Editor’s note: Not long ago, the staff reporter of Human Rights magazine interviewed Cuban ambassador to China Mr. Alberto Rodriguez Arufe and minister counselor Mr. Eyassu Dalle of the Ethiopian Embassy in China. The following are their views on human rights in China and the world as a whole.

Mr. Alberto Rodriguez Arufe:

I think the human rights conditions in the world are pitiable. There are such countries as China and Cuba, which show great concern about the basic rights of every citizen: the rights to food, health and education. However, we cannot say that such idea has prevailed in the world. There is a tendency in the present-day world, a tendency imposed by developed countries that equates human rights to civilian rights and political rights inherent in capitalism as seen in the West to the ignorance of the basic rights of most people in the present-day world.
　　　　　
Mr. Alberto Rodriguez Arufe, Cuban ambassador.

According to the World Bank’s 2000/2001 annual world development report, 2.8 billion people or nearly half of the world’s population of 6 billion lived on less than two US dollars and 1.2 billion or 1/5 of the population have less than one dollar a day. In sharp contrast, the average income of the 20 wealthiest states is 37 times that of the 20 poorest countries. This big divide has nearly doubled in 40 years. The population of developing countries makes up about 80% of the world’s total, but what they produce only makes up 20% of the world’s total and about 30% of the world trade.

It is of great importance to humanity, I think, if we pay greater attention to the rights to food, health and education and to the right to higher quality of living for the billions of people who are still barely maintaining their subsistence.

We have to admit that it is not so optimistic about the prospects in this regard. The exiting world order serves only the wealthiest countries and the most powerful groups of these countries and makes these problems political in the name of international organizations so as to expand the divide between the poor and the rich in the world. The government and people of the People’s Republic of China have, by its own efforts, set an example in narrowing such divide. However, such undertaking will have to be supported and approved worldwide. Otherwise, the true human rights cause of the world would end in abortion.

Over the past half a century, the government and people of the People’s Republic of China have achieved tremendous successes in human rights. I think all the world may bear witness to the tremendous achievements. China has succeeded in lifting more than one billion people out of poverty and ensuring nearly all the people to have adequate food, health and clothing, which would have been unimaginable before liberation. This is what many of the third world countries admire.

The education level attained by the People’s Republic of China is also a big achievement by the government and people in their efforts to ensure the citizen’s rights. I think the Chinese should be proud of their political system, a system that has enabled the broadest possible strata of people to have their children educated and enable them to obtain the broadest possible knowledge, which serves as the foundation for the development of the country. The level of education of the Chinese people is growing higher and becoming a motive force behind the progress in human rights. That is why we can say for sure that more and more Chinese citizens are participating in the economic, cultural and political activities. All these were unimaginable before 1949. I think it is of extremely importance to hold on to the values and principles of socialism in ensuring human rights.

I have read the Human Rights magazine. It is very interesting and very important. China is a big country, a country with diversity. Foreigners do not know the ancient culture. Besides, as is known to all, more often than not, their views on the human rights conditions in China are manipulated by the public opinion in the west, especially by western media that lack objectivity. Human Rights has provided the opportunity for the readers to know the growing achievements and efforts made by the People’s Republic of China in human rights.

I have found that there are many subjects in the magazine, covering all aspects of human rights and the characteristics of each region in China. All these are very important to present a true picture of China with regard to human rights. Mr. Eyassu Dalle:

It is true that all human rights and fundamental freedoms derive from the inherent dignity of the human person. And human dignity appears in the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations as an ideal that “we the peoples of the United Nations” are “determined” to achieve. The words are part of the second paragraph of the preamble, which reads in full as follows: “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”.

The term dignity is also included in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.

Therefore, human rights in their totality are inherent in human dignity and are aimed at preserving the dignity and worth of the human person. Human dignity is indivisible, and its preservation can neither be sought nor attained by the superficial divide between civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights. The main human rights instruments rightfully acknowledge the fact that human rights are entwined.

Much significance to the development of the world human rights is owed to the Charter of the UN 1945. Human rights as embellished in the Charter form one of the major aims and objectives of the UN, and the principal obligation set forth in the Charter is for the member states to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. In particular, the obligation to respect and observe human rights has given impetus to the adoption of human rights instruments of general and regional application. Classical International Law’s progressive development under the umbrella of the Law of Nations in the field of human rights largely depends on the extent to which interpretation of treaty based human rights standards takes into account contemporary and future developments affecting the standards contained in such treaties.

Customary law, on the other hand, finds expression in Article 38 (1) (b) of the Statute of the ICJ (International Court of Justice) which makes reference to the application of “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law”. It is the general practice of states which is accepted and observed as law from sense of legal obligation that builds norms of customary international law.

Evidence of a general practice accepted by states as binding upon them constitutes international custom. And State Practice refers to, and covers, every activity of the organs and officials of a state in an international context. The common practice of states establishes the general consent of states by which rules of general application are created. Understood in this sense, the consent of states materializes partially in custom and treaty as material sources.

