China dismisses US human rights report

[Nefertiti]

• Tweet

Just for laughs: it is always entertaining how much scorn China has for US human rights leadership

US report by Blinken

Chinese reaction

[Georgesoros]

Unless there is a recalibration of world order, these things mean nothing to China et al.
Rhetoric out of China these days makes Tiananmen Sq look stupid.
Govt knows best, and anyone opposed should be put away.

[Nefertiti]

Unless there is a recalibration of world order, these things mean nothing to China et al.
Rhetoric out of China these days makes Tiananmen Sq look stupid.
Govt knows best, and anyone opposed should be put away.

Yuh. I am one of the few who are not taken by the "fair" or "good guy" PR from either side. I can see the issue with the US leadership but I don't hold my breath on the virtues of the Chinese. Both are foxes in sheep skin.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Unless there is a recalibration of world order, these things mean nothing to China et al.
Rhetoric out of China these days makes Tiananmen Sq look stupid.
Govt knows best, and anyone opposed should be put away.

They don't care about human rights.  At all.  That's pretty scary. 

America has its flaws, that don't need belaboring, including hypocrisy.  But being an amoral entity is not of them.

[Dear Mami]

Unless there is a recalibration of world order, these things mean nothing to China et al.
Rhetoric out of China these days makes Tiananmen Sq look stupid.
Govt knows best, and anyone opposed should be put away.

They don't care about human rights.  At all.  That's pretty scary. 

America has its flaws, that don't need belaboring, including hypocrisy.  But being an amoral entity is not of them.

If we're going to make this about having morality vs amorality, then assuming Western human rights is the universal gauge for morality is where the bias begins. Why should that be so? The Chinese may not have Western human rights, doesn't mean they are amoral. After all, their idea of right over wrong means working to eradicate poverty and economic hardship for all their people, choosing policy starting with the poorest in mind. Who's to say theirs isn't morality, just because it's different from Western notions?

Also, this morality vs amorality thing should change depending on whether you're referring t the population or the leadership. Coz the latter seem pretty damn amoral to me, in the West. They will give weapons to commit genocide with one hand while carrying out a crusade for human rights with the other. Only soon after do we find out there's an interest there, it aint all feel-goodyness. The difference btw right and wrong is what it means for their power or profit. That's pretty std sociopathy. Zero principles, right and wrong come down to how it advances my agenda or not. Leaders will appear sociopathic, both Chinese and Western, because of these ruthless mode of operation, of which the US has proven expert on far more occasions than others. I see absolutely nothing to give the US even a tiny kudoz vis-a-vis others. Nothing.

[Georgesoros]

Unless there is a recalibration of world order, these things mean nothing to China et al.
Rhetoric out of China these days makes Tiananmen Sq look stupid.
Govt knows best, and anyone opposed should be put away.

Yuh. I am one of the few who are not taken by the "fair" or "good guy" PR from either side. I can see the issue with the US leadership but I don't hold my breath on the virtues of the Chinese. Both are foxes in sheep skin.

OMG Robina

You Too??
Fox/Taliban News ??

There is nothing western or Eastern about freedom.

There is a line in the sand When leadership treats citizens like they need to be "controlled" and molded to the whims of a defined state.
 

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Unless there is a recalibration of world order, these things mean nothing to China et al.
Rhetoric out of China these days makes Tiananmen Sq look stupid.
Govt knows best, and anyone opposed should be put away.

They don't care about human rights.  At all.  That's pretty scary. 

America has its flaws, that don't need belaboring, including hypocrisy.  But being an amoral entity is not of them.

If we're going to make this about having morality vs amorality, then assuming Western human rights is the universal gauge for morality is where the bias begins. Why should that be so? The Chinese may not have Western human rights, doesn't mean they are amoral. After all, their idea of right over wrong means working to eradicate poverty and economic hardship for all their people, choosing policy starting with the poorest in mind. Who's to say theirs isn't morality, just because it's different from Western notions?

I am for individual rights.  If that's western bias, then am guilty as charged.  Can you be for "eradication poverty for all your people" and still respect individual rights? I think so.  I prefer a world where if a genocide is happening and you can do something about, you don't choose to ignore it because it is none of your business of "eradicating poverty for all your people".  Does that mean poking your nose in other people's affairs?  Sometimes, maybe even often, it does.

