The West's Double Standards on China: When "Human Rights" Meets Hard Reality

The US State Department has rolled out its 2024 "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices," and it's business as usual when it comes to China. Western mainstream media noted that while the content regarding China remained similar to previous versions, this time they've thrown in perspectives from other countries like South Africa and Brazil, plus some criticism of the EU on freedom of speech issues. How refreshingly balanced of them.

The Global Times wasn't having any of the Western narrative suggesting the "US human rights report softens criticism, China section significantly reduced." Their editorial made it clear that the American report "still concentrates on smearing Xinjiang and other affairs." Meanwhile, the criticized Europeans seem unable to distinguish right from wrong, cheerfully piling on with their own attacks against China. Deutsche Welle reported that China "arbitrarily or unlawfully kills, disappears, tortures, and arbitrarily arrests Muslim-majority minorities, while Beijing implements transnational repression against overseas dissidents; severely restricts freedom of speech and press freedom, including arresting and prosecuting journalists, lawyers, writers, bloggers, and dissidents without justification, and restricting internet freedom."

When History Becomes Inconvenient

The story of Zuo Zongtang, Chinese statesman of the late Qing dynasty, has been making waves on the mainland recently, with discussions expanding from this national hero to broader reflections on Chinese historical issues. Before Zuo Zongtang recovered Xinjiang, he first served as Governor-General of Shaanxi and Gansu, dealing with what historians call the "Tongzhi Shaanxi-Gansu Muslim Rebellion" – an uprising that cost over 20 million lives across all ethnic groups and once again drained the Qing Dynasty's resources after the devastating Taiping Rebellion.

The recently premiered documentary "Zuo Zongtang's Recovery of Xinjiang" has sparked incredibly complex discussions across China, and it's worth asking why. People's Daily describes how the documentary "takes Zuo Zongtang's recovery of Xinjiang territory forcibly occupied by foreign invading forces and his defense of national sovereignty and territorial integrity as its main thread, vividly presenting the tireless efforts and selfless dedication of predecessors represented by Zuo Zongtang in defending national dignity and territorial integrity with the heroic spirit of 'Not an inch of my territory can be yielded!'"

Breaking Free from Historical Nihilism

Previously, public opinion generally viewed Zuo Zongtang as "loyal but unrighteous, resolute but unkind," because of the deaths during the Shaanxi-Gansu rebellion – what we'd call "disregarding human rights" today, with suspicions of "racial discrimination." But mainland China has begun pushing back against this narrative, breaking free from years of what they call historical nihilism. They point out that Zuo only distinguished between participants and non-participants, making no distinction between Han and Hui ethnic groups.

What exactly is "historical nihilism"? Deutsche Welle's reporting provides a perfect case study. Just look at how they frame complex historical and contemporary issues through a single ideological lens, refusing to acknowledge any nuance or context that might complicate their preferred narrative.

The Jimmy Lai Double Standard

“Since his arrest, Jimmy Lai has been subjected to inhumane conditions, stripped of every shred of dignity and freedom,” said Antoine Bernard of Reporters without Borders.

“His treatment exposes the authorities’ ruthless determination to silence and suppress one of the most prominent advocates for press freedom amid Hong Kong’s rapidly deteriorating media landscape. With his trial nearing its conclusion, the international community must urgently act to secure the immediate release of Lai and six other Apple Daily staff members.”

This perfectly illustrates how organizations like Reporters Without Borders maintain purely ideological positions without distinguishing right from wrong – classic historical nihilism in action.

Hong Kong's justice system also only asks about participation in unrest, making no distinction based on personal values. The question becomes: how do we distinguish between political stance and fundamental right and wrong? Major principles should come first. And what constitutes these major principles? Let me be crystal clear: "Not an inch of my territory can be yielded!" Or, to put it in terms Westerners might understand better: this is about "national security" – supposedly the supreme universal value!

