In the final debate of the House of Lords in 2024 on China: Human Rights and Security, outspoken criticism was directed at Chinese authorities for restricting and violating fundamental human rights, particularly those of Uyghur Muslims. Amid these discussions, the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, offered some penetrating criticism of China’s domestic and transnational repression and reflected on the role of China’s historical worldview of ‘tianxia’ in this:

In contemporary China, tianxia manifests itself in the ideology of “one country, one people, one party, one leader”, and it has global implications too. In the words of Steve Tsang, the director of the SOAS China Institute, President Xi is undeterred by western objections because he believes in the moral righteousness and inevitability of Chinese global leadership. Of course he does because he believes in tianxia and, as we can see and as has been outlined in this debate, it manifests itself in Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong, in the South China Sea, in aggression towards Taiwan, in transnational repression and in malign influence such as we have seen here in recent days. The belt and road initiative is just another manifestation of it. It is seen specifically in violations of religion or belief. Religious minorities—Muslims in Xinjiang, Buddhists in Tibet, Falun Gong and Christians across China—must be repressed because they do not accept that ultimate authority rests with the one at the heart of the system, as tianxia dictates.

His reflection goes on to contemplate Western approaches to addressing such challenges:

A religiously illiterate approach that relies on Western secular assumptions simply will not do, and we cannot counter a three-millennia-old concept by appeal to a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was drawn up only in 1948, deeply as I believe in it… We must take a religiously informed approach to such a concept.

Bishop Mounstephen’s intervention is a welcome contribution to the debate, providing an insightful historical perspective and the idea of tianxia as a way to understand  China “in its own terms” is laudable. On the basis of this,  he proposes, but does not specify, ‘a religious informed approach’,  to deal with the challenges. This is to be welcomed to the extent to which it might go beyond the apparent ideological stalemate that is often reached in this debate. However, his comments raise several questions that need to be explored before this could be advanced.

Understanding Tianxia in Contemporary China

As Ban Wang, professor in Chinese studies at Standford University explains, ‘the idea of tianxia (天下) has never been rigorously defined’. Among modern scholars, the primary debate is whether it refers to a culturally specific realm without fixed political boundaries or is primarily a reference to China itself. Without delving into scholarly intricacies, if tianxia is understood as an historical imperial Chinese worldview– ‘a system of governance held together by a regime of culture and values that transcends racial and geographical boundaries’ – it can be argued that elements of the tianxia trope are present in the contemporary Chinese leadership’s worldview.(As Bishop Mounstephen’s  quotation from  Steve Tsang correctly suggests) .  Indeed, these ideas, along with other elements of  China’s historical narratives have been manipulated and used to serve the present as part of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s pragmatic governing strategies. However, what primarily drives China’s foreign policy, as Tsang also stresses, are ‘forces more powerful than its Sinocentric worldview.”

At the core of these more powerful forces, Tsang contends, lies China’s domestic politics and the structure of its Leninist party-state. Dedicated to maintaining its uncontested power and rule, the CCP is, “much more than the governing party or the party in power. It effectively claims and takes ownership of the country or the state and asserts a monopoly over national narratives… to an extent unimaginable in democracies or even most authoritarian states.”

This echoes perspectives from political scientists such as Minxin Pei and Guoguang Wu, who describe China’s system as ‘neo-totalitarian’ and reliant on “neo-Stalinist” strategies. Such a political system unsurprisingly results in draconian censorship, intolerance of dissent, and systematic human rights violations. If we are to understand China ‘in its own terms’,  it is essential to acknowledge that its nascent civil society has been stifled, with rights lawyers and activists jailed and many journalists and intellectuals forced into exile.

Reconsidering ‘Western Secular Assumptions’

Bishop Mounstephen’s reference to “Western secular assumptions” also warrants clarification. Since he specifically highlights the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, it is important to note that the UDHR was not merely a product of Western secular thought. It was drafted by ‘representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world.’

Notably, Peng-chun Chang (1892–1957), a Chinese playwright, philosopher, and diplomat, served as vice chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission alongside chairperson Eleanor Roosevelt. Chang played a crucial role in explaining Chinese conceptions of human rights and mediating ideological disputes by drawing on Confucian principles. His contributions have gained increasing recognition among historians.

Moreover, practices inspired by the UDHR often stem from local cultural sources rather than being exclusively “Western-centred.” For instance, Circle 19, a campaign group comprising media practitioners and experts from the Chinese diaspora, advocates for access to information in China. One of its core arguments counters the Chinese state’s narrative by demonstrating that free information flows have historically been central to Chinese intellectual traditions. This challenges the government’s claim that Western liberal ideology threatens Chinese cultural values. Supported by Reporters Sans Frontières, Circle 19 develops tools to bypass censorship and provides technical assistance for accessing censored information.