Also, this morality vs amorality thing should change depending on whether you're referring t the population or the leadership. Coz the latter seem pretty damn amoral to me, in the West. They will give weapons to commit genocide with one hand while carrying out a crusade for human rights with the other. Only soon after do we find out there's an interest there, it aint all feel-goodyness. The difference btw right and wrong is what it means for their power or profit. That's pretty std sociopathy. Zero principles, right and wrong come down to how it advances my agenda or not. Leaders will appear sociopathic, both Chinese and Western, because of these ruthless mode of operation, of which the US has proven expert on far more occasions than others. I see absolutely nothing to give the US even a tiny kudoz vis-a-vis others. Nothing.

They may seem amoral, but barring the rare cases like Donald Trump, they are generally not.  They are amenable to being shamed and subject to social sanctions.  Hypocrisy is a charge that can stick better.

[Dear Mami]

They may seem amoral, but barring the rare cases like Donald Trump, they are generally not.  They are amenable to being shamed and subject to social sanctions.  Hypocrisy is a charge that can stick better.

This only means they are not jerks to American citizens whose ballot they fear. Too bad for you if you happen to be Yemeni, Palestinian, Libyan, Venezuelan, Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian . . . etc etc. See how much you can 'shame' them into remembering your humanity then.

Hence . . . amoral sticks very well. This is why hypocrisy comes easy to them. It's because those principles are easy to pick up and throw away according to how they serve or hinder the interests of power and money.

About intervening to stop genocides: The ONE unambiguous case of Genocide since WWII, Rwanda, saw them refusing to touch with a 1,000-foot pole. This was not Trump, it was Clinton. Almost every time they scream genocide, it's for some manipulative reason, and typically, things tuirn out far more nuanced than they claim. What can stop genocides is a security system to which all are subject, which they will not let happen. They even threaten to invade Netherlands if an American is tried there.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

They may seem amoral, but barring the rare cases like Donald Trump, they are generally not.  They are amenable to being shamed and subject to social sanctions.  Hypocrisy is a charge that can stick better.

This only means they are not jerks to American citizens whose ballot they fear. Too bad for you if you happen to be Yemeni, Palestinian, Libyan, Venezuelan, Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian . . . etc etc. See how much you can 'shame' them into remembering your humanity then.

Hence . . . amoral sticks very well. This is why hypocrisy comes easy to them. It's because those principles are easy to pick up and throw away according to how they serve or hinder the interests of power and money.

That's a broad brush that ignores the evidence.  That Americans have been charged and found guilty for violations of non-Americans is not something I am going to belabor. 

It's hypocrisy that we see with most American leaders.  Hypocrisy is not synonymous with amorality.  What they do when they ignore principles that they generally believe in is immoral.  Not amoral.

[Dear Mami]

That's a broad brush that ignores the evidence.  That Americans have been charged and found guilty for violations of non-Americans is not something I am going to belabor. 

It's hypocrisy that we see with most American leaders.  Hypocrisy is not synonymous with amorality.  What they do when they ignore principles that they generally believe in is immoral.  Not amoral.

The evidence of American treachery is through the roof! 200 years + (and counting), including the distinction of being the only people who have proven their unspeakable willingness to use atomic bombs. What do you mean ignoring evidence? Evidence is exactly what turned me anti-American-hegemony.

These principles are used like any tool. Depends on how useful, not how good. This is why they were nowhere near Rwanda while they are busy making up fake genocides for their geopolitical contests. Reason: No interest to protect in Rwanda. That's what amorality does.

Btw, non-interventinism . . . is inot amorality. It is international law. Russia is using this same line (Nazi war in East Ukraine against ethnic Russians) to justify its own invasion, following this same trend. No country is permitted to do so without UN authorization. So these countries who insist on only authorized intervention can't be accused of amorality on this basis alone. What the world needs is an international structure that everyone obeys. Not a rogue country that determines genocide on whether the sitting president is playing ball with them and their interests/companies or not. Once you allow this for one, it's open season for everyone with the means to do so in pursuit of their own interests to do it.

I just see nothing but maybe patriotism and similar affection that could make you believe American leaders have been more moral towards non-Americans than others. It's not just Trump, either. Obama tried the most but still was swallowed by the same cabal eventually.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

They may seem amoral, but barring the rare cases like Donald Trump, they are generally not.  They are amenable to being shamed and subject to social sanctions.  Hypocrisy is a charge that can stick better.

