[Opportunism in relation to human rights is not a path to peace
and justice in our tormented world, which depends on cooperation and
multilateralism, and rejects efforts to split the world into a
self-righteous struggle between good and evil.]
[[link removed]]

UNJUSTIFIED CRITICISM OF HIGH COMMISSIONER MICHELLE BACHELET’S
VISIT TO CHINA  
[[link removed]]


 

Alfred de Zayas and Richard Falk
June 13, 2022
CounterPunch
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Opportunism in relation to human rights is not a path to peace and
justice in our tormented world, which depends on cooperation and
multilateralism, and rejects efforts to split the world into a
self-righteous struggle between good and evil. _

Bachelet during a television debate in 2005.,

 

As former UN rapporteurs we are committed to the promotion and
protection of human rights in all corners of the world, including
China.  Progress can only be achieved on the basis on good faith
implementation of the UN Charter and UN human rights treaties, and
requires patience, perseverance, and international solidarity.

An artificial atmosphere of hostility, sustained by geopolitical
agendas, double standards, fake news and skewed narratives has made it
difficult to tackle specific human rights problems and advance on the
progressive enjoyment of human rights in larger freedom. Human rights
allegations were being selectively deployed as a geopolitical tool,
above all to stoke the embers of confrontation that was high on the
agenda of both the Trump and Biden presidencies.

Already in April 2021, in an essay on China published in
Counterpunch[1] [//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftn1], we
noted that spreading propaganda about a supposed “genocide” in
Xinjiang was highly irresponsible and would poison relations between
the US and China besides weakening the human rights discourse.  We
then warned that such hyperbolic narratives would make it more
difficult to increase respect human rights concerns in other more
appropriate settings..  A similar essay was published by Professors
Jeffrey Sachs and William Schabas in Project Syndicate[2]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftn2]. In a variety of fora
we have since repeatedly called for more professionalism on the part
of politicians, journalists and human rights activists in addressing
human rights issues, which are always delicate matters as infringing
upon sovereign rights unless firmly grounded, and thus perverted into
serving the ends of coercive diplomacy and even war-mongering..

The invitation by the Chinese government to the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights to come and see for herself, and the invitation to UN
rapporteurs were very positive signs, and rarely has a government
under scrutiny been so forthcoming. It represents an important show of
confidence by China and its leadership in its own willingness to
uphold international norms and to trust in the impartiality of the HRC
and its High Commissioner. China should have been applauded along with
Ms. Michelle  Bachelet instead of being subjected to a barrage of
geopolitically motivated hostile propaganda. She accepted the
invitation some months ago, dispatching in April the High Commissioner
an advance-team of five OHCHR professionals to prepare her mission.[3]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftn3]

While many welcomed China’s opening to the United Nations, some
politicians who evidently are not interested in objective assessments
but _a priori_ already have their standard condemnation of China,
criticised Bachelet’s intention to visit China and advised her not
to go[4] [//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftn4].  This is not
unlike the experience of the UN independent expert on international
order, who prior to his mission to Venezuela in November/December 2017
(the first in 21 years) received letters and emails from some ngo’s
asking him not to go, because, of course, everybody already knew that
the Venezuelan government was corrupt and incompetent and that the
only function of a rapporteur would be to demand “regime
change”[5] [//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftn5].  This is
disturbingly politicized approach to human rights missions – and
indeed any form of independent assessment – and misuses and inflates
human rights wrongs as part of a mobilization of public opinion
against the targeted state, and often preceded regime-changing
interventions as in Iraq, 2003.  Partaking of such an approach would
be unworthy of a High Commissioner, UN rapporteur or special envoy,
and should not be indulged, as it sometimes is, by human rights NGOs.

At the end of her six-day mission to China, Bachelet issued a highly
informative, comprehensive, and nuanced end-of-mission statement in
Guangzhou on 28 May 2022. [link removed] that
constitutes the most trustworthy assessment of China’s human rights
record that is now available.

To our dismay, instead of hailing the breakthrough achieved by
Michelle Bachelet in opening the door to OHCHR monitoring and
cooperation, a number of academics and NGOs criticized the High
Commissioner’s mission to China, condemning it as  a “failed
visit”[6] [//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftn6]  and some
even calling for her resignation[7]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftn7].  We write as UN
former rapporteurs who recognize the ground-breaking nature of
Bachelet’s visit, strongly rejecting such unjustifiable criticism
and consider that impressive progress has been achieved by this highly
professional mission to China, a first to China in 17 years by a UN
High Commissioner. We note with satisfaction that Bachelet returned to
Geneva with positive prospects for future cooperation, including the
formalization of a mechanism for future activities to strengthen the
observance of human rights in China.  A likely first step that will
be to arrange future visits by the High Commissioner of the HRC,  by
UN rapporteurs and working groups, and even by other UN agencies such
as ILO, WHO and UNHCR. We would take note of the fact that no
comparable gesture of cooperation with UN on human rights matters has
been exhibited by China’s leading adversary, the United States.

