[We] call upon game producers to consequently and creatively incorporate rules of international humanitarian law and human rights into their games.

- BBC News

Two Swiss human rights organizations have slammed a series of war-related strategy and FPS games for permitting violence against civilians, including torture and massacres. They added that those who “violate international humanitarian law end up as war criminals, not as winners.” I think Pol Pot and Stalin may beg to differ, but political semantics aside, the point of computer games is to simulate reality in an entertaining format.

In real war, atrocities are carried out by belligerents upon civilians and soldiery alike, with little regard for the rule of law or the Geneva Conventions. Punishment, if it comes at all, is forced on the losers by the victors, whose own troops are, in victory, largely absolved of any responsibility for crimes committed in the line of duty. In my view, the inclusion of civilian targets in war games forces a moral decision on the player to choose between indiscriminate total war and a restrained, humanitarian approach. This decision is the player’s to make—psychos may want to gun babies down, but most of us abhor the idea and go to great lengths to protect civilians in games that feature them. Games with intriguing “moral arcs” such as BioShock and Half-Life dish out later punishments for ruthlessness (though they may reward it early on) and provide both replay value and allow players to experience guilt and become morally conflicted about their actions.

Typically, outside observers unaccustomed to computer games and their mores feel at liberty to comment on their content, in the same way that Southern baptists slam Harry Potter books for encouraging Satanism without taking the time to read, or even research their plotlines and characters. Preposterous arguments for Mao-style censorship are somehow granted legitimacy by being preceded with the idiot’s coverall disclaimer, “Speaking as a mother/priest/Presbyterian/humanitarian aid worker.” I’m with Trey Parker and Matt Stone—either it’s all acceptable, or none of it is. There are no, and can be no half-measures or compromises when it comes to freedom of speech.

Far be it from me to deny peoples’ opinions, but I also retain sufficient critical faculties (and a fundamental human right) to dismiss viewpoints which are founded on a lack of understanding and a vested interest in garnering publicity and provoking a “reaction.” I similarly disregard computer games as computer games, and while they have influenced my behavior in the past by making me a social recluse in my teenage years, they’ve never induced me to shoot coworkers or commuters in the face with an AK-47, no matter how tired or cranky I am. Researchers, even those invested in their findings, have failed to come up with a link between entertainment and violence—while the connection between religious and political education and violence is well documented, yet censorship has thus far failed to extend into our churches, mosques or sitting rooms. Compared to these vast institutions, the gaming industry is very, very small potatoes.

I applaud the work of humanitarian agencies, and would have no qualms about sending them to deal with any of the current hideous genocides and systemic oppressions going on around the world. But for opinions on the merits of computer gaming, I’ll ask computer gamers, not Amnesty International.

The political reality, which is plain for anyone to see, is that China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a constitution but no constitutional government.

-Excerpt from Charter 08

December 8, 2008 was the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was also the date on which Charter 08, a 3,200 word manifesto calling for the creation of a government based on human rights and democracy in China, was signed by 303 individuals. Charter 08 is modeled on Charter 77, a document similar in breadth and scope that was signed by 243 Czech and Slovak intellectuals including Václav Havel and many others who would go on to play a prominent role in the country’s post-Communist era.

Because Charter 08 has received a tremendous amount of publicity on the web, this brief post is going to focus on the extent to which the Charter has been influenced by American history. The “Our Fundamental Principles” section the Charter recalls two of the defining texts in American history: the First Amendment and the Gettysburg Address. The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Charter 08 similarly calls for “Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom in where we live, and the freedoms to strike, to demonstrate, among others, are the forms that freedom takes.” A later section of the Charter asserts, “We must guarantee freedom of religion and belief, and institute a separation of religion and state.”

The Gettysburg Address encompasses the essence of American ideals in its brief but enduring 272 words. In his rousing coda, Lincoln declared, “that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

The section of Charter 08 on democracy closes, “In short, democracy is a modern means for achieving government truly ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people,’” (emphasis added). It is quite plausible that the drafters of Charter 08 hope that their document will help lay the foundation for a new birth of freedom in China.

Charter 08 also recalls a less famous, but no less important, work from American history: the 10th Amendment to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Another section of Charter 08 reads, “Division of power between provincial governments and the central government should adhere to the principle that central powers are only those specifically granted by the constitution and all other powers belong to the local governments.” Given the historically centralized nature of the Chinese bureaucracy, implementing this reform would require a complete restructuring of the lines within the Chinese state.

Conclusion
Historians may harken back to the signing of Charter 08 as a watershed moment in Chinese history. It also may slowly fade until it becomes a blip in the 5,000 year history of Chinese civilization. Yet regardless of what the future may hold for Charter 08, the extent to which American history inspires it tells us something about our own country.

The ability of America to inspire those around the world lies not with its ability to produce pop music and Big Macs, but with the underlying tenants of our democracy, with the ideals upon which the nation was founded. The genius of the Constitution and Lincoln endure because they resonate with the wants, needs and desires of all people. It is from our past—and how it represents basic human desires—that America derives its enduring strength.