About intervening to stop genocides: The ONE unambiguous case of Genocide since WWII, Rwanda, saw them refusing to touch with a 1,000-foot pole. This was not Trump, it was Clinton. Almost every time they scream genocide, it's for some manipulative reason, and typically, things tuirn out far more nuanced than they claim. What can stop genocides is a security system to which all are subject, which they will not let happen. They even threaten to invade Netherlands if an American is tried there.

They didn't intervene in Rwanda.  Nor in Cambodia - they arguably added to the suffering there.  It does not mean they didn't care about right or wrong.  They still got to hear about it from many groups.  Enough for Clinton to be shamed into apologizing to Rwanda.

A security system to which all are subject to is ideal and I am for it.  But I cannot ignore the reality that some are more powerful, even too powerful to be subject to it.  I just prefer that those in that position are not amoral.

[Dear Mami]

So what are you using to decide on who has morals then, if not consistency of principles? Non-authorized interventionism is the correct International Law Principle/Rule btw. So insisting on this is not amoral, it's legal. What should happen is the UN should decide (or the OSCE or the AU, etc). US selfish interventionism has only undermined the International system. Nothing since Rwanda (or the apology you refer to) shows they have a different set of rules to operate on now. They still chose based on their geopolitical interests.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

That's a broad brush that ignores the evidence.  That Americans have been charged and found guilty for violations of non-Americans is not something I am going to belabor. 

It's hypocrisy that we see with most American leaders.  Hypocrisy is not synonymous with amorality.  What they do when they ignore principles that they generally believe in is immoral.  Not amoral.

The evidence of American treachery is through the roof! 200 years + (and counting), including the distinction of being the only people who have proven their unspeakable willingness to use atomic bombs. What do you mean ignoring evidence? Evidence is exactly what turned me anti-American-hegemony.

These principles are used like any tool. Depends on how useful, not how good. This is why they were nowhere near Rwanda while they are busy making up fake genocides for their geopolitical contests. Reason: No interest to protect in Rwanda. That's what amorality does.

Btw, non-interventinism . . . is inot amorality. It is international law. Russia is using this same line (Nazi war in East Ukraine against ethnic Russians) to justify its own invasion, following this same trend. No country is permitted to do so without UN authorization. So these countries who insist on only authorized intervention can't be accused of amorality on this basis alone. What the world needs is an international structure that everyone obeys. Not a rogue country that determines genocide on whether the sitting president is playing ball with them and their interests/companies or not.

I just see nothing but maybe patriotism and similar affection that could make you believe American leaders have been more moral towards non-Americans than others. It's not just Trump, either. Obama tried the most but still was swallowed by the same cabal eventually.

I am the least patriotic human being  .  I generally have a lot of contempt for patriotism.  I feel like spitting every time I see it.  But trust me, if I am somehow captured prisoner in a conflict between US and Russia for instance, please let it be the Americans or any Westerners(yes, they have Abu Ghraib - but I will take my chances there).

About non-intervention, I am bit stale on that but, isn't there a law about interventions in the case of genocides and similar crimes?  In any case, I prefer a situation where a country can intervene to do "the right thing" even if it is against international law.  I don't think the Russian intervention passes that smell test.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

So what are you using to decide on who has morals then, if not consistency of principles? Non-authorized interventionism is the correct International Law Principle/Rule btw. So insisting on this is not amoral, it's legal. What should happen is the UN should decide (or the OSCE or the AU, etc). US selfish interventionism has only undermined the International system. Nothing since Rwanda (or the apology you refer to) shows they have a different set of rules to operate on now. They still chose based on their geopolitical interests.

If you look at China's response to the accusations, you'll notice they are not denying them.  They just don't care.  If they denied it(it's not that hard), even if they were lying, they would exhibit a moral compass.  A capability of being shamed.  I don't buy the idea that individual rights somehow stop to matter if you are a Maoist, Confucianist(and I don't what else those folks have).  There are universal rights like freedom from torture that I think everybody deserves.  Laws about it are great, but I see it as self evident(nothing to do with my Western bias).

[Dear Mami]

About non-intervention, I am bit stale on that but, isn't there a law about interventions in the case of genocides and similar crimes?  In any case, I prefer a situation where a country can intervene to do "the right thing" even if it is against international law.  I don't think the Russian intervention passes that smell test.

