Seminar on “Telling the Stories of the CPC’s Human Rights Efforts in the New Era and Strengthening International Discourse Struggle on Human Rights” Held in Beijing
On the morning of October 9, a special seminar titled "Telling the Human Rights Stories of the Communist Party of China in the New Era and Strengthening the International Struggle for Public Opinion on Human Rights" was held in Beijing. The event was hosted by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) Research Center for Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. Gong Yun, Vice President of the CASS Institute of Marxism Studies, Executive Deputy Director of the Research Center, and Senior Research Fellow, presided over the meeting. Participants included research fellows and associate research fellows from various CASS institutes, covering areas such as Ecological Civilization, Contemporary China Studies, Global Strategy, World Economics and Politics, Law, Political Science, American Studies, and Finance and Accounting, as well as Journalism and Communication.
Gong Yun pointed out that the current international ideological struggle is intense. Holding this seminar is a concrete measure to implement the work of the international ideological struggle over human rights, aiming to align with the central leadership's requirements for strengthening international communication capacity building and telling China’s story well. Building on the publication of articles in the "Three Newspapers and One Journal" [1], the Research Center must strengthen its tracking and monitoring of international research progress on Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. It must master international research developments, focus on foreign research dynamics, and excel in the external communication of Xi Jinping Thought. The Center should strengthen ties with relevant departments and, focusing on important theoretical issues and major formulations, voice its perspective immediately through special meetings, internal reports (yaobao), specialized articles, and public WeChat account posts. The goal is to build a "rapid response force" for researching issues and interpreting policies, providing forward-looking, in-depth interpretations to fully exercise the Center’s research functions.
Zhi Zhenfeng offered remarks on the "human rights discourse of the Communist Party of China." He argued that China’s human rights work has achieved remarkable results, primarily reflected in the "two miracles" of economic growth and social stability. Long-term economic growth has secured the people's rights to subsistence and development, while the miracle of stability has addressed security issues and guaranteed the people’s personal safety, demonstrating the all-round progress of the nation's human rights work. However, he noted that one must remain clear-headed: compared to the achievements in human rights practice, the external communication of China’s human rights discourse requires significant improvement. He attributed this to three reasons: First, China and the West possess different understandings of human rights; contemporary Western human rights are primarily reflected in political rights, whereas we emphasize the rights to subsistence and development—a difference determined by the specific historical contexts in which human rights were proposed. Second, the vast differences between Eastern and Western civilizations make it difficult for the West to understand Eastern culture, traditions, systems, and practices. Third, the objectives of human rights discourse are sometimes unclear, which impacts the execution of related work. To address these, Zhi suggested: 1) Strengthening theoretical research to clarify the connotation of human rights and the commonalities and differences between theories, thereby better competing for discourse power; 2) focusing on new communication channels and self-media platforms as traditional media declines; and 3) building a talent pool of self-media professionals who understand both human rights theory and the laws of communication.
Fan Peng argued that within the Western concept of human rights, it is primarily seen as a political right—the right of a group or individual to be free from persecution and the right to political choice—determined by their unique historical experience and collective sensibilities. The Western view has evolved from collective experience into an abstract moral law. Internally, this has influenced Western political construction; externally, it serves as a pretext for the continuous export of human rights and interference in other countries' politics. This view fails to transcend historical experience. For the vast majority of developing countries, the primary human rights are the rights to subsistence and development; few have a historical culture that understands human rights solely through the lens of political persecution. The CPC and the Chinese government have always respected and protected human rights, consistently adhering to a people-centered human rights philosophy. In China, the people's happy life is the greatest human right, and the content of human rights is being continuously enriched in practice.
Xu Liping argued that a prominent problem is the lack of a Chinese voice in international public opinion. He identified three issues: a centrist perspective that lacks "perspective-switching" or total inclusiveness; the need for more research space for scholars; and the need for more professionalized communication. He suggested adopting a "one country, one policy" strategy to tell China’s story by focusing on national differences and integrating Chinese and foreign discourses to build consensus.
Wang Qiaorong suggested two areas of focus: systematically sorting through the differences between Eastern and Western human rights theories to make propaganda more targeted, and smoothing the channels for people-to-people exchanges, recognizing the value of subnational diplomacy in telling China’s story.
Huang Chengliang spoke on "telling China's story." He noted that human rights are a hallmark of human progress and that respecting them is a fundamental spirit of modern civilization and a relentless pursuit of the CPC. He argued that the mutual promotion of ecological civilization construction and human rights reveals the multidimensional achievements of the Party. He urged the establishment of a grand historical perspective to address the fundamental question of "why China is China," seeking common ground while reserving differences [2], and maintaining theoretical confidence.
Xu Xiujun focused on the international theoretical struggle. He noted that China’s international discourse power has significantly improved and suggested three methods for the struggle: "same-track struggle" (addressing issues while agreeing on basic concepts), "displaced competition" (competing based on a multidimensional understanding of human rights systems and actions), and "differentiated struggle" (using "one country, one policy" and targeting different audiences).
Liu Xiaomei analyzed human rights discourse from a legal perspective. She noted the phenomenon of being "silenced" in international opinion despite great achievements. She suggested developing "local characteristics and experience" on the basis of consensus to break the single Western model, utilizing existing international legal frameworks and platforms to voice support for practical work, and handling the relationship between "upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground."
Wei Nanzhi, drawing on American studies, offered three points: adherence to historical materialism to recognize that the shift in international discourse power is a process that "cannot be rushed" but also "cannot wait"; avoiding being led by agendas set by the West; and adhering to the principle of "no construction without destruction" (bu po bu li) [3] by analyzing the essence of issues to win over younger generations.
Hou Bo suggested: 1) proactively setting agendas based on China’s development experience; 2) holding small-scale thematic meetings to seek consensus; 3) unifying political, theoretical, practical, and communicative logics through platform building; and 4) cultivating a professional talent echelon.
Ye Jun analyzed the issues from the perspective of journalism and communication. He pointed out that the West habitually uses methods such as fabricating rumors, labeling, setting agendas, "tailoring" facts, politicizing academic discourse, shifting focus, and distorting history. To counter this, Chinese theorists must engage in active refutation, expand the flexibility of discourse, and proactively set the parameters of problem-solving scenarios.
Gong Yun concluded with an in-depth review. He noted that: 1) in the internet era, information asymmetry still exists, and theorists must use history to interpret China’s practice more persuasively; 2) theoretical research must better understand the "top-level design" of policies to avoid homogenized interpretations; and 3) the evaluation system for researchers must be adjusted to encourage forward-looking thinking.