Global Human Rights Governance: Impact on China’s Foreign Policy

I. From Promising Program of Action to the Outbreak of Hostilities

Thirty years have elapsed since the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action. Lofty goals have been envisaged, but have they also been successfully implemented? The most obvious change which has occurred is the fortunate disappearance of the official apartheid policy in South Africa. However, this has probably less been an achievement of the conference than the result of domestic social pressures. At the time of the Vienna conference, this process has already reached a stage of irreversibility. Thus, the main merits of the conference have been achieved in other domains like raising a general awareness of missed goals in the pursuit of global Human Rights. But the addressing of problems does not yet mean the solution of them. However, defining these problems is a first and important step towards solution.

Yet, at that time nobody foresaw how these deficiencies of global Human Rights massively would increase on a global scale. An intensification manifested itself in the unthinkable fact that Europe in the 21st century again would provide the stage for open armed hostilities. To most people this came as a genuine shock, nobody was really prepared to cope with.

As the Vienna conference covered such a wide scope of activities and goals, here only some selected issues referring to foreign and security policy can be dealt with. Despite the noble goals of the conference to address problems and make proposals on a global scale, reality looks different. One main reason lies in the fact that hegemonial tendencies have not been overcome. On the contrary, they have intensified. Such a development naturally calls for resistance and those who do not voluntarily submit to hegemonial endeavors will soon find themselves labelled as adversaries if not bluntly as enemies.

No matter how incompatible genuine global Human Rights governance with hegemonism will be, there is no constraint on the side of those who practice hegemony. US President Barack Obama found astonishingly clear words when he defended hegemonial ambitions. At a meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, he declared openly in February 2010: “I won't rest until we do what we know has to be done to secure our leadership in the 21st century. I don‘t want to cede our future to China and India and the European countries. I am not willing to settle for second place – not for the United States of America”. His successor, President Donald Trump, went even further and declared: “There are people who wish I wouldn‘t refer to China as enemy. But that‘s exactly what they are” . Some people try to weaken this statement arguing it was meant in terms of a beginning trade war. But what he really had in mind as guideline for conducting foreign policy he explained as follows: “My approach to foreign policy is built on strong foundation: Operate from strength. That means, we have to maintain the strongest military in the world, by far. . . Teddy Roosevelt always believed we should ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’. . . America is the most powerful country in the world and we should not be afraid to say it. ‘Iron Mike’ Tyson, the famous fighter, once explained his philosophy, saying: ‘Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth’. The first thing we need to do is build up our ability to throw that punch”. Unfortunately, meanwhile we have the confirmation that such statements are not isolated derailments, they are system.

In his memoirs Never Give an Inch by the bullish foreign minister of the Trump administration, Mike Pompeo, relevant revelations are made destroying all illusions of a potential erroneous reading. He says: “Prioritizing the right agenda items will be the key to maintaining American primacy in the twenty-first century. I will not give an exhaustive list of every challenge and corresponding action that must be taken . . . But I will say that all other foreign policy challenges must be subordinated to the goal of stopping the CCP (Chinese Communist Party – P.H.). It presents the single greatest external threat to our republic . . . The CCP is not serious about any kind of accommodation. – they want 100 percent of the pie and on their terms. They will not give an inch on any issue we have confronted them on. The promise breaking that occurred over the South China Sea and Hong Kong is for them a feature, not a bug, of the CCP”.

Because the CCP does not fit into the world view of Mr. Pompeo, he intensifies his China bashing with further slandering the CCP: “We have to think anew and unconventionally about the People’s Republic of China . . . the CCP is a Marxist-Leninist party focused on struggle and international domination. . . the Communist government of China today is not the same as the people of China”.

Particular skills will be required to forge such statements into compliance with pledges to uphold the contents of the Human Rights Declaration where emphasis is laid on dialogue and cooperation. To this day, the Biden administration, despite belonging to a different political party, has done nothing to correct the lashing out against China under his predecessor.

