The Loudenia Crier

Professor of Communication John Lyne contributes this thoughtful and provocative testimony on the pending China human rights bill (read to the end to discover some intriguing history about Loudenia you may not have known before):

First, my congratulations to Ms. Datii on her recent election. I wish her well as she brings “change we can believe in” to Loudenia. I am pleased to see your parliament taking its rightful place in the discussion of global issues.

Regarding the bill concerning trade with China, I would say that while I respect the good intentions behind it, I do not believe that it would prove productive. China has strongly resented attempts by other countries to influence its internal affairs. The U.S. has had little impact, and I would predict the same for Loudenia. I do believe that increased international trade has a long-term beneficial impact on China’s society, and so I would propose that China be given favorable trade status without tying it to the contingencies mentioned in the bill.

There is no doubt that the Chinese government exercises a range of powers over its citizens with which those of us in the western democratic societies would be uncomfortable, but my impression is that China has “turned the corner” and is unlikely to return to the large scale brutality that characterized its past. My experience in teaching young people in China last year and my conversations with them led me to believe that they look to the West for inspiration—freshmen college students were able to quote Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King, for instance. Those of my own generation very much do not want to revert to terrible times, such as the period of the “Cultural Revolution.” The lives of China’s citizens have been enormously improved in a very short time in recent decades, and we should encourage these trends.

As we know, different nations have different views on the exact nature of human rights. Moreover, these views evolve over time. For instance, the United States has been at the forefront in fostering the idea of human rights for all people everywhere (and here I would note the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations, made possible by enlightened American leadership and advocacy by figures such as Eleanor Roosevelt). And yet it was only in the last century that voting rights were accorded to women and Blacks in America. Americans should remember this as we call attention to China’s shortcomings. And, of course, the U.S. allows capital punishment. But let me invite you to engage in this imaginative exercise: imagine a circumstance in which another country made trade with the US contingent on the banning of capital punishment. Would we not expect that to backfire?

Loudenia has also been in the vanguard in advocating human rights in recent years. But we must be honest to acknowledge its own checkered history in this respect, including the brutal repression of Disco in the early 1980s and the embarrassing incident under a previous regime in which a golden retriever dog was given jurisdiction over broad areas of social policy.

As we support human rights, we must also understand that our conception of these right evolves over time. It is important for us to continue the public discussion of the concept of human rights, and to help ingrain it deeply in the political rhetoric of our times. The power of words and phrases to shape consciousness should never be underestimated.

In respect to the specific language of the bill, I believe that the sentence concerning the one child policy is insufficiently clear in its meaning.

My best wishes to the Parliament and to the brilliant staff of advisors who assist it.
Professor John Lyne
University of Pittsburgh (writing from Switzerland)