Rules which are identical in treaty law and in customary international law are also distinguishable by reference to the methods of interpretation and application. Thus it can be said not the consent of all states that is required for the creation of customary international law.

Even if treaty based standards of human rights are taken as evidence of state practice, not all states significantly adhere to them, such that state behaviour on the basis of treaty is difficult to confirm.

Sometimes indications to generally accepted practice, and the extent to which states consent to be bound by such practice in their conduct towards human rights may lie in the use of protest, condemnation or objection, by a number of states at what they regard as the violation of human rights by some states.

These may show that a state which is the subject of a protest or condemnation on grounds of encroaching upon human rights has departed from a generally recognized practice accepted as binding by states. By protesting, other states show that they neither tolerate nor acquiesce in the conduct of the delinquent state. The outrage expressed by states by virtue of the depth and intensity of a condemnation for human rights violation may provide an indication of whether or not the right or rights concerned have a strong claim to the status of customary law.

Therefore the obligation to respect and observe human rights in the Charter of the UN is a fundamental norm now accepted in the corpus of customary international law. And multilateral human rights treaties embody international legal standards specifically agreed between the parties for purposes of governing their conduct towards human rights.

The duty to protect human rights also binds all states. Although human rights may most effectively be implemented by the domestic legal system, that system is not the source of right. International human rights law is the source of the obligation, albeit that the obligation is reflected in the content of the domestic law. It further follows that the right will be the same in all the various jurisdictions.

Human rights are universal, such that human rights are human rights and not dependent on the fact that states, or groupings of states, may behave differently from each other so far as their politics, economic policy and culture are concerned. While states may indeed implement rights in different ways (by legislation, through constitution, through the common law) the content of what is to be implemented depends on the international standard and will not vary.

Having this background about the universal nature of human rights for all humankind, when we look into the implementation aspect, historical developments in the so-called Third World countries in the last few decades have firmly fashioned the Third World as theatres for the violation of human rights in their totality i.e. economic, social, cultural, civil and political.

As such, there is tendency of dividing the world into spheres where observance of some aspects of human rights and needs (the so-called developed countries) happens and spheres where enslavement, dehumanization, super exploitation of peoples’ labor and resources, and general denial of the right of participation in government (the Third World) takes place.

The unsatisfactory condition of human rights in the Third World today, as some argue, is therefore not solely a reflection of inherent social factors in the Third World but rather products of the historical reflections in the world system corresponding to the international division of labor.

In discussing some of the obstacles, for international implementation of human rights, still others underline that even if the binding nature of international human rights is accepted, in many instances the infrastructure prerequisites for their implementation are lacking. There are not adequately functioning courts of law, an economic and social achievement that would allow for the implementation of economic and social rights, or the sufficient well-trained legal personnel who would respond to the demands of the international human rights.

As also many others argue, excessive partiality exists at the international level, where it is openly supported rather than condemned. Global integration is proceeding at breakneck speed and with amazing reach. But the process is uneven and unbalanced, with uneven participation of countries and people in the expanding opportunities of globalizationÑin the global economy, in global technology, in the global spread of cultures and in global governance. The new rules of globalizationÑand the players writing them focus on integrating global markets, neglecting the needs of people that markets can not meet.

The process is concentrating power and marginalizing the poor, both countries and peoples.

More global rules are being developed in all areas of international law, from human rights to environment and trade. But they are developing separately, with the potential for conflict. Little in the current global order binds states and global actors to promote human rights globally. Many least developed countries are being marginalized from the expanding opportunities of globalization.
　　　　　
Mr. Eyassu Dalle, Ethiopian minister counselor.

Thus, as nations require an inclusive democracy to guarantee respect for human rights, by the same token the system of global governance needs to be transparent and fair, giving voice to small and poor countries and releasing them from their marginalization from the benefits of the global economy and technology.

Therefore, should we need, a part of the effort to achieve a truly universal protection of human rights, to establish new rules of international law better able to cover all circumstances?

Here it becomes necessary to comment and it is partially yes and partially no. Though we need and request for a fair and just international order both in economic, political and other terms, it is the responsibility of each and every country and its government to promote and effectively implement the international human rights standards. It is by fully applying and exercising the existing rules of international order that countries of the world including the developing world should strive for better rules on the multilateral forums including on trade, peace and others covering all circumstances.

From this perspective, it is possible to conclude that for better world human rights situation and prospect for humankind the current movements by different countries including the big powers against terrorism, for good governance, human rights, etc. and in the face of the imminent process of globalization, the existing dialogue may need to be reinforced further by a forum at which each and every country or state may have an equal voice in deciding a matter that affects its future.

On the other hand, instead of waiting until results are yielded from talks of these forums, the developing countries should catch every development opportunity and strengthen themselves, with regard to the protection of human rights, all states must do more than be watchful for human rights within their own territories and they should effectively fulfill their obligation in applying international human rights standards.

It is also logical to finally understand in such a way that it is up to every one of us to participate in the fight for human rights. The international human rights bodies can not fight the battle alone.