In order to vilify China , the “Reports” use a lot of space accusing it of having no freedom of speech, of the press, or of information.

The “Reports” say that China encroaches upon the freedom of speech of citizens because it “does not permit citizens to publish or broadcast criticism of senior leaders or opinions that contradict basic Communist Party doctrine providing for a Socialist state under the party’s leadership,” that China invades freedom of the press by requiring reporters to guard “state secrets”, and that China tampers with freedom of information and communications by requiring Internet users “not to use the Internet to endanger security.”

According to the “Reports” logic, it seems that China can conform to human rights only if it allows its citizens to deny legal state political power and the present political system, to endanger state security, and to reveal state secrets. Otherwise, it will violate human rights. Obviously, this is a distortion of internationally-recognized standards for human rights and freedoms, and is utterly ridiculous.

It is common knowledge that there can be no freedom of speech, of the press, or of information in the world without some limits.

The 10th and 11th articles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France in 1789 state explicitly that freedom of speech and the press do not include “disturbing public order established by law,” and that every citizen is required to shoulder “responsibility for the abuse of such liberty” according to law.

According to the 19th article of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive, and impart information, “carries with it special duties and responsibilities”; People are required to restrict their freedom of speech for “respect of the rights or reputations of others,” or “for the protection of national security, or of public order, or of public health, or morals” according to law. The 20th article stipulates that “any propaganda for war,” or “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

China’s lawful limits to freedom of speech, the press, and information fully conform to the spirit of the international convention on human rights and to international practice.

In fact, US law limits the freedom of speech, the press, and information in a more severe way than does that of China Statistics showed that are as many as 18 kinds of limits in general languages in the US. According to the interpretation of law cases in US federal courts, the application of freedom of speech should not go beyond the limit of not violating the stipulations of the US Constitution, and any publications are not allowed to libel the government or attempt to overthrow the government.

The 2385th section, 18th title of the US Code says that whoever “advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government to the United States,” including “printing, publishing, editing, issuing, circulating, selling, distributing, or publicly displaying any written or printed matter” for that aim shall be sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison, or a fine of $ 20,000, or both.

The 1717 th section also stipulates that all “letters and writings containing matters advocating forcible resistance to any law of the United States as nonmailable” and their owners are to be punished according to the law. In addition, the United States is a country which exercises strict administration and control over the Internet.

Since US laws do not allow people to avail themselves of the freedom of speech, the press, or of information to engage in activities of opposing the government and endangering national security, how can the “Reports” criticize China for observing the stipulations of the Constitution and laws and requiring citizens to “guard state secrets” and for prohibiting “going against the country’s basic principles” or “engaging in activities which endanger national security”?

As a matter of fact, the “Reports” are not concerned about the question of whether Chinese citizens really enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, or information. Any politically unprejudiced person would not deny that freedoms, including the speech, press and information freedoms that the Chinese people enjoy today greatly surpass those of any periods in Chinese history.

In fact, the majority of Chinese people now have many more individual freedoms than ever before, Anthony Saich, representative of the Ford Foundation in charge of China affairs, said in February,1997.

Former US President George Bush said on February 27,1997 that Chinese citizens today have more human rights and individual freedoms than at the time he left the country. (Note: George Bush served as chief of the US Liaison Office in China from 1974 to 1975.)

On the freedoms of speech, press and information, the “Reports” themselves had to admit that Chinese society continues to open further, and “it has freer access to outside sources of information…satellite television broadcasts are widely available…increasing number of citizens have access to the Internet”.

Why then do the “Reports” still accuse China of not having freedoms of speech, the press, and information? In the words of the “Reports”, the real reason is that China does not permit citizens to deny “basic doctrine providing for a socialist state under the Communist Party’s leadership”, and that the freedoms the Chinese people enjoy are not enough to “endanger the leading role of the Communist Party”. This clearly tells us that what the “Reports” call for is not real freedom of speech, or the press, or information, but the “freedom” to oppose the socialist system and the ruling Communist Party. So long as China is still a socialist country where the Communist Party is at the helm of the state, no matter how democratic it is or how many freedoms its people really enjoy in speech, the press, and information, for those who wrote the “Reports” it is always “a country without freedoms”. That’s where the real problem lies.

IV. Cold War Mentality and Running Counter to Historical Trends

To reach its anti-Chinese, anti-Communist aims, the “Reports” ignore the facts and describe China, which is constantly developing, as a country with worsening human rights conditions.

The fact is that during the past year, great improvements were made in China’s human rights situation. In 1996, China’s economy achieved sustained, rapid and healthy growth, democratic and legislative construction was obviously enhanced, and people’s rights to subsistence and development and other human rights further improved.

