As the US backslides, can China claim moral high ground on women's rights?
US first lady Hillary Clinton delivered a speech in Beijing that defined the times.
Advertisement
'If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights, once and for all,' she said at the United Nations' Fourth World Conference on Women in September 1995.
Hibaaq Osman remembers this moment clearly. The founder and chief executive of Cairo-based Karama, a movement of women's rights groups in Africa and the Arab region, was one of 30,000 women who had navigated the Chinese capital's rainy weather and muddy roads to find common ground.
'We were coming from different cultures, but women were there to discuss their troubles, personal and political,' she said.
At the time, the feminist movement in the United States was in its prime, Osman said, and the strong presence of American NGOs and feminists played a crucial role at the conference.
Advertisement
Clinton was widely seen as a 'rock star' for women's rights and the US was pushing for a feminist agenda, though, Osman said, there was disagreement on certain aspects, such as the right to choose and reproductive rights.
'For me, this was a progressive movement, and I didn't see it as just a US agenda, but rather as a feminist agenda on a global scale,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
2 hours ago
- HKFP
Jimmy Lai's nat. security trial: Judges question whether articles in pro-democracy Apple Daily ‘seditious'
Handpicked judges presiding over jailed media tycoon Jimmy Lai's national security trial have questioned whether content in his pro-democracy paper amounted to 'seditious publications,' as stipulated by the prosecution. The court continued hearing closing arguments on Tuesday after proceedings were twice delayed last week, first owing to bad weather and then to health concerns relating to the 77-year-old tycoon's heart. Delivering arguments for the seditious publications charge, lead prosecutor Anthony Chau referenced articles published in Lai's Apple Daily including an editorial calling for sanctions against Beijing and Hong Kong authorities. He said that those articles did not include 'rational criticism,' and that none of them provided recommendations or ventured 'to suggest any solutions.' But High Court judge Esther Toh, one of the three judges chosen to preside over the security trial, cast doubt on the prosecution's argument that critical articles must propose solutions to be considered not seditious. 'Did they actually have to venture that? You can write a critical article about the water problem, but do you have to venture to offer solutions?' Toh asked, appearing to reference a recent contract fraud case involving the drinking water supply at government offices. Judge Alex Lee pointed to Apple Daily articles calling for the now-shelved extradition bill which sparked widespread protests and unrest in 2019 to be withdrawn, saying: 'They were opposing the very introduction of the extradition bill… was that not a suggested solution?' The 2019 protests escalated into sometimes violent displays of dissent against police behaviour, amid calls for democracy and anger over Beijing's encroachment. Demonstrators demanded an independent probe into police conduct, amnesty for those arrested and a halt to the characterisation of protests as 'riots.' Lee on Tuesday added that an article could not be considered seditious if its purpose was to highlight pitfalls in governance, 'but if it was to defame the government causing the people to lose confidence or to turn hostile against the government, that would be a case of sedition.' Chau also referenced Lai's text messages directing the paper's English news division, which the court had earlier heard was set up to appeal for international support. Lai had told senior management that the paper was not supposed to have a 'balanced view' and only needed a view of the 'yellow' side — the colour associated with the city's pro-democracy movement, Chau added. Calls for sanctions 'in disguise' Besides the charge of conspiracy to publish seditious materials under colonial-era legislation, the tycoon also stands accused of two charges of conspiracy to commit foreign collusion under the Beijing-imposed national security law. He faces life behind bars if convicted. Based on Lai's prior exchanges with US politicians and diplomats, one could infer that the pro-democracy paper's criticism of the Chinese authorities were an 'indirect' means of calling on foreign governments to interfere, Chau told the court on Tuesday. That was after judge Toh asked whether the prosecution meant that the paper's articles were calls for sanctions 'in disguise.' The prosecution has alleged that Lai used his ties with foreign officials and politicians to impose sanctions against authorities in mainland China and Hong Kong. Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong's mini-constitution in June 2020 following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest, criminalising subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts – broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers and led to hundreds of arrests amid new legal precedents, while dozens of civil society groups disappeared. Chau also maintained that the media baron had called for what the prosecution labelled 'Sanctions, Blockades, or Hostile activity' (SBHA) against the central Chinese authorities, despite not having made any open or direct requests for such actions after the enactment of Beijing's national security law in Hong Kong. The prosecution submitted that Lai had adopted a 'calculated and strategic approach' for foreign sanctions to be imposed on China and Hong Kong by deliberately and 'falsely' picturing the Chinese Communist Party in a negative light. Prosecutors named retired US army general Jack Keane, ex-US deputy secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz, ex-US state department advisor Christian Whiton, and Mary Kissel, an advisor to then US secretary of state Mike Pompeo, as Lai's foreign connections, among others. Chau also told the court that Lai had admitted, during his testimony, that he continued international lobbying efforts even after the enactment of the national security law to inform foreign governments of what was happening in Hong Kong and to appeal for condemnation of the Hong Kong and Beijing authorities. However, he denied lobbying overseas governments to influence foreign policy. Chau is expected to conclude oral submissions of the prosecution's closing arguments on Wednesday.