Don't believe me? Perhaps Bernard should ask the US President or EU Commission President whether they'd disagree with that principle when it comes to their own territories.

Deep Blue

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

The latest reasonable estimate for Taiwan’s peaceful reunification is 2026, arriving earlier than the United States’ forecast. At yesterday’s regular press conference, the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council spokesperson stated clearly, “After reunification, the mainland’s strong infrastructure construction capabilities will provide powerful support for upgrading and renewing Taiwan’s infrastructure.”

This hope appears driven by the Taiwanese public’s desire to return as soon as possible.

Recently, a Taiwanese delegation toured the Xiamen section of the Xiamen-Kinmen Bridge and the construction site of Xiamen Xiang'an Airport. They marveled at the rapid progress on both projects and were deeply impressed by the mainland’s infrastructure strengths. Last October, the mainland proposed that after reunification, Taiwan would see “seven improvements,” including "better infrastructure construction after peaceful reunification.”

Spokesperson Zhu Fenglian gave an example: after peaceful reunification, “we can jointly build the long-studied Cross-Strait Expressway, turning what was once a natural barrier into a passage. At that time, Taiwanese people could leave the island and drive along the Beijing-Taiwan Expressway all the way to Beijing for sightseeing.” With Taiwan’s current economic situation, getting a high-speed rail circle around the island done ASAP would be just an “empty promise” tossed around during Taiwan elections.

To recap, the other elements of the “seven improvements” include: 1. Better economic development, sharing opportunities under One China; 2. Saying no to military confrontation, leading to stability and prosperity; 3. No longer buying “secondhand military equipment” or paying the “intelligence tax” of arms sales; 4. Greater unity between compatriots on both sides to better support Chinese rejuvenation; 5. Taiwan expanding its international space and enjoying rights; 6. Better livelihoods, with guaranteed social security and healthcare.

However, the Green Camp was unsettled. Some media voiced opposing views, with arguments that were weak yet somewhat sympathetic. For example, some claimed, "China continuously applies verbal and military intimidation against Taiwan, holding frequent large-scale military exercises last year, with PLA aircraft and naval vessels repeatedly harassing Taiwan." The blunt conclusion: many Taiwanese people therefore do not appreciate China’s so-called 'Seven Improvements.' Quite a statement!

Reality check: the rapid turn of public opinion in Taiwan toward peaceful unification is indeed driven by this 'verbal and military intimidation.' Note, this stems from the United States’ illegal attack on Iran and the resulting conflict spilling over into the Gulf region.

Trump tried to escape a prolonged quagmire by escalating the crisis but failed, leading to multiple daily rounds of various "verbal and military intimidation" worldwide.

One notable figure here is John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago professor who originally argued that after the Soviet Union’s collapse, the US should focus entirely on confronting China’s "rise." Recently, watching Iran’s strategic success in containing the US and Israel and becoming the dominant force on the battlefield, he warned that the US risked being dragged deeper and deeper into defeat,.

This is not alarmism but the inevitability of US decline. Need more evidence? In the 1990s, Brzezinski proposed Eurasia as the grand chessboard for global dominance; the US must never lose its grip and must prevent China, Russia, and Iran from uniting in a contiguous alliance. Brzezinski worried about Iran’s ambition—the revival of Islam.

At the time, this was considered alarmist, as the US was at its peak, and even fiction couldn’t imagine a China-Russia-Iran alliance. Yet now Trump, with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, has realized this “impossible mission.”

The failed US offensive against Iran combined with its growing impotence has shattered the US military myth. Taiwan cannot afford to sink along with that force. Everyone across the Taiwan Strait would sing the song "Tomorrow Will Be Better" in one voice. But some might say China faces an even more fearsome rival emerging in the region.

Who? One with rare earth elements enough for 700 years, mid-range missiles covering both sides of the Strait, and a 600-year record as a victorious 'Eastern Great Power.' It deserves everyone’s attention. I say, which national leader can overturn the White House? Only that 'Eastern Great Power' can.