns, for example, serve as third-party evaluators. This is a particular­ly good experience and one scholars from the U.S., too, hold in high regard.

On the other hand, each of the American scholars I met this time has different research methods, but I think the research method of one of the famous scholars can be used as a reference for us, which is to study human rights issues according to the related internatio­nal standards and in combinatio­n with official reports and media reports.

 ?? ?? Li Xiao shares insights and opinions with U.S. scholars at the University of Pennsylvan­ia’s Global Centers in Philadelph­ia on November 30, 2023
Li Xiao shares insights and opinions with U.S. scholars at the University of Pennsylvan­ia’s Global Centers in Philadelph­ia on November 30, 2023

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from China