What was so different about the Confucian-based system of China's Celestial Empire and the Western system ushered in by the western Empires? Why were they incompatible?
Several elements distinctively differentiated China’s Confucian System from the western system. For one, the two systems provided contradicting perspectives of the world order. China's Confucian system held a different perception of the world order characterized by China as the central supreme states and other states as dependent on China. Other countries would depend and count on China's intervention in case of crisis or need, but China was not in any way dependent on other states. Other states would also pay tribute to China as the supreme state. Therefore, the Confucian system represented a closed and conservative policy.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, the Western system had a balanced perspective of the world with emphasizes on expanding sovereign equality that rendered it unequal (Zewei, 2011). Several states had sovereign power in the Western system and shared equal power regarding resources. The difference in perspective of the world order rendered the two systems incompatible in that sovereign Western countries preferred to break the inequality in the western system rather than accept the Confucian system whereas China was the central supreme state. Conversely, the expanding nature of the Western system represented aggressive policies that threatened to break the Confucian system by threatening its sovereign integrity. The expanding nature meant the other countries would advance and develop to attain the level and standards of sovereignty which was unacceptable in the Confucian system.
Second, the Confucian system and the Western system had different approaches to international relations. The Confucian system recognized and held with great importance the kowtows as a necessary etiquette showing respect to the central Empire of China as provided in the tributary system. To China, international relations were perceived as tributary missions with a subordinate country seeking the intervention of the sovereign states. On the contrary, the Western system regarded international ties as diplomatic engagements between two countries (Zewei, 2011). Therefore, the system was incompatible since the western countries would not offer the kowtows as they represented unequal relations and China would not relate with other countries without the presence of the Kowtows.
Thirdly, the systems differed on foreign trade. The confusion system had a closed-door policy that limited trading between China citizens and the European countries. Only major European companies were allowed to trade with China and only through an association of Chinese traders the Cohong. The western system, on the other hand, advanced for a free trade policy with foreign countries terming the restricted business system unreasonable (Zewei, 2011). Therefore the differences between the Confucian system and the Western system rendered them incompatible creating barriers for the integration of China into the international system.
What are three good things Steinberg sees in NGOs? What are three serious critiques Steinberg finds about NGOs?
Among the three good things Steinberg identifies in NGO’s, one is their ability to by-pass governments, which are primary violators of rights, and find international collaborators to bring pressure on the state to promote the rights of the minorities (Steinberg, 2011). Therefore, NGO’s provide a broader transactional advocacy platform to drive the institution on human rights across several humanitarian fields including the environment and human rights. Secondly, NGO's apply a lot of political control in terms of legal and moral matters by supervising and reporting state’s actions on human rights. NGO's build pressure and create international artilleries to put an end to human rights violations and hold governments responsible for their policies. Thirdly, NGO's can employ the softer power which entails getting what is needed through attraction rather than compulsion or expense. NGO's have soft power resources that are not intended to raise income and are contributed through donations and self-will hence the funds are not acquired out of compulsion. The resources are therefore available and ready for use when the need arises without costing the people. NGO's do not hesitate to utilize the resources which display the moral perception of expertise and commitment without the corruption of political influences.
Steinberg also addresses three significant critiques for NGO's. Firstly, contrarily to common perception some NGO's lack the transparency, accountability and checks and balance that are developed to counter and redress abuse of resources. The ‘halo effect” enhances their credibility and appearance of what they are perceived. The “ halo effect refers to the situation where there is a founded perception that NGO’s promote morality and the rights of the people shielding objectivity about the NGO’s (Steiberg, 2011). Secondly, NGO’s are accused of drawing built-in support among the public enabling them to construct symbolical victims and after that act as liberators. The criticism is promoted by the post-colonial dogma of NGO officers of inclining towards fatalities of Western Imperialism and Capitalism while disparaging liberal democracies. The accusation is mirrored in NGO analyses and publications especially concerning international law and claims of human rights. NGO's shape facts and rules about lop-sided conflicts especially where the perpetrators are Western powers to present a scenario where they seem to promote human rights and favour the public without providing the full length of facts and legal positions. Thirdly, NGO's focus on smaller groups where there are fundings and their impact is noticeable which illustrates the presence of politics within NGO’s contrarily to principles of universality and application of human rights they are believed to promote (Steiberg, 2011). NGO's are politically corrupted and biased in that they offer resources to smaller groups of people where they anticipate donors will avail more funds and their impact will be advertised forgetting other segments without similar advantages.
3. What crises made people think of “business and human rights” as a topic, according to Cragg, Arnold, and Muchlinski article from week 6?
Business and people were considered as topics for discussion forums first in the 1990’s. Initially, individual governments controlled politics hence advancing the perception that the same government only secured citizen rights. In the 20 th -century, people began realizing that it was the responsibility of the government to maximize the welfare of the people. People looked at the government for protection of their rights, and they began alleging that the government was not sufficiently protecting human rights as its responsibility to the people. One of the crises that prompted people to think of business and human rights as topics is globalization. Globalization raised questions on the ability and willingness of the government to meet its responsibilities to human rights by extending the economic significance of multinational companies to social responsibility. The allocation of human rights between the public and private sector raised concerns on the role the government played in promoting human rights. Corporate began to foster the idea of corporate social responsibility and showed commitment extensively to it prompting people to realize the laxity of the government in meeting its obligation to the people on promoting human rights.
The issue of power comes with responsibility, and the corporate universe has a significant impact on human rights hence the corporate social responsibility. Workplace issues such as working conditions, health and safety of workers and compensation all directly relate to human rights. Also, several organizational processes affect and influence the human life of people within society such as environmental pollution and infrastructural development. As a result, businesses have a degree of power over the community from which responsibility emerges. However, corporate seemed to abuse the trust by selectively selecting programs for social responsibility. Business perceived that the role of enforcing and preserving human rights belonged to the government and their position was only indirectly related to human rights. However, the conduct of governance in corporate, the economic ability and the resulting power of corporations made them capable of massive advantages and disadvantages ( Cragg, Arnold, & Muchlinski, 2012) . Therefore, the implication raised the need to emphasize the role of corporate on human rights advancing the idea of “business and human rights.”
References
Cragg, W., Arnold, D. G., & Muchlinski, P. (2012). Guest editors’ introduction: Human rights and business. Business Ethics Quarterly , 22 (1), 1-7.
Steinberg, G. M. (2011). NGOs, the UN, and the Politics of Human Rights in the Arab—Israeli Conflict. Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs , 5 (1), 73-88.
Zewei, Y. (2011). Western International Law and China's Confucianism in the 19th Century. Collision and Integration. Journal of the History of International Law/Revue Histoire du Droit international , 13 (2), 285-306.
