Time for China to sign rights covenant

By SHI EHUA, BEIJING, China
March 05, 2008

It has been 10 years since China sent a representative to the United States for the purpose of signing the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998. Yet the National People's Congress has never ratified the document. In other words, the human rights covenant has not yet taken effect in China.

China undertook two major tasks ten years ago: one was joining the World Trade Organization and the other was signing the Civil Rights Covenant. The former was accomplished, and has facilitated China's continuous economic growth. The latter remains on hold, unresolved.

It is said that the NPC's refusal to ratify the covenant is due to reservations over abolishing the death penalty. I don't agree with this speculation, for the Civil Rights Covenant says only that "sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."

What part of this does the NPC disagree with? We cannot expect that death penalties would not be based on China's laws, nor could we assume that the NPC intends to withdraw from the Convention on Genocide, which it ratified in 1983.

Then the NPC's disapproval could only fall on the part that restricts capital punishment to only the most serious crimes. Nevertheless, Article 48 of the Criminal Law, passed by the NPC itself, indicates that the death penalty is only applicable for "extremely serious" crimes. The only difference between the U.N. covenant and Chinese law lies in the crimes to which it applies -- the former restricts it to the "most serious" crimes while the latter allows it only for "extremely serious" crimes.

Explaining the distinction between these two would be a difficult task for even the most excellent linguist. It can be easily recognized in practice, however.

The exact number of Chinese citizens executed by court order remains a state secret. International human rights experts estimate that the number far exceeds that of other countries, including those that have signed the covenant and those that have not. This is to say, China would be ranked Number 1 if there were a world ranking for executions.

Even if we divide the current number by China's population, China would still hold the leading position. Judging by the result, China's leaders appear to have a bigger interest in sending criminals to their deaths than those of other countries.

Some people have attributed this to the Chinese tradition of seeking revenge. This could possibly refer to the tradition of Mao Zedong. Mao is said to have taken pleasure in killing, but he defended this by saying it was at the people's request.

Still, it has been more than 30 years since Mao's death, and the situation has advanced with the times. China has developed and reached a new era in which the leaders advocate a "harmonious society."

Then why would instability result from limiting the type of crimes that merit capital punishment? Who under the sun do the rulers desire to kill? Moreover, who would buy the tall story that restricting the application of the death penalty would change China's political color? Who would believe that a tiny thing like the death sentence could defeat the task of building a harmonious society, the absolute principle in today's China?

When the members of the NPC are asked to vote, is it possible that more than 50 percent of them would be so muddleheaded as to consider the death penalty the foundation of China's stability?

Therefore, we had better admit honestly that the reason the civil rights covenant has never been approved lies in the fear of granting human rights rather than the need to protect the use of the death penalty.

Besides the arguments above, some people defend this disapproval by saying it is related to the system of checks and balances between the NPC and the central government. The check-and-balance system between the congress and the government of a given nation is indeed normal where the separation of powers exists.

However, China does not practice the separation of powers -- this has been true for both the deceased and the current core leadership, and is known by the whole world.

The practice of centralized leadership means that both the central government and the NPC are under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. Therefore, unless one of the two following situations occurred, the behavior of the NPC would not be out of line with the government.

One case would be if the Party Central Committee were to fall into crisis and lose its dominion over the central government and the NPC. The other would be if a double-dealer existed within the Party Central Committee.

This person would have arranged for the government to send someone to the United Nations to sign the covenant so that China could fish for undeserved fame, gain the United Nations' trust and maintain its seat within the U.N. Human Rights Council. On the other hand, the double-dealer would have instructed the NPC not to take the issue of ratifying the Civil Rights Covenant seriously, not to put it on the agenda and not to approve it.

In addition, I would like to kindly suggest a third possibility -- that the NPC, or the Party Central Committee, has simply forgotten to ratify the covenant. In this case, the central leadership would readily accept good advice if a reminder came to their attention.

Civil society has at least twice offered such reminders recently. One was voiced by Dr. Yang Jianli, chairman of the 21st Century China Foundation. The other was raised in a letter signed by more than 10,000 citizens, including lawyers, scholars and patriotic personages, at the time of the New Year in 2008. Continued forgetfulness cannot be justified after receiving such reminders.

