Chinese human rights scholars Li Xiao (first right) and Zhang Yonghe (second right) visit the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations in New York City on December 1, 2023 (COURTESY PHOTO) 

What do Chinese and American scholars agree and disagree on when it comes to human rights research? In search of answers, Professor Zhang Yonghe from the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing Municipality led a delegation of four scholars on a recent visit to the United States for academic exchanges discussing human rights with their American counterparts. 

The visit, the first of its kind since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, was coordinated by Li Xiao, Secretary General of the Chinese Judicial Studies Association and a former senior judge of the Supreme People's Court, China’s top judicial body. 

Li shared her observations from this trip exclusively with Beijing Review reporter Li Fangfang. Edited excerpts of their conversation follow: 

Beijing Review: As a human rights scholar, what were your expectations for this trip, especially given the long suspension of in-person academic exchanges due to the pandemic? 

Li Xiao: This interaction marked my inaugural experience as a scholar following my retirement from the Supreme People's Court. I eagerly anticipated hearing the genuine perspectives of American scholars concerning human rights in China, as well as gaining insight into their opinions on the importance of academic exchanges on human rights in fostering China-U.S. relations.

I generally perceive the exchange as a candid, unbiased and invaluable one. Over the course of the three-year pandemic, face-to-face interaction between human rights scholars from both countries was halted, resulting in a certain unfamiliarity in our relationship. The purpose of our recent visit was to foster open and academic communication, while also discussing our intentions for future cooperation.

Each discussion and exchange proved to be highly rewarding, given we had the opportunity to hear the genuine thoughts of American scholars and share our own firsthand experiences and knowledge. Moreover, amid fluctuating China-U.S. relations in recent years, it has been rare for scholars from both sides to engage in such frank exchanges of research findings.

These academic exchanges hold great value, not only in enhancing mutual understanding, but also in charting a path for future collaboration, such as jointly organizing human rights seminars in China and the U.S., facilitating the exchange of scholars and students, and conducting joint visits to China's Xinjiang Uygur and Xizang autonomous regions.

Currently, there exists an information gap between Chinese and U.S. human rights scholars, as many are hindered by the inability to access information in each other's languages and the absence of field research opportunities. Additionally, there is a lack of mutual trust between China and the United States. However, in face-to-face communication, non-verbal expressions convey genuine emotions and play a crucial role in building mutual trust.

I often emphasize to my friends in the U.S. that it is our responsibility as scholars to explore, assess and solve problems to promote human progress.

Ultimately, peace and a better quality of life are a common pursuit for all of humanity.

Li Xiao shares insights and opinions with U.S. scholars at the University of Pennsylvania's Global Centers in Philadelphia on November 30, 2023 (COURTESY PHOTO) 

What topics were of most interest to both sides during this exchange? Any interesting stories you’d like to share? 

There is considerable interest among American participants in a survey on human rights conducted by Professor Zhang Yonghe a few years ago. Topics such as ordinary Chinese people's perceptions of human rights and the public satisfaction rating of judicial decisions attracted their attention.

I am particularly interested in the methodologies used by American scholars to study human rights in China.

In addition, some American scholars are occupied by issues related to the vocational education and training centers in Xinjiang as well as individual cases. (The establishment of vocational education and training centers as per related laws was a measure the region adopted to address the challenges posed by terrorism and radicalization. These centers were never intended to coerce trainees into abandoning Islam or the Uygur language and culture. Instead, they were designed to help individuals influenced by terrorism and extremism return to a positive path and reintegrate into society by equipping them with basic vocational skills. By October 2019, all trainees had successfully completed their educational programs. Despite these intentions, some Western media outlets and politicians have inaccurately portrayed the centers as “camps” with ulterior “political ends.”Ed.)

Over the course of the exchange, an interesting point arose when American scholars expressed their belief in the so-called "forced labor" in Xinjiang's cotton industry.

I inquired about the evidence supporting their claims, and they admitted to having none.

Personally, I have always found the notion of forced labor to be preposterous.

According to a field survey conducted by Zhang's team, 80 percent of cotton harvesting is done by machines. The remaining 20 percent, which is necessary for producing high-quality cotton products, still involves manual picking. And these workers are fairly compensated.

Another observation I made during this exchange was the declining interest among young students in the U.S. to study China.

At one prominent U.S. law school with which I am familiar, there is a notable lack of professors specializing in Chinese law--in contrast to the situation 20 years ago.

What are the major divergences between scholars from both countries in their perceptions of human rights and each other's countries? 

In our dialogues with American scholars, they acknowledged that China has effectively improved human rights in the economic domain. However, their understanding of individual and collective rights differs from ours.

Particularly, their perspective on the right to development and their interpretation of rights and obligations diverge from ours. They believe that China emphasizes overall societal progress while overlooking the protection of individual rights.

In other words, we consider the right to life and the right to development as fundamental human rights, whereas American scholars place greater emphasis on political rights.

In our understanding, human rights can't just be political rhetoric because they manifest themselves in the concrete lives of citizens. China's people-centered approach recognizes that rights are tangible and concrete. It considers the wellbeing, dignity and aspirations of its diverse population. The experiences, struggles, and aspirations of the Chinese people shape the nation's human rights discourse.

What's more, China's unique context--its vast population, rapid development and complex challenges--shapes its approach to human rights. Balancing economic growth, social stability and individual rights requires pragmatic solutions.

Based on your observations during this exchange, what commonalities and differences do you see between China and the U.S. regarding the legal protection of human rights? 

China and the U.S. share several similarities in their approach to the concept and implementation of judicial human rights protection. Both countries emphasize the importance of due process, safeguarding the defendant's right to a defense, ensuring the courts' independent exercise of judicial power, and promoting judicial openness and transparency.

However, it is important to acknowledge that there are also differences between the two nations.

For instance, some individuals may express disagreement with certain legal provisions in China and argue that the Chinese judicial process lacks transparency.

Nevertheless, in reality, China's judicial system strives to be open and transparent throughout various stages, including case filing, court hearings, the availability of judgment documents, and the enforcement of court decisions.

In your opinion, what can both sides learn from each other in human rights studies? 

In recent years, Chinese scholars have made rapid progress in researching human rights theory.

Some scholars place significant emphasis on field research, such as assessing the effectiveness of specific human rights programs by analyzing data and case studies related to particular issues.

They also provide suggestions for further improvements in practice.

Every edition of the national human rights action plan stipulates numerous measures and tasks, which require both continuous supervision and evaluation. Third parties are responsible for assessing the implementation as per the action plan's requirements.

Academic institutions, for example, serve as third-party evaluators. This is a particularly good experience and scholars from the U.S., too, hold in high regard.

On the other hand, each of the American scholars I met this time has different research methods, but I think the research method of one of the famous scholars can be used as a reference for us, which is to study human rights issues according to the related international standards and in combination with official reports and media reports.

Copyedited by Elsbeth van Paridon 

Comments to ffli@cicgamericas.com