According to statistics, in 1996, the national economy grew 9.7 per cent in real terms over the previous year, and the average per capita income for urban residents reaches 4,300 yuan (Us $ 500), a 3.3 per cent increase in real terms; the figure for rural residents reached 1,900 yuan, a 9 per cent increase in real terms, the highest grown for the past several years.

Total bank savings deposits for both urban and rural residents reached 3.85 trillion yuan (US $ 480 billion ) in 1996, 880 billion yuan more than in the previous year.

China has the fastest rate of poverty relief in the world. In 1996 as many as 7 million people in rural areas were helped out of poverty, bringing rural China’s total number of impoverished down from 250 million in 1978 to 58 million at the end of 1996, or less than a twentieth of the world’s total compared to a fourth in the past.

In 1996, another 457 county-level administrative units in 26 provinces or autonomous regions realized their goal of eliminating illiteracy and achieving nine-year compulsory education for everyone. This benefited 190 million people, or 16.4 per cent of the country’s population.

Meanwhile, great achievements have been made in democratic construction at the grass-roots level. From 1995 to 1996, most of the villages in China completed a new round of direct election to form villagers committees, the rural grass-roots administrative body. More than 98 per cent of the urban mini-districts established neighbourhood committees or groups, 97 per cent of which was through direct election in 1996.

In 1996, China passed the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly, the Law on Lawyers of the People’s Republic of China, the Law on Administrative Punishment and many other legal documents concerning human rights, and made significant amendments to the Criminal Law in an effort to protect human rights by law.

The amended Criminal Law in particular increased the participation of lawyers in criminal proceedings, provided greater protection of rights of victims, and standardized methods used in issuing summons, custodies and other compulsory measures. These provide greater guarantees in dealing with criminals and in protecting innocent persons in legislative procedures. The facts show that human rights conditions in China continued to improve in all-round way in 1996.

However, the “Reports” ignore all this, and chase after some so-called “individual cases” and even fabricate “facts” to provide evidence of “China’s violation of human rights” and draw a grim picture of China’s human rights conditions.

This shows that the authors of the “Reports” don’t really want China to be strong, stable, and developing, nor do they want to see any improvement and development in human rights conditions for all the Chinese people. What they really want to do is to use human rights as a tool with which to vilify China in the international community and sabotage China’s stability and development.

It is not accidental that the “Reports” use human rights to carry out a public opinion struggle against China. This is a full manifestation of the stubborn Cold War mentality of the United States.

As is known to all that the human rights reports of the US State Department, started in the days of Cold War as part of its “human rights diplomacy”, were actually used to meet Cole War political demands.

Form its very beginning, it was a political tool the US authorities used to put pressure on socialist and developing countries. After the ending of the Cole War, the United States, to enhance its efforts in pursuing hegemonism and power politics, takes socialist China, which persists in its own road of development, as its imaginary enemy, and frequently attacks China by using the issue of human rights.

The annual human rights “reports” of the US State Department have therefore become an important tool for opposing China, vilifying China and interfering in the internal affairs of China.

However, just as motions advanced by the United States against China at the UN Commission on Human Rights have failed six times, the purpose of the US State Department’s Human Rights Reports in opposing China will be achieved.

China is a country whose civilization goes back 5,000 years and which is full of vitality and hope. In no way will the 1.2 billion Chinese who have stood up change their course of development because of foreign pressure.

The US State Department’s reports openly interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and run counter to the spirit of the UN Charter and the trend of the times.

Item 3, Article 1 of the UN Charter clearly states that the fundamental approach to promoting human rights in the international community is t “promote international cooperation”.

For a long time however, human rights, under Cold War influences, have become a tool of big powers to stir up political conflicts, to practice hegemonism and to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

After the Cold War, people all over the world demanded that international human rights activities crawl out from under the shadow of the Cold War and take the healthy track of international cooperation and dialogue.

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights reiterated that improvements in human rights must be made in keeping with the aims and principles of the UN Charter, particularly with the UN’s primary goal of international cooperation.

A resolution on increasing international cooperation in human rights, adopted at the 51st Session of the UN General Assembly in November 1996, again stressed that true and constructive dialogue based on mutual respect and equality is needed to promote international cooperation in human rights.

All this represents the tendency of the day in the present international community to demand cooperation and dialogue, and to oppose conflict and pressure in human rights.

The United States is neither a world government nor has it been vested with authority to act as one by any widely-accepted international organization or conference. Nonetheless, it is trying in every way possible to pretend to be a “world judge of human rights”, one that has issued reports year in and year out to make unwarranted charges against other countries. The move which goes against the historical trend and man-made conflicts over human rights runs utterly contrary to the spirit of the UN Charter and the popular sentiment of the international community, and will necessarily meet with the opposition of more and more countries, including China.