In order for everyone to be winners and to have no losers, in 2008 -- when the members of the NPC and the government will be replaced, the Olympic Games will take place in Beijing, and China is moving forward toward a brand new atmosphere -- it is strongly urged that China's leaders take the initiative to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

--

(Shi Ehua is the pen name of a freelance writer based in Beijing. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Shi Ehua.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Human_Rights/2008/03/05/time_for_china_to_sign_rights_covenant/3779/

No legal recourse for poor Chinese workers

By MU CHUANHENG

January 31, 200

QINGDAO, China, Authorities have informed a group of 204 former employees of the Shixian Taibai Group in China's southwestern city of Chongqing that they will have to pay 350,000 yuan (US$48,500) for arbitration in a dispute over unpaid wages, the official Xinhua news agency reported last week.

This leaves the laborers with nowhere to turn; the price is unaffordable. This high price represents protection of labor rights with Chinese characteristics. Procedures for handling industrial disputes have been loudly criticized in society, described as "first, one mediation; second, one arbitration; third, two lawsuits."

The 204 workers were laid off after the Chongqing Light Textile Holding Company took over the Shixian Taibai Group in September last year. Those who were full-time employees were compensated 1,293 yuan (US$179) for each year they had worked for the company, while temporary, contract workers were simply dismissed.

This was not acceptable to the workers, however. The formal employees complained that they had had 7 percent of their salaries deducted each month, as a so-called "management fee," for more than 10 years, whereas the temporary workers had 4 yuan (US$0.60) deducted monthly for the same reason. Moreover, none had received promised overtime payments.

"The enterprises have completely ignored the laws and regulations all these years. As long as there is a need for production, the laborers have to work overtime unconditionally. And during the busy seasons, employees work from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. They are not allowed personal leave, have no days off and no overtime pay," stated the workers' representative. Thus, the 204 workers could not accept their termination and decided to seek legal redress.

Nevertheless, all industrial disputes must go through "arbitration" before a lawsuit will be accepted in court. This regulation lays out a single, compulsory path in labor disputes; it effectively digs a systematic trap for Chinese workers who seek to protect their rights.

The workers had no choice but to request arbitration from the local authority, the Industrial Dispute Committee. So they filed a claim against the company for unpaid overtime wages, unlawful deductions from their salaries, housing allowances and unemployment insurance benefits, totaling more than 30 million yuan (US$416,000).

The committee responded by issuing a fee note to the workers, charging 350,000 yuan (US$ 48,500) for accepting and working on this case.

The actual payment the laborers had been receiving was merely 500 to 600 yuan (US$70 to $84) per month. Now that they had lost their jobs, how could they possibly afford such an expensive fee? Chinese workers are no longer willing to simply accept their fate as a disadvantaged minority. They are increasingly taking action to defend their legal rights.

In this case, the 204 workers tried to apply to have the fee exempted, reduced or delayed, based on certain regulations; the Industrial Dispute Committee flatly refused. The head of the City Labor Bureau excused this by saying that the workers had failed to submit required documents issued by the local labor union in order to have the fee exempted, reduced or postponed. He said the fee would be refunded if it turned out it was in excess of what was required for the case.

"We did go to the labor union to request the required document, but the labor union turned us down since we could not submit proof of low insurance payments. How could we get such proof after losing our jobs?" the workers asked angrily.

In fact, if the labor union wished to act on behalf of the workers, it would have been easy to clarify the situation and issue the document based on the reality. However, the labor union pitilessly stood by with folded arms in front of the powerless workers.

This is to say that official labor unions only recognize official documents, rather than genuinely concerning themselves with workers' rights. This is an indirect way of allowing capitalists to illegally deprive workers of their rights. Further, it fully demonstrates that China's labor unions are bureaucratic organizations that cannot protect workers.

There have been growing numbers of industrial disputes since 1987, when China resumed its practice of arbitration. According to statistics from the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, cases increase by 27.3 percent each year. The number of such disputes in 2006 was 447,000. If cases that were rejected by the system are included, the actual number could be much higher.

One study showed that a Chinese worker from the countryside, seeking less than 1,000 yuan (US$139) in unpaid wages, will need to spend at least 920 yuan (US$128) to complete all the required procedures, which will take 11 to 21 days, a delay that costs the worker 550 to 1,050 yuan (US$77 to 146) in lost pay.

