December 20, 2010

WHAT DID THE CHICOMS THINK GLOBALIZATION WAS?:

Human rights are absolute (Rene Loth, December 18, 2010, Boston Globe)

CHINA’S BITTER protest of the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo last week is broader than simple pique over the prize going to pro-democracy activist Liu Xiaobo, currently languishing in a Chinese prison. In its fury, China challenged the very notion of universal human rights, saying they are merely “Western values’’ imposed in a kind of moral imperialism on the rest of the world. China even launched a rival Confucius Peace Prize to highlight Asian ideals and ethics.

No knock on Confucius — whom the Communist regime did not always revere — and the more recognition for world peace, the better. But the assertion that fundamental human rights are somehow just a matter of Western cultural whimsy, like wearing shoes indoors or using the Roman alphabet, can be used to rationalize all kinds heinous practices under the banner of “tradition.’’ [...]

“Either rights are indivisible and universal or they are not,’’ said Charlie Clements, director of the Carr Center on Human Rights policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “And if they are not, then you can have anyone denying citizens their rights.’’

Of course, the notion that enforcing human rights constitutes an attack on a nation’s deeply held traditions is not limited to China.


They import our values--whether they want them or not--and we import the trinkets they assemble at our direction until someone else offers to do it cheaper.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 20, 2010 6:09 AM
blog comments powered by Disqus
« COULDN'T THEY AT LEAST PUT THE EXPIRING MILK BY THE FRONT DOOR? | Main | IT'S EASY ENOUGH TO CUT FATALITIES EVEN FURTHER...: »