Is there a differing perspective-US and china-that is not an issue, rather, of human rights, but of philosoph?

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE59P4E420091026



They say here that its a human right to be able to beleive what you would like. The human rights organizations and the United States. The logic behind it however, is a utilitarian one: it would cause for international instability if protests were to get out of hand.



However, through a utilitarian perspective, it could be argued by China, that the United States by denying its citizens the choice of consuming drugs (such as heroin, marijuana), they are oppressing people's right to choice (even though they do this as well, but this is mainly a rhetorical response), and in a utilitarian perspective, are effectively destroying the security of countries like mexico and columbia, when they could easily have international stability by legalizing it, and preventing the chaos that comes from the black market selling of illegal drugs.



China could also defend its position to repress ORGANIZED RELIGION, because it becomes a political force to contend with, which they will have to appease and negotiate with, leading perhaps to a democratic system, that enables several politcal itnerests but in effect, solves nothing for the people due to extensive bickering (just look at the health bill in the US right now). So, the arguement would follow, that China simply has a different perspective of what is utilitarian. For China, having long term goals and forward-looking measures for its people, is mroe important than havign 5 year cycles where one party trashes the other and good is done for the moment and short profit, rather than long term benefit to the peoples of the United States.



Therefore, they say its just a difference in perspective, and ahs rather, no basis or moral standing to say one or the other is superior, with the pretext of 'human rights'...But have had human rights infractions. The US invaded Iraq, killed thousands of people in the name of international stability and avoiding a nuclear holocaust. There were no nuclear weapons in Iraq and Iraq is several times less safe and less stable before we had gone in. Furthermore, the hedgemony with Israel and Israels' genocide in the west bank and gaza, could be cited as human rights violations (by extention, the US, which supports it unconditionally...although this may be chaning with different statements from obama).



So really, its just perspectrive. Yes, genocide and murder can be itnerpreted as a violation. Rape, loss of EXTREME freedoms. But sometimes, although this area may be quite gray, who is to say what is morally superior?Is there a differing perspective-US and china-that is not an issue, rather, of human rights, but of philosoph?
It is really a matter of human rights abuses by the authoritarian government of CCP.