Many workers in China who face unpaid wages and unfair lay-offs are unable to afford the high costs of the legal system, and have no choice but to try the endless "letters and visits" system of appealing to higher authorities for help. Originally, the law is supposed to serve as the strongest safeguard of fairness and justice; under the social system with Chinese characteristics, however, the "letters and visits" system has becomes the usual practice.

Under an effective system, workers would organize their own labor unions, and could sit down at the table to negotiate with capitalists to resolve industrial disputes. But since labor unions in China do not fight for workers' rights, to whom can workers turn for help when their rights are violated?

--

(Mu Chuanheng is a freelance writer and former lawyer. He has published a number of books on trade negotiations and democratic politics. He is included in the book "World Celebrities [China Vol. 2], published in Hong Kong, for his new theory of culture. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org . ©Copyright Mu Chuanheng.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Society_Culture/2008/01/31/no_legal_recourse_for_poor_chinese_workers/3942/

What America Must Do: The China Syndrome

By Yang Jianli

January/February 2008

Showing that U.S. friendship is not for sale will earn the respect of a billion people.

EDEL RODRIGUEZ FOR FP

Related to this article:

· What America Must Do

· Author Interviews:

o Yang Jianli

o Kenneth Rogoff

o Reza Aslan

o Dmitri Trenin

o Jessica T. Mathews

For additional Web extras from the January/February 2008 issue of FP, click here.

Many people think that the United States’ influence has waned and its image has been tarnished. I have yet to arrive at the same conclusion. Since I was released from a Chinese prison in April 2007, having served five years for investigating labor unrest, I have spoken to a great number of people around the world about this very topic. In my mind, the United States remains a great country, and its people a great people. It continues to be the only global force with the authority to promote democratization and safeguard freedom and security.

I do believe, however, that the United States has a consistency problem. It is a country that was founded on the principles of freedom, democracy, and certain inalienable rights of the common people, but the desire to meet short-term interests tends to compromise faithfulness to these principles. That inconsistency weakens American credibility.

Since the violent crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989, U.S. policy toward China has been fickle, even erratic. One day, trade is used as leverage to promote human rights in China, and the next day a thousand reasons are given why that leverage should not be used. Many people wrongly assume that pressuring the Chinese government on human rights triggers ill will toward Americans on the part of ordinary Chinese citizens. In fact, it is the United States’ constant seesawing that reinforces the popular belief that Americans only act for their own material gain. The lofty statements followed by inaction have led the Chinese people to conclude that some American politicians, scholars, and businesspeople are hypocrites. Their self-imposed censorship when dealing with the Chinese government is disappointing. I have never opposed trading with China, but I cannot support a policy that is so wholly inconsistent.

The next American president can take concrete steps to demonstrate that U.S. policy on China cannot be bought and sold. Human rights conditions, no matter how small, should be attached to every issue the United States brings to China. Little by little, the United States must push for change. The administration should systematically and publicly engage Chinese democrats both within and outside China, with the long-term goal of helping to establish a constitutional democracy. And finally, the United States should push China to hold local elections. Beijing is not wholly opposed to the idea, because it may help diminish the local corruption and abuses of power that the central government is eager to curb.

Promoting democracy and freedom around the world will panic dictators and even puzzle those who have been brainwashed by their rulers, but it will not lead to disrespect. Only paying lip service to cherished beliefs or failing to follow up promises with actions will court disdain.

Yang Jianli is president of the U.S.-based Foundation for China in the 21st Century. In April 2007, he was released from prison in China, where he was tortured and held in solitary confinement, after serving five years on political charges.

Why China favors the death penalty

ZI YUE

BEIJING, China, Nov. 22

A panel of the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution last week calling for a moratorium on executions. China voted against the resolution, sticking to its long-held position that this matter is an internal affair to be decided by each country.

A representative of China's U.N. mission pointed out that 52 nations voted against the resolution, proving that there is no international consensus on abolishing capital punishment. The Chinese government thus questioned the effectiveness of this resolution.

However, the Chinese government should be aware that the 52 nations that voted against the resolution represent less than one-third of the 191 member states. It is a fundamental practice that the minority should follow the majority; isn't this principle recognized by the Chinese government under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party?

