As the international community takes an increasingly keen interest in the question of Tibet, the demand for information grows. Influence in world affairs is not limited to military and economic power. A government can use ideas and values to build support at home and to recruit sympathizers among publics and policy-makers, abroad. The history of human rights in the Chinese Constitution exemplifies such a process. This article will examine the core issue of human rights within the context of Chinese Constitution and evaluate the effectiveness of Article 35 and 36 that were enshrined in the Chinese Constitution’s preamble. Also, it addresses the traditional differences between Western liberal democracy and the Chinese doctrine of socialism. 
Many Chinese constitutional demands still remain on paper and are not “substantially honoured.” Therefore, I focus on the nature and outline of Chinese Constitution and explain the principles failed to be presented. 

Tibet was an independent state, in fact and by law, until 1959, when the people’s Liberation Army of China invaded, illegally and vehemently. Today’s continued occupation of Tibet by China, with the help of thousand of troops, represents an ongoing violation of international law and the basic fundamental rights of China’s constitution. China’s Constitutional states that citizens of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. Unfortunately, that right remains an illusion for the majority of Chinese people because the constitutional language so effectively dilutes them as to render them meaningless. Therefore, the notion of rights was extremely diluted. Authoritarian rule in the interest of national unity was the goal and any freedom has to aid the development of the nation.

Independent Tibet certainly was not an embodiment of a perfect human society: It was, by no means, as tyrannical as it is, today, under Chinese rule. Tibet presents interesting human rights questions: Tibet exhibits one of the world’s most blatant and systematic denials of human rights. Despite numerous international resolutions on human rights and, even, the Chinese agreement with United Nations, little progress has been made in the panoply of restrictive laws and regulations affecting the Tibetan inhabitants in Tibet. For instances, New legislation covering “the management measure for the reincarnation of living Buddha in Tibetan Buddhism” is under attack. Also, the exact whereabouts of the Genhun Choekyi Nyima (reincarnation of Panchen Lama) remains furtive. The measure passed by the State Administrative of Religion (SARA) prohibits Buddhist monks from returning from the dead without government permission. The Chinese government’s odd meddling in religious affairs is due to the fact that Buddhism is so bound up with Tibetan identity and nationalism. At the same time, their policy to name the next Dalai Lama was to hijack the Tibetan Buddhist monastery, once for all, to set it running on Communist Party rails and to a Communist party timetable.

The death of Chairman Mao, in 1976, resulted in a change in Chinese policies. The outcome of that change was economic liberalization and openness and, even, some degree of leniency toward political prisoners, except toward political activities labelled as “Delinquents” and “Spillists.” The Chinese diplomats have struggles to reinvigorate old alliances, find new sympathizers and divide critics. “China claimed those criticisms by different nations represent the violation of China’s sovereignty and, also, was a conspiracy particularly by the United States, to contain a resurgent China in an effort to prevent it from assuming its “Rightful” place in the International Community.

In China, the indispensable concept to rights was modified by the philosophical perspective of “giri” or “reciprocal duties”, its ideological base was substantially different from the liberal ideology from which it had been born. The western notion of citizen’s rights was grounded in John Locke’s version of natural law which held that man, by nature, had freedom which the government was bound to protect. By contrast, the notion of rights embodied in the Chinese constitution’s interpretation is different because the Chinese official jurisprudence interprets rights not as “natural” but as given by the state, divided into “pre-emption and dispositive rights” to be limited and defined by law: sees constitutional rights not as limitation on law but as goals or “guides” rather than ordains, whose realization is to be spelled out in law. It stresses the priority of social and economic rights over civil and political rights.

In practice, the Chinese government often violated both International rights standards and its own constitution. However, Chinese constitution stresses the ideal that people, and not law, are supreme. Also, the core meaning of the constitution is to serve the needs of political and economic systems when its leader deems it appropriate. One Chinese commentator argued: “The essence of human diplomacy is to make use of the issues of human rights and to facilitate the realization of national interest and to achieve the end which [some western countries] have failed to achieve through of military strength.”

Reprehensibly, The Chinese party members lacked the antidote to the appeal of the human rights idea within China because they underestimated the issue of human rights and overestimated its negotiability. Also, their assets for the exercise of cultural and ideological power at home and abroad remain weak. At the same time, the Chinese constitution has not sanctioned the human rights abuses because the constitution, being single source of authority is an instrumental resource for government, rather than a restraint upon it. As Joseph Nye has observed “When ideals are an important source of power, the classic distinction between realpolitik and liberalism becomes blurred.”

So, even the Chinese government is trying to make everything seem “delightful” in China before the 2008 Olympics but a culture of corruption and abuse of human rights, with millions of people inflicted by abuse, every year, is difficult to dismiss. Yet, China has the opportunity to use the games to build true harmony on the basis of respect for human dignity, freedom, and becoming a respectable member of the community of civilized nation: not by loud rhetoric or brute force, but by taking action to promote human rights at home and in the world. The regime that deploys free world organization and emancipation of all people’s of earth, as so impressively demanded by Chiang kai Shek, seems little interested in democracy. But not does it seem self confident.

Bibliography

a)McHugh,James:Comparative Constitutional Traditions. New York, Peter Lang, 2003
b) Palmer,Michael, The Constitution of The People’s Republic of China: A Contextual Analysis,2003