Cases of genocides or others call for international cooperation, yes, but not unilateral armed action. American scholars and similar tried to push this 'responsibility to protect' principle, especially since the 90s, to bypass the prohibition of unauthorized intervention, and it sounds very noble, but the problem is: who decides? It's just a back door route to permitting armed intervention as long as a country can find something bad enough in their neighbor to use as a reason. The people in Donbas have complained of being victimized and fought a war to free themselves for 8 years: If you decide the US should get to do this, you'll find it very difficult to argue against Russian intervention. And I'd lean that way (I used to) if I was convinced Americans do this as a matter of fact. But I'm convinced of the exact opposite. I see nothing but disaster in the wake of their 'interventions.'

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

About non-intervention, I am bit stale on that but, isn't there a law about interventions in the case of genocides and similar crimes?  In any case, I prefer a situation where a country can intervene to do "the right thing" even if it is against international law.  I don't think the Russian intervention passes that smell test.

Cases of genocides or others call for international cooperation, yes, but not unilateral armed action. American scholars and similar tried to push this 'responsibility to protect' principle, especially since the 90s, to bypass the prohibition of unauthorized intervention, but the problem is: who decides? It's just a back door route to permitting armed intervention as long as a country can find something bad enough in their neighbor to use as a reason. The people in Donbas have complained of being victimized and fought a war to free themselves for 8 years: If you decide the US should get to do this, you'll find it very difficult to argue against Russian intervention. And I'd lean that way (I used to) if I was convinced Americans do this as a matter of fact. But I'm convinced of the exact opposite. I see nothing but disaster in the wake of their 'interventions.'

Russia's reasons for intervention are not convincing.  They lied that they weren't going to do it in the first place.  If that were the only thing they did, I might be less inclined to dismiss them offhand.  But Putin has also questioned the rationale for Ukraine's own existence among other revisionist nonsense.  The guy is obviously a brutal dictator; a distinction that counts for a lot - fair or not - in who I trust.

[Georgesoros]

Unless there is a recalibration of world order, these things mean nothing to China et al.
Rhetoric out of China these days makes Tiananmen Sq look stupid.
Govt knows best, and anyone opposed should be put away.

Yuh. I am one of the few who are not taken by the "fair" or "good guy" PR from either side. I can see the issue with the US leadership but I don't hold my breath on the virtues of the Chinese. Both are foxes in sheep skin.

iI have been listening to lots of Budha man and one thing I learnt is that there are no good or bad people. There are the miserable - Trumps, who are willing to pass misery to others, and the non miserable Mother Teresas willing to pass good to others.

[Nefertiti]

Kadame: in US defense didn't they attempt to intervene in Somalia in the post-Siad Barre civil war? Before they departed with a bloodied nose.

[Dear Mami]

Kadame: in US defense didn't they attempt to intervene in Somalia in the post-Siad Barre civil war? Before they departed with a bloodied nose.

Ethiopia tried unilateralism in Somalia and left with an ever bigger bleed n their nose than the US. What should've happened in Somalia is a better version of what's happening now. How does America fly over an ocean and continent to fix things half a world away? Regional intervention, supported (not overtaken) by the UN/International System is the only way to go. Even we (+254) have only been mildly successful there because we quickly got our act together and handed things over to the auspices of regional outfits.

Even in our case (PEV), the Americans didn't just take over: they worked with the AU then used their muscle to push things through in the final stage. If things had gone well beyond the PEV (say a full-scale civil war) their intervention still wouldn't have helped without our neighbors running here (as a collective) to help us. We have to move towards structured multilateralism if we mean peace. Hii mambo ya Superman countries is not good for global peace.

[Nefertiti]

Kadame: in US defense didn't they attempt to intervene in Somalia in the post-Siad Barre civil war? Before they departed with a bloodied nose.

Ethiopia tried unilateralism in Somalia and left with an ever bigger bleed n their nose than the US. What should've happened in Somalia is a better version of what's happening now. How does America fly over an ocean and continent to fix things half a world away? Regional intervention, supported (not overtaken) by the UN/International System is the only way to go. Even we (+254) have only been mildly successful there because we quickly got our act together and handed things over to the auspices of regional outfits.

Even in our case (PEV), the Americans didn't just take over: they worked with the AU then used their muscle to push things through in the final stage. If things had gone well beyond the PEV (say a full-scale civil war) their intervention still wouldn't have helped without our neighbors running here (as a collective) to help us. We have to move towards structured multilateralism if we mean peace. Hii mambo ya Superman countries is not good for global peace.

True but I meant the US intervened without direct interests to protect. Are they (Americans) as amoral as you wish?