II. A Thorny Road

What a difference when it comes to China. President Xi Jinping gave the following assurances in his report to the 20th national congress of the Communist party in October 2022:

“China remains firm in pursuing an independent foreign policy of peace. It has always decided its position and policy on issues based on their own merits, and it has strived to uphold the basic norms governing international relations and safeguard international fairness and justice.

China respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries. It stays true to the principle of equality of all countries big or small, strong or weak, and rich or poor, and it respects the development paths and social systems independently chosen by all the world’s peoples.

China stands firmly against all forms of hegemonism and power politics, the Cold War mentality, interference in other countries’ internal affairs, and double standards.

China adheres to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in pursuing friendship and cooperation with other countries. It is committed to promoting a new type of international relations, deepening and expanding global partnerships based on equality, openness, and cooperation, and broadening the convergence of interests with other countries. China works to enhance coordination and positive interaction with other major countries to build major-country relations featuring peaceful coexistence, overall stability, and balanced development. Acting on the principles of amity, sincerity, mutual benefit, and inclusiveness and the policy of forging friendships and partnerships with its neighbors, China strives to enhance friendly ties, mutual trust, and converging interests with its neighboring countries. Guided by the principles of sincerity, real results, affinity, and good faith and with a commitment to the greater good and shared interests, China endeavors to strengthen solidarity and cooperation with other developing countries and safeguard the common interests of the developing world”.

The compatibility of this statement with principles of global Human Rights governance, as natural as it looks, has not come by itself. It must be remembered that China was not invited to participate when the declaration of Human Rights was promulgated at the United Nations. This happened on 10 December 1948, when China was still fighting a civil war. In view of the victory of communist forces, Western powers used the momentum to isolate and marginalize China. Tensions of the cold war were already clearly tangible. Western powers used the declaration as a political tool. Thus, it was the representative of the collapsing Guomindang government, the philosopher, diplomat, and actor Zhang Pengchun who signed the declaration on behalf of China. 48 countries approved the declaration, zero disapproved, and 8 countries abstained. The latter were the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic, the Belarus SSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa.

The text of the declaration reflects ideas which gained prominence in the American revolution of 1776 and the French revolution of 1789. This is even more astonishing as China probably belongs to the first countries in the world where philosophers have dealt with issues concerning good governance. In his collected speeches, Lun Yü, the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius, 551 – 479 B.C., is asked by one of his close followers, what is the essence of good governance. He replied: Provision, defense, and trust by the people. The follower asked, what can be neglected in the first place. The master replied: Defense. The follower tenaciously continued asking, what else can be ignored. Confucius answered: Provision. But then he added that good governance never can renounce on the trust of the people. Then when this trust is lacking, the country will collapse. In the West it is often overlooked that this basic truth nowadays still fully applies to the ruling Communist party. Accordingly, President Xi Jinping has also mentioned in his report to the 20th party congress: “Confidence of the people is our most important policy”.

Another important feature of Confucius fully in line with the Human Rights on good governance is his demand, when it comes to education, there must be no difference among social classes. In a strictly feudal society such a demand had revolutionary character, because it meant that gifted people from all social strata should be offered opportunities to develop their talents to the benefit of contributing and maintaining good governance.

Among his successors it was particularly the philosopher Mencius, 371 -289 B.C. who anticipated important elements of good governance. He is famous for his priority setting, putting the people first, followed by the altars for the deities of earth and harvest, and last by the ruler.

This provides ample evidence that China from earliest times has developed thoughts which have contributed substantially to the basics of universal Human Rights. It corrects the widely held view that the Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the United Nations is the result of being built exclusively on Western sources of thinking.

