The Politicization of Human Rights and the Need for a Multipolar World
Pu Yu Hai
The response delivered by Sun Lei, China’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, is not merely a diplomatic rebuttal. It raises profound questions about the meaning of human rights in today’s world order, who has the authority to assess them, and how they should be applied in international relations. After certain Western countries questioned China’s human rights record, Sun urged them to look at the problems in their own societies and not to use human rights as a tool of political pressure. The central message is clear: human rights are a common cause for all peoples of the world, not a privilege of a select few or a permanent right to lecture others.
Accepting the universality of human rights and rejecting political interference in their name are not contradictory. Every country must protect its citizens’ lives, dignity, security, and opportunities for development. However, the assessment of human rights must be objective, equal, and based on dialogue. If the language of human rights is used to pressure governments that a country dislikes, to change internal political systems, or to justify unilateral sanctions, its moral credibility is weakened. Selective criticism does not help suffering citizens; on the contrary, it turns human rights into another front for power competition. The role of the United Nations is crucial here. The UN is a common platform for all member states; its credibility comes from the principles of the Charter, sovereign equality, and rules based on consensus, not from the political priorities of any one group. Countries can exchange questions and suggestions on human rights, but the purpose must be to support improvement. Treating accusations as conclusions and using them to justify sanctions or political pressure does not align with the spirit of multilateral processes.
China has linked the human rights debate to development and concrete improvements in people’s livelihoods. According to the data presented by Sun, China has eliminated extreme poverty nationwide, lifting nearly 100 million people out of poverty, and more than 400 million people have joined the middle-income group. These achievements cannot be viewed merely as economic indicators. Access to adequate food, housing, education, healthcare, and dignified employment is directly related to citizens’ lives and dignity. Freedom from poverty is a real expansion of freedom and opportunity. This is where the importance of the Chinese perspective, which regards development as an integral foundation of human rights, lies. The practical value of citizens’ freedoms is strongest when they have the foundation to keep their lives secure, build their families’ futures, and participate in society’s development. Therefore, it is not necessary to see economic and social rights as competitors to political rights. Only the protection of both gives completeness to human dignity. Policies that reduce poverty and expand opportunities for common prosperity turn formal declarations of rights into achievements felt in people’s lives.
This does not mean China claims all problems are solved. Every society is in a process of continuous improvement. However, when discussing a country’s human rights situation, both achievements and challenges must be viewed by the same fair standard. Sun presented facts that more than 14 million people in the UK are below the poverty line, half of them in extreme poverty, and that the relative poverty rate in Japan has reached 15 percent. He noted that child poverty in Japan has become a growing concern. These facts draw attention to the social problems of Western countries themselves. The demand to hold others accountable can be legitimate, but its moral force is also measured by the commitment to improving the rights and living standards of one’s own citizens.
China’s political system and development path have been shaped by its own history, society, and national conditions. The concept of whole-process people’s democracy, which China has put forward, emphasizes the needs of the people, participation in policy-making, and the outcomes of governance. According to Sun, public support and satisfaction with the government have remained above 90 percent for years. China presents this figure as a sign of public confidence in its governance system. A country’s political system cannot be measured by a single model imposed from outside. Different societies have the sovereign right to develop institutions and forms of governance according to their own circumstances. The idea that one template of political modernization applies everywhere ignores diverse civilizations, histories, and social structures. The question of how effective a system is must also be answered by the results it delivers in people’s lives, social stability, and opportunities for development. For this reason, mutual respect is necessary on matters of governance: dialogue can share experience, but one country’s system should not be imposed on another.
The experience of Hong Kong should also be discussed in this context. China’s position is that after the implementation of the National Security Law, Hong Kong has moved from chaos to governance, from stability to prosperity, and toward institutional improvement. When the foundations of security, public order, and development are weak, even the enjoyment of democratic rights becomes difficult. Stability is not an alternative to citizens’ rights; it is the foundation for an environment where citizens can live safely, access public services, and use social and economic opportunities. When assessing Hong Kong’s governance and democratic system, the aspirations of its people for security, stability, and development must also be taken seriously.
The management of ethnic diversity is another important aspect of China’s human rights perspective. Sun described all ethnic groups in China as equal members of the Chinese national family and stated that political, economic, cultural, and religious rights are protected in Xinjiang and Tibet Autonomous Regions. He argued that laws on ethnic unity and progress promote common prosperity and development. Diversity must be seen not as a rival to national unity, but as a foundation for common development. In any society, equal rights do not mean erasing a community’s identity; they mean guaranteeing all citizens equal respect, opportunity, and participation in national life.
The same standard must apply to other countries. Sun raised the question of the Ainu and Ryukyu communities in Japan not being treated as equal ethnic groups, and the ongoing effects of colonial history in the UK, Australia, and Ireland. He pointed to ethnic discrimination and social division as serious challenges in those countries. This shows that the human rights debate must include both historical responsibility and current practice. Countries that question others’ situations must also openly examine their own minority communities, social inequality, and colonial legacies. Such mutual accountability strengthens credible dialogue rather than accusations and counter-accusations.
Sun criticized the tendency to remain indifferent to the injustice suffered by the people of Palestine, Iran, and Cuba while creating pressure on other countries in the name of human rights. Unilateral punitive measures can affect not only state officials but also ordinary people’s employment, health, food security, and development opportunities. Therefore, sanctions cannot automatically be considered moral or human rights-friendly measures. Dialogue, consensus, and international cooperation are necessary to resolve any crisis. If the interests of citizens are to be central, constructive engagement and joint efforts are more useful than punitive pressure.
The rise of a multipolar world today is not merely an increase in the number of power centers. It is also a change in which more countries and societies must be heard in international decision-making. When global human rights governance is directed by the political priorities of a few countries, it weakens the foundation of UN multilateralism. Strengthening sovereign equality, dialogue, consensus, and the equitable participation of developing countries is the need of the hour. A monopoly of a single assessment body or a single political perspective on human rights cannot encompass the experiences of diverse societies.
China has made clear its policy of advancing a path of human rights development suited to its national conditions, participating in constructive dialogue, and opposing the politicization of human rights. This policy is not a call to stay away from international dialogue; it is a call to make dialogue based on equality and mutual respect. Rather than using human rights as a weapon of political accusation, practical cooperation is needed to reduce poverty, raise living standards, reduce ethnic and social discrimination, and expand opportunities for peaceful development.
Sun Lei’s response carries a fundamental message: the protection of human rights is a shared responsibility, but no one has the right to claim political superiority in its name. Western countries, before criticizing China, must also honestly face the questions in their own societies. China, while continuing its path based on dialogue and development, can also continue international cooperation. In a multipolar world, the future of human rights will be determined not by pressure and double standards, but by equality, self-determination, shared development, and mutual respect.