China often describes itself as a great nation; it is also one of the five members of the U.N. Security Council. With this kind of status and position, China should be able to lead the trend to abolish the death penalty, especially as most of the countries in the world oppose it on the grounds that it is inconsistent with universal principles of human rights.

Why then does the Chinese government favor capital punishment?

It is because the death penalty is the most effective tool by which a highly centralized government can frighten the people. The Party must therefore retain the right to deprive an individual of the right to life through judicial channels.

The Chinese government objected to the U.N. committee addressing this issue, saying this would further politicize the matter. Nevertheless, consider the fact that the CCP has killed more than 1 million people since it took power, including the period of the Cultural Revolution. Among those deaths, which one was not pursued due to political considerations?

Concerning one of China's most furious massacres, in which books were burned and scholars buried alive during the Qin Dynasty, Mao Zedong spoke with contempt of the Qin Emperor for killing fewer people than he himself had killed. Doesn't this show that the political purpose of killing is more important than the penal purpose?

The Communist Party itself arose through a process of high horror and killing. A Russian history scholar once compared the last Czar's regime with the Russian Communist regime after the October Revolution of 1917. The scholar pointed out that the regime of the Romanov Dynasty killed 894 prisoners of state within 80 years from 1826 to 1905. By comparison, he said, hundreds of thousands died for political reasons within the first month after the Bolsheviks took power.

What about the Chinese Communist Party, which killed not only its enemies but also its own people? During the Cultural Revolution, one sentence misspoken or one mistake made could result in a death sentence.

Today, application of the death sentence demonstrates the difference between a person who is inside and one who is outside the Party. The first will be treated with lenience, while the second will face strict judgment. This holds true even in cases where the accused has killed a witness to cover up the crime. A Chinese official said that cases involving capital crimes were handled with caution, under stricter standards than others to ensure a fair trial for the accused. This is impossible however.

Last year there were two prominent cases in which people hired killers to take someone's life. One involved the brother of the minister of railways, while the other concerned a rich man.

The former not only hired an assassin to kill someone, but was involved in corruption and bribery to the tune of more than 10 million yuan. Yet the judge gave him a suspended death sentence. It is expected that this brother of a high official will swagger out of prison.

The latter had committed a similar crime, hiring killers to take a life. This man cooperated with the police and offered to pay millions of yuan to compensate for the crime. However, the man and the hired killers were quickly and rashly sent to their deaths.

These two different judgments stirred much discussion on the Internet -- most of which was quickly removed by Web supervisors. In the end, that minister of railways was appointed as a member of the Party's Central Committee after the 17th Party Congress last month.

A majority of the countries in the world want to abolish the death penalty, for it cannot reduce or put an end to crimes. This is certainly true in China now.

The exact number of prisoners who are put to death each year remains a state secret. Whenever a significant holiday approaches, the government will announce many death sentences. This is to accomplish the goal of frightening potential wrongdoers. Yet social order does not improve.

Moreover, some criminals think they are going to die anyway, so they are very bold in carrying out terrible crimes. Therefore in today's China, marred by social inequality and a huge gap between rich and poor, it becomes harder and harder to maintain a so-called "harmonious society."

Why does the Chinese government favor the death sentence?

It is a means of displaying its own cruelty and unchangeable nature. In ancient times, when the rulers killed the people it revealed their failure to control the people they killed. In that case, killing was not at all a display of their power.

However, in the New China led by the CCP, the rulers kill the people and then make a lot of noise about it. They execute a prisoner and then ask the family to pay for the bullet; they seem to take satisfaction in this.

Nationally known academician He Zuoxiu has said that both living and dying are different for officials than for ordinary people in China. Even if both receive a death sentence, in the case of the official, it can be carried out by injection, keeping the body undamaged. The ordinary person will be shot in the head, and his or her organs cut out to be sold for transplants.

Facing death, equality is beyond reach. Facing life, there is no comparison.

In brief, the Chinese government favors the death penalty because it serves the needs of an autarchic government; it is the final weapon of the one-party dictatorship.

--

(Zi Yue is the pen name of a Beijing-based freelance writer, critic on current affairs and medical doctor. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Zi Yue.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Human_Rights/2007/11/22/commentary_why_china_favors_the_death_penalty/2289/