It appears that some critics have misunderstood the High
Commissioner’s mandate[8]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftn8] pursuant to General
Assembly Resolution 48/141, and disregard the over-all purpose of the
Human Rights Council, which is to assist countries in improving their
human rights performance.  Progress in human rights terms is not
achieved by confrontational policies, by “naming and shaming” or
by insulting governments, but rather by patient investigation of the
root causes of problems, rigorous compilation of evidence, balanced
evaluation of the facts in their proper context, due consideration of
all views by governments, civil society, non-governmental
organizations, academics and victims.  That was precisely the focus
of  the High Commissioner’s mission to China.

Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 48/141, High Commissioners:

“Function within the framework of the _Charter of the United
Nations_ [[link removed]], the _Universal
Declaration of Human Rights_
[[link removed]], other international
instruments of human rights and international law, including the
obligations, within this framework, to respect the sovereignty,
territorial integrity and domestic jurisdiction of States and to
promote the universal respect for and observance of all human rights,
in the recognition that, in the framework of the purposes and
principles of the Charter, the promotion and protection of all human
rights is a legitimate concern of the international community;

“Among the duties of every High Commissioner are

“To provide… advisory services and technical and financial
assistance, at the request of the State concerned and, where
appropriate, the regional human rights organizations, with a view to
supporting actions and programmes in the field of human rights;

To engage in a dialogue with all Governments in the implementation of
his/her mandate…”

The end of mission statement
[[link removed]] made
by Michelle Bachelet demonstrates she diligently listened to the
views and grievance of all parties, pursuant to the rule “listen to
all sides”  — _audiatur et altera pars._ Her mission
encompassed a wide range of issues bearing on  civil, cultural,
economic, political and social rights, including the rule of law, the
administration of justice, the death penalty, civil society
participation in the political processes, freedom of expression, human
rights defenders, climate change, world peace, the sustainable
development goals, and others.

With regard to the allegations concerning grave human rights
violations in Xinjiang, the mission statement notes:

“In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, I have raised questions
and concerns about the application of counter-terrorism and
de-radicalisation measures and their broad application –
particularly their impact on the rights of Uyghurs and other
predominantly Muslim minorities. While I am unable to assess the full
scale of the  Vocational Education and Training Centres, I raised
with the Government the lack of independent judicial oversight of the
operation of the program, the reliance by law enforcement officials on
15 indicators to determine tendencies towards violent extremism,
allegations of the use of force and ill treatment in institutions, and
reports of unduly severe restrictions on legitimate religious
practices. During my visit, the Government assured me that the VETC
system has been dismantled. I encouraged the Government to undertake a
review of all counter terrorism and deradicalization policies to
ensure they fully comply with international human rights standards,
and in particular that they are not applied in an arbitrary and
discriminatory way.

Before coming to China, I heard from some Uyghur families now living
abroad who have lost contact with their loved ones. In my discussions
with the authorities, I appealed to them to take measures to provide
information to families as a matter of priority.”

With regard to Tibet Bachelet observed:

“it is important the linguistic, religious and cultural identity of
Tibetans be protected, and that Tibetan people are allowed to
participate fully and freely in decisions about their religious life
and for dialogue to take place. I discussed education policies in the
Tibet Autonomous Region and stressed the importance of children
learning in their own language and culture in the setting of their
families or communities.”

With regard to Hong Kong she noted:

 “Hong Kong has long been respected as a centre for human rights
and independent media in the region. It is important that the
Government there do all it can to nurture – and not stifle – the
tremendous potential for civil society and academics in Hong Kong to
contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights in the
HKSAR and beyond. The arrests of lawyers, activists, journalists and
others under the National Security Law are deeply worrying. Hong Kong
is due to be reviewed by the UN Human Rights Committee in July, as a
party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

The mission must be seen as the beginning of a process that will
hopefully contribute to the gradual improvement of the human rights
situation in China.  This must be welcomed by all governments, civil
society and professionally responsible NGOs. In this regard we are
appalled by those private sector organizations (NGOs and think tanks)
proclaiming a commitment to human rights yet in their operations,
often funded by the U.S. Government or wealthy right-wing donors,
exemplified by the  National Endowment for Democracy.

Among the many successes of the Bachelet mission, we highlight
arrangements calling for further cooperation between OHCHR and China.
In the words of the report:  “We also agreed to establish a working
group to facilitate substantive exchanges and cooperation between my
Office and the Government through meetings in Beijing and in Geneva,
as well as virtual meetings. This working group will organize a series
of follow-up discussions about specific thematic areas, including but
not limited to development, poverty alleviation and human rights,
rights of minorities, business and human rights, counter-terrorism and
human rights, digital space and human rights, judicial and legal
protection and human rights, as well as other issues raised by either
side.

This will allow for structured engagement of my Office with China on a
number of human rights issues. This is especially important as my
Office does not have a country presence. The working group will also
provide a space for us to bring to attention of the Government a
number of specific matters of concern. The Government has also stated
that it will invite senior officials from the Office to visit China in
the future.”

