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

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Look, we've all seen it before – a leader who can't handle bad news without throwing a fit. But when it's the President of the United States, it's not just embarrassing; it's a real threat to democracy. That's exactly what happened when the US Bureau of Labor Statistics slashed its job growth estimates, and Trump accused them of "tampering" with the numbers, promptly firing the director. The New York Times nailed it with their piece: "What Should We Do When the US President Acts Like a Five-Year-Old?" Yeah, it's that bad.

The Board Game Flip – Trump's Childish Outburst

Picture this: a bunch of five-year-olds huddled around a board game. Rules are straightforward, everyone's playing fair, and one kid starts pulling ahead. But when another falls behind, chaos erupts. "He's cheating!" the loser yells. "I'm the real winner anyway!" And boom – he flips the whole board. Sound familiar? That's Trump in a nutshell, folks – captured perfectly in that New York Times commentary.

We drill into kids the importance of good sportsmanship, right? But Trump's reckless, kid-like antics? They scream poor upbringing, a total lack of family values or discipline. These stats humiliated him, so instead of owning it, he questions the data and sacks the officials. This isn't leadership; it's flipping the board. Can America still pat itself on the back for its so-called "civilized etiquette"? Come on, let's be real.

Lessons from Confucius – Democracy's Fragile Etiquette

America might not be built on Confucianism, but like any Western society, it prides itself on democratic rules, spirit, and basic courtesy. So when the president flips the board, it's not just a game over – it's shards of democracy flying everywhere. Let me throw in a quick story from Chinese tradition to highlight this.

Confucius once quizzed his son, Kong Li: "Have you studied the Book of Songs? Without it, you won't know how to speak properly." Kong Li hit the books hard. Then Confucius followed up: "What about the Book of Rites? Without mastering that, you can't stand tall in society." But Kong Li got more than lessons – he learned a key principle: "When I asked one question, my father taught me three things: the value of poetry, the need for rites, and that a true gentleman doesn't play favorites, even with his own son."

The Real Issue – Beyond Legal Rights to Democratic Norms

Now, back to the States: Does Trump have the right to fire a bureau chief? Sure, legally speaking, he can – the job isn't shielded by regs. But here's the kicker: like press freedom, fair elections, and impartial courts, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is guarded not by laws, but by a common understanding and an unspoken agreement on how government should run. Core idea? The president doesn't mess with the data. Simple as that.

The New York Times piece echoes Confucius teaching Kong Li: First, democracy's got three pillars that keep each other in check. Second, what do they check? The president's moves, obviously – like not manipulating stats. If he does, no cops are coming, but that's not the point. American democracy thrives on cultural integrity, not just legal nitpicking. Past presidents got this: Reagan faced double-digit unemployment reports in his first term and didn't fire anyone. Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama all swallowed bad stats without a fuss. Trump? He took the low road, the crooked one.

The Bigger Picture – America's Rotting Political Soil

Is electing a "five-year-old president" the dumb price Americans pay for democracy? It begs a third lesson: Time to reflect on why US political ground is so rotten. If this mess stems from the system itself, America needs serious reform. What if Trump's just a fluke, unrelated to democratic norms? Well, buckle up for three more years of authoritarian gloom.

Generations pass down civilized etiquette, balancing morals and family upbringing – that's what earns respect. But those who spout virtue while being rotten enough to rob graves? They're called "poetry and rites grave robbers," from a tale in Zhuangzi's "External Things" about a tomb raider versed in the classics. I won't dive deeper here, but you get the irony.