It was therefore under tough conditions that the People’s Republic of China, initially shunned by the United Nations, had to find a way of its own for implementing a suitable foreign policy. The successful completion of the revolution in China has caused uncertainties and even fears, particularly among its much smaller and weaker immediate neighbors. One case has been impressively recorded when Chairman Mao engaged himself in smoothening the doubts of leaders of a neighboring country. Mao Zedong explained: “China is a large country and it has a great number of things to take care of. How could we have the idea of aggression against others when we can barely manage our own affairs? Although we have a big population, we are able to meet the people’s needs for food and clothing by ourselves” . This reflects the important traditional notion that China will respect its borders.

Then minister if foreign affairs, Zhou Enlai, followed this line when he formulated his famous Five Principles on Peaceful Co-existence. Created in negotiations with India in 1953-1954, the five principles are: 

1. Mutual respect of territorial integrity and sovereignty. 

2. Mutual non-aggression. 

3. Mutual non-interference in inner affairs. 

4. Equal treatment and mutual benefit. 

5. Peaceful co-existence.

It would be incomplete not to mention that aberrations have occurred. During the so-called cultural revolution, meanwhile labelled as the “ten chaotic years”, 1966 - 1976, China, despite being in turmoil itself, was entangled in a political-ideological rivalry with the Soviet Union about a leading role in pursuing world revolution. At that time, it could happen that China maintained ordinary diplomatic relations on state to state-level, but at the same time also supported opposing groups fighting the very government with which it had established official government to government relations. When asked about the contradiction in such diplomatic performance, the answer was that there exist state to state relations, but also party to party relations which are different. China would not be China if it had not learned lessons from this behavior. In Chinese diplomacy non-interference in inner affairs of any other country has been taken extremely seriously. Actually, it is a further attribute which underlies China’s commitment to recognize borders.

As we have seen above from President Xi Jinping’s report to the 20th party congress, the five principles of peaceful co-existence are still the valid foundation for conducting the country’s foreign policy.

III. Sino-Russian Neighborhood, a very Special Relation

The outbreak of hostilities in the Ukraine has given momentum to those in the West who claim that liberal democracy is superior to any other form of government. Hence, a claim of incompatibility with all other methods of governing a country. Exactly such behavior is not only showing a lack of respect and intolerance, it clearly violates the realm of global Human Rights referring to good governance. Even more, it splits the world again into two camps, namely those which Implement liberal democracy and those which adhere to other forms of governing. But in fact, the split goes deeper and divides in those who subdue to hegemony and those who resist and pursue a path of their own, no matter how successful the latter may be in bringing prosperity and happiness to their people.

Events in the Ukraine have created a new situation. The Western world did not hesitate to close the ranks in condemning Russia. China as we have seen above, like Russia, has also become a target of US indignation a few years ago. Speculations have risen, both countries might move closer toward each-other. Indeed, recent mutual visits on the highest level and commitments to deep friendship have nourished such allegations. However, when taking a longer view back, the current stage of bilateral relations is the result of sustainably having overcome a painful past. Nikita Khrushchev, secretary general of the communist party of the Soviet Union, recorded in his memoirs: “I remember when I came back from China in 1954, I told my comrades, ‘Conflict with China is inevitable’”. Unfortunately, he was right. The two states equipped with nuclear weapons built up their military arsenals to the brink of war against each-there in 1969. Although the conflict gradually could be defused, mutual mistrust has remained. Witnesses on both sides are still alive. Under these conditions it must be considered a particular success, when the two countries have managed to put differences aside and to forge a sustainable bond of friendship. There are further reasons to come to terms with each-other. After the collapse of the Soviet Union both countries still share a common land border of 4’000 km. This fact alone provides reason enough to seek a conflict-free neighborhood. The last correction of this borderline has been completed successfully only a few years ago. But it didn’t stop there. Russia has been involved in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Belt and Road Initiative. Both are successful endeavors to create prosperity for both sides involved.

The Ukraine shares no direct border with China and is not part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Till 1991 Ukraine shared a common past with the Soviet Union. China established diplomatic relations with the Ukraine in 1992 and promoted the bilateral relationship to the level of a strategic partnership in 2013. In 2016 Ukraine got engaged in the Belt and Road Initiative. On various topics numerous agreements have been concluded. China is the largest trading partner of the Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine has received repeated lavish non-repayable financial assistance from China.

