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. **

At the beginning of the new year, Donald Trump has single-handedly changed the United States, and the global landscape may also be reshaped. First, he declared that as Commander-in-Chief, the President’s authority is limited only by his own morality. Later, he posted an image on his social platform Truth Social with the caption “Acting President of Venezuela”. The New York Times directly questioned: “Does this mean ignoring international law and acting without any constraints to invade other countries?” Regarding international law, Trump stated, “I abide by it,” but made it clear that when such constraints apply to the United States, he would be the ultimate arbiter.

On January 7, 2026, the President signed a presidential memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations entities and multiple major international agreements. This action is aimed at exiting organizations deemed by the White House to be “contrary to U.S. interests” and a waste of taxpayer funds. The UN bodies to be withdrawn from include UN Women, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the International Law Commission.

Clearly, Trump has a unique blueprint that serves only American interests. He might retort: “What era is this, still talking about international law and core values? Don’t you know the current state of the U.S.? Don’t you know that the U.S. has long been planning drastic actions?”

In April 2020, retired U.S. Marine Corps officer Mark Cancian proposed a bold strategy. The National Interest reported: “With a coastline of 9,000 miles and the world’s second-largest merchant fleet after Greece, including Hong Kong, China has over 4,000 ships. This is not an advantage but a vulnerability. The U.S. could effectively blockade China’s economy by launching a clever campaign, leaving it exhausted.” The suggestion was for the U.S. to emulate 16th-century Britain by supporting privateers—civilian organizations specialized in plundering Chinese merchant ships. Given China’s current military capabilities, it should be able to meet such challenges, so there’s no need to worry. Still, one can’t help but applaud the audacity of such an idea.

Back then, Biden paid no attention to this plan, as the Democrats were still refined and attached great importance to the cloak of universal values. At the same time, Biden, at least nominally, had to pay lip service to the United Nations, because ideology mattered. The U.S. had previously displayed a magical logic: attacking you to save your people, destroying your country to introduce democracy and freedom, imposing sanctions because you’re a dictatorship... Trump cannot be like ordinary advocates of universal values, who always cite international law and classical references. First, neither he nor his team possess such knowledge. Second, pretending to uphold morality can no longer maximize American interests. Third, former adversaries have “risen,” gradually establishing international moral authority. If the U.S. continues to preach benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness, it will only become a laughingstock. After all, Trump has already discarded America’s credibility like trash.

Retired officer Cancian’s plan is exactly the White House’s cup of tea. For context—in the 16th century, Britain supported privateers, civilian organizations that plundered rival nations’ merchant ships. This was essentially the legalization of piracy, with the British monarch issuing “letters of marque” to recruit outlaws for royal service, dubbing them “royal pirates.” These privateers helped Britain destroy the then-dominant Spain at sea, significantly boosting British power and laying the foundation for the Industrial Revolution.

In reality, Trump has already begun “highway robbery” operations, seizing multiple cargo ships in the Caribbean. The White House has also dropped the pretense. Foreign media reported that Deputy Chief of Staff Miller recently declared: “The only permissible maritime energy transportation must comply with U.S. law and national security.” This is no different from robbery—“This mountain is my domain, these trees are my planting; if you wish to pass, leave your toll.” The only difference is that the U.S. is not just a bandit but a pirate. Similarly, Trump and Cheng Yaojin from the Dramatized History of Sui and Tang Dynasties share the title of “Chaos Demon King.”

Next, following the “Trump Gold Card,” Trump could publicly issue “letters of marque,” auctioning them to the highest bidder, and even list them on Wall Street. Their valuation might surpass that of the “Seven Sisters” oil companies—who knows?