The Role of a ‘Religiously Informed Approach’

What might constitute the  ‘religiously informed approach’ advocated by Bishop Mounstephen is not entirely clear. As he points out,  religious observance is strictly controlled by the Chinese state, and any form  considered even vaguely threatening to its ideological hegemony is routinely, often brutally, suppressed. In this sense, exploring the historical-cultural roots of tianxia in ancient precepts (even if we are, generously, to count these as amounting to religious precepts) will not necessarily help in understanding  the current diverse worldview of the Chinese people. To be brief, regardless of approaches adopted, one crucial principle is to maintain a clear distinction between understanding the official ideological rhetoric and recognising the multifaceted unofficial Chinese culture, faith, religious belief and practices, which, despite marginalisation and repression, must not be ignored.

In fact, it may be worthwhile to point out that some religiously informed actions are already practiced by journalists, scholars, activists, and Christian communities both within China and abroad.

For example, Bitter Winter, an online magazine launched in 2018 in Turin, Italy, documents religious persecution and human rights abuses in China. Scholars, journalists, and activists collaborate to amplify the voices of persecuted individuals. Similarly, Bob Fu, an exiled Chinese Christian based in the United States, founded China Aid in 2002 to support Christians who suffered from prosecution and advocate for religious freedom, bringing international attention to China’s human rights violations. Journalist Ian Johnson documents the country’s great spiritual revivals in Christianity, Daoism, Buddhism and other faith groups in his book ‘The Souls of China: The Return of Religion After Mao.’ He also launched an online ‘China Unofficial Archives’ in 2023 as ‘an independent, reliable, non-partisan home’ to host underground historians’ work, books and films banned by the authorities, which can be accessed through VPN from China.

Additionally, politically active Christian groups demonstrate a strong commitment to a “religiously active approach.” Among them are the Cultural Christians – a constituency of Chinese rights lawyers, liberal intellectuals, writers, and activists who emerged in the early 21st century. They embrace Christianity not only as a religious faith but also as a moral and ideological foundation for democratic aspirations. As Lian Xi, professor of World Christianity at Duke Divinity Schoolargues, Christianity, for these individuals, becomes a fusion of their yearning for democracy and spiritual conviction, serving as both a sanctuary and a platform for resisting the arbitrary power of China’s party-state.

Recent examples further illustrate this dynamic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Christian beliefs, alongside other value systems, motivated whistleblowers and “truth-tellers” to challenge the Chinese government’s information control and censorship.

While Bishop Mounstephen’s call for a “religiously informed approach” is well-intentioned, his comments perhaps risk oversimplifying  the complex interplay of historical concepts, modern political structures, and human rights frameworks. Understanding China “in its own terms” requires acknowledging the CCP’s political imperatives, recognizing the diverse cultural and ideological contributions to human rights discourse, and appreciating the active role religiously motivated individuals and groups already play in advocating for freedom and justice.

Dr Tao Zhang is an expert in contemporary Chinese new media technology, culture and politics, from the School of Arts and Humanities

The Hon Minister of Interior, – Dr. Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo has given a matching order to the Nigeria Immigration Service to dismantle all bottlenecks hindering swift issuance of Passport to Nigerians.

The Minister also directed the Immigration Service to immediately disengage itself from any partnership found to be hampering speedy issuance of Passports to Nigerians.

Dr. Tunji-Ojo gave these instructions during his maiden familiarization visits to formations of the various Services under the Ministry of Interior, today Wednesday 30th August 2023 in Abuja.

He informed the NIS that he is helmsman at the Interior Ministry to drive the needed reforms that will see the actualisation of the Renewed Hope Agenda of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for Nigeria to achieve desired greatness.

The Minister then assured that new reforms and policies will soon be rolled out to further boost the efforts of officers and men of the Service.

Dr. Tunji-Oju made it abundantly clear that getting Nigerian passport is a right and not a privilege. He also demand that Nigerians living outside the shores of the country deserves to be respected.

He urged the London immigration office to improve it’s services and accord Nigerians maximum respect while seeking for travel documents to UK; adding that our citizens wherever they are must be proud to be Nigerians

The Minister appreciated the Correctional officers for their selfless service and pledged his support for their welfare.

Honourable Olubunmi promised that the Administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is ready to leverage on modern technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the services to the country.

Responding to questions from the Press at the Kuje Correctional facility, the Minister asserted that his visit was to make an on-the-spot assessment of the Centre in order to make corrections where necessary.

He added that Correctional Centres should not be repressive and condemnation centres but true reformative and corrective. He assured that similar visits to other facilities will be carried out across the country.

On the Minister’s entourage during the familiarization tour are the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry, Dr Oluwatoyin Akinlade, Directors in the ministry of Interior and other top management staff.