Measured by the premises of the UN Vienna Conference on Human Rights 30 years ago, China and Russia have successfully implemented a high degree of progress by dialogue, cooperation and development.

China’s Global Security Initiative Concept Paper and the 12 Point Proposal Towards a Solution of the Current Problem in Ukraine

Facing the complicated world situation and the backsteps which have occurred due to the events in Ukraine, China has launched a concept paper in 2023. It is based on a vision initiated by President Xi Jinping in 2014 calling for six commitments ensuring common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security, respecting and safeguarding the security of every country. There is particularly point three which enhances the credibility of the proposal because it underlines the basic role of the United Nations in any related process.

It is from this base that China has published its position on the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis in twelve points in a separate document on 24 February 2023. This document provides specific and details proposals for a peaceful solution.

What is really disappointing and even disturbing is that both the US and the EU publicly have rejected the latter document even before they could have had knowledge of its content. They reproach China for an allegedly biased approach, leaning too much in favor towards Russia and for failing to call Russia an aggressor. However, such a wording openly slandering one of the parties involved, would be more than awkward in an attempt for an honest and credible mediation.

IV. Traps and Dangers Ahead

When looking back at the 30 years since the Vienna conference on Human Rights took place, the results unfortunately must be called meager and unsatisfactory. The reasons are manifold, but first and foremost there are still powers which rely on hegemonism to exert control beyond their borders. Instead of eliminating conflicts, new and more dangerous problems have arisen, above all with the outbreak of an open armed conflict in and around Ukraine. Pretending to defend allegedly superior political values Western powers have reshaped the political landscape in Europe. In an unprecedent mobilization, European nations have been dragged into positions for unilaterally supporting Ukraine. Neutral nations have been put under heavy pressure and found themselves undermined either to join NATO like Finland and Sweden or to abandon neutrality like Switzerland.

Fortunately, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact crumbled before a clash occurred for which NATO legitimized its existence. There was never a situation requiring the implementation of article 5 of the NATO charter, considering an outside attack on one member state as an attack on the whole organization and obliging all member states to collective defense. With the end of the cold war NATO actually has fulfilled the status of mission accomplished. But instead of being dissolved it has started to get engaged in so called “Out of area” missions. Since European countries have not been able to establish sufficient means for defending their own without relying on the US, NATO somehow has become the American thumb on the EU and continues to fulfil this function. It is hardly coincidence that most recent candidates for entering EU first in a trial stage have to join NATO before being rewarded with EU membership. This applies particularly to some countries on the Balkans.

As a consequence of such unconcealed power politics even the authority of the United Nations itself has come under attack. This is the more deplorable as the UN is the only organization which could hamper undue advances of hegemonic powers.

It is must therefore be one of the primary targets in the next thirty years to strengthen the influence of the UN. Attempts of the hegemons to become successful in curbing and hampering China and Russia on their permanent seats in the security council must be thwarted from the very beginning.

Again, it is China’s foreign policy which has taken a model role. Initially started outside the UN framework, it has become one of its most reliable pillars. It has pursued a successful foreign policy to the benefit not only for China but also for many other countries by calmly, yet determinedly, and patiently reach its goals. First fruits of such endeavors have become evident when China recently successfully initiated dialogues and contacts between long-standing adversaries like Iran and Saudi-Arabia as well as between India and Pakistan. These are true assets in line with international conferences on global Human Rights governance. At the beginning for this kind of encounters and forthcoming steps in direction towards cooperation and developments stands security. In the words of President Xi Jinping: “Security must be equal. Each country has the same right to get engaged in security affairs of its region and to uphold responsibility for maintaining regional security. No country should attempt to strive for a monopoly in handling regional security affairs”.

（Peter Hediger is a sinologist, historian, international security policy expert）