By any objective standard, such results represent a considerable
success, which many countries in the West do not begin to match.  As
we know, the United States has not allowed the UN to visit Guantanamo
in more than 21 years.  Similarly, Israel does not allow UN
rapporteurs to enter the territory in order to conduct independent
fact-finding on the ground in territory seized during the 1967 War,
and subjected to harsh military administration for more than half a
century with no end in sight. Indeed, the silence of those most
shrilly complaining about China’s human rights violations about the
abundantly documented findings of Israel as guilty of apartheid is
what should be calling for media criticism and governmental reaction,
but for opposite reasons to the push against China, we note this
failure to respond to the grossest of human rights violations not only
in Israel, but in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and a host of others..

What strikes us as independent observers, is the intellectual
dishonesty of the mainstream  media platforms –as abetted by those
academics and NGOs that selectively view human rights through a
geopolitical optic that demonizes some situations while exempting
others more severe from scrutiny.  The chorus of Sinophobia and
“hate speech, itself in contravention of article 20 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, manifests
opportunism and intellectual dishonesty, because the same ngo’s turn
a blind eye toward other geopolitically inconvenient transgressions.

It is worth contrasting the use of the term “genocide” by the
United States and its friends to refer to the situation in Xinjiang
with other instances, far better documented, of genocide in the
world.  Such inflammatory language would have to be backed up by
verifiable evidence, but it is not.  Even the one-sided Uyghur
Tribunal in London refrained making a finding on genocide with regard
to killings or population transfers.  Whoever has followed
developments around the Uygur tribunal and the dis-information in the
corporate media realizes that the tribunal was pre-determined to reach
certain conclusions, namely genocide and that the “trial” was
conducted on the basis of  a “presumption of guilt.” Therefore,
it would not deserve our attention, except that it has functioned as a
tool of dangerous hostile propaganda by which the “narrative
managers” in the corporate media  are now channelling in mounting
their malicious campaign against Michelle Bachelet.

The judgment as rendered is not as sensationalist and inflammatory as
the tribunal convenors and Sinophobic media hoped for., The Tribunal
reviewed the five acts of genocide listed in article 2 of the 1948
Genocide Convention, and rejected four of them, observing that there
is no evidence of genocidal intent. The judgment of the Tribunal does
go on to examine the fourth listed criterion of genocide–imposing
measures on a racially distinct group  to prevent reproduction and
this is deemed sufficient to uphold the allegation of genocide. There
is really no relevant antecedents to such a finding.  The Uygur case
is a peculiar candidate for such a momentous finding. The clear
purpose of the Chinese measures is not and never was to “destroy in
whole or in part” the Uygur group by suppression of births, but
reflects a general population-control strategy in a country that
already has 1.4 billion human beings, and has long experimented with
various kinds of population control and stabilization policies and
practices..

Considering the Sinophobic articles that have been published in the
Western press, it is remarkable how the media keeps silent about the
highly credible documentation of the Apartheid[9]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftn9] allegations against
Israel and gross human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  In
particular, the media downplays the responsibility of the United
States and Saudi Arabia for the greatest humanitarian crisis in the
world today – Yemen[10]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftn10].  The use and abuse
of human rights as a geopolitical tool is so flagrant that it is
worthy of an investigation by the Office of the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights and by dedicated members of the global human rights
community.

For now, we content ourselves with this show of support for the
breakthrough success of Bachelet’s HRC mission to China, and decry
those who would distort such an achievement so as to continue with
their efforts to rationalize confronting China coercively. Opportunism
in relation to human rights is not a path to peace and justice in our
tormented world, which depends on cooperation and multilateralism, and
rejects efforts to split the world into a self-righteous struggle
between good and evil.

NOTES.

[1]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftnref1] [link removed]

[2]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftnref2] [link removed]

[3]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftnref3] [link removed]

[4]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftnref4] [link removed]

[5] [//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftnref5] See the report
of the IE to the Human Rights
Council [link removed]

[6]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftnref6] [link removed]

[7]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftnref7] [link removed]

[8]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftnref8] [link removed]

[9]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftnref9] [link removed]

[10]
[//3F11849F-7531-44D0-9E66-FB66F0EFED0A#_ftnref10] [link removed]

_Alfred de Zayas is a lawyer, writer, historian, expert in the field
of human rights and international law and retired high-ranking United
Nations official._

_ Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of
International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished
Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of
California, Santa Barbara._

_CounterPunch is reader supported! Please help keep us alive
[[link removed]]._

_The CounterPunch website is offered at no charge to the general
public over the world wide web. New articles, from an independent
left-leaning perspective, are posted every weekday. A batch of several
articles, including the Poet’s Basement, and Roaming Charges by
Jeffrey St. Clair, are posted in the Weekend Edition. After the
initial posting, these articles are available in the archives which
can be searched by using any of the search boxes on the website.
 CounterPunch also publishes books, and published a newsletter and
magazine from 1993 to 2020.  The COUNTERPUNCH+ Subscriber area of
our website features subscriber content and access._

* China
[[link removed]]
* Human Rights
[[link removed]]
* Michelle Bachelet
[[link removed]]
* United Nations
[[link removed]]
* Uyghurs
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]