HKFP
9 hours ago
- HKFP
Australia probes Nauru-China business deal
Australia was Tuesday investigating whether Pacific microstate Nauru breached a security treaty by inking a lucrative business deal with a Chinese company. Nauru last week announced it had signed a US$650 million economic development agreement with the China Rural Revitilisation and Development Corporation. Australian Minister for Pacific Island Affairs Pat Conroy said officials were looking into whether that deal complied with a recent security pact between Canberra and Nauru. '(Australia) is engaging with the government of Nauru about whether it activates parts of our treaty,' Conroy told reporters. 'That is a really important treaty for us — that helps position us as a security partner of choice with Nauru.' Australia and Nauru announced a landmark security treaty in December last year, advancing Canberra's aim of blunting China's growing regional influence. Under the deal, Nauru must seek Australia's agreement before it signs any bilateral accords on maritime security, defence and policing. Nauru also agreed to consult Australia if other parties look to strike agreements granting them access to critical infrastructure such as ports and airfields or its banking sector. In return, Nauru receives tens of millions of dollars to prop up its government budget and bolster its stretched police force. Nauru last year surprised many Pacific watchers when it abruptly severed diplomatic links with Taiwan in favour of Beijing. Nauru's Foreign Affairs Minister Lionel Aingimea travelled to Beijing to sign the business deal last week. The China Rural Revitilisation and Development Corporation agreed to invest in key sectors such as agriculture and fisheries, according to a Nauru government release. Nauru, population 12,500, is one of the world's smallest countries with a mainland measuring just 20 square kilometres (7.7 square miles). It is considered especially vulnerable to climate change.
AllAfrica
11 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Trump's Putin, Zelensky talks chiefly served Russian aims
The current phase of the war in Ukraine continues unabated into its fourth year, with grinding offences and strikes against civilian infrastructure increasingly the norm. It is, for Ukraine, arguably the most vulnerable that it has been since 2022. These developments have prompted calls among world leaders to end the conflict. On the surface, United States President Donald Trump's meetings with both the Ukrainian and Russian leaders suggest a balanced approach. In reality, however, Trump's actions primarily benefit Russia. After the recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Trump declared that their summit had been 'very useful.' When asked how he would rate the meeting on a scale of one to 10, the president declared the meeting 'was a 10 in the sense we got along great.' While Trump and Putin may have hit it off, the issue with such an assessment is that it failed to address the underlying reason for the meeting: Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In this regard, the meeting was far more useful for Putin and Russia than Ukraine and its allies. Putin managed to stoke tensions, and potentially divisions, among Ukraine's principal supporters by not including Ukraine in the summit. No other countries participated in the summit. This format caused considerable consternation in Ukraine, where it was feared that Trump would make an agreement without Ukrainian consent, as well as in Europe, where Russian aggression and revisionism is a more direct threat. Prior to Trump assuming power for a second time in 2025, Ukraine benefited from a largely united front among NATO and the European Union. This unity has declined over the last several months, and the Alaska summit reinforced this decline to Russia's benefit. Putin and his negotiators managed to obtain a major concession from Trump at the summit as Trump renounced his own recent calls for a ceasefire. For Ukraine and its allies, achieving a ceasefire was a fundamental requirement for any peace negotiations in 2025. This precondition has become more significant as Russia ramps up its attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilians. Lastly, the very nature of the Alaska meeting itself helped legitimize Russia in international opinion. Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia has courted international opinion. It's been more successful than most people in Europe and North America realize, as significant portions of Asia, Africa and Latin America remain ambivalent or even support Russia in its war against Ukraine. Nonetheless, Russia was always restrained by the condemnation it received from multiple international organizations, most notably the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. Trump welcoming Putin on American soil, when the Russian leader is under what amounts to a de facto travel ban by the International Criminal Court, undermines these institutions' condemnations. The benefits that Putin obtained from Trump in Alaska demanded an immediate response by Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelensky promptly arranged a White House meeting with Trump in the aftermath of the Alaskan summit. And he didn't arrive alone: European leaders accompanied him to show solidarity with Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted the European leaders weren't on hand to prevent Trump from bullying Zelensky, as occurred during their last Oval Office meeting. That's probably only partly true. Several European leaders — ranging from the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to French President Emmanuel Macron — almost assuredly accompanied Zelensky to prevent Trump from forcing the Ukrainian leader into concessions that are detrimental to their interests as well. Trump's pre-meeting social media post undoubtedly heightened their concerns. In the post, he placed the burden of peace on Zelensky and argued that Ukraine must accept the loss of Crimea and never accede to NATO. Ukrainian officials sought to carefully orchestrate Zelensky's one-on-one Oval Office meeting with Trump. Zelensky wore a suit and delivered a letter from the Ukrainian first lady to Melania Trump. These and other efforts aimed to stroke Trump's ego, and the president's response — in particular, agreeing with a reporter that Zelensky 'look(ed) fabulous' in a suit — suggests it was a success. The same American reporter criticized Zelensky for failing to don a suit during his ill-fated February White House visit. Notably, Trump did not rule out a role for American soldiers in helping to maintain peace in Ukraine during the meeting. Outside observers believe an American presence in Ukraine to maintain any eventual peace is a fundamental requirement for its success. Unfortunately, while Trump did not immediately oppose the idea, he did not make any firm commitment either. Trump's propensity to reverse course on statements that he makes at the moment, furthermore, undermines any firm takeaways from the meeting. Any direct American involvement in Ukraine would also undermine his support among his political base. One of Trump's key campaign promises was not to involve the US in 'endless foreign wars.' A move by Trump to deploy American soldiers to Ukraine would be politically tenuous, as fractures are already emerging among his political base over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Trump's cordial meetings with Zelensky and European leaders may fuel hope among Ukraine's supporters in the coming days. But any optimism should be tempered by the damage done by Trump's meeting with Putin. Trump reportedly interrupted the meetings in Washington to call Putin. Trump's unwillingness to make firm commitments at the meetings with Zelensky and European leaders means that Russia, on balance, has succeeded in advancing its interests to the detriment of Ukraine and the prospects for a long-term, sustainable peace. James Horncastle is assistant professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney professor in international relations, Simon Fraser University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
